Pick Warren and lock up the race entirely. Pick anyone else and Trump stays within the MOE.

[Yavin4]

If Warren is the VP, Hillary locks up the race. Why? Because Hillary would have the establishment AND an excited base with her through the election. That's the Obama coalition+. Trump and the Republicans are toast.

Pick anyone else, and the base is not excited. Which means that Trump lives within the MOE, and anything can happen.

[artyteacher]

1. its not that simple...

More people are voting besides the base.

[TheBlackAdder]

20. Many Neutrals like SBS, and Warren is close. Besides, it would groom her for a Warren 2020 run.

.


It's better than that Pro-Monsanto pick being floated around.

Hopefully, Monsanto won't move from affecting the Dept. of Agriculture to directly affecting general public policy.


.

[artyteacher]

27. many are also scared of her...

It's a diverse country.

[TheBlackAdder]

33. The other options are worse, at least the two being floated now.

[exboyfil]

32. 2020?

Is Clinton planning to be a one term president?

[TheBlackAdder]

35. Are you planning on her being a two-term president?

.


Good politicians and political parties keep options open.


.

[kwolf68]

2. Agree

Visalik just shows the Dems as another side of the corporate party coin, further bluing the lines between the parties.

It doesn't necessarily have to be Warren (though she's completely awesome), but someone in that group. Progressive, dynamic, committed, experienced, brilliant, with few skeletons, that can inspire Dems, progs, youth, and all the required demographics.

[MoonRiver]

3. Pick someone who will be young enough to run for president in 8 years.

Unfortunately, that's not Warren.

[kwolf68]

5. Another thought...

Handle THIS EIGHT years first. If the best person for the job is older, then HIRE them.

[MoonRiver]

7. I love Elizabeth, but am not sure she's the best choice, for more than one reason.

I really believe a solid liberal Hispanic is the way to go. My favorite is Xavier Becerra. But if Hillary picks Warren, I will be just fine.

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. I fail to see what a Hispanic/Latino running mate brings to the ticket

that's a voter demographic that Trump has already significantly alienated with his "deport 'em all and build a wall" rhetoric. Latest polls put Trump's Latino/Hispanic support on 14% (Romney got 27% in 2012, GWB got 40% at one point). Warren as VP would bring in Sanders supporters who may otherwise be considering voting Green (which could make a difference in a few key swing states). Electorally, Warren is a smarter choice.

[Yavin4]

10. See Jerry Brown in CA

Older is sometimes better.

[TheBlackAdder]

21. That's as ageist as the arguments used against HRC running. What coin just flipped?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

85. So you want to run Kaine or Vilsack to follow Hillary? Really?? nt

[SidDithers]

4. I think you're confused as to what the base is...nt

Sid

[tallahasseedem]

6. +1

[BobbyDrake]

17. Yup. The grassroots is not the base, no matter how much they claim otherwise.

Clinton already has "the base" on her side. It's why she's the nominee.

[bonemachine]

72. by definition

the roots are the base. the grass can be green and lovely, but with no root structure, bad things happen quickly if there's too much (or not enough) rain...

[L. Coyote]

8. If only politics was that simplistic. But it is not.

The electorate is already fully polarized. As usual, the independents in the middle will decide the election. The VP pick makes very little difference where it counts, unless that pick is not acceptable to independents.

Wishful thinking is what destroys Republican politics. Let's not mimic them.

[marybourg]

34. Not true. Gore's pick

was not acceptable to me - at that time already a near-retirement age life-long democratic voter - and I didn't vote for Gore. And I've never regretted it. We got Obama instead, which never would have happened if Gore had won.

[stevenleser]

47. That mentality, which you say you don't regret, gave us Idiot Boy 'W' Bush.

If you don't regret that, you and I are definitely not on the same page.

[marybourg]

68. If Gore had won, the next Pres. would

have been a Publican and not Obama.

[stevenleser]

75. When you get done divining the future with your crystal ball please lend it to me

I'd like to win Powerball, it's pretty high right now.

[thucythucy]

63. You "never regretted" that Bush Jr. had eight years

to do all the damage he did?

The dead of Katrina alone make your statement entirely incomprehensible to me.

How wonderful it must be, to be in such a place of personal privilege that eight years of GOP misrule evidently left you and yours entirely unscathed.

[stevenleser]

76. [phone] all of that! nt

[leftofcool]

9. Horse pucky!

[CrowCityDem]

11. I think a Hispanic would be more of a boon for driving up voting numbers.

I like Warren, and have no issue picking her, but if I'm doing the math, I'm going with Perez or Becerra. Getting the Hispanic vote to turn up in the largest numbers ever would be the most effective way of guaranteeing victory (not that I think Trump has any chance), and having to run against them would drive Trump bat-shit crazy.

[TexasBushwhacker]

37. Clinton already has the hispanic vote locked up

I'm more concerned about the Sander's suppoters who say they won't vote for Clinton. I think Warren could draw some back.

[Lord Magus]

46. I honestly don't care about that group.

The "Sanders supporters" who say they won't vote for Hillary are not just not Democrats, they're not voters. I suspect that many such people didn't actually show up to vote for Bernie either. The real Bernie voters are mostly behind Hillary already. There's no reason to devote energy to courting the votes of people who will never vote at all.

[TexasBushwhacker]

74. You'd better care in the swing states n/t

[Lord Magus]

83. There's little be gained in focusing on the votes of people who never vote.

Anybody who normally doesn't vote and is doesn't already have a firm preference for this election is almost certainly going to continue not voting in November. The votes to focus on are the ones that are actually attainable.

[CrowCityDem]

48. Locked up, yes. But a pick could make it swell, drowning Trump.

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. Forget it.

It takes much more than base excitement.

[JaneyVee]

13. Clinton/Warren 2016

[arcane1]

14. How utterly, pathetically, embarrassingly sad that is.

Only one single pair of Dems can possibly defeat a buffoon who doesn't even want to be president in the first place.

Time to start pretending I'm visiting from Canada.

[TwilightZone]

15. The base is already excited.

The base voted for Hillary. The base is out registering voters.

Obama's base, for the most part, *is* Hillary's base. The base is not disaffected Sanders supporters.

[farmboy]

18. I am the base and I have never supported Sanders. I've always voted Democratic. I usually phone bank

and speed a couple of weeks driving voters to the polls. I believe in Hillary being more progressive than people have given her credit for, and I will be enormously disappointed if she picks a center-right moderate vp candidate like Vilsack or Kaine. I will not put forth my same efforts of time and money this year to try and convince voters of something I no longer believe in if she goes that route. I will vote for her in November and will assume she's telling me that's all she needs by choosing a nonprogressive teammate for her administration.

[elleng]

36. Thanks, farmboy, for some clarity re: the 'base.'

[Lil Missy]

16. It's not going to be Warren, and that's nonsense anyway.

The LAST thing she should do is get advice from DU consensus. She'd lose for sure.

[NYC Liberal]

19. VP choices do not have any significant effect on the outcome of elections.

http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/vice-presidential-picks/

[Hortensis]

23. Except when they do, which is sometimes.

We have to do everything we can to make sure we win in November, and win big.

Imo, the OP goes wrong in

1. Assuming significant numbers of Sanders progressives would not vote the Dem ticket if they didn't like the VP choice. Only a few.

2. Assuming that all uncommitted Sanders supporters are left-wingers who would be pleased with a left-wing VP choice. Not exactly. That's been proven many times.

3. Ignoring the need to appeal to the middle and to disaffected conservatives. Voters considering alternatives to Trump must have an alternative to vote for.

4. Forgetting that the people making these decisions aren't amateurs, their data and analyses are far better than ours, and they're extremely personally committed to winning.

[andym]

65. "Volts for Eagleton" "I back him 1000%" -- hurt McGovern badly

and at the time he wanted Ted Kennedy who refused-- polls supposedly would have had him even with Nixon.

[MohRokTah]

22. .

VP picks haven't made a real difference in half a century.

[marybourg]

38. You seem to have forgotten Gore/Leiberman.

I can assure you that the choice of Leiberman cost Gore the presidency. I refused to vote for that ticket which I considered half Republican, and worked for Nader. About 85% of the Nader workers were Leiberman "refusniks".

[MohRokTah]

40. I can assure you, the choice of Lieberman had no effect on the outcome of the 2000 election.

That was all on Ralph Nader.

It was 100% the fault of Ralph Nader and nobody else.

[AgingAmerican]

43. 13 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush in the 2000 election

Nader took less than 1% of the vote and most who voted for him would have sat out had there been no third party candidates.

Blaming Nader is just scapegoating.

[MohRokTah]

44. Noipe. No scapegoating. George W. Bush being elected in 2000 is 100% the fault of Nader.

End of discussion.

[AgingAmerican]

50. 13% of Democrats voted for Bush in that election

Nader garnered less than 1% of the vote total. It's basic math.

[MohRokTah]

52. Necause they beleived Nader's LIES!

[AgingAmerican]

56. Scapegoating

[Moostache]

57. Nit to pick: APPOINTED in 2000...Bush did NOT "win". (n/t)

[MohRokTah]

71. I disagree. He won.

Had the SCOTUS allowed the recount to continue in Florida, Bush would have still won because the counties where Gore would have picked up enough votes were not a part of the recount the Gore campaign called for.

So no, Bush was elected in 2000, not appointed.

[stevenleser]

49. About that percentage vote for Republicans every time. Because they are conservatives.

Many of them live in places like the panhandle of Florida.

Nader deserves the blame he got and you are wrong about what his voters would have done. Around 20% more of them would have voted Gore than voted Bush if Nader had not been in the race, giving Gore Florida by a comfortable margin. There were polls done of Nader voters at the time.

Your revisionist history will not work.

[marybourg]

69. I voted for Nader because

I refused to vote/work for a Dem who would choose a Publican for his Veep. And most of the people I met who worked for Nader felt the same. I knew after a Bush presidency we'd get a Dem. And we did. Obama. After a Gore presidency, I knew we'd get A Publican. But thanks for your assurances, anyway.

[MohRokTah]

70. A vote for Nader was a vote in favor of Bush becoming president.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence of nothing.

[TexasBushwhacker]

41. I disagree

It may be annecdotal, but I knew Republicans who didn't vote for McCain because the thought of Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency was frightening.

[LaydeeBug]

24. I'm her base. I'd *love* Warren, but will support *ANYONE* she chooses over TP. nt

[RBInMaine]

25. BULLSHIT! She needs to stay in the Senate and IS NOT READY TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.

[yodermon]

53. Why isn't she ready? To the point that you have to yell it? n/t

[bullwinkle428]

61. She firmly stated on Rachel Maddow's show that she was ready.

Are you saying you don't believe her?

[rjsquirrel]

26. Says you eom

[JennyMominFL]

28. My Republican sister

My Republican sister is willing to vote for Hillary, but not if Warren is on the ticket.

[treestar]

29. For the billionth time, the "base"

is those who can be counted on, who don't have to be lured with "excitement."

[MineralMan]

31. The Democratic base is already ramping up for the

campaign. The Democratic Party base is not who you think it is, frankly. It is made up of Democratic voters who vote in every election, even mid-terms and who volunteer for GOTV activism. The base is not the disgruntled fringe. It never has been.

[L. Coyote]

39. This from someone who admits not voting for Al Gore. That's rich!

[Yavin4]

73. I did vote for Gore. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

42. If he can manage to stay within the margin of error, he will win

...through election fraud.

She needs a high single digit, or double digit lead IMHO.

[LongtimeAZDem]

45. Al Franken! (nt)

[pnwmom]

54. I doubt it. The base is already excited by Hillary. The question is how best to expand the base.

I like Warren but some the men in my family think many men would still be turned off by two women. (They wouldn't hesitate themselves, but they don't see EW as expanding the group of voters choosing the ticket.)

It's not clear that Warren would add more than some of the male candidates who have been proposed.

[GeorgeGist]

55. If she doesn't, and she loses ...

I'm gone forever.

[Moostache]

60. If Hillary loses, a lot more than just you will be gone forever.

A President Trump would be unthinkable in ways that the GOP fanatics who are accepting him out of Hillary Hate can't even begin to fathom.

1) He is not a Republican or a Democrat....he is a Talking Yam and out for himself only.
2) There are rattlesnakes with a better equanimity than Sir Donald of Orange.
3) There are pre-schoolers who have thicker skins than the Orangutang offspring.

In a more serious vein, I do not fear for the country out of some ideological schlock (like the disgusting GOP 'fans' cheering to jail Hillary for nonsensical, and pardon the pun, trumped up reasons). I am not afraid of policy positions from Trump. I am afraid of lasting damage to America's alliances around the globe. I am afraid of a half-cocked fool actually deploying nuclear weapons. I am afraid of an absentee presidency in domestic affairs and in combating global climate change (even more than currently).

President Donald J. Trump = the end. (and not just of America)

[backscatter712]

58. Hillary needs to bring the Bernie-independents into the fold.

So yes, she needs to pick Elizabeth Warren.

If Warren's the running mate, Hillary will have this race locked up!

[NCTraveler]

59. The base seems pretty solid. That's without a VP.

It will be no different after her pick. Clinton is the big show. To claim only one person is the best pick is extremely shortsighted.

[Sheepshank]

66. It would appear that this political interpretation lacks depth

and is way too linear.

[Mike Nelson]

67. If I were Hillary...

...I would pick someone to lock up a state/region or help with the negatives. I like excitement too, and Warren is the most exciting of anyone she's considering. Looks like a win, either way!

[UMTerp01]

79. Nope...can't say I agree with your thoughts on this one

I don't think this would "lock up the race" for Hillary.

[backscatter712]

80. Also, we could be screwed if Hillary picks DLC/Third Way darling Tim Kaine...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tim-kaine-clinton-vp_us_578fc8e3e4b0bdddc4d2c86c

Tim Kaine Calls To Deregulate Banks As He Campaigns To Be Clinton’s VP

WASHINGTON ― Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) is on Hillary Clinton’s short list of potential vice presidential nominees. He’s also actively pushing bank deregulation this week as he campaigns for the job.

Kaine signed two letters on Monday urging federal regulators to go easy on banks ― one to help big banks dodge risk management rules, and another to help small banks avoid consumer protection standards.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is believed to be weighing Kaine among a handful of other potential VP choices. Her pick is widely viewed in Washington as a sign of her governing intentions. The former secretary of state has spent weeks attempting to woo progressive supporters of vanquished primary challenger Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Choosing from one of the handful of names on her short list ― Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) or Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), for instance ― would signal that her camp is taking progressive concerns seriously.

Kaine, by contrast, is setting himself up as a figure willing to do battle with the progressive wing of the party. He has championed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that both Sanders and Warren oppose, and he is now publicly siding with bank deregulation advocates at the height of Clinton’s veepstakes.

Picking a Conservadem like Kaine would be an enthusiasm killer as bad as Gore picking Joe Lieberman back in 2000. Would pretty much ensure that the independents who were supporting Bernie won't show up for Hillary in November. And few of the right-leaning independents would jump on the Hillary campaign either - the mood in the country is almost entirely against job-killing trade deals like TPP.

[Don Draper]

81. If she picks Tim Kaine

excitement & enthusiasm will grid to a snails pace. Kaine brings nothing to the ticket just like mike pence brought nothing to trump's ticket.

If she picks a corporatist, it will be interpreted as a big middle finger to the Bernie supporters who will most likely go third party if this is the case.

[Person 2713]

82. Many will reject the Monsanto pro pink slime meat big AG has nothing to do climate change guy

I could not accept that but maybe others who prefer it will vote and make up for those who just can't so I guess Clinton knows what is and who is important for votes
I think stating not excited is the least damaging of reactions that will occur among some current supporters but maybe not enough for her campaign to care.

[oberliner]

84. Definitely not true

Completely wrong-headed analysis.

[Shankapotomus]

86. An African American woman VP pick would be a double whammy

Trump would be blind-sided.

It would produce a similar tsunami that got Obama elected.