POLL: Do we want Elizabeth Warren as Clinton's VP choice (by primary candidate)?

[democrattotheend]

Someone posted a poll on this yesterday but didn't break it out by primary candidate. I thought it would be interesting to see how this question breaks down among supporters of both candidates.

49 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Hillary Supporter; Yes
	5 (10%)
	Hillary Supporter; No
	5 (10%)
	Hillary Supporter; Not Sure/It Depends
	2 (4%)
	Bernie Supporter; Yes
	6 (12%)
	Bernie Supporter; No
	28 (57%)
	Bernie Supporter; Not Sure/It Depends
	3 (6%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[bigwillq]

1. No (Bernie Supporter)

I'd rather Warren stay in Senate.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. Agree. A senator can get more done than a vice-president.

(Except for V.P. Cheney, of course)

[tonyt53]

27. Like Senate majority leader. Imagine the hell she would bring upon the GOP

[TheBlackAdder]

40. There are a lot here who wanted her as SBS's VP choice. Bobby Kennedy can fill Warren's Senate seat.

.


I shake my head at how some are coming down on Warren here.

She'd be fantastic and it would be a good staging for 2020, as what people said with her as SBS's VP choice.


Oh, and as a poli-sci continuing ed student, at 54, I am remain a uncommitted Democrat, who votes Dem ticket.

I don't know why these polls don't take that option into consideration.


.

[bigwillq]

41. I didn't want Warren as Bernie's VP either.

I'd rather her stay in the Senate.

I can only control myself. I care little about the "some" coming down on Warren. They're free to do that.

[VulgarPoet]

2. She needs to stay in senate.

If Hillary had her as VP, then that's all the reins to completely strip her of her strength, and continue along the road of pimping us out to the corporates.

[NurseJackie]

3. Depends on how close we are to retaking the Senate ...

... and what it would mean if a Republican governor appoints another Republican for the vacant Senate seat.

[democrattotheend]

20. Wouldn't the Republican appointment only be for a few months, until a special election?

I thought the Democrats in the Massachusetts house changed the rules in 2004 to prevent Romney from appointing Kerry's replacement if he won the presidency? Which of course ended up biting us all in the ass when Teddy died.

[dlwickham]

26. I think they have 150 days to call for a special election

but yes a republican would be seated during that time

[cali]

4. it's irrelevant to me. It is a ceremonial post.

[NurseJackie]

6. Ceremonial ... ha! :-P

I'm sure that would come as quite a surprise to LBJ.

[cali]

9. yes, it's largely ceremonial. What precisely has Joe Biden done?

[NurseJackie]

11. You haven't been paying attention to Joe, I see. Or ...

... you're trying to marginalize him for scoring points in the DU gamesmanship.

I suppose you think that Cheney's role was "largely ceremonial" too.

[cali]

15. So you can't name a thing. No surprise

No, Cheney was the exception to the rule.

[yurbud]

23. I was going to say it's ceremonial with a young pres like Obama, but then JFK...

Hillary is older.

I don't know much about her health.

However, giving up real power for only potentially greater power down the road...

LBJ was a pretty goddamn adept politician, so maybe the job is worth it.

[JonLeibowitz]

13. The fact it is a ceremonial post should make it highly relevant to you.

She would be leaving the Senate for a ceremonial position.

It's like the neoliberal dream. The perfect ending to handicapping her. First block her from heading up the CFPB with the price of a senate seat for a few years, then have her finish her career in a ceremonial position, while it is easy to marginalize Bernie Sanders as fringe.

[yurbud]

25. It will be tough to call Bernie fringe after this primary cycle.

[jack_krass]

28. What that we do here *is* relevant

[Dem2]

7. Not sure

[democrattotheend]

21. Same

It depends whether Hillary actually wants her and plans to give her a meaningful role or is just trying to throw us a bone.

[betsuni]

8. I fully support this. Double down. Do it.

Hot sauce and woman power.

[Lizzie Poppet]

10. Horrible, horrible idea.

And a rather obvious scam: bring Warren onto the ticket as a sop to progressives (with no intention of actually being progressive)...then completely neuter her Senatorial voice by walling her off in a ceremonial position that by tradition never utters a word of opposition to the president.

Nope.

[JonLeibowitz]

12. Yep. It is interesting the breakdown of votes in the poll so far.

I fully expected the neoliberals to want Warren as VP and I haven't seen a lot of enthusiasm generally for her as VP.

[Tarc]

24. I love your posts

[geek tragedy]

14. Almost all of the Bernie supporters voting "no" are ones

who've indicated they're not willing to vote for Clinton in order to stop Trump.

Interesting.

[cyberpunk]

17. Mmmh. I tried to look at it from the hardcore bernie viewpoint.

When you've seen several people mention sending money to try and primary Sanders, on top of people wanting to co-opt Warren for VP, that's two progressive voices they'd agree with effectively silenced, as I don't think they'd be quick at all to trust any progressive voices you could name just by dint of you naming them as a Clinton supporter. Highly polarized cycle.

[geek tragedy]

18. I don't think Elizabeth Warren is going to be anyone's yes-woman nt

[cyberpunk]

19. I'd hope not. nt

[athena]

34. Bernie supporters have been saying for months

that they would happily vote for a woman like Elizabeth Warren to be president, just not Hillary Clinton. Now they're saying they don't want Elizabeth Warren to be VP. I can't say I'm surprised.

[yurbud]

38. that's a lot of cross referencing

[RDANGELO]

16. I'm for it. Here is why.

In most cases, I would say no; leave her in the senate to be a progressive voice. Here are the reasons for it: Hillary will be almost 70 years old when she takes office, and her health isn't all that great. If she makes it to the office without the e-mail situation blowing up, the Democrats will probably not take the house, and there will be investigations into the server, obstruction of justice for deleting e-mails, and The Clinton Foundation. What this adds up to, is there is a chance she will not finish her first term or not be able to run for a second.
If you look at history, one of the most progressive presidents of his time was Teddy Roosevelt. He became president because he was selected as VP to shut him up. Mckinley was assassinated and he became president.
I believe that the biggest prize that Bernie could attain at the convention is an agreement on the VP.

[floppyboo]

22. That's a bunch of if's

But a very convincing argument. I hope Reid can get if figured out re. how long it would take to hold senate elections after inauguration, assuming Clinton wins.

[MyNameGoesHere]

29. Well at least we are staying true to the usual suspects. Eom

[Marrah_G]

30. Great for Banks, terrible for citizens

[democrattotheend]

31. Why?

Do you mean great for banks if she is no longer in the Senate? I highly doubt you mean great for banks because Warren is great for banks.

[Marrah_G]

37. Yes, because she isn't in the senate to fight them.

[Hekate]

32. Warren is a fiery advocate. She can have a decades-long career in the Senate...

....and wield far more influence than 4-8 years as Veep.

[Kentonio]

33. She didn't have the courage to either run or support the progressive candidate.

So no I don't think she deserves to be in the White House unless she choses to run next time around.

If she doesn't want to be in the White House this time around, then I'll happily withdraw the 'courage' remark.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

35. Between VP and the Senate --

she is better used in the Senate where her voice against any financial/banking sector bullshit a Clinton presidency might attempt will be heard.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. no, they have zero chemistry. nt

[JCanete]

39. No. But if she accepts it, I'll be hopeful of the terms and her judgement. nt

[restorefreedom]

42. it doesn't matter, since hillary will lose. nt