Many leading Democrats agree that their top priority is to defeat Donald Trump in the general election. Clinton says it. Sanders says it. Media figures say it. And most of them agree that it’s critical to unite the Democratic party to beat the whiny little orange turd.
Clearly, Clinton is on her way to winning her spot at the top of the ticket. Equally clearly, Sanders has earned his spot as the second most influential Democrat; he can rightfully claim the VP spot & some policy concessions as the price for his support!
Some have proposed a unity ticket pairing Clinton with a Sanders surrogate like Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown to avoid alienating some 10%-20% of left-wing Democrats or Independents (while freezing out Sanders himself). Both Warren & Brown are opposed by Harry Reid on the grounds that their nomination might jeopardize the prospect of a Democratic victory in the Senate.
Interestingly, few have been willing to seriously discuss the true unity ticket: Clinton-Sanders. One reason is that nomination fight is not officially over yet. Perhaps a more important reason is the somewhat overly dramatized sentiment that Sanders has dissed Clinton & the party by challenging her too harshly during the primary. He has challenged Clinton not superficially like so many Republicans, but has critiqued her and the party establishment on their (artfully legalized) corruption & on warmongering, issues which traditional Republicans were unwilling to raise due to their own complicity. I view the reaction to his charges as mostly faux outrage since this contest is expected to be rough and his criticisms have been quite fair & no harsher than her criticisms of him.
[Some Clinton supporters like to pretend that corruption is only about a provable/legal quid-pro-quo following the logic of the Scalia & friends, but almost everyone else understands that corruption is systemic: it’s no secret that politicians are expected to do the bidding of Wall Street & the 1% in exchange for campaign donations while they are in office, followed by lucrative lobbying/speaking/board payola afterwards.]
If Clinton had to run against a traditional Republican in the general election, her moderate / triangulated positions would have inoculated her from their attacks (e.g., Iraq War, no urgency for Wall-street prosecutions, no urgency for bank breakups, no need for more taxes on 1%, free trade agreements, etc.), but with Trump as the opponent, she really needs to shore up her credibility with the left and with Independents, as most of the usually off-the-table issues will now be in play. The best way to lockup the support of liberals would be for her to convince Sanders to be her VP and to adopt a significant part of his agenda on some key issues.
In recent campaigns against establishment Republicans (e.g., Obama vs. McCain or Romney), the corruption issue was generally off the table since both sides were almost equally corrupted by money from big donors. However, this campaign will be different since Trump will have a credible claim that he’s independently rich & doesn’t really ‘need’ the donors’ money so he won’t be beholden to them. Plus, Bernie has also demonstrated that it’s possible to run a campaign without taking big, corrupting donations so Hillary’s continued reliance on big donors can even be portrayed as a corrupt choice rather than an absolute necessity. Which is why Trump has introduced the Crooked Hillary nickname to hammer her on her honesty. When combined with her email violations, ‘earning’ $21M/$153M for speeches, Clinton foundation, bankruptcy bill, etc., we can expect this to be a sustained line of attack on her credibility; it can be very effective on anyone who’s not strongly in her camp already, so she would be wise to strengthen her defenses to the dishonesty charge. Her strongest defense would be to demonstrate a real effort to repudiate things which could be perceived as corrupt (e.g., she could switch to a Sanders-style fundraising operation for the General Election instead of doing to high $$ fundraisers, or voluntarily return the $21M she took for recent speeches — she won’t starve on Bill’s $132M, etc.). The amateurish answers she got away with in the primary debates probably won’t cut it at the next level. Choosing a VP like Bernie and adopting some of his recommendations should help.
Another issue which has impacted recent elections has been War, particularly the judgement to support or oppose the disastrous war in Iraq and its aftermath. Iraq was on the table in the last two elections & the more hawkish candidate lost each time, since that war was already viewed as a loss/disaster. Unless there is a major terrorist attack before November, her war judgement can still be a liability for Clinton. Expect Trump to retroactively oppose & criticize the Iraq war. She needs to prepare to defend against that blunder once again & can be helped by a VP who had right judgement at the time.
Finally, and possibly most importantly, the economy. Sure, Hillary has a reasonable case that Bill Clinton & Obama both did a good job on the economy & she will follow a similar course. However, while the stock market outlook may look good for the elite & well-off, the economy still isn’t working well for middle class & younger Americans. Trump’s (& Sanders’) criticisms of unfair trade deals resonate with struggling Americans & could be offset if Hillary strongly supports some initiatives to boost lower/middle class finances like a $15 living wage, universal healthcare, more infrastructure jobs, etc. Again, choosing Sanders as VP and adopting some of his proposals would be a strong way to gain the support of struggling Americans.
So, if Clinton really has a thick skin as she claims, then a true unity ticket with Sanders should be a no-brainer since it would be the best way to unite the whole Democratic party and a huge chunk of Independents; it might also help start a controlled reformation from within the party. If she really can’t get herself to do it, it would be a rather risky decision which could alienate a good chunk of Democrats/Independents.
My hope is that she will embrace Sanders and invite him to be her VP, just like Bill did with Al Gore and like Obama did with her (as SoS). My fear is that she will pivot right and try to embrace disaffected neocons & wall street republicans...and that would be a real shame!
