Wall Street donors seek to block Warren VP pick

[think]

Wall Street donors seek to block Warren VP pick

By Ben White
06/20/16 05:17 AM EDT

If Clinton chooses the Massachusetts senator as her running mate, donations will dry up, fundraisers warn.

NEW YORK — Big Wall Street donors have a message for Hillary Clinton: Keep Elizabeth Warren off the ticket or risk losing millions of dollars in contributions.

In a dozen interviews, major Democratic donors in the financial services industry said they saw little chance that Clinton would pick the liberal firebrand as her vice presidential nominee. These donors despise Warren’s attacks on the financial industry. But they also think her selection would be damaging to the economy. And they warned that if Clinton surprises them and taps Warren, big donations from the industry could vanish.

“If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her,” said one top Democratic donor who has helped raise millions for Clinton. “They would literally just say, ‘We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you’ve had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can’t trust you, you’ve killed it.’”

Most big donors don’t want Warren on the ticket because she is the most accomplished anti-Wall Street populist in the Democratic Party. But many also think her presence would drive a potential Clinton administration too far to the left, poison relations with the private sector from the start and ultimately be damaging to the economy.
..

Read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489#ixzz4C7KEELeO

[TwilightZone]

1. Eh, seems like an idle threat. Historically, the economy does better under Dem administrations,

including on Wall Street. Some analysts are already saying that Trump getting elected would cause a significant drop in the market, so they'd more than likely still be better off supporting Clinton/Warren.

[Exilednight]

5. Then why have they supported people like Reagan and the Bushes?

[TwilightZone]

11. They weren't Trump.

This situation is unique, by anyone's standards. Financial analysts weren't predicting a significant downward shift in the markets when Reagan or either Bush were running.

[Qutzupalotl]

42. They vote their pocketbook rather than good of the country or economy.

Taxes on the wealthy would likely be higher under a Democrat.

[AgingAmerican]

48. Because they dont enforce regulations

[Ash_F]

7. This isn't about protecting the US economy to them

This is about their own short term gain and power.

Two different interests

[TwilightZone]

14. That doesn't make any sense.

The US economy, the financial services industry, and Wall Street are inextricably intertwined.

Why would the financial services industry not be trying to protect their own interests?

[Ash_F]

15. They don't want to be regulated

Much of their business is predatory in nature.

This is a very complicated subject, so I am not going to write an essay about it.

I recommend watching "The Big Short" if you have not seen it already.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. How can a Vice President regulate Wall Street? That's the job of a strong Senator or U.S. Rep.

No need to write an essay about that.

[Ash_F]

43. Why are they against Warren as VP?

No need to be childish. If you have a point state it clearly.

Have you seen the movie?

[BlueCaliDem]

46. Not being childish at all. I stated my point perfectly clear.

You claim that Wall Street donors don't back EW because, and I quote, "They don't want to be regulated".

I asked you, how can a Vice President regulate Wall Street?

Instead of answering, you got snarky. No need for that. Just answer the question - how can a VP regulate Wall Street, and by that I mean to ask, with what powers invested in the Vice President can he or she do so?

And remember, Ash_F, we're under the new ToS.

[Ash_F]

47. The VP has more visibility and clout than a senator

If Warren was VP, her quotes and speeches would gain more coverage and her views more support.

Maybe you disagree with this is and, if so, what are you ideas as to why Warren does not have support from Wall Street to be VP?

You accuse me of being snarky, but that's what you sounded like to me. If you are serious, then please respond to my question.

I am guessing you have not seen The Big Short. You need to see it. It's good.

[BlueCaliDem]

53. You really think so? You believe the (now defunct) "bully pulpit" extends to the VP?

I haven't seen any evidence of that for VP Biden these past 7 1/2 years, so I'm not totally convinced that would be the case with EW as VP.

However...As an outspoken, high-profile senior Senator from MA, Warren has far more power to enact change against Wall Street - at least, far more than as a Veep.

So I guess I disagree with your argument because of the above.

And as for my ideas as to why Warren doesn't not have support from Wall Street donors, my best guess is it's because she's being punished for demonizing them - although they'll fall in line should Hillary Clinton ignore their protestations and choose EW anyway.

And no, I haven't see The Big Short.

[Ash_F]

59. I think Warren is different than Biden and will operate differently

People want to hear Warren. TV and radio shows fall over themselves to book her.

Biden not so much.

[BlueCaliDem]

61. EW is definitely different than VP Biden - but the media love the gaffe-prone veep more than the

outspoken senior Senator from MA. So I can't agree with you here.

[AgingAmerican]

49. Because if anything happens to the president

The VP takes the reins

[BlueCaliDem]

55. I know that. What I don't know is, what threat can a VP be against Wall Street donors?

Ash_F argues that they're afraid to be regulated, but that doesn't make sense. The VP can't regulate anything. He or she doesn't have that kind of power.

Both you and I know that Congress, not the president nor the vice president, draft, pass, and create legislation. So the VP is no threat to moneyed people who want to buy our gov't, thanks to CU. And only Congress can change that - and we still have Republicans dominating the House but hopefully only till 2020 when the new census is taken even when we win back the Senate.

Why do I think Wall Street donors are making this idle threat? Well, I explain it my post here:

I'm getting the feeling that this is just another attempt to divide the Democratic Party in the Republicans' quest to divide and conquer strategy which they need now more than ever with Trump as the GOP's presumptive nominee.

[AgingAmerican]

57. The office gives them a bully pulpit and a voice

They can be given power. Cheney was given power. Unlike Cheney, Warren would use it for the common good.

They have no power to legislate. They can influence legislation.

[JackRiddler]

25. Your post is remarkably naive.

"Financial services" is the flag the pirates present until they get close enough to slit your throat. "Wall Street" long ago degenerated into a self-service fraud factory extracting all profit out of the productive sector. Fuck the U.S. economy, the executives and traders are about their own personal enrichment and they will happily see a city burn if it triples their bonus, just as a poacher will kill a six ton elephant and leave it to rot just for 20 lbs of ivory. None of them even see collective interests among themselves, or give a shit about this abstraction, the "economy." Dick Fuld made $400 million in five years and got to keep it, you think he cares about what happened to Lehman? He certainly wouldn't care about YOU. And these are the predators you expect to back Elizabeth Warren in a moment of rational self-enlightenment? Ha ha ha ha ha! They paid for their Clinton and a nice Clinton who would never harm their plunder operation is what they want, not Warren who is the closest thing to an enemy they can conceive at the level of the Senate.

[TwilightZone]

30. That doesn't counter anything I said.

There are several analysts who are indicating that the market will tank if Trump is elected. This isn't as complicated as you want to make it.

A few sentences of "bought and paid for Clinton!!!!!!!" blather doesn't change that.

[JackRiddler]

31. You didn't read anything apparently...

just scanned until you found something mean about Clinton. Aaaaawwww.

THEY DON'T CARE IF THE MARKET TANKS.

This is their attitude: Fuck the market. Of course it will tank. It always tanks. All that matters when it tanks is that I, personally, benefit from it, rather than losing. Regulatory efforts like Warrens might get in the way of that divine process by which I, personally, get rich. Everyone else can not only go to hell, they can die literally for all I care. I will happily see news of a million deaths in some remote place, if it enriches me. This is my creed, saith the banker, destroyer of worlds. And he don't want no Warren on no presidential ticket.

[Hortensis]

29. Excellent point, Twilight. Also, they already

invest far more heavily in the GOP, and investments in the DP are strictly hedging their bets and keeping the door open. So it's very unlikely they'd follow through. Clinton WILL probably be elected no matter what they do.

Plus, voters across the spectrum are angry at Wall Street. Declaring war on Clinton, and Warren, might backfire very badly on the entire conservative establishment. A clear division that everyone can understand is exactly what the Democratic Party needs.

[yesphan]

2. I would think that they would

see a Warren VP pick as a way to put a muzzle on her.

[tk2kewl]

4. it's probably a show... the script?

Banksters stamp their feet...

Clinton shakes her fist...

Clinton says, "see, I'm tough on Wall Street..."

Warren becomes VP...

Warren's voice is removed from the Senate...

Everyone lives happily ever after

[Newkularblue]

6. This ^

Theater for the masses

[randome]

9. Warren is no dupe. She would not be muzzled.

[emulatorloo]

10. I believe you underestimate Warren. If she takes VP spot, it will be because she feels

she can be an effective and active VP.

[tk2kewl]

12. I believe you underestimate Clinton

but I guess we will all find out eventually...

I hope I'm wrong

[emulatorloo]

13. You may underestimate Clinton as well. Remember that Warren said very positive things about

Clinton's financial reform plan/positions.

I guess we will see what happens. I'd Much rather see Warren than Booker. Hard for me to forget him slamming 2012 Obama campaign when Obama attacked Bain Capital.

[tk2kewl]

20. I still expect Castro

[WhiteTara]

23. Except he is not being vetted. nt

[tk2kewl]

24. i despise that word...

I'm happy to wait and see.

But I expect a Latino will be the running mate in 2016 or 2020

[tk2kewl]

60. Perez

I missed this earlier in the campaign...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511526249

Popped up again today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512209990

[AntiBank]

32. Booker is a deal breaker for me

no fucking way will I vote for him for dog catcher

ultimate bankster shill

[yesphan]

17. That's what I'm talking about.

[emulatorloo]

8. I expect Warren would be a very dynamic and active VP

She would have her own portfolio just as Biden and Cheney did.

[Hekate]

45. point

[Dustlawyer]

3. Hillary's first test of whether she sides with her Party or the Oligarch's who also helped put

her in the position of presumptive nominee, and in all likelihood, the head of the Democratic Party! She says their money doesn't influence her, I guess we will see as I believe the majority of her supporters and Bernie supporters would like to see her on the ticket.

I do acknowledge that there are some supporters of both candidates who would rather her to stay in the Senate where they think she can do more good. It is a legitimate arguement and can give her cover if she chooses to not select Warren as her running mate.

[BlueCaliDem]

28. And this is *exactly* what they want you to think because unlike some posters in this thread, they

know that a Vice President has zero power to regulate Wall Street or business. In fact, EW is more of a threat to them while in the Senate than in the United States Naval Observatory mansion.

I'm getting the feeling that this is just another attempt to divide the Democratic Party in the Republicans' quest to divide and conquer strategy which they need now more than ever with Trump as the GOP's presumptive nominee.

[DLCWIdem]

54. I am worried about 2 women on the ticket

[Octafish]

16. Yeah, why stop when you have a good thing going?

[BootinUp]

18. Hillary won't make this decision based on what outspoken

jerks on the right or left say.

[think]

19. Wall Street donors trying to stop Warren are most certainly jerks

Hopefully Hillary will embrace Warren's efforts to pass a 21st Century Glass Steagall Act. That would show those jerks...

http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/glass-steagall

[Lil Missy]

21. Warren wouldn't be the best VP pick anyway.

E Warren can give Wall Street more headaches as a higher profile Senator than a VP.

[Fumesucker]

22. PLEASE Don't throw me in that Briar Patch, Brer Fox, Please don't

[AntiBank]

33. yep yep

you understand the game

[TeeYiYi]

38. Exactly. ..nt

TYY

[MosheFeingold]

26. Don't care for Wall Street

But the pick is a poor one. Warren is needed in the Senate and won't help in the general election with the mushy middle.

I personally suspect the pick with be Castro from San Antonio.

[w4rma]

35. Who? No one cares about that guy, whomever he is. Except for a few political junkies.

Most political junkies don't even care about that guy. He has no relationship to the voters.

And on that note, Sen. Kaine is a poor pick too. He's basically a placeholder, here in Virginia. People here didn't care that he was DNC chair and he did a boringly poor job of it, anyway. He typically votes for bipartisan pro-Wall Street bills when he pops his head up to get any national recognition. I haven't seen him distinguish himself, in the Senate, in any positive way and he would cost the Democratic Party a Senate seat, anyway.

[MosheFeingold]

36. VP is often a dark horse

Palin, for example. She was a great pick (on paper).

[w4rma]

37. Palin was picked because she already was high profile, and well known among the GOP base.

McCain didn't vet her, though. Warren doesn't have vetting problems.

[MosheFeingold]

39. The affirmative action thing

By playing up allegedly non-existent Native American heritage is problematic. "Fauxcahantis" will stick.

I live now in New Mexico near the Mescalero Apache reservation. The old Apaches with whom I drink coffee in the AM don't particularly like that, as they have a particular disdain for "grey ponytails" (that is, fake Native Americans).

Most of them are Republican, though. (I think because they primarily worked in the oilfields.)

So perhaps this is a small sample.

[w4rma]

40. Hillary has the FBI coming after her. She doesn't care about scandals, and neither should you.

Heck, Sanders is completely scandal free with absolutely zero skeletons in his closet. If there isn't a scandal, they'll make one up out of thin air (which is basically the situation with this out-of-thin-air Pocahontas thing).

[andym]

41. They are afraid she will use the bully pulpit to influence the masses

They don't want Warren to have access to the national Bully Pulpit to whip up opposition-- as a Senator one gets less national attention. I assume Warren would never accept the VP position, if offered, without freedom to operate. Also, Wall Street is afraid that Warren would influence Clinton to be more progressive-- a real possibility I suspect.

As a historical note on how well Wall Street understands politicians, I remember there were a number of Wall Street denizens who were afraid that President Obama might nationalize the banks and other industries in early 2009, which led them to sell their shares, so they certainly are a fearful bunch.

--I also wrote this as a reply to the other similar OP--

[Hekate]

44. That's blackmail and blackmail needs full sunlight. Hillary will make up her own mind....

...and if Elizabeth W is her choice, she won't be stopped by this.

OTOH, I want Senator Warren in the Senate where she can speak freely (as VPs cannot) and where she can continue to build a stellar career.

[tabasco]

50. Our rulers, the rich, have spoken.

Ain't gonna be Warren.

[ozone_man]

51. Why? She cozied up to Wall Street in the end.

At most she is neutral toward Wall Street, not a threat.

[sarcasm]

52. So True!

I totally agree... Elizabeth Warren has never done a single thing to irk Wall Street. They are very happy she is spending her time in the Senate not opposing them in any way.

[Vote2016]

56. I can't imagine. Are there any meaningfully differences between Hillary and Warren on this critical

make-or-brake issue?

[AgadorSparticus]

58. Their opposition to Warren being VP seems a bit counterintuitive to me

You would think they would welcome the idea of getting her off their collective asses. The only thing I can think of is that they are looking 8 years down the road and are scared what she can do to them as POTUS.