Elizabeth Warren is being vetted to serve as Hillary Clinton’s running mate. That puts her on a genuinely short list of potential candidates for the job of vice president, with all that that would entail for the Senate, the country, and especially for us here in Massachusetts.
So, on the eve of the “Brexit” vote in England, it’s time for a Wexit vote right here, where Warren first made clear her intention to run for Senate: Should she stay, or should she go?
Please share widely!
I already voted (no), but that would certainly affect my thinking. If we anticipate a GOP Senate, I’d warm to the idea of a Warren Vice Presidency. For now it’s a non-starter.
Also … I don’t believe HRC is seriously considering it. Vetting, sure, but she probably doesn’t even like Warren all that much, and they’re not ideologically compatible in the way Clinton-Gore and Obama-Biden are.
… to keep the Senate. There are 10 Dems and 24 Repubs currently in this class, of those 6 are retiring (three each for Dems and Repubs) leaving 7 re-elections on the Dem side and 21 re-elections on the Repub side. Most of the Dem seats seem safe A fair bunch of the Republican seats are safe, but having more overall means they have more to possibly lose.
And… the latest thinking is that with Trumps negatives and the fact that he’s not really running a good campaign ground game much of anywhere, the GOP, even before factoring in the numbers above, will lose the Senate.
And if the Dems regain control of the Senate, I think Elizabeth Warren has a fair shot at Chairmanship of some important committees and sub-committees, which is why I’d like her to stay in the Senate.
So we found out over the past few days that he hasn’t called big money donors and his campaign has a million in the bank. So whether it’s ego or whatever, bu Trump not working with the RNC in fundraising, that hurts all downstream candidates, they won’t get the normal influx of cash that they would normally get in a presidential year, while the Democratic side is in full gear. Who knows the impact at the end of the day but it’s a positive for Democrats running this year.
How much money will the Trump campaign need with all the publicity it gets each and every hour on the 24 hour news cycle? If I’m Trump, I turn my lack of funding from big money donors (Wall Street in particular) into a huge plus in an election with populist voters.
How much money did Jeb Bush have? Why did he do so poorly?
Lack of funding for the general election hurts ALL the down-ballot races.
Jeb Bush has never run in a general election.
this is general election and RNC funding Senate candidates which is what we are talking about. Trump is already on board with with SuperPACs so that ship has sailed. Done. The comment was specifically about the Senate impact of Trump anemic fundraising totals and that impact on Senate races. That will likely hurt Senate campaigns and it are to make in roads that we thought we couldn’t before, Trump might be helping.
Is concerned with senate races? Maybe I missed that part. So here’s an interesting speculation. Would we be better off if Trump won the White House and the Dems win the senate in 2016 and took back the house in 2018 with a Warren victory in the White House in 2020?
Normally the Presidential candidate is the big pull for donors, this is basic stuff here John. The point is that with Trump not seeming to be pulling his weight there will be an impact in the fucking Senate races, what’s difficult here you for?
A Trump presidency would be catastrophic for the country and the world, and I don’t use that word lightly. So what if he doesn’t have a Republican Congress. He has the executive branch and the military, and that’s plenty to pretty much ruin the world in 4 years.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Does anyone here think that Trump gives a hoot about down-ballot races>
Jeb Bush ran in state elections, never in a general, just like Hillary. What’s your point?
troll comment.
Troll
TNR makes a good argument she can pick whomever she damn well
pleases.
She doesn’t actually have to leave the Senate to run, only if she were to win, right?
She’s been waiting for this moment for years. She’s not going to distract from it with another woman, especially not a high profile one.
As has been discussed, she’s more qualified than any presidential candidate ever. She doesn’t need to add any expertise to the ticket. She’s in good shape electorally before any picks (and the value of the VP in getting a state/region is currently suspect).
Even if Warren was a serious consideration, the Senate’s in play. Warren might actually be able to do something if it flips.
Julian Castro is my prediction. Brings the Hispanic vote out, maybe has good down ballot impact. Sets up the party for the future.
Please, this is simply not true. While she is qualified and more qualified than many, this sort of hyperbole is just unnecessary.
Maybe Nixon.
Maybe FDR (as he was Asst Sec of the Navy, so got some foreign policy)
Maybe Johnson, though he was maybe lighter on foreign policy
It’s an arguable point, and if I said “one of the best qualified ever” it would be hard to dispute.
… was George H.W. Bush.
is that two terms in the House was not as big as two in the Senate.
I might also quibble that Sec of State is bigger then CIA, China, and UN.
Experience as a VP could go either way.
First Lady/policy advisor to Bill? Very useful.
She served as a US Senator and was Secretary of State.
That’s it.
George H. Bush was head of the CIA, VP for two terms, envoy to China, and ambassador to the UN. That’s just off the top of my head. I’m certain I can come up with a few others who have more than two items on their resume.
You forgot to mention, in connection with your first two items, his role in ensuring that the Iran hostage situation stayed active through the 1980 election, his yeoman service in managing the both the illegal Contra war and also the illegal sale of arms to Iran (whom he already had a working relationship with), and his successful wrap-up and clean up strategy for all of the above.
Oh yes, George H. Bush was eminently well qualified.
But I’m not going down that road with Hillary and her mistakes, am I? Again, she’s built quite a nice glass house over the years and this sort of approach is not a winning strategy.
Let me ask this: What makes her the most qualified person ever to rebuild America’s crumbling middle class?
She served as First Lady, and we all know she was an active participant. She was also First Lady of Arkansas, giving her state-level executive experience and insight as well. You’re throwing away over a decade of real political experience.
James Buchanan was probably the most qualified candidate of all time.
Clinton is certainly one of the more experienced, however. It makes sense to count her time as First Lady as well, especially since she probably had more of a role in policymaking than VP Gore did.
Trump, on the other hand, is rivaled only by Wendell Wilkie for lack of qualifications for the office.
then you have take on all the baggage of that administration. Again, not a strategy I would adopt, especially in an election with a populist mood.
Hillary was one of several policy voices during the administration. She no doubt agreed with much but disagreed with some of the decisions Bill Clinton ultimately made, similar to other high level administration voices. By your logic, Robert Reich, who served the entirety of Clinton’s first term as Labor Secretary, “takes on all the baggage of that administration” (whatever that means).
And he did not support Hillary. So where do we go from here?
I’m just not a big fan of Bill Clinton’s economic policies.
And if you think that the Mexican Bailout bailed out Mexicans, you might be a Democrat who thinks Clinton had sound economic policies.
It is in our economic, political, and security interests to have a stable economy and government south of the Rio Grande.
Both are outsiders who ran against the ideological basis of the elites of their party to try and become the nominee and then ran awkward campaigns for President. There is a striking similarity in their quick rise and their nomination taking their party by surprise.
The major difference is, Trump has a protectionist, America First isolationist and nativist sentiment candidate against the globalist consent of the GOP elite while Wilkie was an internationalist, pro-free trade, pro-immigrant and nominee against an America First elite. He became a Democrat and ended up helping FDR after he lost, before dying young.
She doesn’t need Latinos since Trump brings them on board anyway, and also he has zero national security experience and would spend his 8 years running for President and undermining her. She will go with someone with executive and/or Congressional foreign policy experience who has no presidential ambitions. Hence Gates. Or an Adam Smith, Chris Murphy, or Chris Coons.
I don’t see people (Latinos) standing in line to cast a protest vote in places like TX. They will come out to vote for someone.
Undermining the President is movie/TV stuff. I don’t see how that’s possible. She’ll control his schedule.
He doesn’t need foreign policy experience, he’ll get in on the job. She’ll be picking the front runner for 2024, and I think that will be the point.
Obviously we’re just guessing here.
There are Latinos with executive and Congressional experience. Ken Salazar, for one. Raul Grijalva could help bring Bernie supporters on board and put Arizona in play.
A lot of buzz at the Brooklyn HQ about Perez too.
… I’ve gone back and forth on this. The image of two smart, feisty grandmothers on the ticket has an obvious appeal for a sixtysomething lefty grandma like me. Plus, choosing EW would be a bold, unexpected step for HRC, possibly giving her campaign a much-needed jolt of excitement (though I don’t think VP choices have had much effect on modern races, except maybe LBJ in 1960).
But I don’t expect or even hope to see a Clinton/Warren ticket. Obviously EW is on the shortlist—how could she not be? It’s a well-deserved mark of respect, but it doesn’t mean that HRC is actually likely to choose her.
And from another angle, I don’t share the confidence of some on this site that the Democrats would easily take back the Senate seat from a Baker appointee, even a brief one. That’s a longer conversation, but, bottom line, I think HRC will—predictably, disappointingly—choose Tim Kaine, or maybe (less likely) Julian Castro, or perhaps someone who’s not even on the reported shortlist—and that, regardless, Elizabeth Warren will still be a powerful surrogate for the Democratic ticket.
I can think of two VP choices that resulted in enormous jolts, but likely not the sort of jolt one needs.
Like Best Man speeches at weddings, VPs are too often insufficiently vetted.
Well, when I said “jolt of excitement,” my point was that I was talking about positive effects. One of Hillary’s weaknesses is the perception (fair or not) that she’s overcautious and calculating, so choosing Warren might be a smart way to undercut that image. Or maybe not—I don’t think we really know. We are living in strange times, with even higher stakes than usual. And we’ve never had one woman on the ticket, let alone two.
More substantively, the Hillary/Elizabeth show in Ohio yesterday was pretty energizing. I look forward to seeing a lot more of that sort of thing, whether or not EW is HRC’s running mate.
As the recent joint appearances show, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren are a great team — I note that Ms. Warren is still our senior Senator, and is not a candidate.
Ms. Warren can, if anything, be more visible and more vocal while NOT a candidate. If she were to join the ticket, she would immediately have to restrain aspects of her commentary in order to avoid alienating whatever segments of the electorate the election handlers deem crucial that week. Specifically, the lowest-hanging fruit appears to be voters who have recently voted for Mr. Romney or Mr. McCain, and who cannot bring themselves to vote for Mr. Trump. I could well imagine Ms. Warren be cautioned about saying things that might alienate these voters.
As Senator, she has no such constraints.
We’ve had some empirical disagreements on the primary and what groups of voters Hillary is appealing to, but on this issue I applaud his consistent and prescient commentary. There is also the issue of what Warren actually wants to do. If she wanted to be President I am confident based on Sanders success she would’ve had appeal to his entire base AND cut into Hillary’s more traditional Democratic base of support. She would’ve had more support from super delegates and institutional party members since no one has campaigned harder or been in more demand for Democrats across the country.
Why settle for second fiddle when the top prize was hers for the taking? Because she doesn’t care about foreign policy and she doesn’t want to be responsible for sending troops into battle or dealing with diplomacy. Which is fine-she’s a domestic economy expert and consumer defender. And those issues can be advanced more in the Senate where she can also keep Hillary honest.
Accepting this nomination would be the biggest political mistake and setback for liberalism since Humphrey joined the Johnson ticket. He went from being the leading liberal in Congress to being a lame duck with an unpopular administration hanging around his neck by 1968. Hillary won’t make those mistakes, but she will have goals and commitments at odds with Warren’s vision.
for some of the reasons already mentioned in this thread and others. I’d add that another consideration is that a key role of the VP during the campaign is to fund-raise. While Warren has done well in that department via individual donations, I’m guessing that she’d beg out of doing the sort of $1000 a plate fundraisers with wealthy donors that is necessary to run a national campaign (not just for the presidential campaign, but for down-ticket races). No reason to take that risk if you’re Clinton.
As I mentioned elsewhere, Tim Kaine is the likeliest pick for numerous reasons. However, if Clinton decides to choose someone who would be both a “safe” and “bold” at the same time, Rep. Xavier Becerra would be a fine choice. While Democrats almost never seem to pick non-Senators (so some risk there), he is “safe” in that he is a party loyalist, has a lot of experience, and is solidly liberal. Yet his selection would also make history as the first Latino on a presidential ticket. Julian Castro gets all the attention as the first Latino possibility, but Becerra would make more sense for Clinton.
Ms. Warren announced her Senate campaign here. Just in case Ms. Warren or her staff is monitoring BMG or this thread, I want to directly state my views about this ill-considered idea:
1. Elizabeth Warren is doing an AMAZING job right where she is
2. Being on the ticket adds nothing that Ms. Warren can’t already do as Senator
3. The consequences of losing her seat to a Republican GREATLY exceed any benefit her presence on the ticket might bring.
Hillary Clinton does not need Elizabeth Warren on the ticket to win. Elizabeth Warren can do and already is doing far more as our senior Senator than she can do as a candidate or as Vice President.
The suggestion of putting Ms. Warren on the ticket is, in my view, gravely incorrect. It is bad tactics and bad strategy.
… some boring white guy, young enough to be younger than HRC, but old enough to be considered experienced.
More liberal than Kaine, more hawkish than Obama and a real leader on guns. Young enough to reassure folks concerned about her age, but a team player who won’t put his ambitions before here.
Only 42. Then I checked and Castro’s only 41. I think that might preclude both of them.
Dan Quale?
What about a fit from MI? WI? OH? VA? NC? Hell, GA or TX?
I’m from Connecticut. I hate the idea of a silver spoon, white male VP from CT. And this isn’t a knock on Chris Murphy — he’s only 42, but he’s been a legislator for 17 years already, house and senate, state and federal. I just want an administration with an insider “cheerleader” for a part of the country where the Democratic message is either on the ropes or prime for growth. That ain’t CT.
There is a Hell, MI, but as far as Google Maps can tell me there is no Hell, GA.
n/t
…Feingold weren’t running for Senate in WI, he’d make a terrific VP pick! But then again, I am so excited at the prospect of him returning to the Senate!
Which precludes a Senate choice. I like Kildee the Congressmen from Flint. Young and new school on social issues, but old school labor Dem on economics. She apparently likes Tim Ryan (D-OH), who is 42 and from Youngstown, one of those places profiles in Coming Apart and a place going from D to Trump. Solid labor and foreign policy Dem with a former social conservative streak who’s moved to the left considerably on abortion and gay rights in the last few years. He’s another dark horse, she apparently likes campaigning and drinking with him.
My only question is since when did the WordPress version of BMG support polls?
It’s a free widget from another site. Just a little snippet of javascript. Seems to work OK.
…to just have her leave the Senate?
…in November of 2018!
would have just voted for her to head up the CFPB, she wouldn’t be a senator in the first place!
What are the “cons” about a Tulsi Gabbard running mate?
On the Pro side, it’s an easy way to tie into the Sanders enthusiasm and Tulsi’s only 35 years old, appealing to millennials and young women.
Especially as a combat veteran and one of the few realists left in either party. A few downsides include that she’s still young, she does not practice a Judeo-Christian faith (she converted to Hinduism as a teen), and she was a strong opponent of marriage equality and abortion rights at the start of her career. She’s since gone on to fully embrace equality and disavow her past positions very eloquently, but it’ll come up. Her past statements were closer to Falwell’s than Hillary’s tepid opposition.
…that you do not personally see it as a liability that she is not a practitioner of an Abramic faith?
I’m appalled it’s still an issue in the 21st century, especially since the founders didn’t care when they determined the qualifications in the 18th.