HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » One Person On Hillary’s S...

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 01:41 AM

One Person On Hillary’s Shortlist For VP Was Just Removed From DNC Speaker Schedule

Senator Warren not scheduled to speak at the Democratic Convention

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/07/15/one-person-on-hillarys-shortlist-for-vp-was-just-removed-from-dnc-speaker-schedule/

49 replies, 4549 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
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply One Person On Hillary’s Shortlist For VP Was Just Removed From DNC Speaker Schedule (Original post)
mrmpa Jul 2016 OP
emulatorloo Jul 2016 #1
VOX Jul 2016 #2
applegrove Jul 2016 #3
DonCoquixote Jul 2016 #4
napi21 Jul 2016 #5
Firebrand Gary Jul 2016 #6
PoliticalMalcontent Jul 2016 #7
lostnfound Jul 2016 #10
Helen Borg Jul 2016 #8
Her Sister Jul 2016 #14
AntiBank Jul 2016 #16
Her Sister Jul 2016 #18
AntiBank Jul 2016 #19
mercuryblues Jul 2016 #27
Helen Borg Jul 2016 #20
Her Sister Jul 2016 #21
Bluenorthwest Jul 2016 #23
Her Sister Jul 2016 #24
ChisolmTrailDem Jul 2016 #46
Her Sister Jul 2016 #47
ChisolmTrailDem Jul 2016 #48
Warren DeMontague Jul 2016 #17
bettyellen Jul 2016 #30
Warren DeMontague Jul 2016 #38
bettyellen Jul 2016 #39
Warren DeMontague Jul 2016 #42
bettyellen Jul 2016 #43
Fla Dem Jul 2016 #31
SunSeeker Jul 2016 #9
PunkinPi Jul 2016 #28
Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2016 #11
OnDoutside Jul 2016 #15
Wounded Bear Jul 2016 #34
oberliner Jul 2016 #12
Her Sister Jul 2016 #13
Vinca Jul 2016 #22
StopTheNeoCons Jul 2016 #25
thucythucy Jul 2016 #26
Nedsdag Jul 2016 #29
Zynx Jul 2016 #33
JenniferJuniper Jul 2016 #35
mountain grammy Jul 2016 #32
flamingdem Jul 2016 #36
sofa king Jul 2016 #37
Small Accumulates Jul 2016 #40
sofa king Jul 2016 #45
Small Accumulates Jul 2016 #49
eleny Jul 2016 #41
roamer65 Jul 2016 #44

Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 01:46 AM

1. Fingers crossed she's the VP pick!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 01:46 AM

2. Very interesting...thanks for the link. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 01:46 AM

3. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 01:58 AM

4. would it not be something

If Hillary just realized how bad Liz would SHRED Pence in a debate SHRED!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 02:30 AM

5. Maybe. I'm listening to Pregressive Radio on Sirius right now & the

host was speculating about who Pence might have to debate. I have to admit Liz would have shredded any of Don the Con's last three choices, but Pence would be especially sweet. All those Teabaggers and LBGT haters would be shamed to hide their heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 02:50 AM

6. I just noticed that too, I instantly jumped over to DU to see everyones reaction...



Could we really be this lucky???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 03:06 AM

7. I REALLY REALLY hope that Clinton does decide to pick Warren.

That'd really quell any doubts I have. I trust Warren implicitly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticalMalcontent (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 06:40 AM

10. It would help, for sure.good insurance policy& her banking expertise

Would be helpful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 04:20 AM

8. If Warren is not giving a speech

and she is not the VP... That would be outrageous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Helen Borg (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 07:28 AM

14. Oh?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Her Sister (Reply #14)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 07:33 AM

16. yep

 

I think she is going to get the tap for VP.

No other reason I can think of why they would yank her off the schedule. Fingers cossed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 07:39 AM

18. The schedule is bare as of this moment. NONE of the VP candidates on it!

 

Probably will be really scheduled once HRC makes her VP choice known ahead of the Convention. Sure Warren will be a speaker if she's not the VP pick.

SO NO NEED TO GET OUTRAGED OVER NONSENSE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Her Sister (Reply #18)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 07:43 AM

19. I saw posts that had her speaking on Monday

 

unless they were wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Reply #19)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 10:17 AM

27. I read

an article yesterday that had Warren speaking on Friday, in a primetime slot?

All rumors

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Her Sister (Reply #18)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 07:43 AM

20. You know, they are called "conditionals"

And they start with "if". Go back and reread messages before getting all outraged about nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Helen Borg (Reply #20)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 07:53 AM

21. If blah blah I'll be so outraged!

 

BIG EYEROLL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Her Sister (Reply #21)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 08:34 AM

23. I don't understand why you are so confrontational and snarky.

 

I don't find it to be appealing. Just reading that sort of comment makes us all lesser for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #23)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 08:37 AM

24. Grrrrrrrrrrr grrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

Joking!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Her Sister (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 18, 2016, 12:33 PM

46. What the hell is wrong with you? Why are you going nuts? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #46)

Mon Jul 18, 2016, 12:36 PM

47. lol!

 

ChisolmTrailDem
46. What the hell is wrong with you? Why are you going nuts? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Her Sister (Reply #47)

Mon Jul 18, 2016, 12:38 PM

48. That's your response?

 





Her Sister
18. The schedule is bare as of this moment. NONE of the VP candidates on it!

Probably will be really scheduled once HRC makes her VP choice known ahead of the Convention. Sure Warren will be a speaker if she's not the VP pick.

SO NO NEED TO GET OUTRAGED OVER NONSENSE!



Her Sister
21. If blah blah I'll be so outraged!

BIG EYEROLL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Her Sister (Reply #14)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 07:38 AM

17. Well, yeah. I mean she's an incredible asset to the party and she takes apart Trump every time she

opens her mouth.

I can't figure out any rational reason NOT to have her scheduled for the convention, unless she's being scheduled for a more prominent role due to being on the ticket.

I think she would be an excellent veep pick, but if she isn't, I can't imagine why she wouldn't be speaking in Philadelphia. It wouldn't make sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #17)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 11:28 AM

30. It appears they keep screwing around with the speakers list to keep it in the news...

 

I don't expect a real announcement till she totally wants to steal the Trump thunder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #30)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 04:16 PM

38. Yeah, that was kind of my other thought.

I mean, they know what they're doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #38)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 05:28 PM

39. I bet they are going to keep editing it for the next week, hee hee.

 

I think they doing a great job keeping it in the news. I'm surprised at how well Clinton and Warren did stumping together, there seems to be a good chemistry or something.
I would have never have guessed that I'd think a two woman ticket was yet viable in the US, but they certainly are. HRC had a lot of good choices, but just musing over a two woman ticket gives me the chills for my friends' daughters. It is important, and I'm proud they're ours. Crossing my fingers for Warren.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #39)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 06:37 PM

42. It certainly strikes me as the most exciting possibility.

Warren is my top choice, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #42)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 06:40 PM

43. I'm excited enough I'm going to try and view some of both conventions with DUers.

 

That should be good!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Her Sister (Reply #14)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 11:37 AM

31. Actually I tend to agree unless I'm misinterpreting the comment.

I read the comment that if Elizabeth Warren is not the VP pick, then it would be outrageous not to have her speak at the convention. To me this is a reasonable reaction. Elizabeth Warren is an icon in the Democratic Party. To not have her not speak at the convention would be a major snub and a big disappointment to a majority of Democrats. Her speaking would go a long way to uniting and igniting the party. Next to President Obama, she would be the 2nd most spectacular speaker, then Michelle Obama and then Joe Biden. They would be quite the warm up for HRC's acceptance speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 04:45 AM

9. Wow.




Has anyone checked if ClintonWarren.com has been purchased...and if so, who bought it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 11:24 AM

28. Domain is purchased...

Domain Name: CLINTONWARREN.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, LLC
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 146
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS1.QTS.ARVIXEVPS.COM
Name Server: NS2.QTS.ARVIXEVPS.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 06-feb-2015
Creation Date: 15-feb-2012
Expiration Date: 15-feb-2019

and redirects to Stackedagency.com

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 06:42 AM

11. Tentatively hoping she's not the running mate.


The Democrats have a deep bench this year.

I'm quite prepared to believe that Warren may be the best person on it, but I'd be very surprised if she were a whole senate seat's worth better than the next best person (even if you exclude Brown and Booker), and if not, I hope she's not picked - I'm dubious about Reid's ability to work magic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 07:28 AM

15. I'm sure they've done the numbers on who is their best option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 12:02 PM

34. Not just a "senate seat's worth"....

most likely a committee chair, too, of a very powerful financial oversight committee, assuming we can flip the Senate.

I kind of want Liz to stay where she is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 07:12 AM

12. None of the people on Hillary's VP short list were on the schedule

 

Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Sanders are the only people on this list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 07:26 AM

13. Am not on Warren's camp! Nonetheless I trust the nominee to choose!

 

Still we have a lot of good choices! Yay!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 07:56 AM

22. That would make me very happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 09:29 AM

25. Warren for President - 2024.!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 09:47 AM

26. The only problem with Senator Warren as a VP pick

is that the governor of Massachusetts is a Republican, and he'd no doubt appoint one to take her place, at least until an election could be scheduled.

That's my only problem with her as a VP pick. Otherwise she'd be tremendous, and a real asset to the ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 11:27 AM

29. Two words, people: Charlie Baker.

He's not going to choose a Democrat to replace Warren if Clinton chooses her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nedsdag (Reply #29)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 11:59 AM

33. I'm willing to chance that we can win the special election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zynx (Reply #33)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 12:04 PM

35. The person Baker chooses

for the interim period isn't likely to be a contender in the special election. There aren't that many popular Republican politicians or public figures in Mass.

Assuming Tom Brady doesn't opt for an early retirement and throws his hat in the ring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 11:55 AM

32. My choice: Elizabeth Warren..

let's go all the way! Two women. Just do it, Hillary!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 12:05 PM

36. I thought she'd pick Warren to go against Christie

but Pence? She'll cream him too easily

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 12:07 PM

37. What?! Holy CRAP!

From that one move, several early guesses can be made:

* Removing a speaker from the list is about as big a tell as you can show in the VP guessing game (unless you're Republican and Tim Tebow backs out on you). Furthermore, the timing of this move suggests that it is intentional, designed to tip off the press and tealeaf-readers so that pollsters can run their hypothetical matchup scenarios. It injects enthusiasm into Democrats and shows the general lack of finesse in the Republican pick, and keeps people looking ahead to the Democratic Convention while the dumpster fire burns. Warren can easily be added back to the speaker list if this is a head-fake, but it risks upsetting those of us who would consider the pick of Warren to be an excellent one.

* As best I can tell, Mass. election law now allows for an interim gubernatorial appointment, for up to 160 days, at which point a special election must be held. The current governor is Republican, and his appointment will have a leg up in the next regular election, and he may be able to run in the special election as well. Picking Warren would concede a large but not insurmountable advantage to the Massachusetts Republicans. Democrats must feel confident that Warren's position can be refilled by another Democrat in mid-2017.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vacancies-in-the-united-states-senate.aspx

* Assuming a win, the move would also promote the highly competent Ed Markey to the position of senior Senator from Massachusetts, which certainly puts him in a position for higher office or future cabinet posts. Markey got his current post through a clever double-move by the Obama Administration after the death of Ted Kennedy, in which they moved John Kerry to Secretary of State and created two new powerhouse Senators (Warren and Markey) with the move.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=263986

* Democrats cannot make a move like this without conceding territory in the Senate, temporarily. That, in turn, could dramatically influence the course of events that President Clinton can follow in her first five months... UNLESS your internal polling suggests that Democrats are going to wind up holding somewhere around 53-59 seats in the Senate. That range is enough to control business in the Senate, but not enough to override a filibuster. It provides some padding to give a seat away, temporarily. The Warren hand-tip suggests that Democrats are now very confident about regaining a strong majority in the Senate.

* In retrospect it appears as if Mrs. Clinton has been carefully judging the reactions of voters as she appeared with or dangled potential running mates, including Tim Kaine just last week. I recall a hypothetical scenario poll from much earlier in the year that suggested that a Clinton/Warren ticket could defeat any combination of Republicans.

* Democrats must also have noted something about the "misogyny vector" which works in our favor. My current assumption is that the racists are the misogynists, so that doubling down on a female ticket doesn't change any minds on the Republican side, but it must have a net positive effect on Democratic and undecided voters. That squares well with my own personal bias, though, so it's not a solid guess like some of the above.

The Senate will sorely miss Mrs. Warren, if she accepts the nomination as running-mate. But Ed Markey is a superb replacement as senior Senator and Massachusetts has a deep bag of competent leadership which can replace Warren. Democrats must feel considerably more confident about the upcoming elections than I suspected, for Warren is an intrepid and potentially risky choice in several ways. Wonderful!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #37)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 06:00 PM

40. I'd like to see this as an OP of its own

It'll be easier for folks to find this as a beginning, rather than a middle. And it's an excellent analysis!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Small Accumulates (Reply #40)

Mon Jul 18, 2016, 12:27 PM

45. Okay, I'll do it.

I'll put it in the General Discussion: 2016 section.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #45)

Mon Jul 18, 2016, 08:26 PM

49. Thank you! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 06:04 PM

41. Be still, my heart

..... ......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Original post)

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 06:57 PM

44. I could be swayed by Warren as a VP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread