2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumElizabeth Warren Should Stay in the Senate
Warren’s agenda is not Clinton’s agenda. Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton expects Wall Street to look fundamentally different at the end of a Clinton administration? Does she think that JPMorgan Chase should be downsized and broken up so that its current structure will not be recognizable in 2025? Does Clinton expect Wall Street to be doing half the trading volume in 2025 that it does today, so that the high-rollers will have to look to the productive economy to make big bucks? Does she think that some of her campaign’s biggest contributors will be in the jail cell next to Bernie Madoff?
That seems implausible. More likely, in Clinton’s vision Wall Street in 2015 looks pretty much the same as it does today. There may be better consumer and prudential regulation, but no one will have any problem finding JPMorgan.
In the Senate, Warren could force Clinton to alter her vision. Warren’s agenda has enormous power and popular appeal, as demonstrated by the success of the Sanders campaign and by Warren’s own success in pushing for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other reforms. In fact, the popularity of a FTT even led Clinton to endorse a sham FTT that would apply only to high-frequency trading and would likely be avoided by almost everyone.
more at-- https://www.thenation.com/article/elizabeth-warren-should-stay-in-the-senate/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TheBlackAdder
(28,194 posts)
Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)We have so much to gain with her at VP, it more than compensates for any supposed losses.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I feel she should stay in the Senate.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Assuming that one understands Warren's motivations is a bit presumptuous. Warren agrees with Clinton on significantly more issues than not, and Elizabeth was one of the first people to fully encourage Clinton to run.
I think the author is seeing a chasm where one doesn't exist. That's been a common theme this primary season.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)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.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)"All of the donors and senior Democrats interviewed for this story demanded that their names not be used both because they were not authorized to speak about the Clinton campaign’s internal deliberations and because they feared Warren’s wrath."
Oh, no, not the wrath of Warren! Not that!
It's an empty threat. They all know that Trump wins and the economy tanks - their analysts are telling them so, and Brexit is foreshadowing it. Even with Warren on the ticket, they aren't going anywhere.
"“First of all, they don’t particularly like each other,” said one prominent hedge fund manager who has raised millions for Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton before her."
That article is loaded with the same "they hate each other" nonsense that I'm talking about. Their assertions are no less presumptuous than that of the OP's article's writer.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)and a personal relationship with Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren.
And there are many people on Wall Street who would make a huge fortune if Trump tanked the economy.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)As VP she would be muzzled and lose her effectiveness.
Her most valuable place in the Senate. (Or as POTUS)
procon
(15,805 posts)The VP slot is not a partisan role. The VP, just as the president, is there to serve the whole country, not just those who want to blow up Wall St. As the VP, Elizabeth Warren would be muzzled, and far less effective than she is as a prominent progressive voice in the Senate.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)for those who make millions with their financial schemes. Curious turn of phrase that...
On Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) headlined an event that launched a new coalition calling itself “Take On Wall Street.”
The group includes lawmakers like Warren, Reps. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), labor leaders like the AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka and the AFT’s Randi Weingarten, as well as civil rights groups, community groups, and the organizing giant Move On. It aims to put pressure on lawmakers at all levels to pass stricter rules governing the financial system.
Operating on two principles — “No cheating, and no pushing the risks on taxpayers,” as Warren put it — it’s making five key demands: breaking up the biggest banks; ensuring access to non-predatory banking products, including through the United States Post Office; ending the carried interest tax loophole that allows hedge fund managers to use a tax break for investment income on the income they make at work; reining in executive bonuses; and imposing a financial transaction tax.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/05/24/3781504/take-on-wall-street/
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Because their agendas are not the same?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)She could be VP for eight years and they'll still be whining about how much they hate each other.
Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)and any VP opportunity presented her, should it be offered. Internet board warriors should not presume to tell Elizabeth Warren what she should do.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)if she was offered the position.
She would continue to be a great Senator as well if not.
She, and we, win whichever way she goes!