2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy Elizabeth Warren Would Be a Fantastic Choice for Vice President
Source: Washington Monthly, David Atkins
*****
There are some, however, who suggest that nominating Warren as vice president would be a bad idea. Opponents of Warren as vice president have three chief objections.
First is that nominating her would make the path to Senate control harder for Democrats by forcing a special election for her seat that Democrats might lose or at least that might divert much-needed resources. However, a number of commentators including Washington Monthly alum Ed Kilgore have noted that nominating Warren would likely have little effect on Democratic Senate fortunes because Warren would have a range of options about when to optimally resign her seat, and Massachusetts Democrats would have significant time to prepare for that eventuality.
The second comes from concern that Warren would add little of demographic or regional electoral value to a ticket that already has a northeastern white woman on it. Thats a possibility, but it likely overestimates the degree to which regional, gender and racial identity appeals now matter in national elections while underestimating the need to reassure Clintons progressive detractors. It also overemphasizes electoral politics over policy concerns in a year where the Republican nominee is singularly likely to lose in any event.
The third and final objection is that Elizabeth Warren is more useful to progressive causes where she is in the Senate. This was certainly the biggest objection made by Clinton supporters to Warrens jumping into the presidential race against her back in the fall (though those objections conveniently seem to be sliding away by Clintons boosters today as Warrens effectiveness as an attack surrogate against Trump manifests itself.) There is something to be said for the idea that Warren would be sidelined as a vice-president whereas she might be able to have more impact on legislation in the Senate.
But that misjudges the potential power of the vice presidency to affect executive policy. Liberals already underestimated the power of the vice president at the beginning of the Bush-Cheney era to their detriment.
*****
Read it all at: http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/06/11/why-elizabeth-warren-would-be-a-fantastic-choice-for-vice-president/
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)That's one major difference from Cheney there.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)so many people said she shouldn't run for President, because she was more needed in the Senate.
What changed?
More to the point, what VP, other than those few who've succeeded to the top job in the middle of the term, have ever had any effect on anything substantive?
I sincerely wish she'd run, and had she done so, it's my opinion she'd have defeated Clinton handily. But that doesn't matter any more. She needs to stay in the Senate.
Response to SheilaT (Reply #2)
Sivart This message was self-deleted by its author.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and yeah, even without the House that makes a huge difference. Think of judicial nominations, for instance.
still_one
(92,217 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)And since it was never about Sanders...why don't we all support a revolutionary we can agree on?
Warren is a smarter, more erudite Sanders. She electrifies me, whereas Sanders puts me to sleep.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)she has a problem in a general election.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Sort of.
I don't want anyone who, outside of a Clinton administration, would work to defeat neo-liberalism to be leashed and heeled inside that administration.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Elizabeth Warren made her mark working for President Obama. She shepherded the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other regulations that incensed Republicans to the point she would never be confirmed to be dogcatcher!
What did she do then, with nowhere to go with Obama?
Took back Ted Kennedy's Senate seat from incumbent (R) Scott Brown! Drove him out of the state!
1 out of a 100 in the Senate, in the minority party?
Or Vice-President of the United States. President of the Senate! Working directly with the President of the United States!!!
Ready for Clinton/Warren 2016!
LWolf
(46,179 posts)is not going to choose a VP that competes with her on likability or that she would allow to move an anti-neoliberal Clinton agenda forward.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)having had your mind laundered.
Hillary is not "the Bond villain" you have heard of all your life. I know from this point on we are talking past each other. A closed mind is a bar to any argument.
If Warren became the VP choice, you would be in for an epic awakening!
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I've been watching HRC since the 90s. I think I'm pretty clear about her. She's not a Bond villain. She IS a neo-liberal.
Perhaps you're looking into a mirror. I don't think you are objective about her, unless you are a cheerleader for neo-liberalism.
I hope to watch Warren in the Senate, where she could actually OPPOSE neo-liberalism.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)That's like saying Bernie is a "socialist."
It's meaningless name-calling. It's "campaign rhetoric."
I guarantee you, Wall Street wishes Hillary was a "neoliberal." She isn't.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)is at the root of what's wrong with this country. Get rid of neo-liberalism, and many, many ills leave with it.
It's not meaningless to those of us it hurts, and it's not just campaign rhetoric. Perhaps you don't engage as much outside of campaigns, but I've been talking about this with others, regardless of whether or not it's campaign season, for a couple of decades now.
Hillary Clinton is a neo-liberal and a darling of Wall Street. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is either deluded or completely a slave to their own campaign rhetoric.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)If you're putting Hillary in the same class of laissez-faire, deregulate, trickle-down tax policy, you are delusional.
That's some Kool-Aid I never drank out of!
And you know what?
Elizabeth Warren wouldn't endorse a "neoliberal," would she?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Because she and Bill have been there since at least the 90s.
And I can't speak to what Warren would do as far as endorsements go.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)They don't pass legislation. They don't negotiate treaties. They don't broker peace deals. They don't set economic policy. Or any policy at all. So to say she'd be working directly with the President is fantasy.
What do vice presidents really do? They go to funerals. They comfort the families of soldiers. And while those are quite nice things to do, they are nothing of substance.
Oh, there is one other thing they do. They preside over the Senate with zero power, unless there is actually a tie vote. Quiz: How many times has Biden actually voted to break a tie in the nearly 8 years he's been VP? Oh, come on, guess. Okay, I'll tell you: zero times. Yep. None. Not a single vote. So what makes anyone think that Warren will wind up doing more? For what it's worth, Al Gore voted 4 times to break a tie in the Senate. Dick Cheney did it 8 times. I suppose there's a distant chance that we'll have a sufficiently tied and dead-locked Senate that the VP will be able to vote a bunch in the next 4 or 8 years, but I wouldn't count on it.
And what astonishes me the most here is that a year ago so many on DU were saying NO NO NO to an Elizabeth Warren run for president because she was NEEDED in the Senate, could accomplish so much more there, and surely her seat would be given over to a Republican.
Well, I'm one of those who thought she should have run, but she chose not to. And at this juncture, she's far more needed in the Senate.
Plus, does anyone here REALLY think Hillary Clinton will want a VP who is so much more charismatic and liked than she is?
I don't.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Why?
Are you people fucking nuts?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Biden, Cheney, Gore?
"Powerless" isn't a word used to describe those three!
Just running for VP? Ever heard of Paul Ryan or Sarah Palin?
Powerless. That describes the gridlocked Senate!
longship
(40,416 posts)The only time the VEEP gets to vote is on a tie.
Possibly you have not reviewed your US Constitution recently.
Again. Why would you have Elizabeth Warren give up her Senate seat?
I cannot think of a good reason.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Cheney did nothing? Gore just sat around in his office?
When you serve as Vice-President of the United States, how is that a step down from junior senator in a minority party?
You aren't reviewing our recent history?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Biden and Gore accomplished, because I'm having trouble recalling them.
Cheney probably more or less ran the White House, but that's in no small part because GWB wasn't up to really being President.
AJH032
(1,124 posts)How is that powerless?
longship
(40,416 posts)Yup! Basically powerless.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Powerless and stuck in a ceremonial role, what a magnificent idea.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Cheney just looked pretty at photo ops?
Gore was just a pretty boy for pictures?
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)otherwise the VP breaks a Senate tie if there is one.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Cheney had a great deal of influence over 'the decider.'
Biden arguably changed the path of our nation on same-sex marriage! Worked Congress on a number of issues for Obama, including the Affordable Care Act!!
The VP choice has been shown to be incredibly important over the last century!
swhisper1
(851 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Not once. Zero times.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Yes
W. was weak, lazy and easily pliable
Yes
Neither Biden nor Gore made policy and both needed to follow the President's agenda.
randome
(34,845 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"...Warren would have a range of options about when to optimally resign her seat, and Massachusetts Democrats would have significant time to prepare for that eventuality."
No problem! If Massachusetts can't elect another Democrat, we got bigger problems than a senator!
A Clinton/Warren ticket could be a landslide which gives us both the Senate and the House!
To see the two of them working together, planning economic policies, sticking up for working people...what a vision for America's future!
swhisper1
(851 posts)and two older women on the ticket is a turn off. Kamila would be a better choice and secure the senate where Warren has power
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Brown is history.
"Two older women on the ticket is a turn off." That doesn't strike you as some fairly casual sexism?
swhisper1
(851 posts)good to hear of Brown's fate. I'm a woman who is not sexist, just realistic
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I think the claims of "a number of commentators" are highly suspect here.
Yes, Warren would make a perfectly good VP, and so would Sherrod Brown. But there are lots of people who would make perfectly good VPs without handing a senate seat to the Republicans.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Massachusetts will be part of that.
When we have the Administration, the Senate, possibly the House, judicial appointments - wouldn't it be great to have Hillary and Elizabeth teaming up on Wall Street and income inequality?
Or do our dreams just have to remain for the impossible?
swhisper1
(851 posts)her VP will not have a voice
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The primary campaign rhetoric and propaganda is almost over.
Wait until the Republicans tell us how Hillary is the enemy of Wall Street and business and employment and a socialist like her husband - and worse than Bernie!
If Warren was the VP pick, it would be agreed she could get on HER bully pulpit. That's what would be so exciting!
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)Good lord.
swhisper1
(851 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)She would have to follow Clinton's agenda. Including in regards to financial institutions. She would be wasted as VP, effectively silenced as VP.
randome
(34,845 posts)Unlike Sanders, who took Weaver and Devine's advice and blew his chances.
If the revolution is not about Sanders, why don't we unite to support the revolutionary who is smarter and more erudite than Sanders?
swhisper1
(851 posts)you just dont get it
randome
(34,845 posts)What do you not get about that?
Look. You want to declare victory over the GOP and the Third-Way? Here is someone who I think could pull us together. (At least on DU, which, admittedly, is a tiny ant farm in somebody's basement in the scheme of things.)
Warren knows politics and she knows how to work as part of a team. AND she's outspoken. That supplies something that Sanders does not have: the ability to work as part of a team.
Are you really interested in a revolution or are you only interested in holding your breath until you get your way?
Warren would be a better Sanders, imo. And if something like that can sway me toward supporting a social revolution, well...I would think you'd be down with that.
swhisper1
(851 posts)she could not call for a revolution against the establishment, she can only work for it
randome
(34,845 posts)Sorry, I very much like Warren and I don't doubt her honesty or her enthusiasm. She talks with people, unlike Sanders who talks at them. She has...something...that Sanders lacks. Charisma? Shrewdness? A more literate style?
Once Josh Marshall and Harry Reid started saying it was a good idea, I was on board. And I am now.
swhisper1
(851 posts)and Sanders talks with people which is why he is the amendment king. I suggest you root out the source of the disrespect you have for Sanders- I bet it stems from a single issue
randome
(34,845 posts)Warren, though. She has something more. Sorry you don't see her that way, and maybe I'm guilty of 'wishing' she would be VP, when I criticize Sanders supporters for wishing things were different instead of facing life squarely but...I could get behind her.
Like I said, if Josh Marshall and Harry Reid can get behind her, too, the opinions of two people I greatly respect, then I can change my stance on the need for a revolution.
Ms. Warren, coming from a pragmatic, realistic voter...if you can get Clinton's assurance that you will not be muzzled...please accept the role of VP if it's offered.
I know that's asking a lot of you, 16 years, actually, if Clinton has 2 terms and then you're in line for the Presidency but...consider the possibility that it's worth it.
swhisper1
(851 posts)and that's why I don't want her linked with Hillary in way shape or form. Warren is ten times the woman and legislator Hillary ever was- why taint herself with being perceived neo-lib
randome
(34,845 posts)Warren would amplify Clinton's liberal roots. You can trash-talk Clinton all you want -and some of that I would actually agree with- but I don't think you can be taken seriously if you think she is not liberal at all.
Granted, she is not as pure a liberal as we would want (How often have I stated that I don't particularly like her? Ten? A dozen?), but she is, even if you don't like her stances on some issues.
But I think she's serious about building a new Democratic Party and making peace with Sanders supporters. Clinton is not stupid. If she and Warren agreed that Warren would not be muzzled, that would be a win-win for both factions.
And why would Warren 'taint' herself by allying with Clinton? Because, as Marshall stated, she would be a greater influence on Clinton than, say, Biden has been on Obama.
With Obama-Biden, I see Obama as the teacher and Biden as the head of the class.
I don't think we should expect the same sort of relationship between Clinton and Warren. Clinton has a legacy to protect, too. I don't think she would be blind to that. And I don't think she's the power-mad monster some want to portray her as.
I am serious about this. I would be ecstatic with a Clinton/Warren ticket.
swhisper1
(851 posts)Clinton will not be influenced by Warren, They are opposite in all policies except womens rights
randome
(34,845 posts)And that she accepts.
A 90s politician is not who I would want as our next President. Not after the refreshing breeze that was Obama. But she is clearly our next President so how can we alleviate the concerns that many have? Again, Clinton is not the monster some want to portray her as, and she knows she has a legacy to leave behind.
If nothing else, she knows how the political winds blow, and she could make this VP selection a thing of beauty by asking Warren and by assuring her she won't be muzzled.
This is something I could really feel great about. If you want to cling to Sanders as the only viable alternative to Clinton, why would you not accept Warren? In my opinion, she is twice the interlocutor Sanders is. AND she better knows how to work as part of a team.
swhisper1
(851 posts)in their right mind wants to be Pres. It would be a thing of beauty, but would destroy Warrens career, and I want her voice heard for decades to come. There are other VP candidates out there that can play patty-cake with Clinton. Leave Warren where she is
randome
(34,845 posts)She would not be side-lined because it's not in her nature. I think -and hope- that Clinton would see her value and would not restrain her.
If someone as astute as Josh Marshall and Harry Reid can see this...I say we entertain the possibility.
swhisper1
(851 posts)none of which is liberal
randome
(34,845 posts)That doesn't mean we need it now. Like it or not, deserved or not, the entire political community respects the Clintons. If they helped us survive the Conservative bent this country took in the 80s and after, then maybe they're the ones who can break the 'spell', too.
I'm speaking metaphorically here, I don't want to 'believe' in the power of the Clintons or anything so ridiculous. As I've said over and over, I don't particularly like Hillary Clinton, and I mean that.
But if she is as smart as some say, she will recognize that this country needs another change in direction. With the GOP self-destructing before our very eyes, this is the time to push that change the way we want it to go. It's the ultimate revenge on the Reagan Era. A final closing of a Dark Age, to be done at the hands of another Clinton.
A full circle. A kind of political poetry, don't you think? Maybe.
swhisper1
(851 posts)she is incapable of seeing outcomes and the future.
I do not think the political community respects the Clintons- I think they fear them. Also, they are all trapped by corporate donors. They are all (but a few) standing in the tarpit, afraid if they move, they will sink faster
randome
(34,845 posts)But there is also the Obama factor to consider. He has a way of 'infecting' people around him. The fact that Clinton obviously bears him no ill will from 2008 means -I suspect- that she has learned something from him.
I thinks she's become a better politician than she was.
I still don't much like her but that's sort of irrelevant since she has the nomination sewn up. We have to make do with what we have available and I stand ready to be surprised.
swhisper1
(851 posts)perk (SOS) and has been undermining him for 7 years, under cover.
Nor does Obama like her. He is from Chicago politics. He knows a viper when he sees one. He is Mr Cool, but it is so evident with Michelle Obama, the knives come out when Hillary is mentioned. No, there is no mutual respect there. Obama is a professional and will behave. I doubt if he will campaign for her
randome
(34,845 posts)But I do think he'll campaign for her. And I do think Clinton is not as bad as some see her as. Warren as her VP -with the aforementioned assurances- would help keep Clinton at least drifting Leftward instead of trying to steer a course through the center.
Sanders is obviously not going to be our nominee and he's losing clout by the hour, in my opinion, so what's the next best thing? In my mind, that's Warren as VP.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)(And 3rd Way and TTP?). WTF? What utter nonsense. You must think she is all-powerful.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)that she can go only so far in her endorsement of Hillary. So far I have heard nothing from her other than 'No Trump'.
But, maybe the Dems up high know something we don't know - all this delaying of information until after the GE - as VP she could be the 2nd Woman President in no time. I'd be sad about that - people would point out that she was Prez by default. BUT her second term would be EPIC!!!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)...what's the next best case? Clinton/Warren, I think, would unite more of us than Clinton versus Sanders.
swhisper1
(851 posts)our votes. If Trump is dumped, then she will need our votes. She has not reached out and frankly, she is too toxic for me to trust.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)...and then the VP will become a hand puppet.
Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)flamingdem
(39,313 posts)I can see this happening.
The other choices don't do anything for me. Wondering if the rest of the electorate would similarly get on board.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Of course she'd make a great VP pick, as well it could set her up for a POTUS run in 2024. But I think the smart play is to keep her where she can be more vocal and ROAR like a Lion. Either way, I'd back her 100%.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)If Hillary offers her the position it would likely be for the sole purpose of silencing her in the Senate. Honestly, I don't believe Warren would tie herself to Clinton anyway because it would spell the end of her populist creds. If I had to guess, I would say that the Warren talk is little more than name-dropping for consumption by Bernie supporters, and that Hillary is far more likely to choose her running mate from the cast of neoliberal debutantes looking for a date to the ball. My guess, Kaine or Kasich.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)where she will be ineffective and unable to generate the same level of debate about consumer and anti-wall-street issues.