2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWarren brings VERY little to the table.Big mistake to pick someone unready and who brings so little.
Time to end the Warren fantasies. She is great, a strong progressive, and very smart. But she brings SO LITTLE to the table. Enough of the candy cane "excitement" factor. This is not a happy dance high five high school level game. This is very serious business. Warren does not bring gender balance. Like it or not, reality on this planet is that two women on a ticket won't bode well with way too many. Sorry, it's just not a perfect world folks. Case closed on that.
Next, she is from northeast deep blue Massachusetts so brings no geography. With her and Bernie and other further-left progressives solidly in her camp and out there campaigning, that will fire up "the base" a-plenty.
She has little to no executive experience and would do better to remain an up and coming leader in the Senate.
I love Warren, but she should definitely not be the VP choice. It's just a bunch of wishful thinking.
Sherrod Brown, Tim Kaine, and Xavier Beccera are all much better choices for many reasons.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tblue37
(65,227 posts)greater impact.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)in my book as that she's needed in the Senate.
A year and a half ago many here were saying no, no, she can't run for President, we need her in the Senate! Personally, I wish she'd run, but that's irrelevant now. Vice Presidents have essentially no power. They don't make or influence policy. They don't introduce legislation. They make nice speeches, they attend funerals and various events as a representative of the President, and take care not to disagree with the Pres on anything. It's probably not a bad job overall, but not one we want to put Elizabeth Warren in.
Sherrod Brown I also believe needs to remain in the Senate.
Tim Kaine and Xavier Beccera can essentially do no harm as VP, and neither one has a current day job that actually matters.
Plus, Elizabeth Warren is only two or three years younger than Hillary Clinton, despite looking about twenty years younger, and as much as I love EW, I think the ideal VP choice would be a Millennial, someone born after 1980, although that's not going to happen.
Speaking of generational things, one thing that does concern me is that we're going from a President who is a GenXer to a President who's a Boomer, whichever candidate wins. For me that's not the forward momentum I'd like to see, but it's what we have.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Bashing Warren is okay. Saying two woman is an issue is okay. What happened to all the DUers up in arms over this kind of crap???
Arazi
(6,829 posts)
think
(11,641 posts)
Maven
(10,533 posts)He is personally unappealing and his policy positions on a number of issues leave much to be desired.
Maybe it won't be Warren, but you can't deny she and Hillary electrified the crowd on stage together. By contrast, Kaine comes across like a whiny high school principal trying (unsuccessfully) to lead a student assembly, and his appearance today with HRC was totally awkward. Brown and Becerra would be much better choices.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Sherrod Brown, Tim Kaine, and Xavier Beccera are all much better choices for many reasons.
He's the best campaigner of the three.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Who the VP is. Yet for some reason Warren does matter. I post my opinion about a statement Hillary makes on CNN And I am bashing yet this post which is clearly bashing Warren remains.
I don't get it. How is it okay for some to bash and not others????
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)but that she didn't add balance to the ticket.
That's not bashing her. It is simply a fact that she is another "strong, progressive, and very smart" woman from a neighboring state. Not much balance.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That would take us back towards a JFK-LBJ kind of ticket...which could only take us back to a JFK-LBJ foreign policy...and I don't need to remind anyone here of what THAT would condemn us to.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I agree on Brown being a good pick but he doesn't have executive experience either. I would argue that Warren has more than he does considering she is a former Vice President of the American Law Institute, she was the chair for the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the implementation of the "bailout" and she served as the equivalent of the head of the CFPB (basically she was involved the leadership behind the creation of it) before an official nomination was made.
Tim Kaine would be an awful, awful choice.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...and if HRC chooses her, it will prove that HRC isn't beholden to corporations.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And Liz Warren has shown decisively that she can eviscerate the Trumpkins with a quick and incisive wit.
But beyond that and the "excitement" matter, there really aren't that many factors to begin with. While everyone obsesses around the veep pick, it's been well shown that it generally doesn't make that much difference no matter who the pick is. Warren is certainly smart enough to take the job of POTUS in a constitutionally required scenario, and that's what matters. Only other factor is the Senate seat, to my mind.
Expecting Rain
(811 posts)The balance Warren would bring to the ticket is the highest levels of expertise (combined with an interest in everyday Americans) in areas like consumer finance protection, financial regulation, bankruptcy, lending, and other critical areas of the domestic economy.
If HRC has a weakness, it is the perception that she is too tied to Wall St interests. A Warren pick would alter that perception dramatically.
HRC also has variable speech making skills. Sometime quite good, other times less so. Warren adds a vibrant voice to the ticket that would provide synergistic strength. Review Hillary Clinton's recent speech in Ohio (behind Warren's intro) with her speech today (behind Kaine). There wa a world of difference.
Warren would close an "enthusiasm gap" that many are feeling, and HRC would benefit hugely as a result in my estimation.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
Blaukraut
(5,693 posts)I'd disagree in terms of voter excitement. Warren will get people out to the polls. She might not be experienced enough, but then again, President Obama wasn't either. I actually believe a VP choice can do harm. HRC could go for the safe, boring choice - Kaine. He wouldn't get anyone to the polls who wasn't going to be there to begin with, but he definitely wouldn't excite would-be voters who just need a little push.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I like it when people actually spell out the word period--you should try that too. It brings more truthiness to declarative statements. And that's a scientific fact.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
jcgoldie
(11,613 posts)You've posted here about how unqualified she is to be vice president about a half dozen times. It's just as ridiculous this time as the last 5 times you said it.
I mean it would be one thing to pick another horse and tout them but all you do is dog her against the field.
writes3000
(4,734 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)all the more reasons why Hillary needs someone that can highlight Trump's weaknesses, someone that has already gotten under his skin. This is not about fantasy, is is about having a presidential debate where someone NOT like Pence can CLOBBER him!
