What does a VP do? Or, if Warren is selected for the Dem ticket, do we lose a powerful Senator?

[TheProgressive]

I really don't know how important a VP is except for the 50-50 Senate tie, and 1st in succession.

What has Biden done except for saying 'this is a big fucking deal' regarding ACA?

It is the President who has press briefings, TV/News bully pulpit, sending our military to kill, and voting for or vetoing bills.

Is Warren more important and effective as a Senator or a VP? If it takes Warren for the Dem presumptive nominee (the votes are not final until the Convention) to win the presidency, is this worth losing Warren as Senator?

That is the question that deserves a debate.

[elleng]

1. Miscellaneous.

Yes.

[drray23]

2. its a slot where you are put in to run for president next.

So, Hillary needs to chose somebody who will be able to run as president after she finishes her terms.

[TheProgressive]

3. Yes that is another reason... Although that is not always the case - Biden for example.

[drray23]

5. true. he is the most recent exception.

I think Biden would have run for president had he not tragically lost his son. Understandably this shook him and made his refocus on his family. Let me rephrase that. He redoubled his focus on his family, he always was a family man of course.

[TwilightZone]

6. Biden more than likely would have run if not for the death of his son.

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. That would put Warren at what? 76ish?

No. Way.

[brush]

4. Well, Chaney acted as the president many times

Depends on what the president delegates to the VP.

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. Yeah - about 8 years.

Give or take a 10 minutes.

[Glorfindel]

7. We'd lose a powerful Senator, I think

To quote Vice-President John Nance Garner: The vice-presidency is "not worth a bucket of warm piss," often euphemized to "spit."

[Hortensis]

25. Garner's quote is wildly irrelevant to this age.

He might as well be quoted as saying man would never stand on the moon.

Vice presidents were chosen very differently then, with the party and men in smoke-filled rooms having a great deal of say. Today presidents choose their VPs to suit themselves. Not a very democratic way to choose our "spare," to say the least, but it has meant a complete game change for the role of the VP.

Btw, Garner also was a CONSERVATIVE Southern Democrat chosen by liberal progressive FDR to "balance the ticket." He disagreed with almost everything FDR did.

The OP imagines Biden may not have done anything. In fact, he's been working closely with President Obama for most of 8 years now assisting in carrying out the administration's work.

Democrat v. Republican: Obama notably is a liberal. This is very relevant because liberals tend to work and cooperate with others. Sharing power is not strange for liberals. Conservatives tend to more of a top-down authoritarian structure. Cheney's power grab aside, a VP's role is typically far less meaningful in a conservative administration. This is why W's dad could choose Danny Quayle; conservative voters accepted that he would spend his term gathering dust on a shelf where he belonged.

As for Warren, it may surprise considering how dynamic she has been in fighting the financial industry, but she is not a Senate leader. Her replacement, who will ultimately almost certainly be another Democrat, can vote as well as she can as 1 of 50 senators.

I believe Warren can be far more effective in continuing to put business and finance back on a leash operating from the White House. It seems clear that she is interested in the job, which suggests that if she became the VP nominee it would be with very definite plans for doing just that.

Note also that Wall Street fears that. I'm taking this as a big clue.

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. Warren is far more valuable right where she is. n/t

[dflprincess]

13. Agreed

and making her VP would effectively muzzle her "if" the Clinton administration were to get too cozy with Wall Street.

[Hortensis]

31. If this were so, WHY does Wall Street fear her as VP?

Wall Street special interests were so alarmed at the possibility, which would be a very strong clue to the direction Hillary intended to take, that they actually threatened Hillary that they would withdraw all donations if she named Warren her VP.

I think you are completely misreading the situation. The one thing we agree on is that Wall Street would love Warren to be "muzzled," however it could be managed. They've already threatened Hillary with a knock-down, drag-out fight.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. I would far rather have Warren in the Senate ...

than VP.

[Marie Marie]

12. Right! She will be much more effective in the Senate.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. Right. It's the difference between being in the Constitutional position ...

to write legislation because that's what needs to be done ... and a symbolic bully pulpit position because feelings were hurt.

SMDH

[democrattotheend]

14. Biden has done a lot behind the scenes. As did Cheney

Biden has functioned mostly as a top advisor to Obama with a more public profile than a typical advisor. My understanding is that is the role he wanted and discussed with Obama before accepting the offer.

I'm pretty sure Cheney was pulling most of the strings behind Bush.

Gore had some issues that he took the lead on but I don't think he played as integral a role in the Clinton administration as his two successors.

VP's before that were usually less influential. They put Teddy Roosevelt in the vice presidency to bury him and keep him from having influence. Obviously that backfired when William McKinley was assassinated.

[tallahasseedem]

15. I'm nervous about losing her as a Senator...

but heavens, I'm loving her out on the stump!

[longship]

16. Warren as VEEP would be sad, very sad.

VEEP's main task is attend funerals on behalf of POTUS, and to vote in the US Senate when there is a tie. Then there's the be president if the president dies, or resigns, or some other calamadie.

Nothing more.

A US Senator has a lot of power.

Too many people are not thinking straight here. Only a barking mad person would want Elizabeth Warren to give up her senate seat to be VEEP.

[Lord Magus]

18. The VP's power is entirely dependent on the VP in question & their relationship with the president.

Some have been very powerful behind the scenes, like Gore and Biden. Some have been way too powerful, like Cheney. Others have been largely irrelevant. Perhaps more than any other position in American politics, a VP can have far more power than their official duties dictate.

[Lucinda]

21. Exactly. I suspect Hillary will want a VP to lead in a specific area.

She won't be looking for a placeholder, or someone to hold a ceremonial function only.

[Nictuku]

17. The VP is THE President of the Senate

I learned that in Civics class.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Vice_President.htm

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm

The President of the Senate is the only person who can cast a tie-breaker vote, (among other duties).


Interestingly, Al Gore could have changed history, but he didn't., (Look up Al Gore and the Senate vote on the Florida 'stop counting the votes' case). Many say he took the high road in that particular case.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

19. lose a powerful Senator

not a good idea

[Lucinda]

20. Biden has run a ton of interference with Congress. Each VP serves as the POTUS wishes them to.

I suspect Hillary's VP will take point on at least one area she has noted as important.

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. If the little woman on her shoulder has put a picture of the Oval Office in EW's head...

The question is moot.

[justiceischeap]

24. The question should be this:

If Warren as VP is the only sure path to the WH, then her being a VP is much more important than her being a Senator, IMO.

As others have stated, her role can be whatever the President wants it to be and I suspect Clinton wouldn't hamstring someone as powerful or as smart as Warren. I could see Clinton putting her in charge of overturning CU as well as making some headway in Wall St. reform.

However, I think Clinton is using Warren as a surrogate VP at the moment to get more progressives excited about a Clinton presidency. I suspect there's a reason Warren urged Clinton to run and I trust that whatever conversations they've had leave Warren feeling pretty satisfied about the direction Clinton wants to take this country.

[UCmeNdc]

26. Lose a powerful Senator

Plus put a Republican in her Senate Seat. The GOP Gov of MA will appoint a GOP politician to Warren's Senate Seat.

[randome]

27. Warren is nobody's patsy. She would not be muzzled.

Just about every Presidential candidate says their VP won't be just for show but it's only true to varying degrees. In Warren's case, I would expect it be 'more' true. If Harry Reid and Josh Marshall are advocates for this, so am I.

Warren is not a stupid woman. She will not be "window dressing" and Clinton knows it.

I don't think we have anything to worry about in this regard.

[PragmaticLiberal]

32. Exactly.

I don't know why people assume that Warren would automatically be muzzled if she accepted the VP position.

Heck, I don't think she'd accept the position if that was the case.

A VP is as influential as the President allows them to be (or not to be).

Biden for example: As far as VP go he's been very influential.

He was the point man in rounding up votes for the ACA, the stimulus, a valued foreign policy voice (tons of expertise) etc etc.

[randome]

34. Oh, yeah, Biden's been working it behind the scenes quite a lot. Warren would do the same.

She has her allies and contacts. She knows who to speak to and how to twist arms.

I've sort of become accustomed to dynamism in Presidential politics because of Obama. If Clinton chooses some 'safe' dullard for her VP, I'd be disappointed. But Warren would keep that string of dynamism going. And if both women stay in good health, we'd have a lock on the Presidency for the next 16 years. That would be cool.

[dflprincess]

40. "A VP is as influential as the President ALLOWS them to be (or not to be)"

And that's what could be the problem.

Let's all remember what happened to Hubert Humphrey.

[Sunlei]

28. Bidens spent a lot of time south of our border meeting with other countries leaders dealing

with issues of immigration, he's currently working on cancer research grants from Federal Government, also trying to move in some kind of gun reform, he's met with people over issues and pushed in riders on bills for them. Lots Mrs. Warren really doesn't have much experience in.

Not anything on 'wall street' which is Mrs. Warrens strong point. If VP we lose her as Senator and Mr. 'tomahawk-chop' Brown(R) can't wait to try to get in that chair again. We need her as Senator and need her experience vs wall street/consumer protections.

[book_worm]

29. Biden has been one of Obama's principal advisors

a VP is as powerful as a president allows them to be. I say if Warren is willing to gamble on that then it's fine with me.

[woodsprite]

30. I was thinking after what Clinton said yesterday, that Warren may be considered

for the "Trade prosecutor" position mention in her speech.

[CanonRay]

33. If Hilary doesn't do well or is portrayed as not having done well, Warren is forever tarred with it.

or even if Hillary does well and the voters have Dem fatigue. I would rather she is in the Senate.

[LynnTTT]

35. I pray she stays in the Senate

She's needed there. And I think I've finally convinced a neighbore, a 74 year old long time Republican to vote for Hillary. But I'll lose him if there are two women. We need a policy wonk man.

[brooklynite]

36. What does Biden do?

Answer: what the President wants him to do...which is a lot:

In the early months of the Obama administration, Biden assumed the role of an important behind-the-scenes counselor. One role was to adjudicate disputes between Obama's "team of rivals". The president compared Biden's efforts to a basketball player "who does a bunch of things that don't show up in the stat sheet." Biden played a key role in gaining Senate support for several major pieces of Obama legislation, and was a main factor in convincing Senator Arlen Specter to switch from the Republican to the Democratic party. Biden lost an internal debate to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding his opposition to sending 21,000 new troops to the war in Afghanistan. His skeptical voice was still considered valuable within the administration, however, and later in 2009 Biden's views achieved more prominence within the White House as Obama reconsidered his Afghanistan strategy.

Biden made visits to Iraq about once every two months, including trips to Baghdad in August and September 2009 to listen to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and reiterate U.S. stances on Iraq's future; by this time he had become the administration's point man in delivering messages to Iraqi leadership about expected progress in the country. More generally, overseeing Iraq policy became Biden’s responsibility, when the president said in 2009: "Joe, you do Iraq". Biden said Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of this administration." Biden's January 2010 visit to Iraq in the midst of turmoil over banned candidates from the upcoming Iraqi parliamentary election resulted in 59 of the several hundred candidates being reinstated by the Iraqi government two days later. By 2012, Biden had made eight trips there, but his oversight of U.S. policy in Iraq receded with the exit in 2011 of U.S. troops.

Biden was also in charge of the oversight role for infrastructure spending from the Obama stimulus package intended to help counteract the ongoing recession, and stressed that only worthy projects should get funding. He talked with hundreds of governors, mayors, and other local officials in this role. During this period, Biden was satisfied that no major instances of waste or corruption had occurred, and when he completed that role in February 2011, he said that the number of fraud incidents with stimulus monies had been less than one percent.

...snip...

Biden's most important role within the administration has been to question assumptions, playing a contrarian role. Obama said that, "The best thing about Joe is that when we get everybody together, he really forces people to think and defend their positions, to look at things from every angle, and that is very valuable for me." Another senior Obama advisor said Biden "is always prepared to be the skunk at the family picnic to make sure we are as intellectually honest as possible."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#Vice_Presidency

[LanternWaste]

37. Should your question be both honest and sincere, I'd recommend The White House Vice Presidency

Should your question be both honest and sincere, I'd recommend The White House Vice Presidency: The Path to Significance (by Joe Goldstein) (although it's really, really easy to find out about administrations with strong vice-presidents with a mere cursory look around the web-- complete with academic sources cited)

"The rise of the vice presidency took a sharp upward trajectory with the vice presidency of Walter Mondale. In Goldstein’s work we see how Mondale and Jimmy Carter designed and implemented a new model of the office that allowed the vice president to become a close presidential adviser and representative on missions that mattered. Goldstein takes us through the vice presidents from Mondale to Joe Biden, presenting the arrangements each had with his respective president, showing elements of continuity but also variations in the office, and describing the challenges each faced and the work each did. The book also examines the vice-presidential selection process and campaigns since 1976, and shows how those activities affect and/or are affected by the newly developed White House vice presidency."

[TheProgressive]

42. Is 'honesty and sincerity' foreign to you?

Rather rude and uncivil of you to question an honest question...

[DonCoquixote]

38. the fact is

yes, we would lose a senator, BUT, the Clinton campaign would get a badly needed support to go against Trump, real populism as opposed to trump's Brexit flavored one. To quote Hillary : "this is NO time for half measures", and yes, losing a senator is bad, but letting Trump within Telescope distance of 1600 PA ave is simply NOT ACCEPTABLE. Failure is not an option.

[bigwillq]

39. Would lose a powerful senator. I'd rather Warren stay in the Senate (nt)

[dflprincess]

41. The governor of Massachusetts

would appoint a Republican.