I am down with a Clinton-Warren ticket. Who is with me?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

She relishes taking on Trump. Let's give her that opportunity.

[geek tragedy]

1. I think two women on the ticket is an idea worth exploring.

Amy Klobuchar's name also belongs in the mix.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. If you are going to smash the patriarchy might as well be with a big blow.

[Beowulf]

2. No.

We need her more in the Senate.

[Hortensis]

15. Boston Globe article on filling Warren's vacated seat:

Reid reviews scenarios for filling Senate seat if Warren is VP pick
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/03/harry-reid-studies-legal-scenarios-for-filling-senate-seat-elizabeth-warren-gets-vice-presidential-nod/3FSrNJlAhqRoiWt6iQMK7J/story.html

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has been actively reviewing Massachusetts rules for filling a US Senate vacancy, another indication of the seriousness with which Democrats are gaming out the possibility of Elizabeth Warren joining likely presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s ticket.

The upshot of Reid’s review is that Senate Democrats may have found an avenue to block or at least narrow GOP Governor Charlie Baker’s ability to name a temporary replacement and prevent the Senate from flipping to a Democratic majority if Warren were to leave the chamber. That suggests the issue is not as significant an obstacle as Reid previously feared.


Pieces of the legal guidance given to Reid were shared with the Globe by a person close to Reid who is familiar with the guidance. “Reid sees a number of promising paths to making sure that Democrats keep Warren’s seat and is very open to her being selected,” said this person, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

This doesn't mean she'll be the choice, of course, but wouldn't that be something?!

[Qutzupalotl]

40. It's bigger than just keeping the seat in D hands.

We have no one, by far, in all of congress who has her ready grasp of economics, with the appropriate level of outrage to publicly humiliate these bank executives destroying the middle class. It is a thing of beauty to watch her nail them to the wall.

We are likely to take the senate again with or without her seat. But shunting Warren away to a ceremonial role would mean losing our best attack dog. (She would be a great president if needed, though.)

Clinton has risen in the polls a little lately, and I now believe she can beat Trump on her own. Let's find a good progressive to be her VP but one who won't neuter the senate's oversight power in the process.

[Hortensis]

44. Why do you assume it would be merely a ceremonial role,

and how on earth can anyone imagine she would accept such a thing? Elizabeth Warren putting flowers on graves and taking tea with the spouses of visiting heads of state as a job?

Come on.

[Qutzupalotl]

45. Because the VP has no real power

other than breaking ties in the Senate and being able to step in as president at a moment's notice.

Biden negotiated for a greater advisory role, but there is no indication that Clinton wants advice from Warren. That's why I see this move as a shallow attempt at unity.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

3. Warren would be more effective in a Democratic-controlled Senate

Making her VP would essentially neuter her for eight years.

[Fumesucker]

18. Mission Accomplished

[hollysmom]

27. exactly.

[JonLeibowitz]

4. Nope. I will read that as Clinton trying to handicap the progressive wing of the senate

And that is the correct reading, too.

[Hortensis]

19. Lol. Just, imo, of course, but that strikes me as a

bizarrely untethered reading. Almost the entire Democratic Senate caucus is the progressive wing of the Senate.

In the House it's even stronger: Virtually the entire Democratic caucus is the progressive wing of the House.

In fact, for the entire last century, to be liberal is effectively synonymous with being progressive.

[JonLeibowitz]

50. Some of us don't equate the (D) label with progressivism.

If you were correct, why did it take until the 90s for a congressional progressive caucus to be formed?

Why is there only 1 member of the Senate in the congressional senate caucus?

lmao, but your assertion that progressivism <=> Democratic congressional delegation is absurd.

[Hortensis]

56. Because they needed a label and chose that one.

And maybe at that time they considered themselves more committed to fighting for certain progressive goals than others. And maybe to unify and underline the differences between them and the conservative caucus. Perhaps the Democratic leadership was cooperating more than they liked.

I really don't know,and you can see I didn't go look for an answer. Notably, though, labels are often used to create image, not because they're especially appropriate. The Nazis dropped the word "socialist" into their party name to draw angry anti-establishment left-wingers to their ultra-right-wing movement. It worked too. Those who came didn't bother to take a good look at what was behind the label until it was too late for those inclined to fight it.

[Armstead]

6. No. She is needed in the Senate. And she needs to retain her independence

She's too important to be sidelined to attending funerals of foreign dignitaries.

Unlike Obama/Biden, she will not be able to influence Clinton as a trusted adviser.

[TwilightZone]

25. "she will not be able to influence Clinton as a trusted adviser"

There is exactly zero basis for that assertion. They agree on vastly more issues than not, and Warren was one of the first people to encourage Hillary Clinton to run.

This imaginary ideological gulf between Clinton and Warren is one of the more puzzling fabrications of this election cycle.

[justiceischeap]

37. 'Cause women don't get along you see

We're always competing and backstabbing everyone.

And haven't you heard? Absolutely NO ONE likes Hillary Clinton. Hell, even Hillary hates herself.

[atomingai]

7. The VP position will be used to silence Warren. I disagree fully.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Remove the Clinton party and I'd vote for it.

[MoonRiver]

9. Not me.

Warren is desperately needed in the Senate, where she can actually change things. She would be totally defanged if veep. It is the nature of the job. Plus we need a younger person in that position. It should be someone who can take over the reigns of power in 8 years, without having to compete against a much younger, count on it, Repuke. And finally, we really need a Hispanic on the team, imho.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

10. I'd prefer someone who'll be young enough to run for president in 2024.

[Hortensis]

20. Good point. But it's very unlikely that Democrats

would be able to hold the presidency for a 5th consecutive term. And by the time another 8 years of a 16-year stretch of Democratic influence has passed, a number of other good people will have risen to prominence.

[MadBadger]

57. Won't she be Bernie's age by then?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

58. Yes, she'd be 75 on election day.

[PoliticAverse]

11. She's been doing quite well jabbing at Trump already. She doesn't need to be VP to do that.

I think she'd be more effective on the issues important to her by remaining in the Senate.

I note though that when specifically asked she hasn't denied she'd be willing to be the VP candidate.

[texstad79]

12. I'm against it

The GOP governor would appoint her replacement and who knows if Martha Coakley can be stopped from winning the primary?

[Hortensis]

21. See the Boston Globe article I posted higher.

No details, but an interesting leak from Reid's circle.

[texstad79]

34. I saw that article

Not sure if something like that has been attempted before.

IMHO, the larger opportunity is to run a Hispanic on a national ticket for the first time ever and demonstrate to the community that the Democratic party does not take their votes for granted.

[boston bean]

13. I am not sold on elizabeh warren as vp. But i am not averse to it

I think Sherrod Brown is a better choice. But i am sure I will probably be more than ok with anyone she chooses.

[LiberalFighter]

14. I'm not sure that would be the best ticket to have.

Geography and maybe race might be something that needs to be considered.

Yesterday, the Washington Post had this "We narrowed Clinton’s vice-presidential possibilities to 27. Now you pick one:"

One that I know personally and had as a Governor and Senator is Evan Bayh. I would campaign hard against him to be a VP choice or even a Cabinet member. The only reason he was even elected here in Indiana is because of his dad, Birch Bayh. But he is nothing like his dad. And many of the people that knew Birch Bayh voted for him are dead. And those that remain are likely not that supportive of Evan Bayh.

In my opinion, it would be foolhardy to select Evan Bayh if the reason was to get Indiana in the D column. It would not work. Bayh is just an empty jackt.

[Hortensis]

29. They don't say why Bayh's on the list. Maybe geography

in a scenario where she pushes hard to pick up moderate conservatives? I don't see it.

You're right, of course. Clinton-Warren may not be the best ticket, but for some reason I find the idea of the two of them working together rather electrifying. Unusually, because I don't get excited over leaders themselves normally, just issues and policy, but...I like it.

Of course, I also like Al Franken off that list. I'd really enjoy watching him as Clinton's attack dog sicced on the big orange ass.

[GummyBearz]

16. Dear god NO

Warren needs to be in the senate to argue against all the bad ideas HRC will push for. She also needs to stay clear of the disaster that HRCs presidency will be so that Warren can run herself in the future without all the bad baggage.

[Proud Public Servant]

17. I was down - but not after what Hillary has said

Hillary's already suggested that she would put Bill in charge of economic revitalization (which I guess means, based on his record: bank deregulation, blue-collar job loss, and a stock bubble). No way do I want to see Warren leave the Senate and then have to defer to Bill on her core issues.

[Jackilope]

22. No. Plunking on a real Progressive for show

Is not fooling me. With HRC, nothing changed. Corruption continues, Wall St. Is under regulated, and wars are waged.

We need Warren and strong people in Congress to protect us from
corporatists.

[TwilightZone]

23. Some of the responses to this post...

make me want to invest in a company that makes pretzels.

[Eric J in MN]

24. Me. I think Warren would be an influential VP.

Warren has previous experience as an administration official, she's a former law professor, and HRC respects her.

[TeacherB87]

26. Nope

Senate Majority Leader Warren.

She can attack him perfectly well as is.

[midnight]

28. Elizabeth Warren has more of a chance of helping the working people

if she stays in the Senate.

[NV Whino]

30. No.

[Maven]

31. Yes please!

[cynatnite]

32. An exciting ticket I would be thrilled to see...

But there are reasonable considerations that I think might be difficult to overcome.

[Orsino]

33. A Hillary Clinton who could win Warren as a running-mate...

...is one I would get enthusiastic about.

Because I don't think Warren would allow her voice to be nerfed as she is shunted into a largely ceremonial role. Surely she would want and get concessions to her agenda? I don't even want to think about the other reason to put Warren on the ticket.

[frazzled]

35. Not gonna happen, for a lot of reasons

But she's a convenient red herring to put out there to deflect attention for the next 6 weeks until the Convention. The names that are discussed are almost never the ones who are picked. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if she were helping Clinton to shield the selection process from the media by allowing her name to be bandied about for a while.

But it's not gonna happen.

[democrattotheend]

36. It depends

If Clinton has a good relationship with Warren and genuinely wants to work with her, I say hell yes. If Warren is not who she really wants and she is just putting her on the ticket as a bone to Bernie supporters, I am not thrilled with the idea, because I don't think she will have much influence in that case, and if that is the case I'd rather keep her in the Senate.

[Buzz cook]

38. Not me.

Warren is too important in the senate.

[JCanete]

39. Not me. She'd be muted, and would have to toe the White House line. Nt

[Demsrule86]

41. Great ticket

I think Trump has trouble with women.

[bigwillq]

42. No, thanks

I hope Warren stays in Senate.

[progressoid]

43. Nope. Keep her in the Senate where she can do good deeds.

Veep is a black hole for her.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. I don't want a senator from a state with a Republican governor on the ticket.

So no to Warren, and also no to Sherrod Brown, whose name I've heard mentioned.

Either would make a perfectly good VP, but neither can be spared.

[texstad79]

55. Yep

2018 will be a difficult year. We have to defend Senate seats won in 2012 in red states, coupled with the usual mid-term dynamics .

The last thing we need is attrition in Senators from solid blue states.

[bullwinkle428]

47. Honestly, VP is kind of a shitty job with no power. I'd rather see her stay

in the Senate. Feel the same away about the idea of Bernie as VP.

[Vinca]

48. If I can't have Bernie as POTUS, Warren as VP would be my second choice.

BUT . . . only if she's given more responsibility than attending state funerals and other busy work.

[Adrahil]

49. I'd LOVE it. NT

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. No one ever asked, how can there be two men on one ticket.

So, yes, I approve of that ticket.

It is a kind of strength we need in our representatives.

[MariaThinks]

52. I am.

[tonyt53]

53. I'd much rather see her as the Senate Leader. Imagine the nightmare for the GOP.

She could set the agenda.

[merrily]

54. NO.

[Alfresco]

59. I can feel it.