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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

democrattotheend

(11,607 posts)
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:30 AM Jun 2016

POLL: Do we want Elizabeth Warren as Clinton's VP choice (by primary candidate)?

Someone posted a poll on this yesterday but didn't break it out by primary candidate. I thought it would be interesting to see how this question breaks down among supporters of both candidates.


49 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
Hillary Supporter; Yes
5 (10%)
Hillary Supporter; No
5 (10%)
Hillary Supporter; Not Sure/It Depends
2 (4%)
Bernie Supporter; Yes
6 (12%)
Bernie Supporter; No
28 (57%)
Bernie Supporter; Not Sure/It Depends
3 (6%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
42 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
POLL: Do we want Elizabeth Warren as Clinton's VP choice (by primary candidate)? (Original Post) democrattotheend Jun 2016 OP
No (Bernie Supporter) bigwillq Jun 2016 #1
Agree. A senator can get more done than a vice-president. JustABozoOnThisBus Jun 2016 #5
Like Senate majority leader. Imagine the hell she would bring upon the GOP tonyt53 Jun 2016 #27
There are a lot here who wanted her as SBS's VP choice. Bobby Kennedy can fill Warren's Senate seat. TheBlackAdder Jun 2016 #40
I didn't want Warren as Bernie's VP either. bigwillq Jun 2016 #41
She needs to stay in senate. VulgarPoet Jun 2016 #2
Depends on how close we are to retaking the Senate ... NurseJackie Jun 2016 #3
Wouldn't the Republican appointment only be for a few months, until a special election? democrattotheend Jun 2016 #20
I think they have 150 days to call for a special election dlwickham Jun 2016 #26
it's irrelevant to me. It is a ceremonial post. cali Jun 2016 #4
Ceremonial ... ha! :-P NurseJackie Jun 2016 #6
yes, it's largely ceremonial. What precisely has Joe Biden done? cali Jun 2016 #9
You haven't been paying attention to Joe, I see. Or ... NurseJackie Jun 2016 #11
So you can't name a thing. No surprise cali Jun 2016 #15
I was going to say it's ceremonial with a young pres like Obama, but then JFK... yurbud Jun 2016 #23
The fact it is a ceremonial post should make it highly relevant to you. JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #13
It will be tough to call Bernie fringe after this primary cycle. yurbud Jun 2016 #25
What that we do here *is* relevant jack_krass Jun 2016 #28
Not sure Dem2 Jun 2016 #7
Same democrattotheend Jun 2016 #21
I fully support this. Double down. Do it. betsuni Jun 2016 #8
Horrible, horrible idea. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #10
Yep. It is interesting the breakdown of votes in the poll so far. JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #12
I love your posts Tarc Jun 2016 #24
Almost all of the Bernie supporters voting "no" are ones geek tragedy Jun 2016 #14
Mmmh. I tried to look at it from the hardcore bernie viewpoint. cyberpunk Jun 2016 #17
I don't think Elizabeth Warren is going to be anyone's yes-woman nt geek tragedy Jun 2016 #18
I'd hope not. nt cyberpunk Jun 2016 #19
Bernie supporters have been saying for months athena Jun 2016 #34
that's a lot of cross referencing yurbud Jun 2016 #38
I'm for it. Here is why. RDANGELO Jun 2016 #16
That's a bunch of if's floppyboo Jun 2016 #22
Well at least we are staying true to the usual suspects. Eom MyNameGoesHere Jun 2016 #29
Great for Banks, terrible for citizens Marrah_G Jun 2016 #30
Why? democrattotheend Jun 2016 #31
Yes, because she isn't in the senate to fight them. Marrah_G Jun 2016 #37
Warren is a fiery advocate. She can have a decades-long career in the Senate... Hekate Jun 2016 #32
She didn't have the courage to either run or support the progressive candidate. Kentonio Jun 2016 #33
Between VP and the Senate -- Hell Hath No Fury Jun 2016 #35
no, they have zero chemistry. nt La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2016 #36
No. But if she accepts it, I'll be hopeful of the terms and her judgement. nt JCanete Jun 2016 #39
it doesn't matter, since hillary will lose. nt restorefreedom Jun 2016 #42

TheBlackAdder

(28,359 posts)
40. There are a lot here who wanted her as SBS's VP choice. Bobby Kennedy can fill Warren's Senate seat.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:04 PM
Jun 2016

.


I shake my head at how some are coming down on Warren here.

She'd be fantastic and it would be a good staging for 2020, as what people said with her as SBS's VP choice.


Oh, and as a poli-sci continuing ed student, at 54, I am remain a uncommitted Democrat, who votes Dem ticket.

I don't know why these polls don't take that option into consideration.


.

 

bigwillq

(72,790 posts)
41. I didn't want Warren as Bernie's VP either.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:11 PM
Jun 2016

I'd rather her stay in the Senate.

I can only control myself. I care little about the "some" coming down on Warren. They're free to do that.

VulgarPoet

(2,872 posts)
2. She needs to stay in senate.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:49 AM
Jun 2016

If Hillary had her as VP, then that's all the reins to completely strip her of her strength, and continue along the road of pimping us out to the corporates.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
3. Depends on how close we are to retaking the Senate ...
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:50 AM
Jun 2016

... and what it would mean if a Republican governor appoints another Republican for the vacant Senate seat.

democrattotheend

(11,607 posts)
20. Wouldn't the Republican appointment only be for a few months, until a special election?
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 11:24 AM
Jun 2016

I thought the Democrats in the Massachusetts house changed the rules in 2004 to prevent Romney from appointing Kerry's replacement if he won the presidency? Which of course ended up biting us all in the ass when Teddy died.

dlwickham

(3,316 posts)
26. I think they have 150 days to call for a special election
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:07 PM
Jun 2016

but yes a republican would be seated during that time

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
11. You haven't been paying attention to Joe, I see. Or ...
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:11 AM
Jun 2016

... you're trying to marginalize him for scoring points in the DU gamesmanship.

I suppose you think that Cheney's role was "largely ceremonial" too.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
23. I was going to say it's ceremonial with a young pres like Obama, but then JFK...
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 11:58 AM
Jun 2016

Hillary is older.

I don't know much about her health.

However, giving up real power for only potentially greater power down the road...

LBJ was a pretty goddamn adept politician, so maybe the job is worth it.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
13. The fact it is a ceremonial post should make it highly relevant to you.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:17 AM
Jun 2016

She would be leaving the Senate for a ceremonial position.

It's like the neoliberal dream. The perfect ending to handicapping her. First block her from heading up the CFPB with the price of a senate seat for a few years, then have her finish her career in a ceremonial position, while it is easy to marginalize Bernie Sanders as fringe.

democrattotheend

(11,607 posts)
21. Same
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 11:51 AM
Jun 2016

It depends whether Hillary actually wants her and plans to give her a meaningful role or is just trying to throw us a bone.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
10. Horrible, horrible idea.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:07 AM
Jun 2016

And a rather obvious scam: bring Warren onto the ticket as a sop to progressives (with no intention of actually being progressive)...then completely neuter her Senatorial voice by walling her off in a ceremonial position that by tradition never utters a word of opposition to the president.

Nope.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
12. Yep. It is interesting the breakdown of votes in the poll so far.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:15 AM
Jun 2016

I fully expected the neoliberals to want Warren as VP and I haven't seen a lot of enthusiasm generally for her as VP.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
14. Almost all of the Bernie supporters voting "no" are ones
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:22 AM
Jun 2016

who've indicated they're not willing to vote for Clinton in order to stop Trump.

Interesting.

 

cyberpunk

(78 posts)
17. Mmmh. I tried to look at it from the hardcore bernie viewpoint.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:33 AM
Jun 2016

When you've seen several people mention sending money to try and primary Sanders, on top of people wanting to co-opt Warren for VP, that's two progressive voices they'd agree with effectively silenced, as I don't think they'd be quick at all to trust any progressive voices you could name just by dint of you naming them as a Clinton supporter. Highly polarized cycle.

athena

(4,187 posts)
34. Bernie supporters have been saying for months
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:08 PM
Jun 2016

that they would happily vote for a woman like Elizabeth Warren to be president, just not Hillary Clinton. Now they're saying they don't want Elizabeth Warren to be VP. I can't say I'm surprised.

RDANGELO

(3,450 posts)
16. I'm for it. Here is why.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:29 AM
Jun 2016

In most cases, I would say no; leave her in the senate to be a progressive voice. Here are the reasons for it: Hillary will be almost 70 years old when she takes office, and her health isn't all that great. If she makes it to the office without the e-mail situation blowing up, the Democrats will probably not take the house, and there will be investigations into the server, obstruction of justice for deleting e-mails, and The Clinton Foundation. What this adds up to, is there is a chance she will not finish her first term or not be able to run for a second.
If you look at history, one of the most progressive presidents of his time was Teddy Roosevelt. He became president because he was selected as VP to shut him up. Mckinley was assassinated and he became president.
I believe that the biggest prize that Bernie could attain at the convention is an agreement on the VP.

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
22. That's a bunch of if's
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 11:58 AM
Jun 2016

But a very convincing argument. I hope Reid can get if figured out re. how long it would take to hold senate elections after inauguration, assuming Clinton wins.

democrattotheend

(11,607 posts)
31. Why?
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:07 PM
Jun 2016

Do you mean great for banks if she is no longer in the Senate? I highly doubt you mean great for banks because Warren is great for banks.

Hekate

(91,668 posts)
32. Warren is a fiery advocate. She can have a decades-long career in the Senate...
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:12 PM
Jun 2016

....and wield far more influence than 4-8 years as Veep.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
33. She didn't have the courage to either run or support the progressive candidate.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:05 PM
Jun 2016

So no I don't think she deserves to be in the White House unless she choses to run next time around.

If she doesn't want to be in the White House this time around, then I'll happily withdraw the 'courage' remark.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
35. Between VP and the Senate --
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:10 PM
Jun 2016

she is better used in the Senate where her voice against any financial/banking sector bullshit a Clinton presidency might attempt will be heard.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»POLL: Do we want Elizabet...