2016 Dream Ticket

[Phillyindy]

Clinton-Warren?

Besides the fact that this would literally energize the entire Democratic/Progressive base, it would come with the added benefit of a full blown, frothing at the mouth, zombie apocalypse of the right wing.

[MjolnirTime]

1. It's not going to be Warren. But Hillary's in.

[Phillyindy]

2. Why?

[winter is coming]

3. Not. Hillary. Nor any other Third Way candidate. n/t

[Phillyindy]

4. No clue what that means.

[winter is coming]

6. It means I have zero interest in voting for Hillary or any other centrist. n/t

[Phillyindy]

14. Not a fan of Hillary either but...

If I can get Warren in the VP slot, I'll take it. Besides, you're going to need a centrist at the top to win, just the way it is.

[on point]

8. Third way is replacement for DLC. It is right of center corporate front group and Hillary reps them

Which is one of thereasons she will never get my vote.

Suggest you google third way to get their history and the betrayal of Dem principles they rep.

That will explain above comment

[Phillyindy]

11. Thanks

[cascadiance]

52. Third Way has "replaced" the DLC in large part due to us finding out Koch brothers ties to DLC...

The Koch Brothers had funded it and controlled parts of its leadership earlier... Obviously those in the Third Way are trying to distance themselves from that "relationship"...

http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

[Rosco T.]

57. -1 DEM vote (irrespective of candidate) = +1 GOP vote (irrespective of candidate)

it's called 'math'

[winter is coming]

68. Irrespective of candidate? So we're not supposed to notice/care that people now wearing the Dem

label would have been Republicans 30 years ago? I'm voting for the contents, not the label.

[JRLeft]

59. ^This, no to Wall St. Democrats.

[Demo_Chris]

5. Definate HELL NO on Hillary. Warren is fine. nt

[reformist2]

7. Warren-Brown is my dream ticket.

Sherrod Brown pulls in Ohio, and it's a done deal!

[Phillyindy]

12. Warren at the top...

...wouldn't win, sadly. If you want warren on the ticket at all, you need Hillary at the top.

[MelungeonWoman]

20. Not true at all.

A new Quinnipiac poll has her third, behind Christie and Clinton. I don't think Christie can capture the Republican nod, time will tell. Until recently I thought Clinton was a juggernaut but I must admit I also thought that in 2008. I imagine Clinton and Warren would both govern from the narrow space between Obama and Bush so ideologically I don't see much difference between the two.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/08/06/why-you-shouldnt-underestimate-elizabeth-warren/

[Phillyindy]

34. Yeah but...

Warren has no foreign policy experience, and not a whole lot of governing experience period. The first women will need to be incredible experienced, especially in matters of national security and foreign policy first and foremost to overcome the sexist stereotypes that exist on the left and right.

[cascadiance]

51. Warren has a HELLUVA lot more understanding of the collapse of the middle class than Clinton...

... and for that matter more than most other politicians. And that knowledge and experience in addition to her not being corporatist like Clinton has been with the Koch funded DLC i think will be just as if not more attractive to the average American who's been facing economic devastation in recent times. I think that Quinnipiac poll reflects that growing realization amongst many Americans.

And I think first steps first... Let's get one woman on the ticket before trying to elect two, which I don't think will work. Someone like Russ Feingold or another more progressive candidate as part of this ticket I think would work better.

[Scuba]

62. +1

[Scuba]

63. Warren, with Sherrod Brown or Martin O'Malley, running on this message ...

[winter is coming]

69. *Any* politician who can convince the public they genuinely support this message, could win.

Any candidate, of either party, who can't be credibly tied to such a message, will be at an enormous disadvantage.

[reformist2]

64. +1000. Not to put down Hilary, but Liz Warren is authentic and compelling in a way I've rarely seen.

Who cares what the Repugs will do - they bash anyone who doesn't agree with them.

But when Elizabeth Warren speaks, people listen.

[Scuba]

61. I'm down with that.

[Chisox08]

9. Warren - Grayson

or Grayson - Warren either way I'll be happy.

[liberal_at_heart]

10. Now that sounds better.

[Phillyindy]

13. Lol, maybe I should have...

...clarified by saying a ticket that can actually win. Love Grayson, but that ticket would be savaged.

[liberal_at_heart]

15. I'm not voting on who can win. I'm done playing that game. I'm voting based on who I think

will do the best job, who will fight for the 99%, not the 1%.

[Phillyindy]

17. Not the time for that...

...there's a solid chance republicans will take the Senate as well as the house, we lose the White House and game over, I mean literally. This country is already hanging on by a thread. Hillary is a centrist, with liberal leanings on many issues like healthcare and the social contract. Not exactly the worst thing. The key to this election to move the progressive cause forward is getting a Warren in as VP, give her a major spotlight and voice. Then we can start to move the country in the right direction, ready for TRUE progressive policies.

[liberal_at_heart]

24. it'a always the time to vote your conscience. Our social programs, our education system, our

wages, our pensions, our very way of life is being eroded and centrist democrats are doing nothing to stop it.

[Phillyindy]

28. Oh you're wrong...

If Romney would have won in 2012, they would be well on their way to dismantling Everything. Obama has done a pretty good job of holding back most of that. Failure to win in 2016 is not an option.

[liberal_at_heart]

53. oh, I am so sick of hearing if Romney had been president. That is what the democrats have

been running on for a decade now. Hey, at least we're not that other guy. It is no longer enough. Democrats can no longer sit on their hands and just say they are better than the alternative. They are actually going to have to do some work.

[Phillyindy]

65. I don't disagree but

But it is what it is. For as disappointed as we are in Obama, he generally has fraught to maintain the social contract, entitlements, passed obamacare, pushed for gay rights, etc. The fact is a Romney win would have been devastating. I'm not saying we shouldn't be pushing for progressives, but at the national level that's tough, America won't elect a totally progressive ticket, but we could get a centrist with a progressive VP.

[winter is coming]

70. Repeatedly floating chained CPI is "maintaining the social contract" WRT entitlements?

Oy.

Obamacare will help some, but others will still be without insurance. A strong supporter of the "social contract" might well have settled for the ACA as a first step, but would have begun by advocating for single payer.

Gay rights? He's been following the curve on that, not leading the way.

And I'm still waiting for him to find his comfortable shoes and support unions, as he once promised.

As extreme as the Republicans have become, why do you assume a liberal/progressive message won't have broad appeal to actual Americans? You're still confusing the "center" of the Democratic party with the "center" of voters. The former is to the right of the latter.

[Phillyindy]

75. Nate Silver...

Says Republicans have a 50% chance of winning the Senate...thats AFTER Bush, AFTER everything this congress has done. That should tell you everything you need to know about where this country is at politically.

[winter is coming]

86. Oh, yeah, what happened to Bush and his confederates after they left office?

Nada. Ever think that the drop in Democratic turnout from '08 to '10 might be related to that? People wanted the Bush excesses to be punished and rescinded. Instead, the Patriot Act got renewed. When Democrats act like Republicans, we lose. When Democrats won't even name and shame disgraceful behavior, let alone attempt to correct it, we lose.

[Savannahmann]

56. Sorry

But I've heard that crap all my life. Every election is the one we have to look at who can win. We don't dare vote for who we like, because the election is too important. Why if we had a Republican in the White House now we'd have the NSA spying, wars in several countries, Drones dropping 300 bombs a year on the defenseless. Oh wait, that's what we have now.

That mentality is what got us into the fucking mess in the first place. The lesser of two evils mentality. That means we take a big bite out of the crap sandwich, pretending it's better when it's made by Democrats, they put cheese on it. "It almost hides the flavor of the crap"

The lesser of two evils is still driving us to hell, the only difference is that we might get there a full day earlier with a Rethug behind the wheel. We need someone who will drive away from hell, and will argue about principles, and ideals. Not some revolting we calculate that this one can win so hold your nose and vote damn it nonsense. Not again. Not ever again.

[JRLeft]

60. Thank You, the boogie man scare tactic no longer works against me.

Obama trade policies are republicanesque. Romney would have done the something. I am tired of corporatists politicians as our only choices.

[winter is coming]

18. +1. Every time we vote for "the candidate who can win", the Party ends up chasing

after Republican votes, to the detriment of the Democratic base and the country. I'm done with following "the lesser of two evils" farther and farther to the right.

[Phillyindy]

22. But you have to...

...deal with the reality that this is a centrist country. The majority would want a Hillary, and be scared to death of a Grayson. Even Warren wouldn't stand a chance without a more experienced centrist at the top.

[winter is coming]

29. I don't have to accept the bullshit idea that America's "center" is truly way to the right of

what it used to be. Polls demonstrate that what most Americans want, both socially and fiscally, is to the left of what most of our elected officials are espousing, largely because a goodly chunk of them follow the lead of their financial supporters. We badly need campaign finance reform. Without it, the country will likely be sucked even further into corporate control.

[Phillyindy]

32. Agreed there.

[former9thward]

16. The first female candidate for president will never have a female for VP.

Just not political reality.

[Phillyindy]

19. I don't know...

I normally would agree, but this ticket would literally have something for everyone except the right wingers. Hillary's experience, foreign policy expertise, a little hawkish, and so on...Warren a true fighter for middle class, consumers, students and holding Wall Street accountable. I literally think the turn out of new voters could be bigger then Obama.

[liberal_at_heart]

21. What exactly would Warren be able to accomplish as VP? She'd do better to stay where she is than run

for VP. She would be a good candadite for President but not VP.

[Phillyindy]

25. Prep for POTUS, a national pulpit to...

...get the facts out about Wall Street and how the rich are fleecing us. Mainstreaming progressive beliefs.

[winter is coming]

31. She already has a national pulpit, and being VP isn't necessarily good prep for POTUS.

A governership would be better for that.

[Phillyindy]

36. I promise you...

The average American has NEVER heard of Elizabeth Warren. I like Warren on the ticket because it will fire up the progressive base, including the kids, who are quite deflated at the moment.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

54. VP is actually lousy prep for a Democratic POTUS

The only times in the last 150+ years that a Democratic vice president has gone on to become president were initially due to the death of the sitting president (Lincoln-Johnson, FDR-Truman, Kennedy-Johnson). No Democratic vice president has become president during that time completely on his own (Note: big asterisk by Al Gore's name).

[Politicalboi]

33. Couldn't Warren run the office like

The Dick Cheney. Taking over where it needs to be looked at under a microscope. Let her handle the banking debacle. She could do some real good as VP. IMO

[Phillyindy]

38. Hillary wouldn't let her BUT

She certainly could kick some ass.

[olddots]

35. Warren & Clinton is as absurd as Amy Goodman & Sarah Palin

face it a large percentage of this country has been dumbed down so low that they would vote for Zippo the Musk Ox if hate radio and tv told them to .
Hillary has proven herself to be a very strong politician and a middle of the road Republican at heart. .

[Phillyindy]

40. Absurd is...

Putting Sarah Palin in the same sentence as those other 3 women.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Take off the first half, move the second to first, and I'd vote for it.

[Phillyindy]

26. Would love it but...

...she would have no chance. First woman is going to HAVE to be a Hillary - all kinds of experience both domestic and abroad, and at least somewhat a hawk. That's just political reality. She'll have to "pretty manly" to put it bluntly.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. No thanks.

My nose is worn out voting for "not as bad" half-assed moderates.

[Phillyindy]

30. So you want President Cruz or Paul?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Try something else. That one's stale.

Do Cruz or Paul sound to you like Liberals or progressives?

If I won't vote for a centrist why in the hell would I vote for a conservative?

[Phillyindy]

41. I'm saying if you...

...and other liberals won't vote for Hillary, as she WILL be the nominee, are you prepared to have one of these right wing fascists as president, potentially with the Republicans also having the house and senate?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Really?

I've voted in 22 federal elections. In not one did my vote change the outcome.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.” Emma Goldman

[Phillyindy]

45. I see, so why do you vote?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. I often ask myself that.

Force of habit, maybe. Or, because I think like JQA.

You?

[taught_me_patience]

39. Hillary - Schweitzer

Two centrists, but that's what you need to win these days.

[Phillyindy]

42. I think Hillary...

...could have a progressive on her ticket. The Clinton's have tremendous credibility as centrists, enough to allow a pragmatic progress like Warren on the ticket. IMO.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

44. Warren sounds good

Not really a fan of the DLC though, how about Warren/Wyden?

[longship]

47. Neither one of whom will run.

It's like fantasy baseball. Can I trade your Jimmie Foxx for my Hank Greenberg?

Hillary Clinton, I admit has a lot of support here (as does Warren -- about that in a minute). But she has spent her life in the political meat grinder. When she first took on her post at Foggy Bottom -- the State Department for those who don't know -- she put a pretty hard limit of just one term and that if Obama was reelected he would have to come up with a replacement.

Hillary has given no indication that she is running for President beyond some teasers. And it is three fucking years before the nominees are selected.

Warren? I love her, too. But she was just elected to her first elected office ever. There is something beyond intelligence that makes a good president. I don't know what it is, although intelligence is certainly part of it. But it is not the whole deal. There's another attribute which sets aside a great president from the others.

We all know the great ones. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, etc., one could add many others. But all these people were more than just smart people. They knew how to navigate politically.

If I am not happy with President Obama it is because he lacks that element. He has brought a naïveté to the White House which has allowed the GOP to basically stop a vast portion of government, to seize up and no longer function. And the President still talks about getting along and making compromises!!!

I will not support another candidate who I feel doesn't have that political experience which I consider to be lacking. Big Dawg had it. I fear that Barack Obama does not.

And NO! I am not an Obama hater.

[putitinD]

48. BIDEN/WARREN

[PowerToThePeople]

49. MLK/Gandhi

[quinnox]

50. Sounds good, but I would be a little worried about two women on the ticket

I personally love it, but it might be too much of a shock to the system of "Amurika", if you get my meaning.

[ConcernedCanuk]

55. MEN haven't been doing a great job in the World.

.
.
.

I'm all for letting women have a go at it for a century or two.

CC

[davidpdx]

58. I'd put my money on neither running

Not because they are women either. While Clinton will be tempted to run, she'll decide to retire. Warren, though I like her, will decide to stay in the senate citing her commitment to MA.

[Phillyindy]

66. You're Prob right on Warren but...

...way off on Hillary. She's the next president, all the stars are aligned.

[winter is coming]

72. 2007 called; it wants its meme back. n/t

[Phillyindy]

76. It's done.

[LWolf]

67. 1. No. 2. It's too early to start primary campaigns. nt

[wtmusic]

71. If you support Hillary, get used to the sound of "President Christie". nt

[Phillyindy]

77. Christie has no chance, NJ

Is doing terrible. He has no record to run on. He's a fat abusive hot headed crank who will turn off most Americans.

[Auntie Bush]

85. I support Hillary...the one who can win.

You guys go in dreaming...fun while it will last.

[Le Taz Hot]

73. Oh. Fuck. No.

That's like adding cheap beer to a fine wine. I'll let you figure out which is which.

[Katashi_itto]

74. Clinton-Clinton

A wet dream for 3rd way

Bill can be the VP

[KamaAina]

79. Twelfth Amendment

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am12.html

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The Big Dog falls under that last clause because he served two terms as President.

[Katashi_itto]

81. Just curious, how so? I mean I thought consitionaly inelegible would mean things like

not native born.

Very curious, I mean where is it written that a former president cannot be a VP?

Thanks!

[KamaAina]

82. Well, if something happened to Hillary, he'd be President

and he's already served two terms.

Besides, he'd have to "move" back to Arkansas like Cheney did to Wyoming.

[Katashi_itto]

83. AHA! I never thought of the elevation to president part.

Stupid of me, overlooking the obvious.

Not to mention the residency requirements

Thanks very much!

[unblock]

78. veep is the LAST place i want to see warren.

so many more appropriate places for her -- treasury secretary, fed chair, ..., or actually, the senate, preferably with more seniority, running a few good committees.

[Phillyindy]

80. One senator has no power...

...she needs to be a national figure, to change the conversation, explain to the average American whats really goong on, and bring her message to the masses. We need fundamental change. Bernie Sanders has been fighting the good fight for decades, yet I'd bet 60% of Americans have never heard of him.

[unblock]

84. so, treasury or fed chair. veep is easily ignored unless the consumate insider.

as john nance garner said, the office of the vice-president ain't worth a bucket of warm piss.


gore and cheney were highly effective in that role because they were both, in their own ways, consummate insiders, capable of twisting arms within the bureaucracy.

warren is an outsider and critic, and wouldn't be effective as veep, without explicit authority, she would largely be ignored.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. I know this OP is just a thought experiment; But ...

Whatever the ticket is in 2016, unless we undo 2010 in 2014, they won’t be able to accomplish anywhere nearly enough to be considered anything but a “huge disappointment.”

[burnodo]

88. Right-winger - left-winger ticket?

No thanks

[derby378]

89. Dean/Warren for 2016?

Some folks say Dean tends towards the center himself, but his independence from DLC/Third Way has been the stuff of legend.