The Case For Elizabeth Warren, Vice President

[applegrove]

The Case For Elizabeth Warren, Vice President

by Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-vice-president_us_57475a30e4b03ede44144d25?xr948q05fsr05p14i

"SNIP.............

As Clinton contemplates the near future in which she becomes the official Democratic nominee and sets herself to the task of preparing for what promises to be an ugly general election campaign, she has some clear needs that she’ll have to address in timely fashion. As it happens, Warren may be capable of filling all of them.

Clinton’s first major task will be uniting the Democratic Party base behind her candidacy. To do so, she’ll have to undertake the brokering of a peace accord with Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, with a pact that knits up everything that has come to be raveled during the primary. By naming Warren as her running mate, she’ll cover a lot of ground with this cohort, by permanently enshrining Sanders’ main briefs about income inequality and corporate corruption as a part of her campaign’s identity. And she’ll gain, in Warren, someone who is legitimately better at relating complex issues of economic inequality to ordinary people than Sanders is.

As the past week has demonstrated, Clinton will be getting a fairly reliable attack dog as well. Warren seems to understand innately that what rattles Trump the most is anything that points out what a ridiculous, mean-minded fraud he is. In turn, she is also — apparently — rather impervious to his retorts. She seems to enjoy the fact that he hits back, and is eager to escalate.

There is also the fact that to Democrats, the Massachusetts senator is Eliza-bae. She’s a genuine superstar with the party’s liberal base in ways that other presumed short-listers, like Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, are not. The fandom that has come to surround Warren has become its own social media perpetual-motion machine, ensuring that her utterances obtain a cross-platform virality.



..............SNIP"

[NWCorona]

1. I brought this up a few days ago but with Bernie as president.

I think she would unite the party.

[Txbluedog]

2. The misogyny against Hillary is terrifying

What do you think will happen on a all female ticket

[applegrove]

5. I think Warren would be able to fight Trump effectively, and explain Hillary's policies

very simply. The two things you look for in the VP.

[Txbluedog]

6. Unfortunately a all women ticket

Wil make it much harder than it needs to be in conservative leaning swing states.

[applegrove]

9. When it comes out that Trump is no longer anti-establishment in the GE, Warren will

get the anti-establishment vote on the right and left.

[Vote2016]

11. Hmm. so people love Warren but distrust and dislike Hillary. Maybe (just maybe) it's NOT misogyny?

[SheilaT]

3. What happened to all those people

who didn't want her to run for President because she'd be much more effective remaining in the Senate? A VP has far less substantial power than a President, so this doesn't make sense at all. Nor does a Sanders/Warren ticket, for the same reason.

Honestly, if Elizabeth had chosen to run, Bernie would not have, and she'd have wiped the floor with Hillary in the debates.

I am sure that no matter who our nominee is, Elizabeth Warren will be out there blasting away at Trump.

[Vote2016]

8. She WOULD be more effective in the Senate, but VP Warren could preside over a Democratic Senate but

with Hillary and some milquetoast centrist VP we lose the presidency and fail to take the Senate so Warren is just a minority party Senator.

Hillary has fucked up this race almost beyond repair.

[terrencebone]

16. Warren (and Sanders) can do more to defeat Trump if they remain independent

How convincing is it to a progressive voter to say, "I have been added to the ticket and am asking you to support Hillary" vs. remaining yourself and, while acknowledging differences, saying "This is why it is critical you vote for Hillary and defeat Trump"?

I think most voters know a token pick for VP when they see it and don't want our most effective champions sidelined in this way and being "locked in the cabinet" to provide liberal cover like Robert Reich was in the previous Clinton administration.

We will be more likely to follow their lead if they remain independent. We will also feel more confident about a Clinton administration knowing that they will remain where they can most effectively apply pressure if a Hillary starts to relapse and tries to do chained CPI, entitlement reform, or regild the TPP.

[Vote2016]

21. If Hillary told you "I'm gonna lose so vote for Trump to avoid a Johnson-Weld presidency," you

wouldn't follow that advice and would only think less of Hillary.

To persuade progressives to vote for the ticket, the ticket (and platform) have to BE more progress. Endorsements don't help sell a product or candidate you dont want.

[Vote2016]

4. Warren is just about the ONLY VP selection I could see unifying the party, which I hate

because it would cost us a Senate seat but I think, without Warren, we lose the presidency, lose all the close Senate seats, and the margin in the House grows.

If Hillary wins and cannot unite the party (and so far she seems totally incapable of that), she is looking at mid-term levels of voter turnout which will be a top-to-bottom of the ballot disaster.

[joshcryer]

7. This is a fascinating balloon trial.

[Stellar]

10. I just can't see Senator Warren playing second fiddle to NO ONE. eom

[Vote2016]

12. If the alternative is 4 years of Trump and Republican control of the Senate and House, I think she'd

make the sacrifice.

[Stellar]

14. Hey, I'm voting BLUE no matter(even if I prefer Bernie) who. I suggest everybody else do the same.

Senator Warren, If she's not going to president, should keep her seat until she is president or nominated for the Supreme Court of The United States. Just my opinion.

[procon]

13. So what would happen to her Senate seat?

She can do the same attack dog role from the Senate where she is a very effective senator who speaks up for Democratic causes. Knowing that the Republicans hold the majority and we only have a precious few seats to prevent them from getting a veto proof majority which would enable them to undo everything Obama has accomplished, why would we want put a Democratic seat at risk?

The Dems need to bring in more blue collar workers and middle aged men and Warren can't help her there. Hillary will probably looking at bring on a younger man, possibly Hispanic or another minority, someone who will compliment her strengths and weakness, and who has the potential to pay it forward and run for the next president.

[Demsrule86]

19. There will be a special election

And a Democrat wins pretty easily I think.

[procon]

20. Republican Scott Brown held the seat before Warren, that's why I ask.

Massachusetts also has a Republican Governor, and Warren isn't scheduled to run for re-election in 2018. The risk seems to outway the benefits.

[Lizzie Poppet]

15. I'd vote for her...

..on a ticket with Sanders.

[Demsrule86]

18. Tick Tock Tick Tock

10 days or so and Bernie is an also ran...June 7th before 8:00 PM, Jersey comes in and Hillary is the presumed nominee...then she probably wins California too, but it does not matter. As for the supers, they always vote for the candidate with the most delegates. And the Washington primary clearly showed how little value caucus states have.

[Demsrule86]

17. We should absolutley

We should have Warren, she is great against Trump and will help unify the party...let's face reality...Bernie has no intention of unifying anything.