CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW …
WASHINGTON — Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) believes Elizabeth Warren should be the running mate of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to four Senate sources familiar with Reid’s thinking.
Reid had initially been skeptical of the chatter around Warren, publicly warning that Democrats couldn’t afford to lose the seat the Massachusetts senator currently occupies. But The Boston Globe reported last week that he tasked attorney Marc Elias with studying how manageable the loss would be. Elias is, not coincidentally, the general counsel for Clinton’s campaign.
As Reid has examined the issue in recent weeks, he has grown confident the Democrats could hold onto Warren’s Senate seat and retake the upper chamber, according to sources. He also believes they could even put the House in play for Democrats, the sources said.
This is not really news at this point, but I feel like we’re still a little bit in denial about this possibility. We might well wish that she’d stay in the Senate. She might prefer that too. Would she have an actual portfolio as VP? How would that work? Would she have actual power? A million questions.
But I have to say … for the Hillary ticket, it would be political dynamite. She’s anti-establishment in all the right ways, signalling and consolidating Hillary’s pivot away from corporate coziness; can probably bring back more than a few Bernie voters into the fold; populist and liberal-as-hell in a way that appeals across class and culture; fiery, fits the attack-dog role of VP; Massachusetts and Oklahoma; two tough women vs. Trump …
… on and on. It just seems so right — politically.
But Warren doesn’t need the gig. So what price would she extract from Hillary? Delightful to ponder. I like where this is going.
sco says
But please don’t take our Senior Senator away.
I know that the Vice Presidency has evolved since our own John Adams described it as “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived,” but she can do much more good in the Senate than being VP. To paraphrase another Massachusetts Senator, Daniel Webster, please do not bury her until after she is dead.
Charley on the MTA says
I’m saying, we may not like it, but this could happen.
I’m less concerned with what MA will do, and more concerned (as you are) with what she could do as VP. Biden seems like a pretty influential advisor to Obama. The question is whether EW would have that kind of pull — but with even more visibility.
SomervilleTom says
I think that’s my point.
Joe Biden was arguably the most influential VP we’ve had in decades — and as nearly as I can tell, had essentially ZERO influence on policy.
In my view, Elizabeth Warren is far more effective right where she is than she can ever be as VP.
As I’ve written before, I view the motivation for this as unfounded insecurity driven primarily by the prevalence of CDS (“Clinton Derangement Syndrome”) among Democrats.
I think this is a bad idea that we should stop in its tracks.
centralmassdad says
If there is a very public, very visible, very ardent pursuit of Sen. Warren (which she charmingly refuses) maybe that functions as an overture to the policy-oriented Bernie supporters?
SomervilleTom says
I agree.
I hope that she does, however, refuse the request (charmingly or otherwise).
centralmassdad says
that no one takes advice from Harry Reid on this stuff. Sheesh.
JimC says
It’s just cover for the real search, or chatter to appease us, or something. I think SomervilleTom has a better chance of being on HRC’s ticket than Elizabeth Warren does.
I do think HRC would and should consider a woman on the ticket, but the perceived-as-moderate Kirsten Gillibbrand would be a more logical choice.
Besides, this campaign needs more candidates from New York …
marcus-graly says
They’d be ineligible to receive those 29 electoral votes. Maybe someone like Klobuchar, from Minnesota.
jconway says
Maybe in 2024. It’s constitutionally impossible for her to be on this ticket. The “we can’t have two women” rule is outdated and overly cautious. It’s not like the folks who would be uncomfortable with that are voting for Democrats or big fans of Hillary to begin with.
I think every candidate should be evaluated on their qualifications to be President if the unthinkable happens (something Team McCain didn’t do), their ability to govern as a decidedly junior partner (something Al Gore eventually outgrew), and their merits as a campaigner, debater and ticket mate (the anti-Lieberman).
hoyapaul says
The Constitution (12th Amendment) does not prohibit two people from the same state from running together, only that electors cannot vote for two people from their own state. So it would only affect the NY electors, though there are 29 of them.
It would be interesting if there was some public polling on how the public would react to two women on the same ticket. I suspect that you’re correct that those who would not be comfortable with that would not be voting for Clinton anyway.
Bob Neer says
Clinton doesn’t need to move to the left, either politically or cosmetically, to beat Trump. Politically, she is well positioned as she is. She just beat Bernie Sanders, after all, and the general election will be more right-leaning than the Democratic primary. But even more important is the optics: two women will be too much of a good thing for many voters. Just like Obama chose a competent, experienced, safe choice who physically looked presidential in the minds of millions — which helped to calm many people down about the first African American president — so Clinton should choose someone safe, centrist and male to maximize her chance of defeating Trump. Warren would increase the risk. Of course, I also agree with everyone else about the benefits to Massachusetts of keeping our star Senator — unless, heaven forbid, something happens to Clinton, in which case Warren would be a fantastic president in MHO.
centralmassdad says
They have a bit of a dilemma. It seems to me that there are at least three groups of Bernie supporters: (i) the Dems who will vote Dem in November come what may; (ii) the people who supported Bernie, are disappointed, but might be persuaded to stay in the tent; and (iii) the HRC is evil Goldman Sachs Vince Foster neoliberal Wall Street imperialist transcript AGHHH people.
After you write off group (iii) you can court Group (ii), which requires campiagning from the left, and hope to win a close election with essentially a slightly more liberal Obama coalition. Or, you can stay centrist per the usual pivot, and have the chance of a REALLY Reagan in ’84 style win, especially if Trump does something horrible late.
SomervilleTom says
I think your group (i) is the only one that matters, and I think it is more than counter-balanced by its analog on the GOP side.
I think the easiest path to the needed 270 Electoral College votes is to sway voters who usually vote GOP. I suspect there are many more of them than there are in your group ii, and I suspect they’ll be easier to change.
I don’t see Ms. Warren as helping anything except perhaps some group ii voters.
It seems to me that Bernie Sanders has already made his mark. His opportunity is, to me, to keep his agenda alive in the face of political winds that will be blowing against progressives.
I think we need to show those lean-GOP voters that a progressive Democratic agenda helps them and us. I think Ms. Warren can do that more effectively right where she is than if she is just another VP candidate.
SomervilleTom says
n/m
hoyapaul says
I just don’t think it’s necessary. In fact, I would worried if Clinton picked her, because that would demonstrate that she really is concerned about getting most Sanders voters on board. That would be the main reason for picking her. Otherwise, she presents some risks: is having two women on the ticket “too risky” for the current American public? Would she overshadow Hillary due to greater natural charisma? Would her winning as VP contribute to Democrats (at least temporarily) losing control of the Senate?
I think it’s more likely that the temperamentally cautious Clinton picks a safe Veep choice, much like the temperamentally cautious Obama did. There’s a rather conventional but blatantly obvious pick available: Sen. Tim Kaine from Virginia. He’s knowledgeable and a loyal Dem, has ample experience, comes from a swing state, and speaks fluent Spanish. He’s perhaps a boring choice, but that can be a plus in VP selection if you’re looking to present an aura of stability (as opposed to the unstable ticket of Trump and whoever actually agrees to join that crazy train). Plus, it wouldn’t hurt to subtly accentuate the point about positive changing gender roles by having a white male answerable to a female boss.
David says
I really hate that idea, though I concede it’s possible. Still going with Julian Castro.
jconway says
I’m still smarting on missing out by an inch on the Iowa Caucuses
merrimackguy says
It’s the best strategic move. He’ll then be the candidate in 2024.
hoyapaul says
Why do you hate it? I’m somewhat surprised only because Tim Kaine seems to generate few strong feelings either way, either for or against him.
Christopher says
…the reasons for not picking Warren, frankly I have a hard time mustering the slightest excitement for anyone else who has been mentioned.
Also, IMO the absolute worst reason for not picking Warren is any concern about two women. I’m pretty sure all but two major party tickets, and absolutely all the successful ones, have been same-gender pairings:)
SomervilleTom says
You and me are already going to vote for Ms. Clinton, and Ms. Clinton is already going to win Massachusetts in a landslide.
To the extent that the VP choice matters, I think it matters more that Ms. Clinton’s pick move as many undecided or swing voters as possible, especially in states that are more purple than Massachusetts. I have a hard time believing that ANY voter who likes Ms. Warren will not already vote for Ms. Clinton, or that any voter who likes Ms. Warren would EVER vote for Mr. Trump. So I don’t see how putting Ms. Warren on the ticket gains any votes at all.
On the other hand, I think there is a fairly large number of voters who despise Donald Trump and welcome an alternative. I think a VP candidate who is perceived as moderate, thoughtful, and responsible might help sway voters in that group.
There are some people who will not vote for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I don’t think ANY choice for VP will change their minds.
sabutai says
We aren’t the target market for this pick.
SomervilleTom says
We are not the droids they seek
“The force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.”
Christopher says
…Warren could help in turning out what should be our base, but aren’t excited by Clinton. Of course I will vote for the ticket regardless.