Digby: "Clinton and Warren: It might be exactly the right ticket at the right time."

[kpete]

WEDNESDAY, JUN 29, 2016 05:00 AM PDT
Clinton and Warren: It might be exactly the right ticket at the right time
Many thought that having two women running together would be too much for the U.S. but it's exactly what we need
HEATHER DIGBY PARTON



There are those who assume that two women at the top of the ticket is too much for the country to handle. After all, it took nearly 230 years for one to even be nominated by a major party for the top job .I thought that myself but after seeing them together I changed my mind. It looked like a natural combination to me. When you think about it, it’s simply illogical to be willing to vote for a woman president but unwilling to vote for a woman to replace her if something happened. That makes no sense. And if you are the type of person who believes that a woman at the top of the ticket needs a man around to keep her steady, why would the VP have to be that person? The administration will surely be filled with men, they always are. In any case, there’s really nothing new about voting for president and VP of the same gender.

Most importantly, the Republicans have nominated a man whose views about everything, but especially women, are nothing short of antediluvian. The prospect of a campaign featuring two strong women standing toe to toe with Trump is just too delicious to pass up. It’s already making him come unglued.


http://www.salon.com/2016/06/29/clinton_and_warren_it_may_be_exactly_the_right_ticket_at_the_right_time/http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/27/women-worry-that-america-can-t-a-clinton-warren-ticket.html
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/29/1543614/-Digby-Clinton-and-Warren-It-might-be-exactly-the-right-ticket-at-the-right-time

[chillfactor]

1. no....we need the Senate seat....

Warren needs to stay in the Senate so hopefully we can gain control once again....

[WheelWalker]

4. No, I disagree. First of all, make certain we crush Trump like a walnut.

[Cosmocat]

22. I agree

my first instinct is to keep the D senator.

But, POTUS is too darn important, and this country is THAT stupid that you can't rule out the thought of Trump winning.

Gotta make sure you have your best ticket, and past that she can maybe have enough of an impact to make up for the potential loss of her seat by picking up one or more other seats on down ticket impact.

[Lyric]

5. Come on. We only lose her seat for a few months. Massachusetts doesn't allow Scott Brown

to appoint a replacement for any longer than the few months it'll take for a special election. We will NOT lose that seat. This is a ridiculous argument for not supporting Senator Warren.

[Eric J in MN]

7. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA). NT

NT

[Lyric]

8. lol. Whoever. The point remains the same.

Unless you have something against Senator Warren and don't think she'd be a good President?

[Saviolo]

13. But what we lose more importantly

Is a strong and progressive voice who has been and is currently doing very important and powerful work against the big banks and huge moneyed interests. Whoever replaces Warren won't be able to just jump into the middle of that. I think that Warren is far more important to Democrats, liberals, and progressives in Senate than as the VP. She's an incredible fighter and she's doing amazing work, I'd hate for that to stop.

[BlueCaliDem]

2. The right ticket for the right time - for a weakened Republican Party, maybe, but not for the

Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party is very diverse and becoming more like America each month. The top ticket should reflect that. Plus, we can't risk losing a senior Senator's seat to a junior Repub like Scott Brown again.

[Little Star]

3. According to Massachusetts law

the governor gets to appoint a replacement when a Senate seat is vacated. But it’s only a temporary arrangement; the law states that a special election must be held within 160 days of the seat becoming vacant. In theory, this means Warren’s interim replacement would only get to serve for the first five months of the next administration.

Read more:
http://www.bustle.com/articles/164966-the-loophole-that-could-make-elizabeth-warren-vice-president

[NewJeffCT]

10. When John Kerry was running in 2004

the overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts legislature changed the law so then Governor Romney could not appoint Kerry's replacement if Kerry had won the presidency. It passed over Romney's veto. When Deval Patrick became governor later, the law was changed back, but we still got Scott Brown in the special election because Coakley was a crappy candidate. I think the Mass legislature could again change the law if Warren was nominated and not have to worry about the Governor's veto.

[yallerdawg]

6. Harry Reid has been studyin' on this!

In the event of a Senate or House vacancy, Massachusetts currently requires a special election to be held within 145 to 160 days. In the interim, the governor has the authority to appoint a successor. But Reid’s team has identified a portion of the law that allows an officeholder to start the special election clock by filing a resignation letter, but also announcing an intention to vacate the seat at a later date.

In theory, Warren could file such a letter 145 days before the Jan. 20, 2017 inauguration and successfully block Baker from picking any temporary replacement. But that would expose Warren to a potentially awkward position. If Clinton lost the November election and Warren wanted to keep her Senate seat, she would have to make the politically difficult decision of rescinding her planned resignation — or run for an open seat that she created.

A more likely scenario would be that Warren would start the clock ticking for a special Massachusetts ballot only if Clinton won, with an intent-to-resign letter dated the day after the Nov. 8 national election.

That would give Baker’s temporary appointee less than three months to serve between Inauguration Day and the special election. While that might prevent a Democratic majority from taking over in January, the damage, from a Democatic perspective, might be limited to a short period of time until Massachusetts’s Democrat-leaning electorate went to the polls to elect a senator in a special election.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/03/harry-reid-studies-legal-scenarios-for-filling-senate-seat-elizabeth-warren-gets-vice-presidential-nod/3FSrNJlAhqRoiWt6iQMK7J/story.html

[longship]

20. And the last time that happened, Scott Brown took Ted Kennedy's seat.

And MA currently has a GOP governor. So much for statewide elections in the putative most liberal state.

Only an utterly mad person would take Elizabeth Warren out of her US Senate seat. She is a rising senatorial star. Leave her where she can continue to do some good. Where she can still vote, hold the floor, become a committee chairman, have some fucking influence beyond the executive branch, which when Hillary Clinton is inevitably elected she will need!

Think strategically, not tactically. Long term, not short term.

Keep Warren in the US Senate. It's where she wants to be anyway. And she is incredible there.

[yallerdawg]

25. Scott Brown won against a terrible candidate.

Massachusetts went back to Democratic senator when you all had a good candidate! Massachusetts has good candidates now.

It won't matter if we have a Democratic Massachusetts senator if we have a Republican White House. We need to put forward our best team, not put this in any kind of jeopardy. VP is not just same placeholder position anymore, VP influences policies and administrations.

VP choice can end a candidacy (Palin) or secure a candidacy (Biden).

Warren can do more on a world stage and in the news everyday, pushing policies and issues. Biden is always right there, or even a step ahead!

Clinton-Warren '16! Get ready!

[longship]

29. Sorry, I cannot and will not support Warren for VEEP.

Hillary will need Warren in the US Senate.

Plus, MA has a not so good record, no matter how you spin it, with statewide elections.

Plus, VEEP has next to no power in the Senate, beyond a gavel and tie-breaking.

It is utterly stupid to put up Warren as VEEP. Plus, I don't think she would accept it. And I think she has already told Hillary such. That she is campaigning with Hillary is utterly irrelevant. She is doing so as a Senator from MA.

I will stand by that.

[BlueCaliDem]

33. Agreed. Now that MA has a Republican governor, I'm not willing to trust MA to produce and elect a

Democratic Senator to replace Elizabeth Warren. You saw how she had to actually struggle to win the first time around!

Were Senator Warren a California Senator, I'd take that risk. California will never elect another Republican as Governor nor a Republican Senator since Latinos here have learned - the hard way - through Schwarzenegger that Republicans make lousy governors and since they've learned that Republicans are anti-immigrant.

We need a strong Democratic Senate in order to get Hillary's policies, judges, and justices through when she's elected president. Taking EW out of the Senate would be a risky and foolish move.

[Scalded Nun]

9. I am concerned

If Warren is tipped for this she needs to get the assurances from Clinton on killing TPP, pushing for 15$MW, going after Wall street, ending never-ending war, SS expansion, SCOTUS appointments and killing Citizens United. If she runs, and none of these things happen (especially if there is not at least a meaningful effort), she will be tied to the betrayal of voters who want these reforms as these are all things she is pushing for and has made a name for herself by promoting.

I personally feel she has more power as a Senator.

At least I will tie her to that. Maybe I am alone, or at least in the minority. But that is how I feel, hence my comment.

[andym]

15. Warren needs to be given some independence as VP

Real power to speak her mind.

[longship]

21. Nope! Warren needs to stay in the US Senate.

Where she can actually do some good.

When Hillary Clinton inevitably wins the presidency in November, she will need people like Warren in the legislative branch.

To take Warren out of her senate seat for VEEP would be the gravest of mistakes. Her rising senatorial star would instantly set. To become what? A gavel and a tie-breaker.

Bad idea! Really, really bad idea!

[adigal]

11. Hillary will never pick her...she's too liberal nt

[BlueCaliDem]

34. That's a b.s. statement.

[mopinko]

12. i think they are a perfect 1-2 punch.

the 2 of them tag teaming donald the chump makes my heart go pitter patter.

[AllTooEasy]

14. If I was Warren, I wouldn't take the offer.

I'm not convinced that the Vice Presidency maximizes her skills and vision. As VP she wouldn't have any true power, just influence inside the executed branch. Imagine if she had McConnell's position!!! As Senate Majority Leader she would be as powerful as Hillary regarding Domestic Legislative affairs. If Hillary tried to push something conservative down the American people's throats, she could say "No, we're not voting on that. Try again Hill".

We much win the Senate too!!!

[andym]

16. Ted Kennedy turned down McGovern twice as VP in 1972

for better or worse. That election might have looked very different, given that polling showed the McGovern/Kennedy ticket even with Nixon/Agnew during the summer. Sometimes the VP makes a very big difference.

[Android3.14]

17. The possibility of a Clinton/Warren ticket is all that is holding me here

If she picks Warren, I'll give Clinton another chance to introduce herself.

[BlueCaliDem]

32. It sounds like you want a second bite at the apple. eom

[Android3.14]

35. I'm unsure what that means.

[mountain grammy]

18. I think Warren is the best choice!

[Zen Democrat]

19. Warren is the only smart choice now. The men in contention are pretty milquetoast. nt

[Cosmocat]

23. YEP

I have said all along, I am OK with Hill, but she isn't BHO.

He could pick uncle joe for some foreign policy and legislative chops because he was the show, BIG charm and presence.

Hillary is the opposite. More accomplished and not as dynamic. I have felt she needs someone who can bring a little enthusiasm to the table.

I worry a LOT about a Hispanic as a VP here with the simmering immigrant theme. I don't like it, and I don't see it PERSONALLY. But, it is a VERY big dynamic, and the fact is, the states that could throw a wrench into this (Pa, Oh, Wisconsin) are 1) limited Hispanic population 2) states with industrial base loses that a Hispanic on the ticket could peel voters off.

[gordianot]

24. I have evolved on the possibility of Warren as VP.

At first I thought she should stay in the Senate for much needed leadership. Considering how vicious the election of 2016 is becoming why not the VP spot? Now someone will need to convince Wall Street.

[yallerdawg]

26. Wall Street hates Elizabeth Warren!

If Hillary and Elizabeth team up - it's a game changer!

[gordianot]

28. Wall Street hate of Warren borders on Sanders level hate.

Total game changer.

[Warpy]

27. Yeah, to get Trump elected

People grossly underestimated the level of racism still present in this country until Obama won the presidency.

That is nothing compared to what Clinton will face. Misogyny is more deeply entrenched and exists to some degree in the majority of the population, especially the older population. It's reinforced every day by bad laws and worse religions.

She would be far wiser to pick a white male for a running mate. A wonk with a grasp of what labor has faced over the last 40 years would be ideal.

Besides, it would be beyond stupid to replace Warren with a Republican in the Senate, which is exactly what would happen when the Republican governor of Mass. fills the vacant seat.

No thanks on two counts. I just hope Warren has the wisdom to say no.

[leftstreet]

30. +1

[quaker bill]

31. I have to agree, but will be surprised if this happens

Warren is great on the attack, something traditionally VPs have been used for. The two play well together, another bonus.

Best of all, in office she would be a great defense against the traditional republican "impeach her" attack. There is no reason for Republicans to try to impeach Hillary if what they get is Elizabeth Warren as President. She is probably the one woman Republicans in the House and Senate want to see as President less than Hillary.

Warren presiding over a democratic controlled senate would be a thing to see.