The real reason people want Elizabeth Warren for VP

[yallerdawg]

We have a slate of future Democratic headliners who could use necessary seasoning in a Clinton cabinet and national exposure - working for Hillary or in Hillary's Congress.

Elizabeth Warren - like Hillary - is "ready for prime time" NOW!

Source: Vox, Dylan Matthews

It's understandable. Warren is probably the most popular and recognizable Democrat in the country apart from President Obama, Joe Biden, and Clinton herself. She's proven to be a very effective and eager anti-Trump campaigner, making headlines for her attacks on the Donald's business record, for sparring with him on Twitter, and most recently for a speech accusing the GOP nominee of exploiting the financial crisis for profit

Outside of Warren, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro gets the most buzz, but he's laughably unqualified. He hasn't done much of note at the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the past two years, and he served as San Antonio mayor when that was a part-time job paying $3,000 a year plus $20 a council session; San Antonio uses a council manager system, where the mayor is basically a glorified city councilor.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) is in a swing state and speaks better Spanish than Castro from his time as a missionary in Honduras, but he also has a strong anti-abortion record that wouldn't be a great addition to the first woman-headed major-party ticket in American history.

Labor Secretary Tom Perez is popular with liberals, but Clinton probably wants a running mate who's won a more recent and notable election than the 2002 county council race in Montgomery County, Maryland.

Former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) — perennially on Democrats' VP shortlist, including in 2008 — has ruled himself out by spending the past six years as a lobbyist. Not so attractive in a year when a democratic socialist decrying big money in politics ran a strong campaign against Clinton.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) could help shore up Sanders supporters, but he's a key senator in a swing state whose replacement would be picked by a Republican governor. He's also not a national figure the way Paul Ryan, Joe Biden, John Edwards, or Dick Cheney was.

Read it all at: http://www.vox.com/2016/5/31/11785356/elizabeth-warren-vice-president

[RandySF]

1. And then we lose a senate seat.

The governor is a Republican.

[yallerdawg]

2. We shore up the divisiveness in the Democratic Party...

and sweep in a Democratic White House and Democratic Congress!

[metroins]

3. Senate seat is currently more important

There's other qualified VP picks.

[yallerdawg]

4. Then you disagree with the article.

I felt it highlighted some considerations Hillary is taking into account regarding "other" prominent VP options, and what Senator Warren brings to the table!

[Miles Archer]

5. The divisiveness is absolutely going to hinge on the VP pick.

The "enthusiasm" gap will be closed...or not...by the VP pick.

I would prefer to see Ms. Warren do her own thing, in her own time, rather than be on this year's ticket.

I don't have a "magic pick" for who I think should be on the ticket, but they are going to need to appeal to Progressives, and they are going to have to be charismatic. That's pretty much a no-brainer.

[yallerdawg]

6. If Elizabeth Warren joined Hillary Clinton on the ticket...

it would be a "game changer!"

[Miles Archer]

9. Perhaps, but...

...my only reservation is whether it ended up being a "win-win" for Clinton AND Warren, or if Ms. Warren is better served in the long run following her own path.

I don't know. I'm not saying she should or she shouldn't. I just need to see what that would look like on paper. I would not want to see her change one iota to "fit into" a Clinton Presidency, and if Ms. Clinton brought her on to the ticket, I'd want some assurance that she would let her be Elizabeth Warren...nothing more, nothing less.

If Ms. Clinton is looking at a ticket that could win over the Democrats and serve the country well, there are no qualms about Ms. Warren. If there is any "groupthink" present in her evaluation, Ms. Warren is clearly the wrong choice, regardless of her substantial appeal. I don't want her to "fit in" anywhere. I want her to continue to shake things up.

[TwilightZone]

30. I think the divisiveness is mostly a myth that's propped up by the Sanders campaign and the media.

Polls show that 70-80% of Sanders supporters would already support Hillary in November and Sanders hasn't even dropped out yet.

I don't think even Warren is going to bring in the BoB's, so I don't think that should be a primary concern when choosing the VP candidate. Crossover demographic appeal and other factors may prove to be more important.

[yallerdawg]

38. I know we put another spin on it...

but almost half the turnout for Democrats so far has been for other than Hillary.

Before anyone ever really gave any consideration to Sanders, Warren was the progressive darling of 'the left.'

We ask what could really ignite a passionate Democratic base - and if Hillary considers this her weakness - Elizabeth could fix this!

That Bernie or Bust contingent, 20-30% of almost half the Democratic vote could be significant.

[TwilightZone]

39. Right, but that assumes that the half who didn't vote for Hillary wouldn't support her otherwise.

Most Democrats would support either of them were he or she the nominee, outside of the primary environment. Supporting one doesn't mean that we wouldn't support the other if our first choice wasn't available.

It's also not really half. Last I checked, it was 57/43 or so (not counting O'Malley), and that doesn't count WA/NE where Hillary won the primaries pretty handily after Sanders won the small-turnout caucuses. She also would have likely won states like MN had they held primaries instead of caucuses.

Bernie or Bust isn't 20-30% of Sanders supporters. 20-30% have indicated that they wouldn't support her *now*, but Sanders hasn't even dropped out yet, so some of those are just voting reflexively. It's the same reason why the same polls show Sanders way ahead against Trump and closer races between Hillary and Trump. Sanders supporters are voting for Trump, in part because it's still a three-way race. It fulfills their self-professed prophecy - see, people don't like Hillary and Sanders is stronger!

When Sanders drops out and endorses Hillary, the numbers will go up. They'll increase further as the holdouts have a few months to consider the idea of President Donald Trump. PUMAs were a much higher percentage of Hillary supporters in 2008, and the vast majority of them voted for Obama in November.

Some BoBs won't vote for Hillary regardless. I don't see picking a VP candidate primarily to appease a few whiny holdouts who aren't going to vote anyway.

[beachbum bob]

7. 2 women at the top of democratic ticket is NOT a winner

warren much more effective as a senator....

[Mr Maru]

27. Why? I don't think that makes any sense.

People who aren't going to vote for a woman, are not going to vote for a woman leading a man.

This guy would love to see Warren on the ticket, but I TRUST HILLARY to make the right pick and ultimately I'm not voting for #2.

I'm with HER.

[athena]

35. Unfortunately

there are still too many people out there, male and female, who believe women are intrinsically inferior and cannot be trusted to lead a small work group, let alone the most powerful country in the world. To such people, the presence of a man in the VP position would suggest that the VP will be the one who is really in charge, or will at least make sure that the poor woman on top of the ticket doesn't make any major blunders. (Such people also tend to think that if Hillary is president, Bill will be the one making all the decisions. I was shocked when I heard this view expressed eight years ago by an elderly man who supported HRC over BHO because he thought an HRC presidency would really be a third Bill Clinton term. He seemed to think that everyone who supported Hillary supported her for this reason.)

In other words, I suspect that many people would vote for Hillary with a male VP (only because they can't imagine voting for Trump) but not for two women.

[Blue Idaho]

8. I'm going to go way out on a limb here...

As much as I hate say this - there is still a large swath of the American voting public that simply won't vote for an all female ticket.

I wish it weren't true - but I believe it to be.

[BootinUp]

10. All these factors need to be weighed. Its a tough decision

I trust Hillary to make it.

[Miles Archer]

11. Well, there's that too..."too much too soon" and "the journey of 1000 miles."

So it still comes down to Ms. Clinton selecting a running mate who will resonate with the "American voting public," and as of right now, I have no idea who that might be. I can name a few people who would get high-fives on DU, but not a single one who could light up the GE.

[BlueCaliDem]

13. Hillary Clinton is talking about winning Texas - a traditionally Republican State. Why so confident?

Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 01:09 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-predicts-texas-win-223727



She's got something brewing that she's not telling the media, and I believe it's Texas-born, Mexican-American, Julian Castro. He was the popular Mayor of San Antonio three times in a row and he will inspire Latinos in Texas to get out the vote (in addition to them coming out against the Lyin-Don).

He gave the keynote address at the 2012 Democratic Convention, much like Senator Obama gave the keynote address in 2004. People have noted (and noticed) that Julian Castro is the Latino Obama.

Julian is the promise to Latinos - specifically Mexican-Americans - that after Hillary Clinton's two terms, he can run and become president. You BET they'll come out to vote for him in Texas and all other States.

Edited to correct the dates of keynote addresses.

[athena]

18. I would love a Clinton-Castro ticket.

That's what I've been hoping for for a long time. Castro is young and energetic and will be a nice balance to Clinton's experience and wisdom.

[Blue Idaho]

19. I trust Sec. Clinton to make the right choice.

I'm sure I will be thrilled with her choice. I trust her to be President and I trust her with all the decisions necessary to that office.

I can't wait.

[athena]

21. That's a very strange and unnecessarily hostile response.

Did I say I didn't trust Clinton?

DU has really turned into a school yard. It seems only bullies want to post on DU any more. When a Hillary supporter attacks another Hillary supporter, in the Hillary forum, for having a preference for Hillary's VP candidate, one wonders why one bothers to post on DU at all.

[Walk away]

24. Why the chip???

[athena]

28. Do you even care how this looks?

I expressed enthusiasm about a possible VP pick. This person attacked me, saying, "I trust Clinton to make the right decision", as if I had suggested otherwise. His/her holier-than-thou attitude reminded me of the behavior of certain girls during recess in elementary school. And here you are, using against me an expression that Barney Frank used against Weaver.

I thought Hillary supporters didn't act this way. Every time I was attacked by a Bernie supporter in GDP, I was proud that our side didn't descend to such lows. Then again, the hostile environment on DU pushes away anyone who isn't a bully, so I can't say I'm all that surprised. Just disappointed.

[Walk away]

31. Ok. I don't see you being attacked at all but possibly you have a history with...

that person. So I will step away because you seem very angry.

[athena]

32. No I don't.

Maybe I read too much into it. Or had too many bad experiences in elementary school.

[Blue Idaho]

37. Wow... Guess I shouldn't have taken that walk...

My post is in no way an attack on you. I'm sorry you can't read it for what it is - a full throated endorsement of Sec. Clinton. Nothing more nothing less. Perhaps I made a mistake in not choosing where my post would appear in this thread. I should have been more careful. Next time I will be.

[BootinUp]

25. I just don't know too much about him, so I have to defer to others

on his qualifications. Hillary recently talked to Chuck Todd or Chris Cuomo about the subject of her VP. And her big criteria was that the running mate would be qualified to be President, to step into that role.

[athena]

33. It looks like it's not going to be Castro.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/julian-castro-vice-president-hillary-clinton/

Too bad. He would have been an exciting choice.

[TwilightZone]

34. Independents and moderate Republicans can probably handle one woman on the ticket.

I'm not sure they can handle two. Not saying that crossover appeal should be a primary consideration, but I agree that there's a segment of the population that would probably look more favorably at a ticket of Hillary and, say, someone like Castro, more readily than Hillary and Elizabeth.

But then, I thought that latent racism might be a larger factor in the 2008 GE than it was. I was happy to be wrong, though it certainly came out with a vengeance after Obama was elected.

[bluestateguy]

36. Ok, yes

But would voters who hold such sexist views really be in play for any 21st century Democrat, given the Democratic Party's identify as the feminist party.

[BlueStateLib]

12. Gov Charlie Baker would appoint a republican to replace warren

[BlueCaliDem]

14. I'll keep saying it: two women on the top ticket is a loss for the Democratic Party in 2016.

Even with tRump as the GOP nominee.

And the reasons Vox puts forward to disqualify Senator Sherrod Brown for VP is the same for Elizabeth Warren, given that MA has a Republican governor (Charlie Baker) who isn't up for re-election until 2018 and who'll appoint a Republican to take EW's seat should the U.S. voting public set aside their male-centric attitudes and Hillary Clinton wins with Warren on the ticket (which I seriously doubt).

And to be fair and honest, NO ONE outside Hillary Clinton, is "qualified" to be president or vice president. These are positions candidates have to learn "on the job", and I'm certain Julian Castro will find a strong mentor in Hillary Clinton should she choose him to be her VP running mate.

But he, himself, has stated - again and again - that he doesn't believe she'll choose him. We'll see soon enough.

[yallerdawg]

16. I go back to the article.

The strongest VP selection!

Look at last 3 VP's. Biden, Cheney, Gore.

At this point, Julian Castro doesn't bring that kind of gravitas.

I have NO reservations regarding two women on the ticket. There is no indication more than half the people in this country would oppose Clinton/Warren because they are women.

I would anticipate even more women would be thrilled! And an awful lot of the progressive left!

[BlueCaliDem]

20. I understand, but the article is biased toward Elizabeth Warren since the same variables that dis-

qualify Sherrod Brown should disqualify Elizabeth Warren, don't you agree?

Besides, Hillary and Elizabeth aren't the best of friends and EW doesn't bring much to the ticket other than - hopefully - some Sanders supporters (although they've all but hurled her under the bus, too). She doesn't bring her State - which will vote overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton - and she doesn't bring with her more women than Hillary Clinton already has. I don't see the benefit for either Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party if she chose Senator Warren.

I have nothing against two women on the top ticket, either, but I was raised and have lived for years in The Netherlands where women get paid and have been getting paid equal to men, and it's not an issue. It was also the first country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage - with the blessings of the Church to boot!

Strong professional women is still an issue here with a large swath of Americans. It's still difficult for women to get equal pay for equal work in this country. That there is an indicator that the people of the U.S. are still too male-centric to support an all-woman ticket - even if they'll never cop to it publicly. But you can bet it will play a role in the voting booth and we can't afford to lose this presidential election, not with four seats on SCOTUS hanging in the balance.

[DLCWIdem]

23. V.P. will have to take on the Repub V.P.candidate

In the general election debates Castro would have to take on the Repub V.P. candidate who is bound to be a experienced challenger and debater. So Castro would have to hold his own.

[yallerdawg]

15. You better get ready, folks!

Take a look at Elizabeth Warren's Facebook Page.

This is starting to look like a national Democratic candidate!

And read the comments! She is a target!

[splat]

17. Biden again? Just a thought. n/t

[Mr Maru]

29. No, and he would say no.

And he would be right to say no.

I love Joe Biden, but no.

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. Nothing is worth having Scott Brown appointed to that seat again. EW should stay in the Senate.

There are much less risky choices. We can't afford to lose any more ground in Congress.

[forjusticethunders]

26. Why not Martin O'Malley?

Former governor, great platform, young, great understanding of the issues, only downside is that he's from a deep blue state, though he MIGHT pull a bit from VA.

[yallerdawg]

40. From the article:

"And the list of options who are national figures on that scale is very short. There's Bernie Sanders, of course. There's Warren. There's Biden (again). Al Franken was a reasonably well-known celebrity before taking office, but he has purposely not become nationally known as a politician the way Warren has. Martin O'Malley ran a whole presidential campaign but didn't earn the name recognition boost that Biden and Edwards did when they ran. New Jersey's Cory Booker is kind of well-known to media figures because Newark is close to New York City, but nationally he's still fairly obscure."

[forjusticethunders]

41. Ah I glossed over that part, was at work.

I kinda wish he had kept going after Iowa. I honestly think he could have been the primary beneficiary of the wheels coming off the Bernie bus. He actually got some votes here and there even while not campaigning. Bernie REALLY sucked the air out of his strategy though, and the only way for him to really have countered that was to hit his lack of policy detail early and set himself up as "Bernie with actual plans".

Still, I think if we're eliminating Senators (because Warren is more effective as a Senator, and we don't want to lose a seat), then O'Malley is a very attractive choice.