There’s been a great deal of breathless speculation following the meeting between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, much of it centered on the (entirely hypothetical so far) possibility of Biden’s jumping into the race for president and announcing that Warren would be his running mate. It would make a huge amount of sense from Biden’s perspective: announcing a ticket from the get-go is a bold, attention-getting move that would not only propel Biden into a tight race for the Democratic nomination, but would also create a powerful, double-barreled campaign machine with Biden and Warren able to make twice as many campaign appearances as any other candidate. And Warren’s presence on the ticket would of course neutralize a good deal of Bernie Sanders’ appeal, and would shore up Biden’s appeal to the left.
What I don’t see – at all, really – is why Warren would do it.
Let’s start with the obvious: Warren could have run for president this year. A lot of people wanted her to. And she had a good chance of winning. Yet she absolutely, vigorously, and repeatedly declined, until finally the press believed her and stopped bugging her about it. So … if she actually did want to be president, wouldn’t she have, you know, run for president?
Second, let’s assume that she actually does want to be president, but didn’t want to take on Hillary Clinton, or didn’t think she had enough foreign policy gravitas yet, or whatever. Becoming Biden’s VP could resolve those problems, but only if (a) Biden wins the nomination; (b) Biden wins the presidency; (c) a President Biden serves only one term (if he were to serve two, Warren would be 74 when she finally got her chance); and (d) Biden’s presidency is reasonably successful. None of those is even close to a sure thing (let us all bear in mind Biden’s uncanny ability to say incredibly stupid things at the worst possible time). The only saving grace for Warren is that she doesn’t have to give up her Senate seat to run with Biden this year. But assuming that Biden loses, I really question whether Warren, whose national profile is enormously high already and is still on the upswing, would gain much profile from a national campaign as second banana (I think, in fact, that she might return to the Senate weaker than she is now); and if he wins, she’s consigned to at least four years of basically not being able to influence policy as much as she can now.
Third, she’s in a great spot right now. She’s probably the most popular Senator in the country, and she’s got the job for as long as she wants it. She is shaping the national debate. She will be less effective in doing that as a candidate for, or as the actual, VP.
Fourth, as today’s Globe points out, Joe Biden’s record as an advocate for the people to whom Elizabeth Warren has devoted her career is not actually all that awesome. The bankruptcy bill is the best, most public example of Warren and Biden vigorously disagreeing, with Warren calling out Biden by name as a problem in the New York Times. Biden’s crime bill, too, had some pretty disastrous effects. As a Senator, Biden’s record was really only OK, and we should all try to keep that in mind as speculation of his jumping into the race continues to swirl.
Fifth, the VP candidate traditionally plays the role of attack dog. Perhaps Warren would decline that role. But to the extent that she couldn’t, does she really want to be in the position of going after the first serious female candidate for president, and the sitting Senator whose economic views are probably closest to her own?
Personally, I think Warren would be much better off staying right where she is. I see little upside for her to sign on with Biden, and a lot of downside. She’s in a fantastic position right now. I hope she stays there.
thegreenmiles says
Biden is famous and says odd things, therefore he’s a great candidate (even though he’s been running for president for 30 years & only polls at 11%)! Warren is apparently someone Democrats like for reasons that I’ve never cared enough to look into, therefore I’ll slot her into VP (even though she doesn’t want to be president, so why would she want to be JV president)!
jconway says
And there is a great Think Progress piece another BMGer shared on her facebook that shows why Warren is FAR more influential in the Senate than as a candidate. It’s a press that finds itself bored with the summer campaign on the Democratic side, and wants to add Biden as it’s Trump card to our field.
Christopher says
Sen. Warren has, I believe, met with other candidates too.
methuenprogressive says
Which probably made O’Malley cry.
Trickle up says
Namely, why on earth would Progressives want to swap Senator Elizabeth Warren for Warren the VP?
Let the wisdom of John Nance Garner (he of warm buckets of stuff) guide you:
Christopher says
…if he had stuck around as VP he would have become President in 1945.
marcus-graly says
Clearly that went real well for him.
I think the more interesting case is Wallace who was specifically denied the VP nod in 1944 because of Roosevelt’s ill health. He was considered too much of a Leftie, even though Roosevelt had picked him in 1940.
Christopher says
…including notably the court-packing scheme. Wikipedia indicates he got into the 1940 race before FDR committed publicly to running himself on the assumption that FDR would stick to the two-term precedent, but stayed in anyway and garnered just 61 votes at convention.
methuenprogressive says
Top Dems meet during the primary season, nothing new.
hesterprynne says
there’s the leading role Joe Biden played in 1991 to make sure Anita Hill did not get in the way of the confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court:
More here.
Christopher says
…IS the ethical thing to do IMO, even outside the context of a criminal trial.
hesterprynne says
that any nominee for the Supreme Court should be regarded by the Senate as presumptively qualified.
But setting that aside, shouldn’t Senator Biden have at least called the “three women who were ready and waiting and subpoenaed to be giving testimony about similar behavior that they had experienced or witnessed” instead of cutting the hearing short to avoid having to hear what they would have said?
David says
I agree 100% with hester on this. It is the job of a Supreme Court (or any other) nominee to prove their qualifications and suitability for the job. No presumption should exist in their favor.
Christopher says
…but yes, for the record, when a President sends the Senate a nominee for an office I do also start with the presumption that the President is sending a reasonably qualified person for the given office. In this case when Anita Hill came forward to accuse misconduct I absolutely think it is appropriate to allow Thomas the benefit of the doubt. Besides, even if we assume Hill’s allegations were true (and I never developed a strong opinion on that either way), I’m not sure rudeness is a disqualifier. (At least, what I recall is something about comments about pubic hair on a Coke can rather than sexual assault, in which case it would be a different story.) If it were I think we would all find ourselves in a “he who is without sin should cast the first stone” situation.
doubleman says
She wasn’t accusing him of rudeness. She was accusing him of regular and sustained sexual harassment. Do you not believe that is a disqualifier?
David says
Cabinet appointments are one thing. Judicial appointments are quite different IMHO – no presumptions there. And doubleman is exactly right: this wasn’t about “rudeness.”
judy-meredith says
More than bad behavior actually ..evidence of a serious character flaw.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
The announcement that Biden might be interested in being a single term president, the hint that Warren was offered to be VP – all bubbly soap.
Even if Warren is not interested, Biden stands to gain from making the proposal.
Other pols than Warren would have refused to meet in person with Clinton or with Biden, to maintain the appearance of being independent. That’s why the cell phone was invented – for pols who want to avoid face to face meets.
But Warren, obviously, is not concerned by the appearance of her two meets – is not paying attention to minor details such as these – or is simply enjoying being trundled in front of supporters as a potential VP pick.
David says
the fact that potential presidential nominees are seeking her out? That only increases her influence.
jconway says
Joe Biden has been probably the most loyal friend and ally President Obama has had in Washington. Bar None. He has fought for the middle class his entire career, been a leader on foreign policy, and a staunch friend of labor. He voted the wrong way on the bankruptcy bill for the same reason Elizabeth Warren voted the wrong way on the medical device tax-it’s an important industry to his state. I disagree with both votes and would have voted differently myself, but I can respect that they were looking out for jobs in their state when they made those votes.
The Crime Bill had a lot of support from other liberals at the time, including John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Paul Wellstone. It was signed by President Clinton and enthusiastically backed by Hillary Clinton on the stump. Democrats at the time felt they had to atone for the ‘soft on crime’ image that dinged Dukakis in 88′, but now policymakers and the general public recognize that the war on drugs, mandatory minimums, 3 strikes, and the exploding prison populations are bad legacies of these flawed policies and are eager to reform them. I suspect our nominee will pledge to make those reforms, which are even gaining traction with conservative Republicans.
On the Anita Hill question I honestly don’t know enough about the specifics to comment, I will say that without Joe Biden’s leadership Robert Bork would have been on the court instead of the author of Obergefell decision nationalizing gay marriage. While Biden has expressed some regret about his role in the whole thing, I can fully understand why Anita Hill and her supporters feel that justice deferred is justice denied and the hearing was unfair, Biden deserves criticism for that, but it was a question of poor political calculations not poor character.
I listen to his DNC audio and he honestly sounds like a man whose family is still deep in grief and desperate for peace, I doubt he will run for President. He doesn’t need to run for President to gain this Democrats respect and admiration. He has already earned it in spades.
David says
I don’t think it’s really fair to compare the bankruptcy bill to the medical device tax. Maybe Warren voted the wrong way on the latter and maybe she didn’t; in either case, it’s a pretty trivial piece of legislation that is not going to make or break Obamacare. The bankruptcy bill, in contrast, hurt a lot of people badly, and continues to do so, with no societal upside whatsoever. (Jobs at MBNA? Please.)
As for Bork … maybe, maybe not. What’s clear to me is that without Ted Kennedy’s role, Bork would probably have been confirmed. Frankly, I’d say that Kennedy, not Biden, was the sine qua non there. Biden, after all, had initially expressed approval of a possible Justice Bork, and one of Biden’s aides at the time urges that Biden was the very model of restraint and even-handedness during the hearings.
I do agree that Biden has been a very good VP, and also that he seems unlikely to run.
jconway says
My old boss refused to vote for Obama because he picked Biden for his VP. Kept calling him ‘that rat bastard Senator from MNBA’, and he highly recommended Warren’s book to new attorneys to understand how bankruptcy worked. So I can conceded that point was a bit of a stretch, I would say you would be hard pressed to find any Delaware political figure voting the right way on financial reform issues, unfortunately.
I will disagree a bit on Bork. Kennedy’s role was incredibly important and essential, but entirely predictable. For an even handed guy like Biden to come out strongly against Bork after the confirmation hearings began and after he had established a record of fairness brought a lot of moderates against him. Specter, Warner, and Sam Nunn to name a few. Not sure those names would’ve automatically followed Ted Kennedy, but I will differ to your experience on this and the Hill case. I think we can agree Biden did the right thing eventually with Bork that he failed to do with Thomas. And agree that he has been a great VP and is unlikely to be a difference maker in this campaign, as much as many of us love him, he is ultimately our second or third choice. Just like in 2008.