HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Populist Reform of the Democratic Party (Group) » Why Warren would be a hor...

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 10:43 PM

 

Why Warren would be a horrible VP for Progressives

From CNBC article :

...Clinton needs to use her running-mate selection process to heal growing wounds within her party. To do that, she will first have to recognize what her real problem is with the party's new base. And that problem is that Sanders and his supporters in the party are mostly angry at what they see as a rigged process by the party elites and the Clinton camp

<<snip>>

Clinton would be wise to announce well before the convention that she's going to let all the delegates choose her running mate for her. This would not only be an open process, but it would show that Team Clinton is finally willing to give up some control of what's looked like a rigged game for years. Sometimes, nothing consolidates your popularity more than being willing to give up a little bit of your power. That's actually the definition of a compromise.

In that open-nomination scenario for the Democrats, I see Senator Elizabeth Warren as a strong favorite. She, alone, can bring the progressive Sanders followers back into the fold, because Sanders wing is also her wing.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/21/hillary-clinton-has-a-big-problem-commentary.html


Setting aside the fact that Clinton hasn't won the nomination yet, having Warren on as her VP would be bad for Progressives due to the fact that many Progressives are looking forward to a future Warren POTUS run. Being Clinton's VP makes a Warren presidency LESS likely, for a number of reasons:

1. The likelihood of Dems winning with two females on the 2016 ticket is a big unknown. It will be an uphill struggle to get one woman elected. If you doubt that, count how many times it's happened in the past. You can do it on no hands. If Warren runs with Clinton and loses in 2016, it will be highly unlikely that we nominate another woman (ANY woman) in 2020. It's a fucked up load of patriarchal nonsense, but hey...welcome to America.

2. Let's say they DO win. Cool, right? Not for Warren fans. She won't run against Clinton in 2020, and again, if we have our first female president complete 2 terms, it's very unlikely that well run another woman at the top of the ticket in 2024. That pretty much takes Warren off the table permanently. Again, patriarchal nonsense, but that's the world we live in.

3.Once more, let's say they do win. Even if Warren never ends up running for POTUS, isn't it still a win for Progressives to have her voice elevated to the Executive branch? Well sure, unless Clinton locks her down and muzzles her. Warren and Clinton are just not simpatico, and while Clinton would not tolerate a fiery populist voice in her court, Warren would not tolerate having to follow a corporatist agenda. The two would get nothing done together.

Finally, push aside all the POTUS maneuvering. Warren is needed by Progressives in the Senate. End of story.

Clinton/Warren would be a horrible ticket. Bad for the Dems, and worse for Progressives.

17 replies, 1901 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to demwing (Original post)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 10:47 PM

1. Warren is a horrible choice because she has a house flipping problem

She also has a problems with Native Americans. Yes, she is a poor choice for Hillary and HRC will choose her own candidate, not supporters just like every other Presidential candidate does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 11:30 PM

5. Warren is also smarter than, and more likable than Clinton

 

no one with Clinton's ambition would play that game

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:31 AM

10. Goldman-Sachs will be Hillary's choice. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 10:47 PM

2. I got nothing to add 'cept a kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 10:51 PM

3. I love Warren, and I agree, it would be a bad decision.

I did kinda like the idea of Sherrod Brown, but he seemed to shut that talk down.

She won't choose Bernie and I doubt he'd accept (and vice versa if he were to win the nom)

Frankly, not sure there's an actual liberal populist she could pick that wouldn't appear to be pandering and who would a) accept and b) wouldn't be immediately "muzzled".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TDale313 (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:31 AM

11. She won't choose anyone progressive. Maybe Goldman-Sachs. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 11:20 PM

4. Totally agree. It's funny we both used the word "muzzle" to describe what they would do to her!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 11:32 PM

6. which is what drew me to your post!

 

thanks for the kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 11:49 PM

7. Clinton is going to ruin Warren's chance at POTUS anyway...

...whether Warren is on the ticket or not.

The likeliest way Clinton will ruin Warren's chances is by losing in the GE this year. If that happens--and I think it will (Clinton's negatives are just too high)--it will likely be decades before another woman gets nominated and Warren will be too old. Warren is a great senator but she would have to have FDR-like or JFK-like charisma to overcome our first woman nominee LOSING the election. And I don't think she has that kind of charisma. She's super-smart. She right on, on the issues. But she will have an albatross around her neck--Clinton's loss--and will have to have some extra oomph to overcome that.

If Clinton wins the GE, her administration is going to be paralyzed by one scandal after another--she is exceedingly corrupt; and she will be horrible on the issues that most people care about--war, increasing poverty, Mother Earth going down for the count, you name it. She's even weak on women's issues (has stated she's willing to compromise on abortion). Her very high negatives mean she won't have much citizen support enthusiastically rallying to her, and her policies will earn her even less. She will be a disaster as president, and Warren will suffer, as VP or not.I will predict right now that if Clinton becomes president, she won't get a second term. Who will replace her as a nominee or a president, I have no idea. We may not have a stable planet by the point, so maybe it won't matter much. The most likely thing to happen politically is a fascist dictator. The social chaos that climate change will bring may well result in that.

We have a choice now to have an amazingly inspiring president, Bernie Sanders, who is committed heart and soul to reversing climate change, and will, at the least, act quickly to slow it down and to mitigate its impacts on people. Our rigged system--from the filthy campaign contribution system to the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines--will not likely permit him to be elected president. But we can still try. That's all we can do is try and try and never give up on the revolution that must occur to save our country, our democracy and our planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:18 AM

12. Yes, I think along the same lines

 

but there is one path (well, three variations on one path) for Warren that would be excellent for Progressives -

1. Bernie wins the nomination with Warren as his VP, and they take the GE. She'll be Sanders' age in 2024, and she can run then.
2. Bernie only serves 1 term, and passes the torch to Warren.
3. Bernie serves less than 1 term and steps down (he is 74). Warren steps in, and would earn the distinction of being both the 1st woman Veep & the 1st woman POTUS. In 2020, Warren would run as the incumbent. If Warren finishes less than 1/2 of Bernie's 2016 term, she'd also be eligible to run again in 2024 - opening the door for her to be the first person since FDR to be sworn into office more than twice.

Anyway, it's all speculation, as I don't get the impression that Warren is interested anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 11:50 PM

8. Elizabeth isn't on the same team as Hillary

She'll continue to kick butt in the Senate regardless what happens this summer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 11:53 PM

9. The only way Warren would agree to the VP slot would be if HRC were forced to bow out

when and if the FBI finds Hillary violated her signed classified information nondisclosure agreement. If the designated VP is tapped to take over the top of the ticket, this makes sense. Can't see Elizabeth Warren playing a muted second fiddle to Hillary Clinton otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:57 PM

13. Why Elizabeth Warren would never accept any position with Hillary

 

Evaluate for yourself.....check the videos out
No love lost here.....

the most obvious elephant in the room is......Senator Warren is the only Democratic Woman Senator that has not endorsed Hillary. She has repeatedly denied invitations to fund raisers to Hillary's events.
There's no basis for this rumor at all.

I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren for president in a heartbeat!
(How can we get Hillary to step down in 2020 and let the better person become president?)

Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton (2004)
@ 3:20


George Stephanopoulos Presses Clinton On Elizabeth Warren’s Criticism On Bankruptcy Bill



Hillary Clinton & Elizabeth Warren | A Very Telling Story




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 09:22 AM

14. To me the decision is as easy as imagining what would happen when a reporter

 

asked Sen Warren if she agreed with Clinton on any issue. I can just see Sen Warren saying, "well no I think she is all wrong on increasing the subsidies to the banks."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 09:30 AM

15. In the end, Clinton would never pick Warren

 

And Warren would never accept.

The meme that Warren is on a short list for VP is just another damn lie from the Clinton camp to try to mislead progressives into believing that Clinton gives a rats ass about anything other than her own ambitions - political and financial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #15)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 11:29 AM

16. Yes I agree. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:48 AM

17. Two points

 

• I never read anything from CNBC, which is utterly repulsive and corrupt

• Elizabeth Warren is a lead; not a supporting player. Given her decision not to run for president—and that she is the only worthy “Democratic Party” (at least two years) office holder worthy of that job—she should be the next majority leader of the U.S. Senate but we all know damn well Wall Street Democrat Chuck Schumer will get that job. (But, of course, that may be ideal. It may not be worth having.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread