2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI've decided I want Elizabeth Warren as VP.
She's dragging Donald Trump through the back alley and pounding the shit out of him right now.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)Enthusiasm will make the difference. Warren brings it,
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)She's a tiger. Love it.
Satch59
(1,353 posts)Wonder if this is a test to see how crowds responds and they look and react together? Optics are a big part of all this... She would be a great addition but understand if they go in a strategic state way?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 27, 2016, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)
I thought they made a wonderfully dynamic pair. They also looked strikingly united in their matching blues, but they stopped short of breaking into a "Sisters, Sisters" routine. Probably a good thing.
"Go big." "Go bold!"
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)lillypaddle
(9,580 posts)Together they are unstoppable.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)katmondoo
(6,454 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)maybe next time
progressoid
(49,827 posts)Larry Wilmore has a good take on this. Warren will upstage Clinton. That's not good for Hillary.
Starts about 4:30
longship
(40,416 posts)What she cannot do as VEEP is:
1. Hold a US Senate committee position, chairmanship.
2. Make a speech on the floor during daily business.
3. Vote when there's not a tie.
4. Become a Senate leader, other than the relatively powerless, purely ceremonial President of the US Senate.
5. Why should she give up her seat? Warren was immediately preceded, in the most liberal state in the country, by a GOP Senator. (Franken also!) It is also a state, putatively liberal, with a GOP governor.
So there's that.
This is why I against any sitting Democratic Senator accepting the VEEP nomination. ESPECIALLY ELIZABETH WARREN!
moonscape
(4,664 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)not the R governor.
And there are some formidable candidates in the wings -- e.g., a Kennedy who is in the House and won his election with 61% of the vote.
hamsterjill
(15,214 posts)I would certainly be happy with her as the VP choice. But wherever she is - - - I just want her on OUR side!
She kicks ass, and means it!
writes3000
(4,734 posts)TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)DesertRat
(27,995 posts)I've been a little worried that having two women on the ticket would be too much for some to handle. But, the two of them would be formidable against Trump and awesome for the country!
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)At least, at the top of the ticket. I can't imagine too many people are ok with a woman at the top of the ticket but not with 2 women. Having a woman only at the bottom of the ticket is a little different, but I think any votes Hillary might lose by putting a woman at the bottom of the ticket are votes she would not have gotten anyway.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)My general opinion is that Hillary should follow the model Obama used in 2008, choosing a VP based on whom she wants as a governing partner instead of just picking someone based on filling a political need such as appealing to a particular constituency or carrying a particular state (obviously the latter does not apply to Warren).
If Elizabeth Warren were Hillary's choice based on whom she wants to govern with, I would be thrilled. But if she isn't, I don't think Hillary should pick her just to try to unify the party, because I would be skeptical in that case about whether she intended to give Warren a meaningful role in the administration. If not, I would rather keep her in the Senate.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)a home run!
AwakeAtLast
(14,112 posts)gives me chills! Listening to both of them today gave me chills!
Just thinking about Trump being beaten by two women gives me the vapors!!!! I might just hyperventilate - it would be a wonder to behold!