“Our Betters” are rushing to tell us that Hillary Clinton had better not pick Elizabeth Warren for VP or they’ll cut her off. Well, so what? It’s not going to cripple the campaign the way “Our Betters” and even some of us normal folks seem to think it will.
Hillary Clinton won the second most expensive Senate race in history. Clearly she knows how to fundraise. But you know who won the most expensive Senate race in history? Elizabeth Warren. And I for one am willing to donate more to the campaign if she’s the nominee than I would otherwise, so as long as enough of us think alike, they’d be fine without the billionaires.
So perhaps each of them should do what they want, and not worry about if the Wall Street cash disappears. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, fat cats.
“Wall Street” (which, to be fair, does not think collectively) is sometimes painfully unaware of its own inflated sense of self-worth. To even pretend to dictate this — it’s amazing.
Also, as many of us have noted, Senator Warren is an unlikely choice for VP.
Arrogant AND out of touch. Bad combo.
Show your juice by “coercing” the candidate into NOT doing something that she already wasn’t going to do because it is a bad idea? Thus provoking a new round of asshattery from the Sanders people when she doesn’t do something that’s a bad idea?
You’re giving them too much credit there.
Wall Street far prefers “Vice President Warren” to “Senator Warren”.
This non-story strikes me as an example of “Please don’t throw me into the briar patch“.
I thought about your argument before deciding if I’d support a Warren Vice Presidency.
Out of 47 Vice Presidents, 14 have become President–.
By comparison, 16 Senators have become President, out of 1963.
So while the Vice Presidency is a weak office, the threat of the VP becoming President is very real.
Forgot to add: If I were a hedge fund manager, that’s what I’d be scared of. Especially in the present climate where all Senators are pretty powerless. The only way anything gets done now is through executive action, so the White House janitor is more powerful than a Senator, if the goal is to get anything done.
I think the ability of the executive branch to significantly affect Wall Street — in the absence of legislation — is limited indeed.
…unless something happens to Clinton. I still think that tapping Warren will send a powerful message to both allies and critics that Clinton is serious on the issues dear to Warren. I’m not in a position to give myself, but I’m definitely with the diarist in spirit on this one.
How many of those 14 Vice Presidents were 67 when taking office? I note that ten of the fourteen took office after the death or resignation of the President. I certainly hope we’re not contemplating the death or resignation of Ms. Clinton.
That leaves just FOUR men who were elected in their own right (age at election is included)
1. John Adams (61)
2. Thomas Jefferson (54)
3. Martin Van Buren (54)
4. Richard Nixon (55)
Ms. Warren, at 67, is significantly older than any of the above. I also note that only 3 Senators have moved directly from the Senate to the White House.
Wall Street regulation is done by legislation. Presidents don’t legislate. Wall Street and Executive Branch abuses are exposed by hearings. Presidents don’t ask questions at hearings.
I think Ms. Warren has more influence over Wall Street right where she is than she would have as president (I think that’s part of why she declined to run), and far more influence than she would have as VP.
I think Wall Street would like Ms. Warren to be anywhere but where she is.
He was a svelte 64.
n/m
The alternative for Wall Street is someone who will slap a .$35 on the dollar surcharge on every good, on top of another $.25 on the dollar sales tax via a “fair tax” and banning all immigration from Mexico and the Middle East. Voting for Trump is dumber than voting for Brexit at this point if you are a wealthy person with global interests.
She has the Bernie Bros and Wall Street by the balls because of Trump, who is polling worse than Mondale now and has less cash on hand than Marty Meehan, let alone an actual candidate for Congress. My gut tells me she picks a major foreign policy figure with a lot of security experience that she gets along with and trusts to govern if she died. My dark horse is still Bob Gates, though Perez, Johnson, Murphy, Coons, Adam Smith, and Loretta Sanchez shouldn’t be overlooked either.
“Bernie Bros”….can we stop using that term?
“Bernie Bros” is the worst slander I’ve heard in years, and it has done real damage to the bridge needed to unify the party.
Why so bad? It’s like a preemptive insult. “Don’t support Hillary? It must be because you’re a MAN!” Awful.
I share your dislike for the phrase “Bernie Bros”, and don’t use it.
At the same time, we heard a WHOLE LOT during the primary season about “angry white men”, and about an alleged “conspiracy” of the Democratic Party in general and Hillary Clinton in particular to disenfranchise white men. The polls and media hoopla repeated over and over that white males were a key demographic for Mr. Sanders. There were MANY MANY comments here on BMG complaining about the “lack of outreach” to this demographic by the party and by Ms. Clinton.
I think it’s a bit dicey for us to spend so much time and so many words talking about white men during a primary campaign — white men who supported a white male candidate running against a woman — and then complain when all that talk is condensed into a term like “Bernie Bros”.
I did not hear any. Look, it was plain to see that the media was behind Clinton. It’s over. She won as did the corporate media that supported her. If the Clinton campaign wants to hold onto the Sanders voters and maybe get some of that enthusiasm injected into her less than vibrant campaign, it’s time to move on, eh. And yes, there is a lack of outreach to “white men” in her campaign, with Democrats in general and in the Massachusetts Democratic Party specifically there is NO outreach at all.
You alone submitted a large number of comments focused on white males and alleging that the Democratic Party and Ms. Clinton was not reaching out to and had done nothing for that demographic. Perhaps you didn’t hear because you weren’t listening.
You characterize her campaign as “less than vibrant” — I think she’s doing fine. You are not enthusiastic — I am. I see enthusiasm for Ms. Clinton pretty much everywhere except among a certain subset of supporters of Bernie Sanders.
I agree with jimc that we should avoid attaching insulting names to that subset. The subset nevertheless seems to exist and be well-defined, whatever we call it.
I did not hear this a lot elsewhere. And I stand by my statement that there is no outreach for this demographic and the reality that this demographic has done miserably for over 40 years.
You think she’s doing fine. Well sure. But where is the groundswell of support? I see a lot of Trump lawn signs around my area and plenty of Trump bumper stickers on pickup trucks, but not much at all for “Hillary”.
The subset of “Bernie Bros” never existed. It was a fabrication of the Clinton campaign. It’s pure Clinton style.
…johntmay is correct about the lack of competent outreach to working class voters (of both genders), which is unfortunate, because there is underutilized potential for Democratic candidates.
As is noted here and here, it is a cohort that is largely open to a culturally literate field operation.
Alas, modern progressives aren’t generally known for culturally literate grassroots field…
I was a Sanders supporter and use it as a generic term for his supporters since its alliterative and refers to the college age portion of his supporters, not to mention most of the “Never Hillary” brigade on Twitter and Facebook happen to be white males (as our most posters here-that’s the Internet for you). But I’ll stop using it if it’s viewed as realitigating a completed election race.
“We’re really that sensitive?” is the same technique. In order to find fault with the phrase, i have to concede that there’s something wrong with me.
Call it hippie punching if you like, the message is the same. “Oh, you are not US. We are the real Democrats. You are flawed.”
I associate this tactic with Republicans.
… is from an unidentified source. Not a single name in the whole article. I think Politico made this one up.
Unconditionaly. And they will accept it. And then regulate the s**t out of them. And they will survive to earn just a little bit less.