General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPaul Krugman: How About A Clinton-Warren Ticket Instead Of A Matchup?
Nobel Prize-winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has an interesting vision of the 2016 Democratic presidential ticket: Hillary Clinton for president and Sen. Elizabeth Warren looking over her shoulder so she doesn't stray too far."
Speaking on HuffPost Live Wednesday about Clintons domestic policy, Krugman said, When she talks now, she sounds substantially to the left of the old Hillary Clinton.
If she becomes president and then turns ... (and) runs back to the right, thats going to be a problem. ... I guess part of one's hope, if she becomes president, (is that) she will in fact feel some need to avoid alienating the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, which is for all practical purposes led by Elizabeth Warren right now, Krugman said.
As for a presidential bid from the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, he said it would be an interesting thing but predicted it would be unsuccessful.
Video & MORE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren_n_6030868.html
edhopper
(33,562 posts)a Warren-Clinton ticket.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)chances of their winning?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Hillary-Jeb, that way they won't disagree on too much
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)I like both of them a great deal.
unblock
(52,191 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)A VP does very little--they're busy but they don't have final say on anything.
Plus, two northeastern women aren't going to resonate in that "flyover" country that everyone gets mad if anyone "disses" them. They might do ok on the left coast, but they would have to work way too hard in the south and central regions.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)No thanks.
I'd rather see her as a senator in a roll where she can actually fight for consumers
riqster
(13,986 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)taking them away from the domestic scene and out of the news.
Feingold, and Kennedy both chould be, maybe should be, on the early lists of 'possibles' but they are geographically off the radar.
That's hard to do with Warren. Regardless of what she says, she has significant vocal support, and what the people want can't really be ignored when constructing the 'possibles' list.
Suggesting she take on an utterly powerless position, losing all effectiveness she contributes to consumer causes, seems a lot like asking for a self-inflicted wound.
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)ellie
(6,929 posts)Thank you.
marble falls
(57,073 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Warren would be wasted as VP. A nice title with no actual power. She's far more useful in the Senate--or at the top of the ticket.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Krugman's idea of a Clinton-Warren ticket is exactly why so many progressives are fed-up with the 'insider' establishment control of the Democratic Party.
Co-opt the left and progressives by throwing them a bone ... meanwhile the alliance with Wall Street, corporations and military contractors proceeds apace. We've just endured almost six years of that in the White House.
2016 is going to be the greatest opportunity progressives and liberals may get in generations to elect a genuinely left-leaning President. Are we going to throw that possibility away because it is "Hillary's turn" (a very Republican notion in the first place) and because of some very odd notion that only Hillary Clinton can be the first woman President?
Sorry, Paul ... 'Clinton-Warren' is a non-starter for progressives.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)If god almighty was standing at her shoulder she would still be a Republican and gladly send people to their deaths if it helped her political ambitions. The only thing she'd be missing is the title "Republican."
If Warrant doesn't run, she needs to stay in the Senate. V.P. would be a total waste for her. The Clinton gang would shut her out real quick.
And I don't care who her running mate is, I'll still not vote for that fucking war hawk.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)of relief, and then we would be smugly told that of course we all need to cheer for Hillary now.
NO.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Response to kpete (Original post)
SidDithers This message was self-deleted by its author.
procon
(15,805 posts)It's a pretty fantasy, but let's face it, the Dems already have a problem attracting and retaining working class men voters. Faced with not one, but two strong, powerful, outspoken, feminist women, that timid demographic would run screaming into dark to preserve their threatened manly bits.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)It boils down to manipulation to try to make Clinton more palatable. Sorry, no sale.