
Bernie Sanders Suspends Presidential Bid - bognition
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-08/sanders-suspends-presidential-race-leaving-nomination-to-biden
======
deg4uss3r
Shit.

------
Hongwei
Anyone know who his VP pick will be? I know this won't happen but it'd be
funny if he picked Obama.

~~~
cfqycwz
Iirc only people who would be eligible for the presidency can be elected as
VP, which would disqualify Obama. This is the same reason Bernie couldn't have
chosen AOC as his running mate

~~~
GavinMcG
There is no such restriction. Article II never specified any limit on how long
someone could serve.

The 22nd Amendment limits only who can be _elected_ to the office of
_President_. Since a VP becomes President through devolution, not election, it
doesn't limit who may serve as VP.

~~~
dudul
Isn't there a 10 year limit as well though? Especially for this case where
someone serves as president without being elected?

That being said, I'm not sure either if the restriction in the parent exists.

Edit: a reference I found afterwards
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_office#Federal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_office#Federal)

~~~
GavinMcG
Not exactly. The 22nd Amendment would prohibit the _second_ election of
someone who had served for more than two years without having been elected.

For example, if Gerald Ford had been elected president after he finished
Nixon's term, he would be ineligible to be elected a second time, since he
initially served for a little over two years and five months.

That doesn't change the fact that the 22nd Amendment only restricts the
_election_ of a president. If someone has already served in the office for ten
years, they could still be the VP who upon whom the presidency devolves,
because there is no constitutional restriction on such eligibility.

------
pan69
Well, damn, I guess that means that Trump will have a second term then.

I mean, its unlikely that someone who voted for Trump last time will be voting
for Biden this time. I think the Democratic party is missing the boat on this
one. They're so busy pushing someone "presidential" that they are forgetting
who the actual target audience is, Trump voters.

~~~
tree3
> I mean, its unlikely that someone who voted for Trump last time will be
> voting for Biden this time.

Why do you say that? Voter turnout during primaries was higher than 2016, and
Biden was doing well. Even though it may seem like Bernie is more popular on
the internet, Biden is more popular among people that actually vote (older
people).

~~~
93po
Trump is anti-establishment. Biden is as establishment as it gets. Trump is
pro social security and Medicare. Biden wants to cut it. They're polar
opposites in so many ways

------
Kye
This is substantial enough to warrant an exception to HN's usual preference
for avoiding politics. You could (for example) discuss the way the covid-19
outbreak intersected with the primary or something like that if you don't want
to talk about the candidates.

~~~
golf3
Substantial to you, not this site.

------
ProAm
And on April 8th 2020 Trump was reelected.

~~~
hacym
Care to explain why? You have no evidence as to why that would be, I assume.

The viability of Sanders' campaign is a serious question and is why he wasn't
nominated. If there had been resounding support for him as a candidate, he
would have been nominated...

I understand that his campaign and supporters will make some argument about
how it's the DNC holding him down, or some conspiracy, or whatever, but the
reality is that he isn't/wasn't/won't be viable in a general election against
Trump.

Socialism, or whatever Bernie wants to sell himself as does not sell to the
broader electorate that is going to have to be captured in November.

~~~
ProAm
Purely from an observational opinion I don't see Biden as electable. Sanders
would of also had a tough time, but running a populist vs populist versus a
career politician vs populist I think the former has the strongest chance.

I also think Bernie's approach to healthcare during the times we are in now
would hold a lot of favor.

I think Biden is either senile now or turning senile quickly (based on
observing him speaking publicly the last 4 months) and won't fair well in
debates or campaigning as a result. He's doddering, did not do much as VP, and
doesn't have a history of strong stances that he can hold up and swing voters
or independents.

I'm not for or against any of the candidates and this is obviously opinion but
I think Trump just won re-election.

~~~
hacym
It's fairly easy to imagine the attacks that Trump will land against Sanders,
which would work to discredit him through fear.

I don't think you'll see that with Biden. Sanders' campaign would quickly fall
apart under the weight of those attacks.

Also, I'm tired of hearing this senile line. It's a form of ageism. He's never
been a talented public speaker, specifically when he's not feeding off the
energy of a crowd. Just go back and look at his old speeches.

If you are looking for a young, vibrant candidate, neither Sanders or Biden is
your ticket, anyway. Sanders is older than Biden.

~~~
ProAm
It's not ageism when all three candidates are very old. If you look back to
when Biden was VP and how he speaks now there is a noticeable difference.

I think both Biden and Sanders would have had a hard time campaigning for the
reasons you listed. I believe Sanders would have stood a better chance again
because of the populist vs populist approach. I believe Sanders supporters are
as vocal as Trump supporters and you dont have that with Biden supporters at
all.

You can't lobby much against Biden because he doesnt stand for much (again
obviously opinion, and Im not trying to start a fight or argument) as compared
to Sanders. They have vastly different goals in mind for a presidency.

~~~
hacym
Ageism is still ageism, even if the other people you are comparing are of
advanced age, too...The literal definition of ageism is thinking someone can't
do something due to age.

------
java-man
why is this submission [flagged]?

~~~
ardy42
> why is this submission [flagged]?

My guess is that it's _purely_ politics, and there's a large number of users
who just don't want to have purely political discussions.

HN sometimes has decent threads about political policy on non hot-button
issues, but threads about political personalities are unlikely to go well and
are thus not worth the trouble.

~~~
Kye
HN can be very arbitrary about this.

This submission's topic is one step away from this one at over 1800 points a
few years ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201)

~~~
java-man
And probably as relevant. I think it will have a great effect on the tech
scene as well.

------
haunter
Odds on Trump reelection is 1/1 on most betting site. Maybe the safest bet
ever with a good return

~~~
dralley
A cursory search of the top couple of betting sites proves this statement to
be complete BS.

~~~
haunter
Betfair gives 1.06/1

[https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.1281...](https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128151441)

Skybet is down to 10/11

[https://m.skybet.com/politics/us-presidential-
election/event...](https://m.skybet.com/politics/us-presidential-
election/event/19989820)

Oddscheck on 1/1

[https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-
politics](https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics)

Betway is 0.8/1

[https://sports.betway.com/en/sports/evt/1279338](https://sports.betway.com/en/sports/evt/1279338)

Paddy is 13/8!!

[https://www.paddypower.com/politics/2020-us-presidential-
ele...](https://www.paddypower.com/politics/2020-us-presidential-election)

~~~
Kye
Most of these are a coin toss. Clinton had better odds against the same person
in 2016.

------
unixhero
This is a crisis moment.

