Yes, I know Mass has a Republican governor.

[LaydeeBug]

but Elizabeth Warren as VP takes Wall Street off the table for HRC. They will have to try another tactic to swiftboat HRC

And, for the record, I think it will feel contrived to me if she picks Julian Castro.

Yes, I know Elizabeth Warren is great in the Senate. Yes, I know Mass has a Republican governor.

I am too over the moon about it to even consider it.

But man, of man, if this laydee can dream...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. the gov is not the problem. democrats not showing up to special elections is the problem

[LaydeeBug]

2. Very true. It's a tall order.

I just love the idea of both of them on the ticket.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. i both love and am scared of the idea. i love it because they look great together

and they sound great together. they complement each other.

but i worry if we are overestimating the post-sexism of the american people.

[pnwmom]

5. But the time Scott Brown got elected his Dem opponent wasn't very popular.

This time, just one example, there's a Kennedy who won 61% of the vote for his House seat.

Or maybe Deval Patrick? I've heard Harry Reid is enthusiastic about Warren as VP, even after checking out the situation in Massachusetts.

[brush]

4. Mass has a repug governor but they also have a special election provision

The governor can appoint an interim senator but a special election has to be held within a few weeks to permanently fill the seat.

[MineralMan]

6. We need every possible Senator. There's no way to understate

that. If we can establish a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate majority, much more is possible than if we do not have that.

We cannot afford to lose any Senate seats. None. Instead, we must flip as many as possible. I wouldn't encourage any VP choice that would mean losing a seat. Not even.

I'm quite certain that is a major consideration as Hillary Clinton weighs her choice. She understands the situation extremely clearly.

She will make the right choice for her administration to succeed.

[randome]

7. While I'm more in sync with your opinion on this and related matters...

...sometimes even I get carried away by the prospect of a Clinton/Warren ticket, enough to say "We can't always play it safe. Sometimes we have to take a chance." This may be one of those times, at least for me.

Warren on the ticket -and campaigning for her replacement- might be enough.

[MineralMan]

9. I'm a purely strategic thinker when it comes to

politics. Warren can do far more in the Senate than as VP. VPs are about getting Presidents elected. Hillary's got this.

Right now, IMO, a strong majority in the Senate seems essential to me, even if just for the SCOTUS and Federal court seats that come open. Nothing will affect progressivism more than those positions, and the effect lasts for decades.

The House is probably not going to flip in 2016, although that's marginally possible. But, the Senate can become filibuster proof if we work really hard on that, and that could be such a powerful change that I can't think of anything I care about more in 2016.

The real battle is going to come in 2018. We can take the House in 2018 if we devote a huge effort on GOTV. It truly can. We can also begin to build more state legislative majorities that year, looking forward to 2020, when we have a chance to reverse some of the gerrymandering.

2016 is about the SCOTUS, and we need a Democratic Senate to ensure good appointments and confirmations. We absolutely must have that. If we don't get it, we'll be right back in the obstructionism soup again, and progress will be slow and uneven.

So, strategically, Warren's seat needs to be saved. I can't even imagine losing that seat.

We can even get McCain's seat for a Democrat at this point, and maybe some others that we didn't plan for. But, it's all going to depend on turnout and enthusiasm. Republican turnout is going to be depressed due to Trump. It's an opportunity we cannot afford to waste.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. I feel pretty much the same way as you do

I would love LOVE to see two intelligent and competent women (particularly these two) running the country as a team but I am concerned about the loss of a Senate seat that we can ill afford to lose, even if temporarily (we don't want Scott Brown or some other icky Republican to be able to easily slither his/her way back into her seat).

[JaneyVee]

8. Clinton/Warren 2016

[Koinos]

11. Harry Reid figured out how to minimize the time before a special Massachusetts election.

"Reid reviews scenarios for filling Senate seat if Warren is VP pick"

Reid was originally opposed to the idea of choosing Elizabeth Warren as VP. But he did some investigation into Massachusetts election law and found that the impact of Governor Baker's appointment could be minimized or circumvented altogether. See Boston Globe article below:

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

[longship]

12. Keep Liz in the US Senate.

She's happy there.

She's gaining quite a bit of clout, quite quickly. Rising fast!

President Clinton is going to need allies who are strong progressives in the legislative branch. I suspect both Bernie and Elizabeth will be there to help, and guide.

I am really afraid of the 2018 senatorial election where Democrats are in a rather tight fix, similar to the GOP this year. The numbers are against us. For that reason my position that Hillary's VEEP candidate should absolutely not be a sitting US Senator. And I don't care what state. But especially not MA, whose last senate vacancy (Ted Kennedy's) was filled by a Republican, and whose current governor is also GOP.

There's no way I would nominate Warren for VEEP. She's too fucking valuable where she is. And she is very happy there. That's all I would need to know to take her off the VEEP list.

[bigwillq]

13. I'd rather have Warren stay in the Senate (nt)