Bernie Wants to Join Biden's Cabinet? I Hope He, Kamela and Other's Have picked out Their Replacement to Endorse for Their Seats

[lil devils x]

I actually think it would be great for Bernie to be the labor secretary, I just worry about losing him in the Senate, as well as anyone who leaves congress to join Biden's administration should he win. I hope they have someone picked out to replace them though because we can't afford to lose them right now.

Bernie Sanders makes a play for Biden Labor secretary
The Vermont senator is interested in joining Joe Biden's Cabinet, should his former primary rival defeat President Donald Trump.

"Sen. Bernie Sanders is hoping to be a part of Joe Biden’s potential administration and has expressed a particular interest in becoming Labor secretary, two people familiar with the conversations tell POLITICO.

“I can confirm he's trying to figure out how to land that role or something like it,” said one person close to the Vermont senator. “He, personally, does have an interest in it.”
Sanders on Wednesday declined to confirm or deny that he’s putting his name forward for the position.

“Right now I am focused on seeing that Biden is elected president,” he told POLITICO. “That’s what my main focus is.”
Former Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir said Sanders has not talked directly with anyone on the Biden campaign about a future role, but plans to push Biden, his former Senate colleague, to "include progressive voices" in both the transition and in a potential new administration.

Yet two other people close to Sanders, including one former aide, said the senator has expressed interest in being in the administration, should Biden win in November. Sanders has been making his push for the top job at the Labor Department in part by reaching out to allies on the transition team, one person familiar with the process said.

When asked about Sanders’ potential role, a spokesperson for Biden’s transition team repeated the transition's stock line: that they are “not making any personnel decisions preelection.”

Bernie Sanders makes a play for Biden Labor secretary

The Vermont senator is interested in joining Joe Biden's Cabinet, should his former primary rival defeat President Donald Trump.

www.politico.com

 

[Seanchaidh]

I wonder how many cabinet positions are actually more influential than being a member of the Senate. Some are, certainly.

 

[Silvanus]

Hopefully, a role in the cabinet will give him greater leverage to push Biden to make good on the "Unity Task Force" recommendations. That alone would be reason to hope he gets it.

 

[lil devils x]

I wonder how many cabinet positions are actually more influential than being a member of the Senate. Some are, certainly.

Bernie's biggest issue has always been labor and actually being in control of labor would allow Bernie to finally be able to make some of the changes he has been pushing for most of his life. He would be able to do more in Biden's cabinet than in the senate for sure. Nothing is saying he can't still use his connections in congress to help with legislation, he just can't vote on it even if he helps people with their homework.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Bernie's biggest issue has always been labor and actually being in control of labor would allow Bernie to finally be able to make some of the changes he has been pushing for most of his life. He would be able to do more in Biden's cabinet than in the senate for sure. Nothing is saying he can't still use his connections in congress to help with legislation, he just can't vote on it even if he helps people with their homework.

Perhaps. Then again, there's a reason Robert Reich (a former Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton) favored Bernie to be President.

 

[lil devils x]

Perhaps. Then again, there's a reason Robert Reich (a former Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton) favored Bernie to be President.

I wanted Bernie to be President too, but if we can't get that, at least having some of Bernie's policies in action is better than nothing.

 

[Agema]

I wonder how many cabinet positions are actually more influential than being a member of the Senate. Some are, certainly.

I suspect it varies depending on the president.

As a digression my perception is that in the UK, cabinet ministers back in the early-mid 20th century seem to me to have exercised a much greater deal of independence and power. However, over time, power has increasingly been centralised in the Prime Minister. Policy often seems to be arranged by party wonks, and pushed onto the ministers through the PM. That said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is usually very powerful because little happens without opening the purse strings, and any minister popular with party MPs becomes powerful because they're hard to sack. The current Conservative Party is I think particularly centralised, with direction coming particularly strongly from party strategists like Dominic Cummings. That's why there are rumours of unhappiness and revolt from the MPs, because they think they should be running the show, not the unelected strategists.

But in the US system it strikes me that the president is generally a lot more directly powerful, and the cabinet ministers relatively more interchangeable. Currently, I suspect quite a few cabinet ministers have a lot of power because the president has little interest or knowledge of what large tracts of the executive is doing. This will leave them free to pursue their own plans and agendas, just so long as it's within the budget.

 

[Tireseas]

I suspect it varies depending on the president.

As a digression my perception is that in the UK, cabinet ministers back in the early-mid 20th century seem to me to have exercised a much greater deal of independence and power. However, over time, power has increasingly been centralised in the Prime Minister. Policy often seems to be arranged by party wonks, and pushed onto the ministers through the PM. That said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is usually very powerful because little happens without opening the purse strings, and any minister popular with party MPs becomes powerful because they're hard to sack. The current Conservative Party is I think particularly centralised, with direction coming particularly strongly from party strategists like Dominic Cummings. That's why there are rumours of unhappiness and revolt from the MPs, because they think they should be running the show, not the unelected strategists.

But in the US system it strikes me that the president is generally a lot more directly powerful, and the cabinet ministers relatively more interchangeable. Currently, I suspect quite a few cabinet ministers have a lot of power because the president has little interest or knowledge of what large tracts of the executive is doing. This will leave them free to pursue their own plans and agendas, just so long as it's within the budget.

In the US, "power" is a weirder concept because since the executive and legislative branches are elected separately, cabinet positions are more lateral promotions than vertical ones. Indeed, whether or not a senator gains power is likely based several factors:

1) Their Senate Seniority. While not as powerful as it once was in the age of social media senators, seniority remains a major factor for determining key positions, notably committee chairs, where the legislative branch has substantial power to control the political narrative.

2) Which cabinet position. While the various positions are all fairly powerful from a regulatory standpoint, the Secretary of State and Attorney General positions tend to be the most coveted for a multitude of reasons (they are two of the founding cabinet positions, they tend to be far more powerful than other cabinet posts, regular consistent contact with PotUS, etc.). Secretary of State is often the capstone to the most distinguished politicians in the US. After those two, it really depends on the president's priorities and management style, specifically their willingness to delegate or defer policy discretion to the secretary. Clinton and Obama both had relatively tight control over policy decisions made by cabinet secretaries, while Reagan, Bush II, and Trump heavily delegated many policies.

3) Their personal political priorities. Senators, like all politicians, tend to have specific political priorities and, as a result, tend to be more focused and versed in the innerworkings of agencies that affect those priorities. As such, they sometimes have specific positions they would prefer as a result because it furthers their political passion project.

I wanted Bernie to be President too, but if we can't get that, at least having some of Bernie's policies in action is better than nothing.

It's also going to depend heavily on Biden's political priorities. From what I've read, his policy passion tends to be foreign policy, but the COVID-19 outbreak and economic recovery are likely to take his focus in the immediate term, if not dominate most of his presidency. One of Reich's bigger complaints about Clinton was that everything effectively ran through the white house, and while I don't see Biden as delegatory as Trump, I suspect he is likely to give more power to the domestic-policy secretaries.

 

[SilentPony]

See I would just pull a Trump and appoint Bernie to the cabinet, but allow him to retain his seat. What are they gonna do, cry foul? Say that's against the rules? The 17th Amendment states "If a vacancy occurs due to a senator's death, resignation, or expulsion, the Seventeenth Amendment allows state legislatures to empower the governor to appoint a replacement to complete the term or to hold office until a special election can take place."
It doesn't specifically state that appointment to the cabinet counts, so shit Bernie should stay in both jobs. As Bill Maher says, "Pull a Gus"

 

[lil devils x]

See I would just pull a Trump and appoint Bernie to the cabinet, but allow him to retain his seat. What are they gonna do, cry foul? Say that's against the rules? The 17th Amendment states "If a vacancy occurs due to a senator's death, resignation, or expulsion, the Seventeenth Amendment allows state legislatures to empower the governor to appoint a replacement to complete the term or to hold office until a special election can take place."
It doesn't specifically state that appointment to the cabinet counts, so shit Bernie should stay in both jobs. As Bill Maher says, "Pull a Gus"

I wish, though I doubt they would ever allow it.

 

[SilentPony]

I wish, though I doubt they would ever allow it.

Whose gonna stop them? Who is 'they'? If its not in the rules, its not in the rules. Trump has taught this nation nothing if not get it in writing. His whole administration has been an exercise in "Well technically that's not a rule, just a tradition"

 

[Gergar12]

It has the same probability of Elizabeth Warren being treasury secretary, Warren, and Sanders aren't brought like Biden's corporate donors and billionaire friends.

 

[gorfias]

If Bernie wants something from Biden, the time to demand it was before endorsing him.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Whose gonna stop them? Who is 'they'? If its not in the rules, its not in the rules. Trump has taught this nation nothing if not get it in writing. His whole administration has been an exercise in "Well technically that's not a rule, just a tradition"

Art. 1, Sec. 6, cl. 2

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

 

[SilentPony]

Art. 1, Sec. 6, cl. 2

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

That's old law. This is a post-law United States. The last 4 years have shown that anything goes, and the only rule is "You and what army? Hint: The president controls the Army"

 

[Gergar12]

Warren, and Bernie's just reward for supporting Joe Biden. He stabbed them in the back. Warren not getting senate majority leader is icing on the LOL cake.

 

[SupahEwok]

View attachment 1372

Warren, and Bernie's just reward for supporting Joe Biden. He stabbed them in the back. Warren not getting senate majority leader is icing on the LOL cake.

Bernie held out as long as he reasonably could in the primary. Don't blame him for trying to salvage whatever he could out of the mess. But nobody thinking critically could really have thought that after the DNC cut his legs out from under him two elections in a row that they'd ever let him into any sort of executive office.

Warren can get fucked. She went along with the DNC undercutting Bernie instead of allying with him, the closest candidate to her ideologically. Probably cuz she was hoping for one of those cabinet positions.

 

[Trunkage]

If Bernie wants something from Biden, the time to demand it was before endorsing him.

I mean, Biden literally can’t do anything until after the election. Sanders might ask beforehand but keep it behind closed doors for unity sake.

I’d be pretty cranky in 6mths , if Biden wins, if there is a clear concession to Bernie

 

[crimson5pheonix]

And for added fun

 

[Tireseas]

Bernie held out as long as he reasonably could in the primary. Don't blame him for trying to salvage whatever he could out of the mess. But nobody thinking critically could really have thought that after the DNC cut his legs out from under him two elections in a row that they'd ever let him into any sort of executive office.

Warren can get fucked. She went along with the DNC undercutting Bernie instead of allying with him, the closest candidate to her ideologically. Probably cuz she was hoping for one of those cabinet positions.

I'm just going to repost what I wrote last week on why Sanders lost because no amount of conspiracy is going to outweigh not doing what is necessary to appeal to older black voters in the Democratic Primary:

Sanders lost on his own though poor strategy and lack of outreach beyond his base, as well as grossly misinterpreting why and how he appealed to a subset of Democratic voters in 2016.

So what happened? Why didn’t the political revolution show up?

This is the sort of thing that political scientists and Democratic activists are going to be examining for years. But there are at least three big conclusions that we can draw that seem relatively well-supported by polling and research.

The first is that the Sanders theory rested in part on a Marx-inflected theory of how people think about politics. A basic premise of Marxist political strategy is that people should behave according to their material self-interest as assessed by Marxists — which is to say, their class interests. Proposing policies like Medicare-for-all, which would plausibly alleviate the suffering of the working class, should be effective at galvanizing working-class voters to turn out for left parties.

But this isn’t really how politics works, at least in the contemporary United States. Political scientists have found that, as a general rule, the specifics of policy positions and campaign rhetoric play little role in mobilizing turnout for a campaign.

[...]

“Most of the field experiments that I’ve seen — the published work in political science, as well as the internal tests within the progressive community — show that talking about policies and issues does not really spur turnout,” says John Sides, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University.

Second, it seems that Sanders and his campaign assumed that his popularity with the white working class in 2016 was about him and his policies — when, in fact, it wasn’t.

“The white working-class voters that Sanders won were mostly anti-Clinton voters,” McElwee tells me.

A regression analysis by FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver finds support for this theory. Silver’s data shows that Clinton-skeptical Bernie supporters in 2016 were not progressives who opposed Clinton from the left, but from moderate or conservative Democrats who tended to have right-leaning views on racial issues and were more likely to support repealing Obamacare. These #NeverHillary voters also tended to be rural, lower-class, and white.

[...]

Third, the Sanders-socialist theory rested on a misunderstanding of the way identity works in contemporary American politics.

Americans do not primarily vote as a member of an economic class, but rather as a member of a party and identity group (race, religion, etc.). Trump won the overwhelming bulk of Republican voters in the 2016 general election, despite taking heterodox positions on a number of policy issues, simply because he had an R next to his name. His message resonated with working-class whites, but not working-class people of color, because it centered ethnic grievance and conflict.

This created a big problem for Sanders. His refusal to formally become a Democrat — and harsh attacks on the “Democratic establishment” — were much less likely to resonate with voters strongly attached to the Democratic Party. This effect seems to have hurt him badly.

They put all their effort into a strategy that was based on turnout of groups that don't generally turn out for primaries, younger voters primarily, and lost because they didn't have a strategy turn out enough to give him an outright majority and likely never could. Even Sander's campaign staff know this. Until Sanders supporters understand why he lost the 2020 primary in a more self-critical way, they will continue to lose elections to more moderate candidates.

Sanders Soared Back To Life. But He Couldn’t Close The Deal.

The Vermont senator's famous independence built a movement. It also made it harder for him to adapt to changing circumstances.

www.huffpost.com