Should Hillary Clinton pick Elizabeth Warren for V.P.?

[left-of-center2012]

77 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	32 (42%)
	No
	43 (56%)
	Other
	2 (3%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[yallerdawg]

1. Yes.

All in!

2016 - "The Year of the Woman!"

[sheshe2]

53. Nope....

I want my Senator in the Senate.

Yikes, sorry~

[tonyt53]

2. She can be much more of a force as Senate majority leader. Tens of times more of a force.

The VP only votes in the Senate as a tie breaker. As majority leader, she can set the agenda for the Senate.

[RKP5637]

6. Same thoughts here too! n/t

[LiberalFighter]

9. She is not likely to be majority leader.

At least not in the next Congress.

[Vote2016]

76. I'd rather have her in the Senate but she is one of very few who would help with Hillary's extreme

weaknesses.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. Yes.

[Reter]

4. No, two firsts rarely happen

It shouldn't matter, but it would probably turn off some indie male swing voters.

[Sparkly]

7. I dunno -- we've had two men FOREVER...

[Reter]

23. Yes, and after all these years, both happen in one year?

It will take time before we see two women, two AA's, two Jews, or two gay people on a ticket together. It would probably only sway 2 to 5%, but that may be enough to turn the election.

[Chasstev365]

8. Careful; It will be unfairly implied that you are sexist.

[Reter]

21. That's why I wrote it shouldn't matter

But unfortunately, it does. Had Obama picked an African American running mate, he likely would not have won.

[Scootaloo]

5. I'm going to say no.

I think Warren serves the cause better as a Senator. Taking her out of the Senate and putting her int othe Executive weakens us as a whole - especially as Vice President, which is, as far as I can gather, basically four to eight years of vacationing in between making appointments the president is too busy to attend.

I definitely DO want a strong liberal pick. But we have so few good liberals out there that it is damn hard to come up with a name that wouldn't undercut us somewhere else.

[Lance Bass esquire]

10. Not this cycle

I say give it to Bernie and give Warren Sec of State. JMHO

[avaistheone1]

24. That's the sweetest breath of fresh air.

Thank you!

[kpola12]

11. Tulsi Gabbard to reunite the party.

She would have been Bernie's best choice also.

[HarmonyRockets]

34. No way

Some of the rhetoric I've heard from her scares me.

[democrattotheend]

42. On what?

I don't know that much about her. I remember her being criticized for something she said but I don't recall what.

[HarmonyRockets]

49. It's not just what she has said, but how she said it.

She didn't even come off as a moderate Democrat. The language sounded straight up Tea Party to me. It was disturbing. Look up some interviews where she's talking about the War on Terror. Extremely hawkish, fear-mongering, and Islamaphobic. She even did the whole "Democrats are refusing to use the phrase Islamic Terrorism" thing that Republicans do. Some homophobic things she has said were particularly disturbing as well. And then she came out and claimed she was supporting Bernie because he was anti-war and she was all pro-peace. It was laughable. It was so obvious to anyone that has followed her at all that it was just all out politically calculating bullshit.

[athena]

69. Here is an article about her that shows what you're talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-rising-democratic-star-from-hawaii-makes-mark-on-party-by-defying-it.html

Since the deadly attacks in Paris, she has become a high-profile critic of President Obama’s policies in Syria by amplifying her argument that President Bashar al-Assad should stay in power to avoid elevating the Islamic State and by introducing legislation to defund American efforts to overthrow him.

Shortly after voting with House Republicans this month to drastically tighten screening procedures for Syrian refugees — in defiance of Mr. Obama’s veto threat — Ms. Gabbard traveled to Paris. From there, she made the case for focusing on defeating the Islamic State in her fourth national television interview of the week.

(snip)

Ms. Gabbard, who served two combat tours in the Middle East and holds the rank of major in the Hawaii Army National Guard, has also called for the United States to suspend its visa waiver program with European countries until the intelligence community can catch up with the influx of Syrian refugees, an economically risky proposition.

(Emphases mine.)

I'm really puzzled by Bernie supporters' adoration of her. It suggests they have not actually looked into her positions. Apparently, it was enough for them that she supported Bernie and criticized Wasserman Shultz.

[Metric System]

12. Yes, with an economic role.

[rock]

13. As usual

I defer to HRC's pick whoever it is.

[bbrady42]

14. No for two reasons

I love her, but the Republican governor will appoint a repug to take her place. Do you really want to see Scott Brown back in the Senate? Also, a ticket of two north east liberals leaves out a big part of the rest of the country.

[left-of-center2012]

18. Mass law requires an election to fill the vacancy

Any one appointed would be in for only about 120 days until it's filled by an election.

[longship]

25. Remember the last time that happened?

We got Scott Fucking Brown, who replaced Teddy Kennedy!!!!!

So your argument goes right out the window.

[Capt. Obvious]

60. Hopefully my state learns this time

and doesn't nominate Martha Coakly.

She's why we have Baker as Governor now too.

[Cobalt Violet]

64. He happened because it was an off year election.

If it were in a year of a presidental election I don't think a republican would win.

[longship]

67. Well, they have a GOP governor.

Too risky to select Warren. Plus, I don't think she's the best strategic choice. Plus, I really love her in the US Senate.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

15. Don't think Elizabeth would accept...would be smart not to.

[Generic Brad]

16. Al Franken

He is in the mold of Paul Wellstone, is extremely witty, and can go toe to toe with Trump. Plus Minnesota's governor is a Democrat, so he would be replaced with another Democrat.

[longship]

26. I would go for Al Franken.

But I don't think Hillary would select a VEEP from a highly Democratic northern state. Regardless, he would raise the levity of the campaign.

I love Al Franken!!!!

[democrattotheend]

37. Massachusetts is a highly Democratic northern state

Moreso than Minnesota, even. In 2008 there was a brief period when we (the union I worked for) were worried about Obama in Minnesota and did some mailings for him there. We never worried about Massachusetts for one second.

*It was on my advice that we sent the mailing for Obama, and after the election, when Obama won by over 10 points and Franken was 200 votes down, I was afraid that with that small of a margin, my mistake could have cost him the difference if he lost. Thankfully my boss reassured me that we didn't divert any resources from Franken to help Obama. And then Franken ended up winning, so it's all good.

[Pastiche423]

74. Al Franken is a DCLer

He is the opposite of the wonderful Paul Wellstone.

[Big Blue Marble]

17. She is far more valuable in the Senate.

We need her intelligence and wisdom in the Senate. Attributes few senators share.

[toshiba783]

19. Yes

Does anyone recall a poll that found voters responded less positively to Hillary when she was accompanied by other women though? I can't find any article about this now, the search terms are too broad, it was used as a source for why men would be on the campaign trail for her and play more visible roles as surrogates.

[Mike Nelson]

20. Unsure...

...have wanted Warren to be Senate Majority Leader for a long time. After seeing the Democratic leaders speak and meet over the past few days, I feel they will recommend and she will make the correct choice. Really appreciating our Democratic representatives now - Obama, Hillary, Biden, Bernie, Warren, Reid... not seeing Republicans Trump, Ryan, McConnell, etc as impressive.

[longship]

22. Let's get this straight right now.

Hillary Clinton should not pick any sitting US Senator for VEEP, least of all Elizabeth Warren. We desperately need her in the US Senate.

Her speech today before the ACS should underline why that is so. If you do not understand that a sitting senator has much more power than the VEEP, I probably cannot disabuse you of your delusion that Elizabeth Warren should be Hillary's VEEP candidate.

Let it stand there. And if I were Liz, I would not only say "no", I would say "Hell fucking no".

She remembers the last time that there was an open US Senate seat in MA, just like everybody here ought to. And MA has a GOP governor!

[democrattotheend]

39. It depends on the relationship with the president

I think Biden has more power now than he would have had if he stayed in the Senate. So did LBJ. It really depends on the relationship between the president and vice president and what they decide the VP's role should be.

That said, in this case I am concerned that Warren might be mostly used as window dressing to throw a bone to progressives. It feels like she is being pushed on Hillary and that won't make for a good working relationship. If Hillary genuinely wants her I'd be thrilled, but if she's just going to be used to unite the party I'd rather keep her in the Senate.

I am a little skeptical of how hard Harry Reid is pushing her. Could it be that he wants her out of the Senate because she is the type to investigate and not fall in line?

[longship]

43. Again, NO! Just no. We need Warren in the US Senate.

Her ACS speech today should have underlined that for folks.

VEEP is not a seat of power unless POTUS does not complete their term. A prominent, outspoken US Senate seat, on the other hand, is by definition a seat of power. Especially one held by Elizabeth Warren.

Plus, although I will be supporting Hillary Clinton in the GE (I voted for Bernie in MI), I do not want Warren to be anybody's surrogate.

The question is: Why would you?

[Jack Bone]

57. ^^^^ THIS RIGHT HERE!! ^^^^^

[Capt. Obvious]

61. GOP Governor has no say!

[longship]

63. I know.

But the last time there was a vacancy in MA senate it did not work out too well.

I am against any current Dem senator being selected VEEP for that reason. Especially Warren who we really need where she is. And I don't think she would accept VEEP anyway.

[msongs]

27. no

[virtualobserver]

28. Yes, then I would no longer worry if Hillary had to leave office...for whatever reason

[srobert]

29. If she did I Might consider voting for her.

But probably not. Still, it would be one of the few options she has that would make Bernie or Bust voters reconsider? Does she need our votes or not?

[Recursion]

30. I don't see her bringing much to the ticket

We won't need help in New England, and there's little ideological diversity in that ticket. Clinton will want somebody further west and further right.

[thesquanderer]

32. re: "Clinton will want somebody...further right." Hard to keep Sanders folk motivated that way. nt

[Recursion]

33. Sanders folk are not who Clinton is worried about. I know that's hard to hear but it's true.

She needs to win 53 electoral votes from some combination of:

NV
NH
VA
NC
OH
FL
PA
WI
IA
CO

Even if she takes the states Sanders won in the primary (NH, CO, WI) that gets her 23 electoral votes.

Her left is not what she's worried about, because of the way we allocate electors.

[thesquanderer]

35. re "Even if she takes the states Sanders won in the primary" -- not the issue.

That was a different contest, with different voters. For example, even though Clinton beat Sanders in Florida and Ohio, current polls say that Sanders beats Trump in those states by more than Hillary does... which means he could help her in those states.

[kennetha]

40. Bernie would be an Albatross in Florida

Rember the debate when he was asked about Castro?

[azurnoir]

52. Triangulating already?

[Recursion]

55. Counting to 270

I realize it's an unpopular hobby, but it's what I do.

[andym]

31. The first progressive in the White House reached that position through VP

Teddy Roosevelt was VP for big business's friend William McKinley. So having Elizabeth Warren or Bernie as VP would be a very good idea, because they would be paid attention to by the press, and be in a position to spark a national dialogue on progressive issues.

[longship]

44. And how old was Teddy when he became POTUS?

I believe he was the youngest ever POTUS, until JFK.

Regardless, we need Warren in the senate, not as VEEP, where she does little good.

[andym]

47. What does age have to do with it?

Teddy Roosevelt only served 6 months as VP before he was elevated to the Presidency. He was a troublemaking reformist governor of New York, whom the powers that be wanted "out of the way." But it backfired on them big time.

The VP gets far more attention at the national level than almost any senator. Besides appointing judges, the Senate will do little in the next four years, if the Democrats can't win back the House which is a herculean task given how many GOP districts have been gerrymandered into stability. So Warren and Sanders can't do that much in the Senate.

The VP "can" have the bully pulpit if the President accedes-- that will be the most a progressive can do to fire up everyone until 2020/2022 and the hopeful end of the gerrymandered House.

[longship]

58. Age? Everything when the next in succession is Speaker Paul Ryan.

That's why Hillary should choose a younger VEEP.

[andym]

68. You mean young enough to last as President should they need to become President.

I assume you believe that Congress would not approve a replacement VP should the VP becomes President, which I agree is more than possible, especially in the House.

Elizabeth Warren is 66 today, well below the average longevity for woman in the US (80), so there would be little risk for her, even at the end of Hillary's second term, she would be only be a year older than Bernie's age today. Since Hillary Clinton is two years older, we should be more worried for her.

I agree that Bernie as VP would be more problematic as he would be near the average life expectancy for men at the end of Hillary's first term.

[longship]

70. You make good points...

I just listened to Warren from last night's Rachel Show and she was fairly straight that she likes her job in the US Senate. I don't think she would accept VEEP. It doesn't sound like it.

[democrattotheend]

36. It really depends

I think Hillary should pick someone for VP whom she genuinely wants to work with, as Obama did. If Warren is that person, I would be thrilled. But I don't want Hillary to pick her if it's just a bone to throw to us Bernie supporters, because then I would be skeptical whether Warren would really have a meaningful role in the administration. If she is just going to be used as "window dressing" to appease the progressive wing of the party I would rather keep her in the Senate. Does that make sense?

[beltanefauve]

41. Makes total sense

[kennetha]

38. Too Old

Warren is 66. Hilary is 68. We don't need a geriatric VP -- male or female. Should choose neither Warren or Bernie for that reason alone. Certainly shouldn't choose some be in the Biden mode -- old white guy of long record.


We need someone more youthful, certainly not another boomer. A youngish Gen X'er. Somebody progressive dynamic. Preferably Hispanic or AA or multi racial who embodies in her or his very being what America is becoming.

I predict our VP is a late 40's early 50's rising star sort.

[BlueStater]

45. I'd just prefer someone not born in the 1940s.

If the Boomer generation encompasses 1946 to 1964, there's still a lot of them who are only in their 50s or early 60s. That's not too old. She doesn't necessarily need to pick someone who's young enough to be her offspring.

[kennetha]

48. A young boomer wouldn't be bad

the youngest boomers are still in early 50's.

[Garrett78]

46. No. I'd like her to pick someone relatively young who could be elected POTUS in 2024.

Someone such as Julian Castro.

[ContinentalOp]

50. No, she's a former Republican who presumably voted for Reagan!?

But somehow she's the progressive saint and Hillary is the bad guy?

[Live and Learn]

51. I don't care either way. nt

[TSIAS]

54. She should be president

But if she didn't want to run for president, why are people thinking she wants to be VP? I think she's much better in the Senate until she decided if/when she wants to be president.

[dchill]

56. She's more valuable (and powerful) in the Senate.

[auntpurl]

59. I like her, but no.

I loved her speech tonight. But I'm still convinced a younger person, pref AA or Latino, pref from a swing state, is the best choice. And I would not like to remove Warren from the Senate. She would make a wonderful, no-nonsense Majority Leader, in time.

[bigwillq]

62. I'd rather Warren stay in the Senate (nt)

[joshcryer]

65. Warren is a demagogue.

She's better off as VP so she can gain experience governing.

[B Calm]

66. No, we need to keep every senator we have and not look for ways to lose another seat.

[Lizzie Poppet]

71. I can't overstate how strongly I oppose that.

Warren effectively muzzled in a ceremonial position, prevented by inviolable tradition from criticizing an administration that is very likely to take actions she strongly opposes (war, corporate-friendly environmental decisions, etc.)?

Oh, hell no. Not with the Third Way consolidating its hold on the DNC.

[Nye Bevan]

72. Two white women in their late sixties? No.

The VP will be a youngish man from the South or West.

[Ferd Berfel]

73. Regradless, Warren should not bend over

We will need her and Bernie in teh Senate to lead the opposition to her majesty's neocon/Wall Street destruction of what's left.

[Pastiche423]

75. No

Why waste her talents? That's what giving her the VP would do.

We have too few liberals in the senate now, we can't afford to lose another.

[demwing]

79. That would be embarrassing

Warren would say no. Why would Clinton humiliate herself?

[SheilaT]

80. Last year, when many of us were begging her to run,

many here said she shouldn't run, she was much better off staying in the Senate.

Can someone explain to me what has changed since then?

[Rincewind]

81. No, Warren should stay in

the Senate. She can do a lot more good there.

[AntiBank]

82. No No No No No

it will so disempower her

[AntiBank]

83. Biden as a one term caretaker VP

keeps faith with Obama legacy, he has already done the job well for 8 years, he can brutally go after Dumpster

in 2020 switch out for new blood rising star to position for 2024