Elizabeth Warren and ?

[greiner3]

I believe the talk between Warren and Biden last week consisted mainly of Biden's attempt to gauge Warren's commitment to her stated stance of not running, NOT a possible Biden/Warren ticket.

I believe Warren's commitment is real, however, she could feel a Sanders/Warren ticket might be unbeatable, if an electable Republican would get the nomination.

She would add the women's vote, and another vocal voice to the anti Wall Street, anti Big Bank and also her expertise of Obama Care and the Bureau of Consumer Protection, both of which she was instrumental in their drafting.

A big no to this ticket is that both are of the NE and would not add any state, such as OH's crucial electoral votes.

Be that as it may, I think the ticket is 'dreamy' but "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve."

4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Biden/Warren
	0 (0%)
	Sanders/Warren
	3 (75%)
	Will not run
	0 (0%)
	Will run in a future election
	1 (25%)
	What's your say?
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Duckhunter935]

1. Warren/Sanders

Or Warren/Biden. Both great 👍

[Metric System]

2. A Sanders and Warren ticket makes ZERO political sense and anyone advocating for it is either

politically naive or worse. Usually the point of a ticket is to provide balance. Sanders and Warren attract the same voters.

[delrem]

4. Clinton/Gore were two peas in a pod.

Obama/Biden likewise.

[Proud Public Servant]

7. Not exactly

Biden was seen as balancing Obama's lack of experience (especially in foreign policy).

Clinton/Gore were more two peas in a pod, but that was in part a strategy to hold on to some of the South, which the Dems needed to do then. We don't really need any help holding onto New England.

I'm not saying Bernie needs a DLC type on the ticket -- God forbid. But he could do with other kinds of balance -- a foreign policy maven, a non-Northeasterner, a DC outsider, someone not of age to collect full social security, someone non-white...something. The House Progressive Caucus is probably the best place to look.

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

10. Agreed. Not a good balance. Too much of the same thing.

And having Elizabeth in the Senate would make a more productive team.

[delrem]

11. I agree that balance, an extended outreach esp. toward small and medium business

interests and toward what we in Canada call "multiculturalism", is important.

I just note that such balance is rare - not the norm - and the overwhelming case is a so-called "centrist" or "moderate" pro-corporate monopoly on all power positions, on every single one of them with no exceptions, whether it's a D or R administration. So aside from a fig-leaf of "identity politics" (a woman! a latino! ....) thrown in here and there for show, I don't agree with Metric system's claim.

I don't think Elizabeth Warren would accept the job, even if offered. Maybe another and more appropriate cabinet position, tho'... if it fits her plans.

I look at Warren as being the Dem party's (progressive wing) ace in the whole. If the unthinkable happens and the R's win the 2016 GE (and I wouldn't put all my money on HRC, that's for sure - she's just not smart enough - and she's "too clever by half&quot I think Warren will be a good bet for 2020.

[Proud Public Servant]

14. Metric's right though - balance has been the norm

The strategy for both parties, for most elections, has been to balance the ticket with representatives of the different wings or the party. Sometimes this gets talked about as "regional balance," but that just obscures the fact that regional differences have tended to be ideological. Eisenhower/Nixon, JFK/LBJ, Nixon/Lodge, Nixon/Agnew, Carter/Mondale, Reagan/Bush, Bush/Quayle, Dukakis/Bentsen, Dole/Kemp, Bush/Cheney, and Kerry/Edwards were all tickets that attempted to unite distinct wings of their parties; they all also happened to achieve regional balance. That's been the norm.

There have been the occasional tickets of two candidates from the same wing of the party -- Goldwater/Miller, Johnson/Humphrey, Humphrey/Muskie, McGovern/Shriver, Clinton/Gore, Romney/Ryan -- but all of those except Clinton/Gore still achieved regional balance.

(I wll confess that, to this day, I don't know how to explain Gore's WTF choice of Lieberman, but even that was a regionally balanced ticket.)

So I do think Metric is right: a ticket of two ideologically-similar candidates from the same region is not the norm. I'd add again that the fact that it worked once, with Clinton/Gore, had much to do with the fact that they were both from a region where the Democratic Party was in trouble, and where they could help shore up its weakening strength while taking solidly Democratic states for granted. That dynamic would not be present in a Sanders/Warren ticket.

In all, though, I'm with you: I want Warren in the Senate, where she'd do far more good than as Veep; and I think Hillary is far more vulnerable in a general election than is often acknowledged, so we need to have a strong bench for 2020 just in case (and luckily, I think we do, including not only Warren but also Sherrod Brown, Tim Kaine, and Kirsten Gillibrand, all of whom I wish were running this year instead of HRC).

[delrem]

16. Do you even distinguish "left" from "right"?

Or do you just claim a "balance" betwen Reagan/Bush, etc., and figure that you said something true just because you said it?

[Proud Public Servant]

17. Balance = balance WITHIN parties

I thought that was obvious. Reagan and Bush were both right wing, but within the 1980 GOP they represented distict wings of the party, just as Kerry and Edwards did more recently for the Dems.

[Skwmom]

12. Sanders/Warren would bring people out in droves to vote for that ticket.

They would win in an avalanche and control both houses. People are fed up. n/t

[Garrett78]

13. Balance in terms of geography, not political philosophy

Sanders-Warren would make more sense than, say, Clinton-Warren or Biden-Warren. But I don't see Warren leaving the Senate and I don't think Sanders will be the nominee.

Clinton-Warren or Biden-Warren would never work because they'd have conflicting messages out on the campaign trail. The media would love it but it would be a PR disaster for the candidates. Because when the general election rolls around, Clinton's rhetoric will become less progressive and Warren's will remain progressive as it's true to who she is. And I imagine Warren would be incredibly frustrated to be a marginalized member of yet another neoliberal administration when she could have just stayed in the Senate.

[fadedrose]

3. Bernie is a Statesman

but Trump will make a joke of him as he's the ultimate capitalist. I don't want to see this saintly man torn up by Trump.

IMO Bernie has a good chance of beating any Rep except Trump.

[AtomicKitten]

5. Interesting polling question.

Honestly I don't think Elizabeth will run as VP for anyone, although a Sanders/Warren ticket would be unbeatable. She has been ubercritical of the Clintons' economic policy and conversely very complimentary of Bernie's, and I simply cannot see her supporting anyone other than Bernie. Realistically, I'd like to see her endorse and campaign for Bernie. Someone suggested she be considered for AG in a Bernie Sanders administration. THAT I could definitely get behind.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. I still don't want to lose BOTH of them from the Senate.

I'm fine with Warren or Sanders in the WH, but I want the other one in the Senate still, pushing the rest of the Dems left.

VP should be from the House, or a former or current governor or mayor.

[brooklynite]

8. An all northeast, all progressive ticket would be "unbeatable" in a national election?

Not a chance.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. I would prefer Sanders/Murray.

A NE/NW ticket.

[bigwillq]

15. I would like to see Warren stay in the Senate. (nt)