There are many good reasons not to pick Liz warren

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. Picking another woman creates gender as a fault line. All of a sudden it's not just electing the first female president but electing the woman ticket which is cognitively different. One of the reason Obama would never have picked a second black man.

When fault lines are created we break very much on those lines, and her weak support from white men would get weaker still.

2. Warren is heading to take up Kennedy's role as the lioness of the senate. I don't know that a vp position does much for her.

3. From sources and media familiar with Massachusetts politics, apparently warren hates campaigning and fundraising. This is very much a vp's job. So in terms of personality she seems poorly suited for this role.

I think some in the media are setting up this random story line that she cannot be picked because of Wall Street only so that they can later perpetuate the argument that Hillary is beholden to Wall Street, even though there are plenty of other good reasons not to pick warren as vp.

[Silver_Witch]

1. Seriously two women is bad but two men is okay???

If I didn't know you better I will say this is pretty misogynous. There is nothing wrong with two women running and we woman should certainly not be the ones advocating against it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. At which point do you see me saying two women are bad?

Or two black men are bad?

Do you think I personally created misogyny and racism in society?

This is my area of research and expertise, so I'm writing about the current research in the field. This is not an endorsement of sexism or racism.

[Hortensis]

14. Well, people say they want change.

Two women would be highly symbolic of change.

Frankly, this election season is so WEIRD in so many ways that I just don't think two women would have the negative impact possible in an election where they themselves were the weirdest phenomenon.

[liberalnarb]

17. IMO, Liz Warren on the ticket could only bring more voters to our side. I don't think there would be

a negative impact.

[Silver_Witch]

54. I agree Hortensis...two are often better than one!

[Hortensis]

59. And possibly even better than two. Synergy.

Liberalnarb may be right about no significant negative. I can't guess. Some of the language used in a couple of responses I've gotten have suggested those people feel the need of a man on the ticket. I've forgotten the words I wondered about, but they likely wouldn't have been used in talking about a running mate for a man. But a wish for a reassuring male presence doesn't mean they wouldn't vote for her.

[Silver_Witch]

53. Right here - your #1 item

"Picking another woman creates gender as a fault line."

When even women say things like this it proves we have not gone as far as I had hoped in gaining equality. But then when the ERA didn't pass I did see it was going to be a long hard fight.

Sorry for the delay in responding - I work way too many hours a day. I don't think you created anything - prompting and continuing a belief that "another woman" creates an issue is a fail in not challenging the paradigm.

I believe we have to fight it on every front and be careful with our words.

I am glad this is your area of research and expertise however endorsing a belief is not fighting a belief.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

61. This is not an endorsement. I'm reporting the reality of what much research shows

No matter how you try to misconstrue this, it's not an endorsement

[swhisper1]

52. oh please,..........

[Silver_Witch]

55. Please what swhisper1?

[hueymahl]

2. And, she is arguably more effective as a Senator

While I personally would love to see her on the ticket as it would (hopefully) help check Hillary's natural tendency to stray to the right, your points are valid, and she could be an effective ally in the Senate for progressive change.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. She had no natural tendency to steer right.

She is a believer in interventions for humanitarian reasons but that is hardly steering right

[hueymahl]

20. Was not talking about foreign policy

While she is more hawkish than I tend to be, I don't have any major issues with her on foreign policy. I would prefer, however, that she be more progressive on domestic economic issues and trade, and that is where I think Warren can help influence her.

[DemonGoddess]

49. Given that she

was pilloried when her husband was Pres for being a liberal feminist, I really don't think she has a tendency to stray to the right.

As to EW as VP pick, I agree with La Lioness. I could easily see that as being something divisive, even though it wouldn't be intended that way.

[geek tragedy]

3. every candidate has pluses and minuses.

a lot of it will come down to factors that lack public visibility--does the person get along with Clinton, does Clinton think they could step in and do the job, etc.

[Mike Nelson]

4. Hmm...

1. I have no problem with two women, but the electorate might. Obama picked wisely and my first thought is that Hillary should pick a standard male Democrat. But, considering the opponent and the branding of Hillary as a right-leaning "Wall Street" insider, Warren might work... and it is an exciting ticket!

2. Warren leading the Senate is just as exciting!

3. Yes, but she's doing very well campaigning, now.

[longship]

9. 2. Warren only voting on ties is not in anyway exciting.

[ismnotwasm]

7. I completely agree with this

Thank you for posting. That "Wall Street" story is very annoying. While I think it's a dream ticket in certain ways, I doubt Elizabeth Warren is going to be the pick.

[spooky3]

10. I do too. She can also be very aggressive in

Attacking Trump's awful behavior without worrying about jeopardizing the ticket. Her MA constituents are more uniform in their views than are people in the country as a whole.

[frazzled]

8. I was listening to Joe Biden last night

being interviewed by Charlie Rose as I drifted off to sleep. The interview ended with Rose asking about his relationship with Obama and the vice-presidency in general. After going through the stuff about mutual trust and personal closeness (the families have become deep friends), he talked about how, in addition to being an advisor (sometimes with disagreements), the vp needs to be the trusted foot-soldier of the president and his/her policies.

I get the sense that Warren is perhaps too much her own person, with a specific set of agendas, to serve fully in that role of carrier of Hillary Clinton's torch. I think she could do it, rather well, but I don't know that she would want to do it, in the end. The president is the boss, and I think in the end she would prefer to be her own boss, as senator, rather than carrying out someone else's agenda.

Remember, the vice-presidency does not stop with campaigning on the stump, or debating the opposing vp nominee: it involves four years of deep loyalty and sometimes having to advocate policies with which you do not fully agree at times. This is why I'm doubtful that she would be a pick for Clinton. I could be very wrong.

I think Warren's place is in the Senate, where she is her own boss.

[spooky3]

11. Agree. As a fellow tenured professor I can say there is one

More factor supporting that. She and her husband have very secure (compared to politicians and most other people) jobs paying them a lot of money. She can return to that life any time she wants. So she can do exactly what she thinks is right in the Senate without feeling she must pander or beg to be reelected.

[auntpurl]

12. Agree with this!

[yardwork]

24. I would hate to lose Warren from the Senate.

[liberalnarb]

13. Hmm

First, I disagree with number 1. I don't think a woman ticket would create a fault line. Liz Warren is a POWERFUL force to have by your side, sexism doesn't get in her way.

I find myself agreeing number 2. She is more powerful in the senate

As for 3. after watching how much fun she has been having ripping tRump a new one in all of her speeches, I don't think it will bother her very much to do the same on the trail.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. Her power is partly what will definitely create the faultline

Last edited Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)

People especially men dislike ambitious and powerful women. There is really a ton of research to support this.

[liberalnarb]

16. I'm a man, I'm now supporting Hillary for President. Liz Warren would make me want to support the

ticket even more. Any man who is afraid to vote for a woman who is ambitious and powerful is a coward and probably already a trump supporter.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. I'm talking statistical majorities not individual decisions

And look at Hillary's numbers among white men and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about

[liberalnarb]

21. Yes, Hillary has problems with white men

but I don't think she will lose any voters by choosing Warren. I still think it could only help her.

[John Poet]

37. And those men will probably already be voting against Clinton,

whether a second woman was added to the ticket or not.

I think that Warren on the ticket would actually increase voter turnout among woman and millenials, and do much to mollify the Bernie supporters, moreso than any possible loss among men-- it would be a net gain.

[Maru Kitteh]

50. ^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^

EW would bring a large net gain imo.

EW brings a kind of "swing state" of her own to the ticket with added enthusiasm and support from voters you mention. I trust HRC to make the right choice, but I can't help but root for EW, I just think she would be a stellar pick.

[BlackLivesMatter]

19. Liz Warren is too old, IMO

[hueymahl]

22. Odd response

Have not heard that one before. At 66, she is younger than Hillary or trump.

[BlackLivesMatter]

32. Right, but that pegs her at 74 in 2024

The VP position should arguably be used to groom future Presidents

[hueymahl]

44. Ok, gotcha - you are thinking about her as a presidential candidate

Don't see that happening, and neither party has a particularly strong record of electing VP's in the next cycle. GWB is the only modern example, and he was a one-termer.

[Garrett78]

47. The last VP to run was Gore, and he arguably won.

There's something to be said for Clinton picking a younger running mate who could potentially succeed her in January 2025.

[yardwork]

23. Plus, Massachusetts will already vote for Hillary.

The Clinton team needs a running mate who will help deliver a swing state.

I agree that it will be a white man. Moderate and middle aged. Probably Midwestern. Or Southern. Well, even the Western states are in play now, with Trump.

I think that the calculus has shifted to "how do we get back the Senate." Look for a fairly conservative white male VP.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. I think a brown man would be fine too, or a black man

But I don't believe a woman will work

[yardwork]

34. I would love to see a more diverse ticket, but I'm afraid that it's all about the troglodytes.

Don't get me started on why it's necessary for the campaign to think this way.

[Sheepshank]

43. a conversation at work

Male R worker: I hate Trump, I won't vote for him.
Male D worker: What about Hillary?
Male R worker: A woman? I don't think I can get myself to do that. A woman as a leader?.


I do think there is a sizeable chunk of the population that are having a difficult time voting for Hillary because of her gender, but may acquiese and overlook their prohibition, because of her platform and how she stands up to Trump. They will walk away with 2 women on the ticket. Don't hate me, I just don't think all the males in the high testosterone group/electorate are that evolved yet.

[avaistheone1]

56. May the best person win regardless of sex, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

[redstatebluegirl]

26. I see her as a female Ted Kennedy, championing for the working people in the Senate.

The VP job is a thankless one, raising money, going to funerals, smiling on cue at the President. Elizabeth is capable of so much more than that!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. but with less scandals so in some ways she may outshine kennedy in the long run

[leveymg]

27. One thing you didn't mention - she's the only possible replacement who can bring party unity.

That consideration should be paramount.

As for Wall Street, Warren is no more or less acceptable to Wall Street than Barney Frank. Their positions on finance industry regulation are quite similar. Her reputation as a maverick may be more engineered than real.

[Garrett78]

28. Agreed. It doesn't make sense for Warren, for Clinton or for the Democratic Party.

In addition to each of your points, all of which I agree with, there's the fact that Warren has said things about Clinton that could haunt the campaign. Even more importantly, there's the need to keep 2024 in mind. Much can happen in 8 years and there may be numerous strong candidates for succeeding Clinton, but there's a lot to be said for Clinton selecting someone who can run for POTUS in 2024 (when Warren will turn 75).

And there's much to be said for really pushing civil rights concerns (immigration reform, institutional racism, sexism, etc.). One way to do that is by picking a relatively young POC, who is both a champion of civil rights and someone who reflects the increasing diversity of the US. Neither Castro nor Perez have much political experience, but that doesn't necessarily rule them out. Maybe Becerra. Maybe Booker.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. Also I think the mass gov is a republican

[Garrett78]

33. There would be a special election to fill her vacancy.

From a Vox article:

Last but not least, Massachusetts has a Republican governor, meaning that electing Warren would give Republicans an extra Senate seat for at least a little bit. There'd be a special election shortly thereafter, thanks to a 2004 change in the law meant to limit then-Gov. Mitt Romney’s ability to replace John Kerry should he have won the presidency, but Democrats should not be overly confident about their ability to win Senate special elections in the state after what happened in 2010.

[teamster633]

60. Scott Brown!

Speaking for those of us in the Boston media market, please don't give him an excuse to emerge from the inky shadows.

[Nye Bevan]

30. Two white women in their late sixties is not a very balanced ticket.

I think the VP should be young enough to definitely be able to take over from President Clinton in 2024 to serve two full terms.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. That too

[RobertEarl]

35. Who was the last VP to be elected P?

Bush.... a long time ago.

This notion that a VP has to be young and all that is nonsense.

Bernie is best suited to become a president. If we are not wise enough to make it so, then let us hope HRC is wise enough to ask him to be the VP nominee.

[Garrett78]

36. Gore came pretty damn close.

Having balance on the ticket (including having someone relatively young if the nominee is not) is important. And there's much to be said for selecting someone who is a potential successor.

Just as Sanders didn't really have a chance of becoming the nominee, he doesn't stand a chance of being Clinton's running mate.

[RobertEarl]

46. Gore of course

But Gore had the election stolen, didn't he?

Seems the most important, and most ignored is the history of stolen elections.

We operate under the voting system the bushes installed and for anyone to have faith in those systems and also ignore the history....., well, there are words for that attitude.

[John Poet]

38. So nominating Hillary does not "create gender as a fault line", but

adding a second woman to the ticket DOES?

LOL!!!

[Garrett78]

39. A Vox article on Clinton's VP shortlist put it well:

"An all-woman ticket would be a statement, but it also might be too much for the American people to handle."

Just as the Republican nominee may select a woman as running mate to neutralize accusations of sexism, Clinton may select a man (in part) to spend less time dealing with sexism (or accusations of pandering) on the campaign trail. There's a reason Obama made the selection he made in 2008.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. Yes, a single gender ticket creates a gender faultline

Which a mixed gender ticket does not. Didn't realize that was such a difficult concept for some to grasp.

[Garrett78]

41. It's a pretty basic concept. It's why Obama wasn't going to select a black running mate.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. Exactly.

[writes3000]

48. I Couldn't Disagree More...Warren Would Be A Fantastic Choice

Copied from a post I made elsewhere...

Here's what I think you all are missing about Elizabeth Warren. All of these politicians do relentless polling during an election year. And? Elizabeth Warren polls through the fucking roof. This came up on MSNBC about a month ago. When they showed clips of several politicians speaking on issues, Warren blew everyone out of the water. She tested well with Dems, Independents and even Republicans. Her negatives were incredibly small.

What are some clues that this is true?

Joe Biden talked to Warren before deciding if he would run for President. Why? It's a good guess he was feeling her out to be his VP. Harry Reid was dead set against Waren for VP for fear of losing the senate seat. Suddenly, he does a 180 and starts to actively campaign for her. Why? He knows how she polls! Hillary and her team have already done the same polling. This dance between Hillary and Warren? Warren stopping by the NY campaign office? Coordinated attacks on Trump? You think it's coincidence?

Perhaps Hillary won't choose Warren. I suspect polling will determine the final answer. But if she does, it's probably because they have rock solid research which tells them the combo of Clinton/Warren will be close to unbeatable. Warren electrifies the Democratic base (increasing turnout) while appealing to independents in the same way Bernie did.

PS - Warren's history as a Republican is a plus in this election. She can give voice to those folksy moderate Republicans who can be wooed to the Dem side.

[gordianot]

51. Warren scares Oligarch's and Republicans.

Before Sanders there was Elizabeth Warren with Progressives begging her to run and she resisted. Imagine if she would have been the Democrat who ran and not Sanders? Do you think we just left a hot Primary? She needs to stay in the Senate. If she were to run for Present some day she has my vote.

[BreakfastClub]

57. I agree on all points. She is vital in the senate. VP does nothing for her, except

maybe set her up to run in eight years, which is a long time. I also think two women on a ticket might be too much for the American electorate to take. It may alienate some male voters.

[SheilaT]

58. Remind me again why a year ago so many here said

she shouldn't run because we need her in the Senate, but now she's a fabulous choice for the totally ineffectual job of VP?