No, I’m confident Lessig is running exclusively on campaign finance reform (he himself hasn’t left much doubt, eh?). My point is two-fold. Not only do I want him to broaden his agenda (hope died a long time ago, sorry), but I would also argue that Lessig’s best chance of actually accomplishing his stated goal is to take on the broader role of a four-year term as VP, provided of course that he and Sanders could find a common ground (which I don’t really see why they couldn’t). If he really wants reform, he needs to run on an electable platform. His current one is unarguably unelectable, though I concede he’d still be an interesting wild-card in the debates which, this early, are still essentially circuses (the Rubs’ more so the Dems’, but still).
I think this is a fair point, but I do wonder how much people think the VP is a better position than it actually is. Only seven years after Cheney I think a lot of people forget that it has traditionally been considered either career suicide or a largely worthless ceremonial post. Unless you get the presidency via the president dying a la TR there’s a reason it isn’t usually considered worth more than “a bucket of warm spit.”
Cheney had a president in front of him who was unusually deferential, otherwise the VP is usually a feel good photo op sort of position. I don’t think Lessig could do well attempting to advance campaign finance reform as a VP.
Edited: just a bit less than 7 years since Cheney. I’ll chock my mistake up to drinking and wishing it’d been longer.
This is more the territory of a historian, not a scientist who dabbles in history. But my reading of the role of veep has been that it largely, and for better or worse (as with Cheney), boils down to the relationship between the President and his VP. What I want to see happen is for Sanders and Lessig to form a good working relationship. IMHO, a trusted adviser can be an invaluable asset, and Sanders is the candidate who can realize Lessig’s reform goals, provided Lessig is willing to commit himself to more than a single-issue protest campaign. And yes, maybe I’m dreaming. I don’t see any obvious roadblocks to a Sanders/Lessig ticket, but I readily concede that I’m no expert on elections.
I’m not generally a proponent of the idea that a vice presidential nominee does much to help or harm. (Palin excepted. I think she genuinely harmed McCain’s campgaign.) But personally I’m torn on Elizabeth Warren. If Sanders were to be elected would she be more valuable to him as a close policy adviser VP or in the Senate? If she were the deciding vote in a 50/50 Senate as VP? Her replacement for the MA senate seat would likely be a Dem, so it’s unlikely taking the VP spot would be handing more power to the Republican party. Then if, god forbid, Bernie dies in office, she’s almost perfect continuity. I don’t know that there’s anyone else I’d trust to just pick up the ball where he left it and start running. Plus she’s a clear lineage to pass into 2020 or 2024. The Dems aren’t going to get the House back until at least 2020, so who knows how much legislation anybody, Lessig, Sanders, or anyone else, can get done with the 2016 term of the presidency.
I fully understand my single vote doesn’t count for much, and I fully understand my campaign dollars don’t count for much, however they do matter for bolstering the early momentum a viable campaign requires.
I supported Sanders as soon as he announced and now I support Lessig as soon as he announced. We can’t count on a single candidate to advance such an important issue.
I appreciate that you are an ardent supporter of Bernie Sanders however I do not see this as a zero sum game and so I do take exception to your suggestion that my donations to Lessig are a waste or that they are a subtraction from what I would otherwise be giving Sanders.
If Clinton gets the nom, that almost as bad a Rub in office anyway. I’m all for diversity and a woman in the Oval Office, but Clinton is a straight-up corporate tool, pardon my French. My biggest worry is that Lessig draws voters that would otherwise go for Sanders. It’s happened before, and the results were…unfortunate. I want Lessig in national politics. I don’t want him pulling a Nader.
Yeah, pretty much what I’ve taken from her statements too. She’s got more power to advance her agenda in the senate. It would be a big risk to give it up. And 4 of Sanders 8 of Warren? From your mouth to whatever higher power we can find’s ears.
I’m certainly not saying Clinton is any less of a corporate tool than you say, and really I’m not so fond of her. But clearly you need to pay more attention to the Republicans, who are busily exploring new vistas of Awful that Clinton can’t at all aspire to, corporate tool and all.
I notice the OP hasn’t responded to any of the comments, the majority of which detail why Lessig’s campaign is deeply unserious… drive by posting at worst.
It doesn’t matter whether you “see it” as a zero sum game. It matters whether it is a zero sum game. It’s probably not that simple, but it’s naive to think that Lessig can’t act as a spoiler. The people who will vote for Lessig would definitely vote for Bernie if Lessig weren’t running. I can’t imagine a person who would vote for Lessig voting for anyone other than Bernie if Lessig weren’t on the ticket.
The question is whether Lessig is bring new people to the voting booth. If so, who cares how they waste their vote? But e.g. if you, who would support either Lessig or Bernie, vote for Lessig, you might as well cast your vote for Clinton.
