General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLet's Talk Clinton-Warren 2016 (Are you cringing?)
A quick search shows that this was a common topic in 2013.
But that was then, right?
As populism grows more popular in the face of inequality, we'll be seeing the words "Clinton" and "populist" paired more frequently. Yes, the Clintons ushered in the era of corporate Dems in which inequality has been nurtured - but they're not fools. They know which way the wind is blowing.
So, in order to gain some populist cred and also play on the theme of women's rights, HRC could choose EW as her running mate - and, remember, EW has already joined other Senators in supporting Clinton.
Do you think this is a likely possibility - and, given their relationships with the bankers, do you think Warren would accept if the spot were to be offered?
(Another just-for-fun thread as we consider what direction the party might take.)
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)woodsprite
(11,910 posts)think of anything better to get the old GOP goats than 2 women in the highest offices in the land. Would serve them right for trying to screw over women and families.
That ticket may get some female GOP voters to switch sides, but I doubt many males would cross the aisle to vote for them, and there are always the women who would stay GOP and vote against their own and their families interests.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)former9thward
(31,973 posts)She signed what was supposed to be a private letter, by female Senate Democrats, to Clinton urging her to consider running. Of course it soon became public. Signing a group letter urging someone to consider running is far different than actually supporting that person when they do start to run.
The Clinton people know this and have not been honest about the motives of those signing the letter.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)We need strong women in all parts of government.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Corporatist president.
So, yeah, cringing.
polichick
(37,152 posts)HRC choosing her, both for EW's populist reputation and also to have some control over the movement, make sure it doesn't knock her out of the race.
djean111
(14,255 posts)then keep Warren from actually doing anything. Huge waste.
groundloop
(11,518 posts)Let me apologize in advance for being blunt, but IMO any talk of 2016 is premature. We need to worry about holding the Senate and making gains in the House first.
Of course I'd support Elizabeth Warren for whatever elected office she chooses to run for. I'll also enthusiastically support Hillary or whomever else may eventually be our nominee for 2016. BUT.... first things first.
former9thward
(31,973 posts)She would choose a younger man --probably one who has some populist creds in order to balance her views. Maybe someone like former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)by Clinton, go after Wall Street, among other trouble makers. The people who are aware of Clinton's alliance with corporations
and their agenda will be skeptical, to say the least. Never mind her hawk foreign policy persuasions.
With that said, it would be a political coup for Clinton..Warren could give her some much needed
PR help to soothe her otherwise frightening political point of views.
You trying to wreck my Happy Friday, or what?
polichick
(37,152 posts)Going to look at the cherry blossoms in DC - and I'm ignoring all those political buildings.
Have a fun weekend!
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Don't stay away too long but hope you have lots of fun.