Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

book_worm

(15,951 posts)
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 10:07 AM Jun 2016

Reid Finds Loophole to Allow Warren VP Pick

“Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has been actively reviewing Massachusetts rules for filling a US Senate vacancy, another indication of the seriousness with which Democrats are gaming out the possibility of Elizabeth Warren joining likely presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s ticket,” the Boston Globe reports.

“The upshot of Reid’s review is that Senate Democrats may have found an avenue to block or at least narrow GOP Governor Charlie Baker’s ability to name a temporary replacement and prevent the Senate from flipping to a Democratic majority if Warren were to leave the chamber. That suggests the issue is not as significant an obstacle as Reid previously feared.”

Key takeaway: “Warren could file such a letter 145 days before the Jan. 20, 2017 inauguration and successfully block Baker from picking any temporary replacement… A more likely scenario would be that Warren would start the clock ticking for a special Massachusetts ballot only if Clinton won, with an intent-to-resign letter dated the day after the Nov. 8 national election.”

https://politicalwire.com/2016/06/04/reid-finds-loophole-to-allow-warren-pick/

43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Reid Finds Loophole to Allow Warren VP Pick (Original Post) book_worm Jun 2016 OP
Warren is neither that desperate, nor that big a sell-out. AzDar Jun 2016 #1
Funny she hasn't issued a declaration stating she isn't interested in the vice presidency book_worm Jun 2016 #3
Nor has she stated that she IS. Of course, when dealing with the Clintons, the definition of "is" is AzDar Jun 2016 #6
...or when the anti-Clinton folks couldn't believe her when she said she wasn't running for Pres.? brooklynite Jun 2016 #12
Not anti-Clinton. Anti-conservative. JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #32
Not the way I recall it... brooklynite Jun 2016 #33
Obviously, I can only speak for myself; but I have seen mostly policy aversion from Camp Sanders JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #34
I thought she had, and I take the woman at her word. Also, how much fun to have two powerful seabeyond Jun 2016 #27
Is this just "name-dropping supreme", or is Warren amenable to this? -nt- NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #2
I think she is amenable. nt Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #5
Great news nt Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #4
even that obvious pandering isn't enough azurnoir Jun 2016 #7
I don't think Warren would want it Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2016 #8
I think she does. Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #10
Here's an interview I bet you haven't seen notadmblnd Jun 2016 #31
Squirrel! n/t winter is coming Jun 2016 #9
. mmonk Jun 2016 #15
shiny, tinsel squirrel! 2banon Jun 2016 #40
I have never thought Warren was that much of a liberal Skink Jun 2016 #11
She's not, really. She is a moderate. MADem Jun 2016 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author CentralMass Jun 2016 #13
The VP hasn't been a rubber stamp since Al Gore had the job. MADem Jun 2016 #16
I doubt it. Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #19
Senator Warren is older than she appears. MADem Jun 2016 #23
THIS--for any detractors of Harry Reid--is why we will miss him so terribly. MADem Jun 2016 #14
We have no need of a senate "benefit" if we lose the presidency to a monster like Trump Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #18
If we can prevent Baker from naming a temporary (Republican) to her seat, MADem Jun 2016 #21
This message was self-deleted by its author CentralMass Jun 2016 #22
We'll certainly miss him greatly if his replacement is Chuck Schumer. n/t PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #29
That's not an "if." Schumer is the heir-apparent. MADem Jun 2016 #37
I think they are looking at a way of giving her senate seat to a third wayer and have one less B Calm Jun 2016 #17
She is not a liberal. She's a moderate. nt MADem Jun 2016 #24
If she's a moderate, what does that make Hillary? B Calm Jun 2016 #26
A moderate. MADem Jun 2016 #28
nailed it. 2banon Jun 2016 #43
I hope Warren stays in the Senate bigwillq Jun 2016 #25
They must really think people are stupid notadmblnd Jun 2016 #30
I think it is HRC voters talking this up Skink Jun 2016 #36
I think--if you reference the OP--it's HARRY REID talking this up. MADem Jun 2016 #38
Goddamnit, no. Arkana Jun 2016 #35
Someone better check the constitution. If either of these are tried then there is going to be a Exilednight Jun 2016 #39
VP could be the President should some problem arise andym Jun 2016 #41
Why would she take it? What would she gain for the privilege? She'd basically just JCanete Jun 2016 #42

book_worm

(15,951 posts)
3. Funny she hasn't issued a declaration stating she isn't interested in the vice presidency
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 10:15 AM
Jun 2016

Though I know if she does get it she will be thrown under that ever bumpy bus.

 

AzDar

(14,023 posts)
6. Nor has she stated that she IS. Of course, when dealing with the Clintons, the definition of "is" is
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 10:18 AM
Jun 2016

an ISSUE, I hear...

brooklynite

(93,844 posts)
12. ...or when the anti-Clinton folks couldn't believe her when she said she wasn't running for Pres.?
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 10:34 AM
Jun 2016
 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
27. I thought she had, and I take the woman at her word. Also, how much fun to have two powerful
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:23 AM
Jun 2016

women at the top. Not only shattering the glass ceiling but obliterating it.

She is too old, I think being around the same age as Clinton. and Northeast, along with Clinton. So I would tend for a different dynamic, strategically. But... the awesome of these two women running would be such a lesson and experience for us all, I could go for it.

Demsrule86

(68,347 posts)
10. I think she does.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 10:26 AM
Jun 2016

She sure did not say no in the interview I saw...and i doubt Reid would be checking if she were opposed to the idea. She is already vetted too with her Senate run...win win.

Skink

(10,122 posts)
11. I have never thought Warren was that much of a liberal
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 10:31 AM
Jun 2016

Not that I am against her positions on much of anything.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
20. She's not, really. She is a moderate.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:00 AM
Jun 2016

Not everyone who objects to banking industry excesses is automatically a "liberal." It's a short-hand assumption that a lot of people make, though.

She was a Republican as recently as the nineties. People forget that. I disagreed with her stance on weed when she was running, but I still worked to get her elected. You can't always get everything you want.

Response to book_worm (Original post)

MADem

(135,425 posts)
16. The VP hasn't been a rubber stamp since Al Gore had the job.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 10:57 AM
Jun 2016

The VP has always had his own portfolio.

I'm quite sure EW wouldn't ever get bullied into saying anything she didn't want to say, or doing anything she didn't want to do. She's either tough and capable, or she's a wuss. I vote for tough and capable.

You don't have to have "presidential ambitions" to be a good VP, either. Some people prefer to be more like an éminence grise than the Star of the Day.

All that said, this just might be Harry Reid kneading the dough in order to make the electorate rise--he knows how to bake, too.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
23. Senator Warren is older than she appears.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:13 AM
Jun 2016

She will be 74 in 2024.

I always thought she'd be a great Fed Chair. It's her wheelhouse, certainly.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
14. THIS--for any detractors of Harry Reid--is why we will miss him so terribly.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 10:50 AM
Jun 2016

There is no one--and I mean no one--who is better at getting down in the weeds and using the rules to OUR benefit.

If this can fly, come on Elizabeth!

It's a bit of a "senior ticket" and might prove challenging to retain the WH in eight years time, but it will be a helluva great eight years...!

Demsrule86

(68,347 posts)
18. We have no need of a senate "benefit" if we lose the presidency to a monster like Trump
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 10:58 AM
Jun 2016

so if Warren can make sure we defeat him then she should do so by being VP. I think she is an excellent choice.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
21. If we can prevent Baker from naming a temporary (Republican) to her seat,
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:09 AM
Jun 2016

then we have a shot.

MA has a LOT of qualified candidates for the Senate who are on our D team. There's another "Warren" who might be a good fit, in fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setti_Warren

Robert Reich is from MA, he might want to give it a go; Barney Frank is retired now (think he moved to Maine) but I wouldn't mind him in the job--though he would likely do just a term, two tops...but there are other not quite so grizzled "up and comers" (to include a red headed Kennedy) who might well give it a run.

It's fun to speculate. I wouldn't mind if this happened...but I get the feeling that Harry Reid is simply exciting the base. He is one SMART leader, I gotta give him that. I will miss him terribly.

Response to MADem (Reply #14)

MADem

(135,425 posts)
37. That's not an "if." Schumer is the heir-apparent.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:24 PM
Jun 2016

He is also very good at using the rules to advantage, but never as good as Reid was. He's almost as good a bare-knuckles fighter; give him a few years and he'll be up to snuff.

You do understand this isn't about "partisan" leadership, in the sense that being "liberal" or "conservative" matters. It's about political leadership, in the sense of guiding legislation through the chamber that we, as a group, want, and preventing legislation from being passed that the GOP as a group want. You have to have good organizational skills, good leadership skills, and good technical and parliamentary skills. It doesn't hurt to know where the bodies are buried, either (that was a joke). Schumer has those talents, and he has the confidence of his peers (the leadership is an elected position--and he gets elected by the other Senators).

Harry Reid was (is) a pro-lifer in terms of his personal POV. He didn't let it get in the way of his prosecuting a Democratic perspective in his leadership role, though. Nancy Pelosi is way more liberal than many of her peers, but that didn't stop her from understanding the importance of compromise and cooperation. The idea is to keep moving the ball down the field...!

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
17. I think they are looking at a way of giving her senate seat to a third wayer and have one less
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 10:57 AM
Jun 2016

liberal in the senate. They think it will also win over Bernie supporters.

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
43. nailed it.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:14 PM
Jun 2016

Not only that, but accepting a toothless position as VP, Warren would be forever tainted with HRC eventual downfall riddled with an array of currently known scandals and legal problems if she accepts the VP.

I'd be quite surprised if she risks her future associating herself with a Clinton administration.


notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
30. They must really think people are stupid
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:30 AM
Jun 2016

And that we don't know that VP position really has only one function and that is casting the tie breaking vote in the Senate. Other than that unless the President dies- there is nothing the VP can have influence over.

Using Senator Warren as a carrot to bring Sanders voters over to Hillary is in my opinion a lame move. Senator Warren can accomplish much much more in the Senate.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
38. I think--if you reference the OP--it's HARRY REID talking this up.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:26 PM
Jun 2016

He's massaging the base.

Since Sanders won't be the nominee, I don't think it will "attract some voters to support Bernie."

This is a supposition about a Clinton running mate.

Arkana

(24,347 posts)
35. Goddamnit, no.
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 11:55 AM
Jun 2016

No no no.

She belongs in the Senate. She has more power and a louder voice there.

And I am sick, sick, sick to death of electing new senators here. It gives the GOP too much of an opening, and that weasel Scott Brown will crawl out from under his rock and run again.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
39. Someone better check the constitution. If either of these are tried then there is going to be a
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:42 PM
Jun 2016

Prolonged court battle that ends after the Supreme Court goes to 4-4 and sends it back down.

andym

(5,441 posts)
41. VP could be the President should some problem arise
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:08 PM
Jun 2016

For example, the email server... And I would hope that whoever gets the VP under Clinton will insist on having access to the bully pulpit to advance progressive ideas.

But this is still academic: although Bernie will likely not have the majority of the delegates, I think he will take his campaign to the convention as Ronald Reagan did in 1976, when the GOP had a system which required "superdelegates" (unpledged) to win because of how close the delegate count was (Ford had a 10% lead, and the majority of pledged delegates). Bernie's campaign is probably well aware of this history and how close Reagan came to the nomination in a primary system that the GOP used back then that is similar to the one the Democratic Party is using now.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
42. Why would she take it? What would she gain for the privilege? She'd basically just
Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:13 PM
Jun 2016

have to shut up about all the things she's been battling on for the next 4, maybe 8 years. Why would the rest of us want that? Sure, it makes Hillary's ticket sound strong, but it has no practical benefit, and it wastes Warren in a yes-man role. I have no doubt the DNC would love to shift her into the VP seat though. They'd get all the prestige and none of the headache. I hope she doesn't bite.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Reid Finds Loophole to Al...