Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Segami

(14,923 posts)
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:29 AM Jun 2016

Wall Street Donors Seek To BLOCK Warren VP Pick

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. A constant theme that emerged in the interviews is that executives in the financial industry believe the first 100 days of a Clinton administration could feature potential deal making with Republicans, who are likely to maintain their majority in the House of Representatives. The dream deal for Wall Street would be a combination of targeted infrastructure spending that appeals mostly to Democrats and corporate and international tax reform that could bring Republicans along. The fear is that Warren would make such a deal more difficult.

“Clinton is going to face a divided government unless there is a total tsunami,” said one moderate Washington Democrat with close ties to the banking industry. “What you want in a vice president is someone who can negotiate for you on the Hill, someone like Joe Biden. And that is not a Warren strength.”

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. “There is no upside to my talking to you on the record,” one big donor said. “Either I piss off the Clinton campaign or I piss off Warren, or both.” Several donors said they did not really fear Warren going on the ticket because they do not believe Clinton has a strong relationship with the senator and would not trust Warren to be a loyal No. 2, either on the campaign or in the White House.

“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. But, the manager added, “The absolute predicate for a vice presidential nominee is they have to understand they are No. 2 both during the campaign and once you take office, and I just don’t think Elizabeth Warren is that type of person.”

-snip-

“Things are so volatile now with all of the outside groups that all it can take is pissing off one billionaire on Wall Street to make it difficult,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the CRP. “And you don’t run national campaigns for as many years as Clinton has without some serious support from Wall Street, they are just too much of a heavy hitter.”


cont'

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

43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wall Street Donors Seek To BLOCK Warren VP Pick (Original Post) Segami Jun 2016 OP
Tsk tsk Faux pas Jun 2016 #1
and folks think bernie wouldn't have to deal with this. n/t. okieinpain Jun 2016 #2
Well, since Bernie isn't dependent on Wall Street money, I guess he 1monster Jun 2016 #15
so he can raise a billion dollars from small donations. do you really think that. n/t. okieinpain Jun 2016 #25
Look, it is a moot point now. But, obviously, you haven't been paying attention: 1monster Jun 2016 #30
i am paying attention, but i'm not in denial sir. i know bernie okieinpain Jun 2016 #31
Whatever. 1monster Jun 2016 #35
i agree with you 100%. n/t. okieinpain Jun 2016 #37
The advantage of a Sanders-grassroots fundraising method is that Bernie wouldn't care about their $. w4rma Jun 2016 #18
he would have to care, do you really think he can okieinpain Jun 2016 #24
I don't think he would need *that* much money. It's overkill. And it's unseemly. w4rma Jun 2016 #26
if that's what you think, you were going to be heart broken in november. n/t. okieinpain Jun 2016 #27
Have you looked at Trump's fundraising? Bernie has slaughtered his fundraising and his staff the w4rma Jun 2016 #28
I just don't see how you think he was going to be able to raise okieinpain Jun 2016 #29
You don't see what he already did? Try opening your eyes. (nt) w4rma Jun 2016 #32
you folks keep saying the same thing. neither one of you is addressing okieinpain Jun 2016 #33
Why would that change Bernie's fundraising style or success? He's very consistent and honest. (nt) w4rma Jun 2016 #34
ok, you're right bernie will not need to raise money. he will make okieinpain Jun 2016 #36
No. I'm saying that he wouldn't need to raise funds at a rate any higher than he already has been. w4rma Jun 2016 #41
You're posting in a protected group. blackspade Jun 2016 #39
Sorry didn't mean to hurt you. N/t. okieinpain Jun 2016 #43
Oh look, Wall St. is making demands if you want their money..... Segami Jun 2016 #3
But they are okay with Hilliary! RoccoR5955 Jun 2016 #4
Warren is more useful in the Senate. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2016 #5
Obviously, Vice Presidents have enough power that these blackmailers are concerned. (nt) w4rma Jun 2016 #19
The reason might have less to do with the actual power of a VP The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2016 #21
Agreed. Plus the one impeachment/heartbeat away from the Presidency thing. w4rma Jun 2016 #22
Woo-Hoo! With Sanders out of the picture TalkingDog Jun 2016 #6
Very illuminating, though maybe not in the way they think. CharlotteVale Jun 2016 #7
And all along people have been saying these large contributors Segami Jun 2016 #8
Since when does Wall St. make demands of its politicians out in the media? senz Jun 2016 #9
Do you think this is nothing more Segami Jun 2016 #10
That, or they have inside info on HubertHeaver Jun 2016 #12
Good insight. However senz Jun 2016 #13
I agree with you.....nixing EW would leave Segami Jun 2016 #16
What evidence is that that progressives (as you define them) want only Warren? HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #42
Yeah, why this, why now? HubertHeaver Jun 2016 #17
I think there's something about it that doesn't make sense. senz Jun 2016 #14
Likely fabricated... TeeYiYi Jun 2016 #20
Fucking Great! She'll do much more NOT in the VP position. Phlem Jun 2016 #11
This looks like one of politico's none articles where they are trying to make the news. rhett o rick Jun 2016 #23
I can't say I'm surprised. blackspade Jun 2016 #38
I don't want to see Warren as VP magical thyme Jun 2016 #40

1monster

(11,012 posts)
15. Well, since Bernie isn't dependent on Wall Street money, I guess he
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:26 PM
Jun 2016

would just let them huff and puff and huff and puff and huff and puff and try to blow his brick house down...

It might even be entertaining to watch.

1monster

(11,012 posts)
30. Look, it is a moot point now. But, obviously, you haven't been paying attention:
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:37 PM
Jun 2016

Bernie raised more than enough money to compete with Hillary and matched her nearly dollar for dollar in fundraising
WITHOUT huge corporate help and $2700 a plate fundraising dinners.

What he did is incredibly impressive, especially if you consider that Hillary has been preparing to become President since 2000 when she decided to run for the Senate and Bernie only made up his mind to run in February or March of 2015.

So yes, if the Democratic Party had been prescience enough to nominate him, I believe he would have had no problem raising the necessary funds to defeat Donald Trump. Trump is practically doing that himself, anyway.

okieinpain

(9,397 posts)
31. i am paying attention, but i'm not in denial sir. i know bernie
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:45 PM
Jun 2016

has done a great job in the primaries but he would have to do a hundred times better in the general election. come on man be honest and quit ignoring the facts of were we are in this country. it's frustrating when people will not admit the obvious, it will take a ton of money for bernie to compete against anyone, trump, cruz, romney, that's just the way it is for now.

 

w4rma

(31,700 posts)
18. The advantage of a Sanders-grassroots fundraising method is that Bernie wouldn't care about their $.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:07 PM
Jun 2016

I think that it would be the epitome of a bad decision for Hillary to bend the knee to these blackmailers.

okieinpain

(9,397 posts)
24. he would have to care, do you really think he can
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:00 PM
Jun 2016

raise a billion dollars from $27 dollar donations.

 

w4rma

(31,700 posts)
26. I don't think he would need *that* much money. It's overkill. And it's unseemly.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:03 PM
Jun 2016

And Sanders beats Trump by double digits in every national poll and in every swing state.

 

w4rma

(31,700 posts)
28. Have you looked at Trump's fundraising? Bernie has slaughtered his fundraising and his staff the
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:15 PM
Jun 2016

entire campaign. It's not even close. Heck, Bernie STILL has more staff than Trump does, by at least, an order of magnitude. Not only that, but Bernie has out fund raised Clinton every single month of this year.

okieinpain

(9,397 posts)
29. I just don't see how you think he was going to be able to raise
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:32 PM
Jun 2016

the money needed without big donors. the republicans have already shown you they don't care what they run with, when the time comes the money will pour in. why because what's a billion dollars to a group of people that are worth a trillion. i don't care if it's hillary or bernie, but I realize that some things aren't going to change. the sun comes up in the east and the 1% are not going to be taken down because bernie says so, for that to happen you better prep up on your gun and bomb making skills.

okieinpain

(9,397 posts)
33. you folks keep saying the same thing. neither one of you is addressing
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:05 PM
Jun 2016

that the primaries are over, we are in the general now and the money is going to come into play now.

 

w4rma

(31,700 posts)
34. Why would that change Bernie's fundraising style or success? He's very consistent and honest. (nt)
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:07 PM
Jun 2016

okieinpain

(9,397 posts)
36. ok, you're right bernie will not need to raise money. he will make
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:31 PM
Jun 2016

money out of bird droppings, what was i thinking.

 

w4rma

(31,700 posts)
41. No. I'm saying that he wouldn't need to raise funds at a rate any higher than he already has been.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:52 PM
Jun 2016

Nor would his fundraising drop, if he were the nominee.

 

Segami

(14,923 posts)
3. Oh look, Wall St. is making demands if you want their money.....
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:36 AM
Jun 2016

....shocking I tell you, it's simply shocking!

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,692 posts)
21. The reason might have less to do with the actual power of a VP
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:37 PM
Jun 2016

than what that particular choice might signify.

 

w4rma

(31,700 posts)
22. Agreed. Plus the one impeachment/heartbeat away from the Presidency thing.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:38 PM
Jun 2016

Along with getting executive experience to actually run for the office, later.

TalkingDog

(9,001 posts)
6. Woo-Hoo! With Sanders out of the picture
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:59 AM
Jun 2016

That firm hand on the reigns can be re-established.

Looking forward to the schadenfreude clusterfuck.

 

Segami

(14,923 posts)
8. And all along people have been saying these large contributors
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:06 PM
Jun 2016

aren't trying to influence or expect anything in return for their donations......


 

senz

(11,945 posts)
9. Since when does Wall St. make demands of its politicians out in the media?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:49 PM
Jun 2016

Furthermore, Wall St. knows perfectly well that VP is a powerless position.

Something fishy here, sorry.

HubertHeaver

(2,522 posts)
12. That, or they have inside info on
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:05 PM
Jun 2016

a successful impeachment and removal from office. Of course they would want to pick the vice-p,

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
13. Good insight. However
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:22 PM
Jun 2016

I still have questions about the public nature of this. If Hill now nixes EW, it will look like she's in Wall Street's pocket, will it not? She doesn't want that.

Still something missing here.

 

Segami

(14,923 posts)
16. I agree with you.....nixing EW would leave
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:35 PM
Jun 2016

many with the impression that Hillary is in Wall Street's pocket......Politico and progressives will go to town on Hillary if she comes in with another V.P. pick other than EW.......


You may be right,.....something doesn't smell quite right.....

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
42. What evidence is that that progressives (as you define them) want only Warren?
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:17 AM
Jun 2016

I haven't seen evidence of that and would like to read it.

HubertHeaver

(2,522 posts)
17. Yeah, why this, why now?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 02:37 PM
Jun 2016

As always, it is multi-layered. It is a "shot across the bow", we just aren't sure who fired it.

TeeYiYi

(8,028 posts)
20. Likely fabricated...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:29 PM
Jun 2016

...to temporarily distance the campaign from WS in an attempt to appeal to Bernie democrats...until after the election.

TYY

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
11. Fucking Great! She'll do much more NOT in the VP position.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:05 PM
Jun 2016

The VP position is a muzzle.

We have to celebrate the fuckups that help us too.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
23. This looks like one of politico's none articles where they are trying to make the news.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 03:47 PM
Jun 2016

Clinton would never choose Sen Warren and Wall Street knows it.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
40. I don't want to see Warren as VP
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:48 PM
Jun 2016

I don't think Clinton would accept or need a "Cheney" VP (by Cheney, I mean running the show from behind the scenes).

Other than Cheney's reign, VP is largely a ceremonial/spokesperson position. I'd much rather see Warren in a position to ride herd on Wall St.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Wall Street Donors Seek T...