OK, there is a plan a foot make Elizabeth Warren Vice President and minimize the damage of Baker appointed GOP Senator.
Now, count me as one leery of a slam dunk Democratic win in a US Senate Special Election. Been there, did not do that.
But I’m sure the story created a few conversations today among our delegation of Congressional Critters, about the possibility of running for a once in a decade opportunity, which of course sets off another set of conversations among State Reps, State Senators and local mayors about getting a second address in DC.
Now most of the focus will be on the young stars of the Democratic Party to make a run: Congressional Critters Kennedy, Clark and Moulton and AG Healy, some of the old-guard may want to join Ed Markey in the Senate. After all, Capuano and Lynch have made a run for the office already.
Actually that is a hell of a bench and any of them squaring off in a “no lose” special election would be exciting and would make a hell of a nominee.
. . .that when someone says they’re voting for Jill Stein, or Ralph Nader or whomever, people get all “You’re wasting your vote.”? The idea of making Warren Vice President wastes every vote that has been cast for any progressive candidate for the past five years.
Quick, what’s the most significant thing that the current Vice President did last week, or last month or last year? Becoming Vice President is not a step up for an effective Senator. It’s oblivion.
An open Senate seat in Massachusetts would be Charlie Baker’s for the asking. And when Baker leaves the State House, Karen Polito becomes acting Governor.
If all the Bernie bro’s picked up their chairs at the same time and threw them, they couldn’t cause as much damage to progressive causes as this one hare-brained scheme.
Sometimes running mates are chosen to shore up the base, which this would clearly be an example of. VP Biden has been tasked with fighting cancer (just to respond to your challenge to name something he has done). I can think of worse things than a couple months with a GOP Senator, especially if that person doesn’t run in the special as has been the recent tradition.
I think I’d almost rather have Donald Trump in the Oval Office and Elizabeth Warren in the Senate than see Ms. Warren as VP to a President Clinton.
I abhor the idea of Elizabeth Warren running as Vice President. I can think of longish list of negatives and not even one positive.
….I’d say that settles it. End of debate.
Anyone who prefers President Trump in any scenario has entered the Susan Sarandon Twilight Zone.
Please read the first six words of my comment (emphasis now):
Of course I don’t prefer Donald Trump.
My point is that I view taking Elizabeth Warren out of the Senate (especially while we have a Republican governor) is among the worst ideas that I’ve seen floated in this primary season — and that is a high bar indeed.
I don’t think it would be as disastrous as you make it out to be, but it does seem like it would be a waste to make her VP unless you somehow thought she was going to run for President some day.
I would much rather see someone young enough to be a future President. I personally favor Xavier Becerra.
Maybe Reid is trying to send a signal that Warren is NOT going to be Sander’s VP.
…but if she can be a strong VP and goto person on things in her wheelhouse (Think Dick Cheney, obviously just for the model and not the substance.) that could be a huge help to Clinton.
Or, do you really believe that chairs were thrown at the Nevada Convention?
of course. I was trying to show that the damage that would ensue from this scheme would be bad. In fact, worse than even the hypothetically worst thing that disaffected voters would be accused of doing by even their worst and most disingenuous enemies. Hypothetical enemies, that is, not real ones. The synchronized chair throwers are totally hypothetical, especially now that the 2024 Olympics aren’t coming here. And the accusations are hypothetical. I didn’t see nobody throw nuthin’. I didn’t hear nobody say nothin’ accusatory about nobody. Really.
“I didn’t see nobody throw nuthin’. I didn’t hear nobody say nothin’ accusatory about nobody. Really.”
imagine sarcasm sometimes may work for you…
You didn’t know that it was completely debunked, and your response to being notified of this is to decide to stretch this tale to be even taller.
Source: “Fact-Checking NPR’s Reports On Vegas ‘Violence'”, http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2016/05/18/478579787/fact-checking-nprs-reports-on-vegas-violence
Source: “Allegations of fraud and misconduct at Nevada Democratic convention unfounded”, http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/
Source: “The Chair Thrown ‘Round the World”, http://www.snopes.com/did-sanders-supporters-throw-chairs-at-nevada-democratic-convention/
. . . disabuse yourself of the notion that you have “notified” me of anything. I knew perfectly well that the Sanders supporter only picked up and brandished a chair when I made my original comment.
As for stretching a tall tale, take that up with the person who claimed that the chair was thrown around the world.
Let me try again. My original comment was that the hypothetical choice of Elizabeth Warren as Veep would be a bad idea. How bad? Worse than “wasting” one’s vote on Jill Stein or Ralph Nader. Worse than anything protest voters have actually done. Worse than almost anything you can imagine them doing. “Throwing chairs in unison” is a hypothetical example of something imaginary that would still cause relatively less damage to the progressive cause.
Do you understand “hypothetical”? Do you understand the meaning of “imaginary”? How about “if”? Can you comprehend “if”?
Nobody reading any of my comments would have any reason to think that there are Sanders supporters who are both obtuse and truculent, primarily interested in picking fights over imaginary grievances. Can you make the same claim about your comments?
I understand when sarcasm is so incredibly poorly delivered that it exposes that the writer has no idea which point he is intending to make or if he’s simply attempting to be humorous (and at that too, failing):
There’s a long history of Democrats panicking and turning to some version of nth dimensional chess to assuage their panic: if they can just find the right pieces and put them in the right order, in the right time, they can map out electoral victory. They believe this because, by and large, the entire country is liberal-leaning and, absent the sturm und drang of Republican calumny and legerdemain, most elections would likely be closer to a landslide victory.
I don’t think the fevered dreams of EW as VP are anything more than the latest manifestation of this. The view of Hillary Clinton as flawed candidate (as much as it relies upon the aforementioned sturm and drang to ‘reveal’ the flaws) is beginning to scare people and they are searching for the aforementioned ‘slam dunk’ to reset the score. This is unlikely to eventuate: a ‘slam dunk’ is an emotional moment that, in the end, is worth no more points (2) than the work-a-day layup is.
I think EW herself has learned, and would tell us, that hard work and ground game are worth more than any amount of machinations. How about we try that?
if this is Harry Reid trying to appease the people pissed off by his people’s handling of the Nevada Convention. He runs Nevada’s Democratic Party. The “establishment” Dems also want to show themselves as open to the progressivism of the Sanders insurgency.
I could be wrong, but it’s an easy way to score a few intra-party political points.
wanting to once again reiterate he does not want Clinton’s VP to damage the chanced of a senate majority and I have to agree with him. On top of that the idea of sidelining Warren by sticking her in a useless job for four to eight years makes my eyes bleed.
I’m not a fan of the Castro idea either. If she is willing to go the no name route you can count me among the people hoping for Tom Perez.
Two white women from the northeast? Really? I can’t imagine there is anyone who really thinks that ticket adds something. You’d gain more votes with an Hispanic (or Asian-American) on the ticket…and for every disaffected liberal a Warren pick gains, you’re going to lose a couple swing state good ‘ol boys. I have little use for Castro…what about Mark Udall or Ken Salazar?
Such a ticket makes no kind of sense, and I can’t imagine Reid or anyone else is serious about it.
…then I changed my mind. Why?
The key to this election will be white women, and more specifically moderate to slightly conservative, suburban white women. If that’s your target audience, it can’t hurt to have two women on the ticket.
you don’t wan Senator Warren, you want Senator Collins (ME).
I don’t know what the “key” to this election will be. Hispanics? White women? Retired men? It could be Reagan Democrats or Rockefeller Republicans. I think that the target audience is the entire electorate. And I maintain that any vote you gain by adding Warren to Clinton will be more than offset than what you lose. That doesn’t even get into turnout…how many more Hispanic voters could come out with “one of their own” for VP?
If ticket balance is what wins, then how did two white males win for centuries?
Far more people withhold a vote from a two white women ticket than a two white male ticket. It’s kinda that whole sexism thing…
Her general election campaign finally began on Monday with a full throated defense of this administration and excoriation of the last main party opponent standing. It has signaled that she will likely choose an experienced person ready to take over if the unthinkable happens to contrast with the wild and crazy reality show on the other side.
My wildcard remains Bob Gates, though I could see John Kerry, Leon Panetta, Jeh Johnson, Ken Salazar, Jack Reed, Bill Nelson, Tim Kaine, Chris Murphy, Chris Coons, Loretta Sanchez, Adam Smith or Jeane Shaheen getting the nod. All are either active or former cabinet members or national security leaders in Congress unlikely to have presidential ambitions.
She will double down on experience and make this entire campaign a macrocosm of the Daisy Ad. It’s her best way to win the general, though she should make Elizabeth Warren the keynote and give her the reins of the DNC after the election while letting Bernie delegates rewrite some domestic platforms. She needs Bernie’s manpower but she needs moderate Republican money and media to come around.
Al Gore was widely seen as Bill’s political clone.
I’m expecting a Mountain West hispanic male. Him or Udall.
In my view, this non-starter reflects an uncalled for defensiveness about Ms. Clinton.
Ms. Clinton is a fine candidate, and she is particularly strong in comparison to Mr. Trump. I understand that it’s popular to bash her, especially for things that are demonstrably false or badly distorted. I suggest that the number of voters who pay attention to such hostility who would be swayed by nomination of Ms. Warren is vanishingly small.
People who don’t like Hillary Clinton are NOT going to vote for her because of her choice of a running mate.
…is getting people whom jconway is concerned about staying home off their duffs to turn out to vote.
I honestly think if Clinton can hold a high profile meeting with Sanders and make key concessions on three or more issues important that would send a strong signal to his supporters that she cares. Warren clearly can be an attack dog, but she can do that and raise money across the country for progressive candidates as a DNC chair while also sponsor and passing important legislation as a Senator.
She can’t do the latter as Vice President, and that to me remains the single biggest reason to root against this. That said, nobody else comes close for the ‘excitement’ factor. Like with with much of this primary, I am torn between respecting what it takes to govern and what actually makes for good campaign copy.
…which she may or may not adhere to, though nominees usually are very influential. For example, if I were a Hillary delegate I would still vote to put a $15 wage and single-payer into the platform which are Bernie’s positions, but she’d probably sign if ever hit her desk, so it’s not even that painful a “concession”.
And I’ve been saying that’s the easiest one she should be making right off the bat, others would be strengthening the ability of the government to regulate against too big to fail and prosecute the offenders, and a third would be a commitment to a public option added to ACA. Can’t undo the architecture of that policy to inplement single payer, but we can add that as a new component.
Reform the DNC, get Clinton to promise a committee progressive, and get Debbie to step down. Not a huge concession in reality though symbolically important to this bloc of voters. This could be an interesting night thread for a more committed Bernie supported to write up.
Top 5 or Top 10 concessions.