2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFrom Warren to Sanders, back to Warren
Originally, I was hoping Warren would run. I initially liked Sanders as "second best" but came to think he might have actually been the better choice... he has far more experience, and his obvious "weaknesses" (age, religion, the socialist label) ended up not seeming to be insurmountable at all.
But now, in thinking about which of the two I'd prefer to see as VP, I'm back to Warren, despite her relative lack of experience and the fact that we know far less about many of her positions compared to what we know of Sanders'. I think she is more charismatic, a better orator, better debater, and seems to me to be a little sharper overall. I think Hillary might also be able to have a more productive relationship with her than she would have with Sanders. Also, because of those initial qualities I listed, I think she would be better at helping Hillary win the election. I think she will motivate the vast majority of those who would be motivated by having Sanders on the ticket, and I think she would provide an additional edge on the campaign trail, where I think she would be stronger in debates, and would not appear to be neutered as Sanders would be. And no, I don't mean that in any kind of sexist way, I mean that Bernie would end up on a ticket that clearly has an agenda that is far less ambitious than what he has been promoting, and no matter the spin, he will appear to be a somewhat watered down version of his prior self.
I know, there is some risk of exposing her Senate seat to a Scott Brown, but I think the odds of that are low, and I can't think of anyone who would be a better asset for Hillary in solidifying the entire Dem base behind her and taking it to Trump, and that's priority one.
One remaining knock on her is name recognition... despite Warren's popularity in places like DU, she is is still not so well known out in the world... but I'm not sure anyone bests her there, other than Sanders. She's probably still ahead of just about anyone else you could think of.
from http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-vice-president-224134
The numbers were remarkably steady last year among swirling headlines and speculation whether she was going to run for president herself, said nonpartisan pollster Steve Koczela of MassINC Polling Group.
Warrens limited name recognition flies in the face of the assumption that she is an well-known entity with a fixed brand.
Picking Warren is not equivalent to putting Bernie Sanders on the ticket, said Koczela. Elizabeth Warren is not a perfect substitute for Bernie Sanders. She may get you things and groups that Sanders represents in the long run, but its not a one-for-one replacement.
Nearly everyone in the current crop of Democratic vice presidential prospects faces a name recognition issue, including Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker.
Response to thesquanderer (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Dems really need to focus on getting some people who are below age 60 as prominent figures.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Obama broke the mold on preconceived notions of presidential 'preparedness'!
Senator Warren alone could give credence to Hillary's argument that she is a Wall Street reformer, she is for the left out and left behind, and when the "politicking" is done there is a good decent person still standing there!!!
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Elizabeth will sooth many of the pains of this primary and serve as a powerful voice for Democrats.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Sanders' supporters, and then relegate her to dinners and funerals, thus also getting her out of the Senate, where the Third Way HATES her. Double plus for Hillary and the Third Way and Wall Street, BIG minus for actual people.