Why it's so unlikely that HRC will choose Warren as her running mate

[cali]

Clinton can't afford to pick her. Literally.

I understand that Hillary supporters have no problem with her ties to Wall Street and corporate interests, and the various appearances of conflicts of interest that have been extensively covered, but there is no politician more despised by the Wall Street and the Corporate Interests who fund much of HRC's campaign, than Warren.

In addition, Warren is decidedly independent and outspoken. She is not exactly on the same page as Clinton on the issues she is most passionate about.


<snip>

Clinton could also be wary of pissing off financial sector donors, and it bears mentioning that rich people all over America hate Elizabeth Warren and regard her as a dangerous economically illiterate charlatan. "The prospect of a Warren vice presidency could well drive the 1 percent straight into Trump’s arms, help the billionaire solve his fundraising problems, and make for a closer race in the end," Prokop notes.

<snip>

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/16/11954878/hillary-clinton-vice-president-veepstakes

<snip>

My dear liberal friends, I can feel your excitement already. But while Warren will be a great anti-Trump surrogate for Clinton — maybe the best Clinton will have — she’s not going to be on the ticket. Sorry to deliver the bad news.

There are a few reasons for this. The first is that Clinton and Warren aren’t close or even particularly friendly, and personal rapport is a key part of an effective working relationship between the president and vice president, as Clinton surely understands. Warren would come to the office with her own agenda on economic affairs — an agenda more aggressively liberal than Clinton’s, particularly when it comes to how the government should deal with Wall Street. Warren would also bring her own constituency, which could make her an unwanted headache for Clinton, who like all presidents would want a vice president who has no goal other than advancing the president’s goals.

Second, picking Warren would make for a historic all-female ticket, and that could be a risk. To be clear, it’s ludicrous that there should be something troubling to anyone about having two women running together. After all, we’ve had over a hundred all-male tickets in our history, and only two with one man and one woman. But there could well be some number of voters — how many is difficult to tell — who would vote for Clinton with a male running mate, but would find Clinton with a female running mate just too much to handle. It’s sexist, but Clinton is going to need the votes of people who have some sexism somewhere in their hearts, just like Barack Obama needed the votes of people with some racism somewhere in their hearts.

And Hillary Clinton is nothing if not a risk-averse politician. She’s been blessed with Donald Trump as an opponent, and she isn’t going to take any big chances between now and November that might complicate things.

<snip>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/13/sorry-liberals-elizabeth-warren-isnt-going-to-be-hillary-clintons-running-mate/

That she's being vetted doesn't mean much, and as of now, reports are that no potential vp on the various lists has been asked for the information that constitutes real vetting. The vetting that her campaign has been conducting is evidently information culled from public sources.

[PoliticAverse]

1. I also think Warren might outshine Clinton on the campaign trail. n/t

[TheFarseer]

2. She doesn't win a swing state

Hillary already has a white woman on the ticket. I can't imagine they get along and they don't see eye to eye on issues. If she picks a liberal to appease Bernie fans, which I doubt she will do anyway, Sherrod Brown at least helps in Ohio. Warren makes almost zero sense as VP IMO.

[eastwestdem]

3. Agree with your points. Another choice would likely be a smarter move. nt

[cali]

4. Sherrod is an impossibility. Ohio is a swing state and it's not

easy for dems to be elected to statewide office there.

[Lord Magus]

5. The idea that swing state VPs deliver their state is not backed up by any data.

And Sherrod Brown is irreplaceable in the Senate. A wingnut would appoint his replacement if he's the VP and it's hard for Dems to win Senate seats in Ohio.

[Demsrule86]

6. I think she should pick Warren

It would drive Trump nuts and would put an end to Bernie's pretensions. She would make a hell of a VP and could take over if needed...and it's Mass...we will get a Dem...oh noes. Does this wreck Bernie's end game?

[MineralMan]

7. In Minnesota, the DFL party rules call for equal gender representation among

elected officials. For example, if a precinct chair is a male, the vice-chair must be female, and vice-versa. On committees and other groups, there must be equal representation by gender.

That single rule has done more to make the DFL party more effective and more representative. We also have a commitment to make party leadership representative in other demographic areas, although no fixed numbers are required. The adoption of those rules in the Minnesota DFL Party has been fundamental in making the party more effective and has increased participation.

I think it's exceedingly unlikely that Senator Warren will be chosen as the VP candidate, largely for that gender balance reason. As a political party, the Democratic Party is moving toward demographic equality throughout. That's an important and worthwhile goal. Given the availability of qualified people of all demographic groups, there's no reason not to expect demographic balance within the party, right up to the top.

That's my opinion.

[randome]

8. I agree with Josh Marshall that Warren would amplify Clinton's liberal tendencies.

She would be an asset to her and to us, still. Reid must think the same because he's pushing for this and he, of anyone, knows what the stakes are, Senate-wise.

[geek tragedy]

9. Warren would help with small dollar donors, no?

Every VP has their own set of risks, there isn't an obvious pick out there.

Kaine is milquetoast and iffy on choice. Ryan wasn't pro-choice until 2015.

Brown would put that senate seat at risk.

Castro? Lightweight.

Becerra? Who?

Corey Booker? We don't need a Bain Capital apologist on the ticket.

etc etc

[cali]

10. I've been looking into Perez and find him pretty interesting.

[geek tragedy]

11. his values are solid, but he's got next to zero actual political experience.

virtually all of his positions have been appointments, not elected.

so he's a huge risk in that we simply have no idea how he'd perform as a candidate on the trail, with the press, in debates, fundraising, etc.

[cali]

12. that's true. But I'm sure in vetting him, her campaign will

look at all that.

[geek tragedy]

13. I have no doubt Clinton and her people will put a lot of thought into this.

with Perez, lack of political experience isn't something you can really vet though--just have to hope he can deliver the goods when he has to.

My sense is that it will be Warren or Booker. Which is a really odd pairing, admittedly, but they're the safest choices.

Castro's stock has really dropped, I think because of Trump (amplifies his weakness and makes his strength redundant)

[cali]

14. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it was someone "out of the blue", so to speak

someone who may be on Clinton's radar but isn't on ours or the media's.

[geek tragedy]

15. Maybe. I think the one rule she'll have is that they have to be ready on Day 1.

Both for practical reasons (she'd view it as irresponsible to pick someone who isn't ready) and for political reasons (lack of fitness for the office is her key argument against Trump).

Last thing she needs is to defend a Democratic Palin or Quayle.