Paul Krugman: How About A Clinton-Warren Ticket Instead Of A Matchup?

[kpete]

Nobel Prize-winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has an interesting vision of the 2016 Democratic presidential ticket: Hillary Clinton for president and Sen. Elizabeth Warren “looking over her shoulder so she doesn't stray too far."

Speaking on HuffPost Live Wednesday about Clinton’s domestic policy, Krugman said, “When she talks now, she sounds substantially to the left of the old Hillary Clinton.”

“If she becomes president and then turns ... (and) runs back to the right, that’s going to be a problem. ... I guess part of one's hope, if she becomes president, (is that) she will in fact feel some need to avoid alienating the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, which is for all practical purposes led by Elizabeth Warren right now,” Krugman said.

As for a presidential bid from the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, he said it “would be an interesting thing” but predicted it would be unsuccessful.





Video & MORE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren_n_6030868.html

[edhopper]

1. I would prefer

a Warren-Clinton ticket.

[Cal33]

7. You beat me to it. And so would I. :)

[ChisolmTrailDem]

2. How about a Warren/Sanders ticket instead of Inevitable Hillary? nt

[Cal33]

12. I'd like it even better than Warren-Clinton, but on the practical side, how good are the

chances of their winning?

[Scuba]

3. They are worlds apart ideologically.

[LondonReign2]

8. Indeed

Hillary-Jeb, that way they won't disagree on too much

[truebluegreen]

18. +1

[Le Taz Hot]

21. Nailed it! n/t

[closeupready]

25. Ha. You win the thread.

[nc4bo]

30. Umm, yep. nt

[Maedhros]

29. Yes, this is pretty much the reason. [n/t]

[Ykcutnek]

4. Sounds good to me.

I like both of them a great deal.

[unblock]

5. so many better places for warren.

[MADem]

6. How about Clinton opening the door for Warren to be Fed Chair instead of Lady in Waiting?

A VP does very little--they're busy but they don't have final say on anything.

Plus, two northeastern women aren't going to resonate in that "flyover" country that everyone gets mad if anyone "disses" them. They might do ok on the left coast, but they would have to work way too hard in the south and central regions.

[HereSince1628]

9. Why would I want Warren to have all the authority of a full spitoon?

No thanks.

I'd rather see her as a senator in a roll where she can actually fight for consumers

[riqster]

15. IIRC, it was "warm" spit. Even worse.

[LawDeeDah]

10. No. Warren is no second stringer.

[polichick]

11. Good way to shut Warren down - no thanks.

[HereSince1628]

16. They also appoint potential 'flak' to ambassadorships and special representation...

taking them away from the domestic scene and out of the news.

Feingold, and Kennedy both chould be, maybe should be, on the early lists of 'possibles' but they are geographically off the radar.

That's hard to do with Warren. Regardless of what she says, she has significant vocal support, and what the people want can't really be ignored when constructing the 'possibles' list.

Suggesting she take on an utterly powerless position, losing all effectiveness she contributes to consumer causes, seems a lot like asking for a self-inflicted wound.

[BeyondGeography]

26. Yup...a waste of Warren relative to the potential that comes along with her current job

[ellie]

13. Yes, please.

Thank you.

[marble falls]

14. Warren/Clinton. Like someone above said, Warren is no second stringer.

[truebluegreen]

17. Terrible idea.

Warren would be wasted as VP. A nice title with no actual power. She's far more useful in the Senate--or at the top of the ticket.

[earthside]

19. Traditional, establishment, elitist thinking.

Krugman's idea of a Clinton-Warren ticket is exactly why so many progressives are fed-up with the 'insider' establishment control of the Democratic Party.

Co-opt the left and progressives by throwing them a bone ... meanwhile the alliance with Wall Street, corporations and military contractors proceeds apace. We've just endured almost six years of that in the White House.

2016 is going to be the greatest opportunity progressives and liberals may get in generations to elect a genuinely left-leaning President. Are we going to throw that possibility away because it is "Hillary's turn" (a very Republican notion in the first place) and because of some very odd notion that only Hillary Clinton can be the first woman President?

Sorry, Paul ... 'Clinton-Warren' is a non-starter for progressives.

[Le Taz Hot]

20. Hillary Clinton is an autocrat.

If god almighty was standing at her shoulder she would still be a Republican and gladly send people to their deaths if it helped her political ambitions. The only thing she'd be missing is the title "Republican."

If Warrant doesn't run, she needs to stay in the Senate. V.P. would be a total waste for her. The Clinton gang would shut her out real quick.

And I don't care who her running mate is, I'll still not vote for that fucking war hawk.

[hrmjustin]

22. Hillary-Brown of OH ticket would be more likely.

[djean111]

23. That would just marginalize/neuter Warren, and the Clinton camp would breathe a sigh

of relief, and then we would be smugly told that of course we all need to cheer for Hillary now.
NO.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Sounds pretty good....if you take out the Clinton part.

[procon]

28. A match-up like that would be a losing ticket for Dems

It's a pretty fantasy, but let's face it, the Dems already have a problem attracting and retaining working class men voters. Faced with not one, but two strong, powerful, outspoken, feminist women, that timid demographic would run screaming into dark to preserve their threatened manly bits.

[AtomicKitten]

31. This is like the suggestion that Clinton and Biden switch jobs.

It boils down to manipulation to try to make Clinton more palatable. Sorry, no sale.