It seems very unlikely to me that Elizabeth Warren will

[MineralMan]

be Hillary's VP choice. Here's why:

1. A ticket with two women would appear unbalanced to many.
2. Warren is an important Democratic Senator. We can't afford to lose any of those.
3. In most cases, a VP candidate is chosen who is popular in a swing state that is needed for its electoral votes.
4. Warren chose not to run for President. Why would she agree to run as VP?

What's more likely is that Hillary will select a Governor or very popular House Member in one of the 10 swing states that will possibly go to the Republicans. Virginia is one of those. North Carolina, Ohio and Florida are others. Watch for a strategic pick from one of those swing states. The VP candidate will almost certainly be male, as well.

VP's are chosen to balance the ticket, not for national popularity reasons.

[texstad79]

1. Wise words as always!

A white male might shore up Hillary's weakest demographic or a Hispanic might peel away a chunk of the 30 percent or so of Latinos who voted for Romney. Lets leave it up to the Republicans to run unbalanced tickets.

Besides, Dems in Mass have a propensity to nominate Martha Coakley and hand the race to the GOP.

[emulatorloo]

2. Reminder: Delaware is not a swing state

IMHO Obama choose Biden because they were simpatico and Biden had good foreign policy cred.

I beleive the old rules don't apply anymore.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately so:

- Two Women: if not now, when? Why not now? Sexists will vote Trump anyway.
- Warren can serve in the senate until inauguration. Special election right after Inaugration day.
- None of the VP shortlist chose to run for president.

[brooklynite]

48. Biden was as much a Senator for Pennsylvania as he was for Delaware...

...he had strong connections to the PA labor movement and Party.

[emulatorloo]

84. Fair enough

[CrowCityDem]

3. No one else on the bench can do what she did yesterday. No one.

[JohnnyRingo]

4. All true.

The first thing I thought when people began fantasizing a Clinton/Warren ticket was how that would defeat the historical significance of Hillary's nomination. A president has to select someone who rounds out their ticket, not a clone. Add to that the fact that while many here see Hillary as a moderate, most of the country believes she's a far left liberal. She needs a man with perceived roots in the working class. I'd bet Sherrod Brown.

Gender and race is very important as well. Imagine if Obama had picked an African American for veep. Like it of not, it would have been a bridge too far for many voters and he likely would have lost in a landslide.

Some may point out that Trump can pick another white man for his ticket, and that's true, but he has to choose someone with a modicum of intelligence and foreign policy experience to round out the half a brain he brings to his campaign.

[emulatorloo]

5. I think Trump will do a McCain and pick a right-wing woman

[JohnnyRingo]

8. Maybe.

He certainly needs help with that demo, but it would have to be an intelligent African American woman with Hispanic roots, an engineering degree in wall building, and vast foreign policy experience to make up for everything that Trump isn't. That's a rare bird indeed.

Let's hope he throws his arms up and gives Sarah another chance to ruin a campaign. hahaha

[emulatorloo]

9. brilliant! Lol

[MineralMan]

10. I suggest Michele Bachmann to him.

She'd be a fine choice on his ticket. Just fine.

[emulatorloo]

11. I was thinking the same thing!

Saw her on hardball last night, she's obviously fired up and ready to go!

[MineralMan]

14. She does have fire in her eyes, for sure.

She likes to talk, too. I think she'd be perfect for picking up the scatter-brained voting bloc.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

56. The "fire in her eyes" seems to have burned up her entire brain.

[MineralMan]

64. So it would seem. She'd be a perfect match for Trump.

They both speak like unruly children.
Neither appears to be able to use logic.
Both like to insult minorities and non-right-wingers
Neither could be elected to any national office.

They're the perfect team for the Republicans.

[Nonhlanhla]

71. The Dumb and Dumber ticket.

[JohnnyRingo]

40. Hahahaha

Are you a member of the Comedy Writers Guild? I suspect a hidden agenda.

[Maru Kitteh]

69. "She needs a man"

I'm sorry but that is just such a bunch of stinking sexist bullshit. Really.

I'll just refer you to this post for just part of the reason why this "point" is moot, at least in this instance.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512170195#post67

[JohnnyRingo]

90. It's not just because she's a woman.

While it's true that two white men can run on a ticket, there are combinations there that also assure a loss. If the two white men share what appears be outside the mainstream to voters, it also spells doom for the campaign. Two Jewish men or two Mormons for instance. An all gay or all Hispanic ticket would suffer likewise.

Do you think an Obama/Sharpton campaign would have succeeded in '08? In our antiseptic liberal bubble we can say there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but too many would have seen it as too much too soon to be electable. The same holds true right now for two women.

Someday I'm sure that will change, but for now we'll have to work extra hard to get the first woman elected to the White House. I'm hopeful, but adding a second woman wouldn't help at all. That's sad but you have to know deep down that it's true unless you think gender prejudice is passe.

[Maru Kitteh]

91. Pppppffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttt.

And that's what I think of the sexist garbage that I see coming from - I can't help but notice - mostly men on HRC's potential VP choices.

She will make her choice as she sees fit. I hope in those discussions that sexism is told to go perform anatomically impossible acts upon itself just as racism should be.

[JohnnyRingo]

95. I'm not going to bicker...

...but I just want to add something relevant.

Last week I saw my 20 year old granddaughter at my son's cook out. As usual, I nagged her about registering to vote without success, but I asked what she thought of the candidates anyway. On Hillary she said: "a woman is too emotional to be president".

At first I was floored to hear this from such a young girl, but I realize she's just repeating the nonsense she hears from the pick-up driving country western listening crowd she associates with.

You can pretend the war for equality has been won now and it'll be a snap to elect not one, but two women to the White House, but until you change public perception you're living in a dream world.

My county consistently votes 66% Democratic. When Obama ran in 2008 that dropped to 60% due to racism. I expect the same drop for Ms Clinton, and that's why I want to give her every edge we can find. Running another liberal woman on her ticket isn't it.

[missingthebigdog]

93. I disagree that Elizabeth Warren could be characterized as Clinton's "clone"

She brings an entirely different set of skills, knowledge, and experience to the table. The things they have in common is that they are progressive Democrats, and that they are female.

I would expect any VP choice to be a progressive Democrat. The fact that they are both female should be irrelevant.

[JohnnyRingo]

96. It indeed shouldn't be relevant.

I saw my 20 year old granddaughter at my son's cook-out last week and did the usual nagging to get her registered to vote. That didn't work, but I asked what she thought of the candidates anyway.

When we got to Hillary she actually said: "A woman is too emotional to be president". That's from a young girl and I was obviously shocked at first as was my ex, but I realized she's just repeating the crap she hears from the pick-up driving country western listening crowd she hangs with. Unfortunately, that's the perception we're up against this year.

I desperately want Ms Clinton to win this fall and have been on Team Hillary all along, but running another liberal woman on the same ticket isn't how it'll happen. It's going to be uphill as it is but I'm hopeful because Trump is the Republican.

Believing the war for equality has been won and everybody wants, not one, but two woman in the White House is a dangerous campaign strategy. I'm not worried though because she'll choose someone who rounds out the ticket nicely.

I'm not going to bicker about it much further because you have to understand that making history is never easy.

[randome]

6. Reid is pushing her and she implied being open to the prospect on the Rachel Maddow Show.

As much as I loathe pinning any hopes on the vicissitudes of politics -or on long-shot nominations- I'm starting to believe this is possible and even desirable.

Josh Marshall being open to the idea has nudged me forward. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/enough-just-pick-warren

Warren is off-the-cuff, free-wheeling and direct in all the ways Clinton is cautious and rehearsed. But it is a reinforcing rather than an invidious contrast and likely helps bring to the surface Hillary's progressive background that has been buried by decades at the pinnacle of Democratic party politics and years as the punching bag of the left of the party which feels excluded by the seemingly endless Clinton ascendency.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[kentuck]

7. I think she may be an important part of the next Presidency but...

I do not see her as VP. Perhaps Secretary of the Treasury?

[Orsino]

12. I'd hate to see Warren nerfed for 4-8 years...

...but maybe it gets us to a point where she can run in her own right. Knowing all these things as she must, she seems unlikely to take that veep slot--but if Clinton can win her over, I would be more enthusiastic about our presumptive nominee.

[Adrahil]

13. I often agree with you, but...

1) But we've had hundreds of men running on tickets with two men.
2) The biggest objection, IMO.
3) That model is tempting, but it hasn't actually worked out that well in recent history. Romney lost Wisconsin, despite having Ryan on the ticket. I think a candidate form a swing-state would great, but who? Sherrod Brown comes to mind, but he's from a state with a GOP governor too.
4) She may not have believed she could win the nomination. Or may not have wanted to do what would have to be done to win it (tear down a fellow pioneering woman). However, being offered a spot on the ticket as a done deal is a different matter.

[unc70]

15. Don't expect anyone from NC

There are really no options locally. Sad, but true.

I have really mixed feelings about selecting Warren because of losing her voice in the Senate. On the other hand, having her voice inside the administration might help counter Clinton's natural tendencies to move right on many issues.

Having Warren on the ticket would have many positives. In addition to the obvious, she would be a strong deterrent as VP to any GOP attempts at impeachment because she would be their worst nightmare.

And in the unlikely event that the IC and FBI investigations severely damaged Clinton politically, Warren would be available to step forward immediately.

[rurallib]

16. I don't think Clinton will take a senator from a state with a Republican governor

Getting control of the senate is prime importance too. I thought Sherrod Brown might be top choice, but with Kasich picking Brown's replacement i don't think so.

So Now I am thinking one of Minnesota's senators, Franken or Klobuchar with Dayton picking the replacement. I think Franken has the better cred with the Sanders wing.

For that matter maybe Dayton could be a choice with Lt. Gov Tina Smith moving into the governor's office.

[MineralMan]

17. Hmm...I sort of doubt it.

Al Franken probably wouldn't be interested. Amy Klobuchar is loved by voters in MN, but she's not nationally known and is often seen as a middle-of-the-roader politically who probably wouldn't make folks on the left very happy.

Governor Dayton is not a good public speaker, really, and has some serious back problems that trouble him. I think he wants to finish out the next two years and retire. He's not widely recognized nationally, either.

MN will be a reliable win for Hillary, besides.

[rurallib]

19. didn't mean to push Minnesota folks

my main point is would she take a Dem vote out of the senate and have it replaced by a republican appointee?
Right now I do not think so.

If she were a few years younger my favorite would be Barbara Boxer.

[emulatorloo]

22. Reid's figured out that Warren can serve in Senate until inaugurated as VP

Then a special election would happen after inauguration.

So Mass Repub governor doesn't have a say regarding Warren's senate seat should she accept VP spot on ticket.

[rurallib]

37. good news

[Sivart]

18. I dont see Clinton picking a man.....

Isn't there a glass ceiling for the Vice Presidency, too?

No?

If not, I don't get it.

[athena]

21. Right.

We Clinton supporters support Hillary Clinton only because she's a woman. Not because she also happens to be the most experienced, qualified, and sensible person running.

It's amusing that after 44 male presidents, Clinton supporters are the ones being accused of sexism, not those who are trying to ensure that we have yet a 45th male president.

[Sivart]

24. I'm not saying clinton supporters are sexist....jeesh.....

I'm just saying why would she NOT pick a woman.....she has the opportunity to make history in both offices.

This thread started with a post that mentioned a balanced ticket relative to gender.

I am saying, what is that about? The opening post suggests that Hilary Clinton, a woman, would need a balanced ticket, meaning two women is one too many, or unbalanced. I am questioning that.

And don't forget the decades of male Vice Presidents......

[athena]

30. I misread your post.

I thought you said you didn't see Clinton supporters voting for a man. Sorry about that.

Personally, I agree with the OP. I think the country is too sexist to vote for a two-women ticket. (I previously explained my reasoning here; I don't want to type it again.) We can't risk a Trump presidency just to break another glass ceiling. I don't think HRC would risk it.

[Sivart]

34. Are you saying Clinton needs to cater to the sexist voter??

[athena]

35. It's called realism.

We do not live in a society that would vote for a two-women ticket. If you don't see that, either you've never experienced misogyny yourself, or you're in denial. There is a reason that none of the 44 presidents we've had so far have been female.

[Sivart]

36. Wow....

The reason is sexism. And you want to perpetuate it. Because not perpetuating it would involve risk and/or be less appealing to sexists.

Wow.

[athena]

38. Go on, enjoy living in your post-sexist universe

in which you call women sexist for pointing out that sexism is still very real and still hurts women.

I wonder why people go to a discussion forum when discussion is the very last thing they're interested in.

[Sivart]

43. Im not calling you a sexist....

you appear to NOT be a sexist. But you also appear to not want to take too many risks in fighting or changing sexism.

[athena]

44. I just don't want to see a President Trump in my lifetime.

Seriously, I think that's what a Clinton-Warren ticket could mean. The majority of the people out there see women as inferior to men and are extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a smart and/or powerful woman. Progress is made in small steps; you don't go from 44 male-male presidencies to a female-female presidency. Having a President Hillary Rodham Clinton will make a female-female candidacy more likely to win in the future. Clinton is already taking a certain risk in running for president in a country that is deeply sexist. It is not leadership to take a risk that is likely to give us not only a 45th male president but a guy who would do unthinkable damage to the country and the world.

As for fighting sexism, I spent decades trying to make my way in a field that is extremely male-dominated. I took risks by refusing to act the way women were expected to act -- not staying quiet in meetings, not pretending I agreed when someone said something that was clearly wrong. In the end, I was pushed out. I did all I could, but all it did was make me realize how bad the situation still is for women.

[Sivart]

55. Point taken.

I understand what you are saying, and I apologize for my earlier tone.

I can appreciate your point of view.

Its just an interesting situation.

A two women ticket would certainly throw Trump off, don't you think? It seems to me like he has a hard time disagreeing with women without crossing some obvious lines.

Its just a super interesting situation. I am curious about all the angles and possibilities.

[athena]

62. Thank you.

I also apologize for snapping at you earlier. It's very difficult to correctly gauge someone's tone over the internet.

I am not wedded to my opinion on this. If HRC chooses Warren, I will definitely be very excited. (I just won't be surprised if she doesn't.) You may be right that a two-woman ticket could cause Trump to go so overboard in his sexism that it ends up turning off some of his female Republican supporters. (Although so far, nothing appears to hurt him with his supporters.)

[Maru Kitteh]

70. If I may refer you to this post, why I think you're wrong about a 2-woman ticket

At least in this instance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512170195#post67

[athena]

75. You could be right.

If Hillary chooses Warren as her running mate, that will mean she doesn't think it's too big a risk to take.

Nonetheless, I could push back slightly on #1. I'll post that in response to your other post, since this sub-thread is getting a bit long.

[Peachhead22]

92. So JoeBob Sixpack is going to vote for Hillary, but then...?

So society would vote for a woman president, but as soon as she picked a woman as her running mate "society" is like "I was going to vote for Hillary, but then she picked a woman as her Veep! Nosiree, nope, notgonnadoit, wouldn't be prudent. No female VPs to me"?

Sadly, there are going to be people who vote against Clinton simply because she's a woman, and picking a male running mate would never change that.

Then there are going to be people who will vote for Clinton to some extent because she is a woman, and picking a woman as running mate will double down on those people's commitment and energy to a Hillary/female VP ticket.

Lastly, there will be a large swath of the electorate that don't base their vote on the gender of the candidate and similarly, the gender of her running mate won't matter either.

[scscholar]

52. No woman has ever been allowed to be VP...

so there is a glass ceiling.

[pnwmom]

81. We've never had a gender-balanced ticket before. Why start now? n/t

[Sivart]

20. Warren would potentially draw a big chunk of Sanders supporters....

and may be the only way for Clinton to get to certain Sanders supporters.

[Maru Kitteh]

72. Sanders himself will work hard to bring his supporters over, but Warren would seal the deal

I think she is a "swing state" unto herself. I think that would be a SOLID ticket.

[geek tragedy]

23. Gore didn't balance Bill Clinton in 1992.

Truth be told, Clinton doesn't have a lot of great options.

And every ticket of ours since 1984 has had two members of the same gender.

[KingFlorez]

25. I don't think Warren wants it

She really likes being a Senator and I think that she would prefer to stay there.

[Cal33]

27. I hope Warren will be the next Democratic Senate leader. Even though she has been a

senator for only 4 years, she has shown that she is the most dynamic and effective
Democratic senator of them all, and is loved by most of the Democrats in the country.
Unlike some of the "life-time" senators who are in there mostly for themselves,
Warren is in there for the benefit of the entire country.

[BootinUp]

26. I tend to agree on Warren being less likely.

My two favorites are Xavier Becerra and Al Franken. I also like Tom Perez. Clinton has also said her choice will be highly qualified.

[sufrommich]

28. "A ticket with two women would appear unbalanced to many."

For two hundred years we've had unbalanced tickets. This argument makes my skin crawl,it's the equivalent of saying "let's not get carried away here,we've already allowed one woman on the ticket",it's insulting as hell and it doesn't deserve a serious thought. I don't know if EW will be VP,but this line of reasoning makes me feel sick,fuck that bullshit.

[Sivart]

29. My reaction to that was very similar to yours, only stated differently, and....

and a Clinton supporter disagreed with me, which I thought was odd.

[sufrommich]

31. It's a sickeningly paternalistic argument,no matter

where it comes from.

[athena]

49. Thanks for misrepresenting my argument.

I never said the ticket would be "unbalanced". What I said was that I don't think two women running together can win in this deeply sexist country. That is why I don't think Clinton will choose Warren as her running mate.

[Sivart]

51. My apologies....

I'm just still surprised that one could applaud the first female presidential nominee, while at the same time being opposed to a female VP nominee specifically due to her gender.

I understand the point you are making, which is, I believe, the same point Mineral Man was making. Two women is one too many for some. No you and not him (mineral man).....but some.

I am just surprised that as a Clinton supporter you would feel the need to acknowledge this and, to a degree, cater to it.

I did not intend to misrepresent your statements, and for that, I apologize.

[athena]

58. I am not opposed to her. I just don't think she would help Clinton win.

I also believe that she's much more effective in the Senate than she would be as VP. The job of VP does not carry much power. In my opinion, it's better for someone who has less experience and name recognition. (This, by the way, is also why I don't think Bernie would be a good vice-presidential pick.)

Anyway, thanks for clarifying. I could, of course, be wrong. If Hillary does choose Elizabeth Warren as her running mate, I will change my opinion on this. Hillary's political instincts are definitely superior to mine.

[Maru Kitteh]

77. Some Hillary supporters are I think just afraid of asking for too much

after seeing our candidate swim in a sea of misogyny for so long.

There are a token few Hillary supporters that are along for the ride because they are nostalgic for Bill. Right after they vote, I hope they take a fast ride into a short cul-de-sac and come to grips with the reality that it is her presidency.

[TwilightZone]

53. Sure, it's a ridiculous argument, but the "to many" part is no doubt true.

Personally, it wouldn't factor into my evaluation process if I were the one making the decisions, but it's pretty undeniable that there is still a lot of latent - and overt - sexism in this country. The people making the decision have to consider all factors, even the ones that a lot of us find offensive.

I agree that it doesn't deserve a serious thought, but that doesn't mean that it won't be part of the discussion. I don't think the OP is advocating it in the least, just pointing out that it's an unfortunate reality.

[thesquanderer]

66. OTOH if Obama had selected a black VP, I think many might have likewise thought "one too many"

as a matter of political realism. I'm not sure it's true, but I understand the concern. Same here.

[treestar]

78. True. But the silly thing is a voter who is willing to have a black President

must be willing to have his potential replacement be black too, same with a woman.

[treestar]

76. "to many" are that group that would feel that way

and we know they exist, sickening though it may be.

But I did think that if the country elected a woman to be POTUS, a female Veep (who exists to replace the POTUS if necessary) could not be a problem either. The Veep exists to be second in line.

[democrattotheend]

32. I also read that Hillary is not crazy about the idea

They are not particularly close, from what I have read, and Hillary would only pick her if she feels she has to. Under those circumstances I would rather have her in the Senate. If the articles I read last month are wrong and Hillary really wants her, that's different.

[athena]

41. Right.

When a man chooses not to pick a certain person as his running mate, he has political reasons in mind. (The person in question wouldn't bring any new voters from his state; losing his Senate seat might mean losing the Senate, etc.) When a woman chooses not to pick a certain person as her running mate, it's because "they are not particularly close."

[democrattotheend]

47. Huh?

From what I know about Hillary, I would think she would want to pick someone she thinks she could govern with, not just someone who helps in the election. That was Obama's approach in 2008 as well - his top criteria was finding someone he thought would be a good governing partner, not someone thrown on the ticket to win a particular state or otherwise enhance his chances of winning. So I don't know where you are reading gender into it.

Here is the excerpt from the Politico article I was referring to:

Clinton and the senior senator from Massachusetts don't have a close, personal relationship — in fact, there’s no evidence to show they even particularly like each other — and Clinton insiders worry Warren could upstage the likely Democratic nominee during the general election. While there’s confidence in the energy she could bring to the ticket, questions loom about the anti-Big Bank crusader’s appeal among white working class voters, as well as her lack of experience.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-ticket-222652

There are other articles that make this point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/21/why-hillary-clinton-wont-pick-elizabeth-warren-as-vp-unless-she-absolutely-has-to/

[athena]

50. The VP does not normally do any governing.

The VP is not the president's "governing partner".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Roles_of_the_vice_president

Moreover, there is no rule that says that the president and the vice-president have to like each other. JFK and LBJ hated each other. So did Eisenhower and Nixon. Reagan couldn't stand GHWB. In my opinion, the media is being sexist in even talking about this. People love to hear about how two powerful women supposedly hate each other.

[Maru Kitteh]

79. "The media . . . People love to hear about how two powerful women supposedly hate each other"

[font size = 12] BINGO

[Maru Kitteh]

82. One little excerpt in a Politico article does not a "cat fight" make. It's ONE opinion without

a shred of evidence. In fact, if one reads critically, it backs up this speculative opinion with "there's no evidence to show."

I'll take EW at her word in Rachel's interview that she does indeed have a close personal relationship with HRC over the Politico writer.

[athena]

89. Good point.

I can believe that. In fact, it's much easier to believe than the opposite. I have never seen anything to suggest that EW and HRC had anything against each other. Even in the video of EW that Bernie supporters kept posting, in which she appeared to be criticizing HRC, she was in fact quite laudatory and admiring of HRC.

[Renew Deal]

39. Is a ticket with two men unbalanced?

[texstad79]

45. As is a ticket with two whites

[nolabear]

65. Of course not! Because...men!

I'm with The Notorious RBG. Supreme Court? Nine women would be great. Line of succession? All women. I hope I make it to the day when that's not considered an aberration, but a simple given.

[AgingAmerican]

42. We can afford to lose a Senator, if it stops us from losing the general

Warren is, however, generally unknown.

If a Sanders supporter called such a ticket, "Unbalanced," Hillary supporters would be in an apoplectic state.

[TwilightZone]

57. The OP didn't call the potential ticket unbalanced.

He indicated that it would appear unbalanced "to many". This is, without any shadow of a doubt, a true statement.

[AgingAmerican]

60. Had a Sanders supporter implied same

We would have to endure a week's worth of Ops feigning outrage over it

[TwilightZone]

61. Only if people didn't bother reading for comprehension.

[AgingAmerican]

63. These folks intentionally take everything Sanders says out of context

[unc70]

46. Warren was being strongly discussed as Plan B

Warren was discussed earlier as the leading option in the unlikely event that Clinton were damaged by any of the investigations. Really doubt this is on Clinton's mind, but it might be part of very quiet discussions among others.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. I have always wondered how much difference the running mate's

home state makes. I can't imagine someone switching their vote from the Republican to the Democrat, for example, just because a senator from their state is the running mate. I don't foresee see a Trump voter from Massachusetts deciding to vote for Hillary just because Warren is the running mate, for example. Conversely, if Trump chose Paul Ryan, a Hillary supporter who lives in WI isn't going to switch just because his running mate is from their state. And it seems like a lot of candidates like to pick someone with a southern drawl so southerners would vote for their ticket (Kerry/Edwards, for example). I've always thought the regional effect was pretty minimal.

A more significant problem with choosing Warren (though I like the idea) is that she could be replaced with a Republican. I'd rather not take a senator out of a state where there's a Republican governor.

[Blanks]

68. I don't think where they are from makes that much difference...

But their 'pet issues' do. For example Gore the environmentalist coupled with Clinton. It adds an additional voice to the campaign. I suppose Dubya didn't look evil enough, so that was Cheney's function.

Someone mentioned Biden's ties to labor where Obama wouldn't be as strong. I don't see Hillary picking Warren, and we need strong senators in the senate. I think O'Malley would be a better choice. He has executive branch experience and showed an interest in the office of president.

I don't think anyone in the senate is a good choice because she (Hillary) served in the senate. You want a governor for the diversity of experience.

[still_one]

59. Your first point I disagree with. It would be an awesome power house. Harry Reid is looking

at the second point now to determine if an election could be held rather than an appointment for her seat. The VP also breaks ties in the Senate

Your third point is what has been traditional, but this election, and the republican nominee is far from traditional, so I don't think it applies in this case

Your last point is the weakess I believe. There are a lot of reasons why she didn't run as president, the main one being that she thought the odds too great

[Maru Kitteh]

67. I don't disagree with your points, just the conclusion (lol)

Note I said I didn't disagree with them, but I'll debate them anyway.

1. The whole "she needs a man" thing, for those voters who wouldn't vote for her alone - there's the still wildly popular, been the President twice already, and oh-so-conveniently married to her PWJC. Nevermind the fact that this is her presidency and she is not running as his wife, is her own person etc, etc and so on. To those voters, the "man on the ticket" is built in.

2. EW is awesome in the Senate, but could also be quite awesome in the VP slot. I don't think we are going to have to worry about getting/keeping numbers of Dems in the Senate this season. I think you will see so many R's vanish in the House and Senate, they'll think that stupid movie, "Left Behind" has come to life, lol.

3. True, but not always true. Witness, Al Gore. Elizabeth Warren brings the "swing state" of passionate, progressive Independents and Democrats. We need to stop thinking so much about boundaries and more about coalitions and affiliations. That's how you win big, not just one little (even if it is big electorally) state.

4. We don't know why EW chose not to run for POTUS, what we do know is that she is not averse now, apparently, to accepting the VP position, as evidenced by her recent visibility and her interview with Rachel Maddow.


I would very much like to see her picked as VP, but I do trust Hillary will make the proper choice for herself personally and the campaign. But count me in as a BIG fan of a Clinton/Warren 2016 ticket.

[athena]

80. In response to #1

(and I realize this is pushing it a bit):

The type of person who thinks a woman can't govern but will vote for HRC anyway thinks that PWJC will be the one who is really in charge. If EW is the VP, such a person could reason that if something happens to HRC, then EW will be president, and a woman will be actually in charge! Eeeek! We can't have that!

The other problem with EW is that she would have less power as VP than she has in the Senate. The reason for such an experienced person to be VP would be to be well-positioned to run for president herself after her running mate's second term. But by then, EW will be 74. After two terms as president, she would be 82. I don't personally think that's too old to be president, but many people might. (Of course, if HRC doesn't think she'll be alive in four or eight years, then picking a female running mate would mean we would automatically have a second female president! But the first part of this thought is too disturbing.) OK, I need to stop now. This is getting way too hypothetical.

[Maru Kitteh]

87. LOL, the "what if's" could kill us right? I tend to have faith that most of the "she needs a MAN"

voters probably don't think nearly as deep as you just did. lol.

Any VP choice will have pros and cons, as always. I would be a big fan of this ticket, but I trust her political judgement on this.

Hillary has all kinds of amazing, qualified people that would love to be on the ticket with her. Contrast that with the Drumfster.

We're going to be fine!

[PeaceNikki]

73. Julian Castro would be a great choice as well

[theboss]

74. When was the last time "bringing balance to the ticket" or winning a "swing state" actually worked?

Maybe 1976?

Seriously, let's go through this.

Obama/Biden - The balance, I guess, is that the young black dude chose an old white dude. Delaware is pretty safely blue and pretty insignificant electorally.

Romney/Ryan - I guess this was an attempt to win a swing state; it failed. The balancing attempt was to make the conservative true believers happy.

McCain/Palin - This was insane on all fronts.

Kerry/Edwards - This was obviously a move to win a swing state. It failed.

Bush/Cheney - Cheney was seen as a babysitter essentially. He brought nothing electorally to the ticket.

Gore/Lieberman - I guess this was to bring some kind of balance to the ticket, but I honestly can't articulate it because Lieberman is such an odd duck politically. It didn't bring a state into play for sure. Gore didn't win his own state here.

Dole/Kemp - This didn't put New York into play. I think this was just the fact that if you are a front-runner for VP for 30 years, eventually you will run for VP.

Clinton/Gore - Two youngish southerners. No balance, but I guess it won Tennessee. Maybe.

Bush/Quayle - Bush made a bad pick that brought nothing electorally.

Modale/Ferraro - A Hail Mary that failed.

Reagan/Bush - Republican VPs seem to exist to heal Republican civil wars more than anything.

[pnwmom]

83. The vast majority of tickets have been 2 men. Why not 2 women this time? n/t

[longship]

85. She also said on Rachel last night when asked...

that she loves the work she has been doing.

So it looks like she's not interested anyway.



R&

[MineralMan]

86. I don't know her. I'd love to know her, though.

She's exactly the type of person I enjoy talking to. However, I'm unlikely ever to even meet her.

She'll do what she thinks is best, I'm sure. She'll also be fighting to elect Hillary. Now, that I like a lot.

[Maru Kitteh]

88. What, no answer? I took all that time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2171692

[ieoeja]

94. "VP's are chosen to balance the ticket" with the notable exception of 1992.

Bill went with a candidate who would complement him rather than balance.

Of course, Bill's campaign was rather unique. Week after week George Will gleefully pointed out that Bill spent more of the past week attacking the Democratic congress than he did attacking the President.