Reid Exploring Election Law In Case Warren Tapped To Be VP

"Without someone to unite and excite, we're gonna lose a lot more than one seat in the Senate."

Warren has No Use for Clinton and her 3rd Way Politics

you just get stuck on wrong.

I do wonder what you all will do when Hillary is the Democratic nominee next week?

Can you move on?

It will happen with the debates. People watch the debates for the zingers. Trump does nothing but zingers. It doesn't matter if the zingers are base on fact. The audience will applaud.

Hillary will be trying to counter in her cadenced speech that couldn't inspire a cat to a can opener and a can of tuna.

seems to be the only one with any hope of putting Humpty Dumpty back together again after this catastrophic campaign.

"Sometimes You just get Stuck On Wrong"..

Exactly what we've been trying to convey to Hillary Supporters, long before it became official. We knew her presumed run was a done deal.

Those of us who were strongly passionate about Elizabeth Warren, long before Bernie tossed his hat in, feel the way we always have about the Clintons and have tried mightily to inform you of the misguided decision to throw support behind her/them.

Regardless of next week's outcome or even the General, HRC supporters have been stuck on Wrong, since 2008.

Sad, really. very sad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/opinion/campaign-stops/bernie-or-bust-is-bonkers.html

are you responding to my post or to someone else?

If mine, I regard it as a non-sequitur, but please carry on.

...like a "one and done" pledge from Hillary and promises that she will endorse the progressive VP she picks, on her way out the door.

I can bite my tongue and bury my undying hatred of Hillary for 4 years...but not 8. To vote for her now, I need to know now she's not running for reelection in 2020.

Not everyone is going to vote for Hillary. That's a fact.

If you hate Hillary, I'm not asking you to 'compromise your principles' and vote for her anyway if somehow she met your conditions.

Enjoy your alternative, whatever that may be.

Trump needs to lose. I have the benefit of living in a state (CT) Donald Trump can't take from Hillary.

...but the campaign to primary her out of office starts Nov. 10, 2016.

Many people felt let down when Sec. Clinton lost to Obama. He had difficulties because of Republican pledges of 100% obstruction, but he showed himself to be a good president--hence a landslide victory for a second term. Perhaps Hillary Clinton would impress you during her first term, too. Ever think of that?

Here's the deal. Hillary Clinton runs on her record for her second term. She wins or loses based on that in real time--and someone's biased perspective from four years prior may seem absurd then. It actually does now to some.

...if I did, I never would have voted for Obama. Not a Biden fan.

understands she has a problem with the progressive base that needs to be fixed, and recognition of the problem is the first step toward fixing the problem.

Plus, I'd sweat the risk of a bad FBI recommendation knowing Warren was our backup plan.

is Clinton's core beliefs and values.

She can spin and lie, but after the votes are cast and she no longer needs us she will return to her core beliefs and values.

I would be very disappointed to see Warren end her fight for the working class by accepting the VP position.

fixed from within rather than being replaced with a new party welcoming of FDR-style progressives.

I understand that may not be the core reason to offer the VP to Warren, but it's not a side benefit the Clinton's and their closest friends would have missed.

because I question what influence Warren would actually have in her position with Bill and Hillary. My concern is that she would be used, and then side-lined.

For context, I'll be voting for Hillary in the General (Bernie on Tuesday), and hope many of my Clinton concerns won't be realized. But Warren is the best thing we have in the Senate and we need her there.

Mostly I'm skeptical Warren would want to be VP at this point.

It wouldn't swing my vote, but I do believe you have a very valid point.

My opinion, which doesn't amount to a hill of beans, has been that she would choose an Hispanic VP.

Which do you think would benefit her more....Warren or someone Hispanic?

motivation to turn out to vote for Hillary (or against Trump).

A Hispanic VP couldn't push the needle much further.

I agree that if Cruz, Bush, or Rubio won the nomination, Hillary's style of identity politics would have pushed a Hispanic VP to the top.

We'll miss you when you're gone.

a lot of progressives are planning Sanders write-ins.

If Hillary gets the nomination, he really should run independent...but he won't. It'd be funny to me if he did and became the progressive most likely to win and Skinner had to start banning Clintonites under the site rules that we all have to support the progressive most-likely to beat the GOP.

I'd fucking giggle for hours singing ♫"Dun dun dun, another bites the dust. Dun dun dun, another bites the dust. And another one gone, and another one gone! Another one bites the dust. Hey, I'm gonna get you too! Another one bites the dust."♫ to myself.

Odd, I have no idea who you are. I find it hard to believe you would miss me. I'm sure if you weren't here I wouldn't even notice.

I'd see it as a purely symbolic sop to progressives that's actually a stab in the back by removing one of the most effective Senate progressives.

pursue her own agenda: reign in wall street to save the working class.

progressives will see right through this ploy. warren is too smart to put up with any 3rd way bullshit and will not allow herself to be fenced in. if she thinks she can continue with her work on behalf of consumers, clinton will not be cooperative. and neither will bill.

You don't want to waste EW's power on VP.

If Clinton selects a VP from a state with a GOP governor and the entire Congress remains in Repug hands, you can expect impeachment proceedings to begin ASAP.

Because that's what that choice would be about.

VP has no power to shape the larger agenda, so I would see this as one more meatless bone the powers that be throw to the left to get us to support their corporatists.

Not good enough, not even close, not for me anyway.

Which is what a VP appointment would be.

She would bring a lot into the fold.

some Hillary supporters suddenly start to worry about "unity." Taking one of the few really effective Democratic Senators out of the Senate and replacing her with a Republican is not a bright way to go about it.

I honestly don't think the Warren scenario is a realistic one. She has given every indication of wanting to remain in the Senate.

Perhaps Clinton can find someone from outside Washington, an academic with solid economic and labor credentials. Now wouldn't that be a novel way to go about it! It would build a bridge to disaffected working people who are unimpressed with "more of the same" as a campaign slogan.

Then again, that would make sense and elections are increasingly being run by admen polling groups of morons who are also being polled on soap commercials.

I think she can do more good there that in as VP.

At least possible that insiders are looking at the options just in case anything bad comes from the FBI.

What is he talking about?

does this mean she might hold two positions, VP and Senator, unless
the State Constitution forbids it?

Run for VP, win, resign as VP, and remain a Senator?

VP's are the deciding Senate vote in a 50-50 tie, surely she
couldn't vote as Senator and VP at the same time.

Harry often leaves me scratching my head

Unless some has and she has said yes, this is just a waste of speculation.

Do not let anyone con you into giving up our greatest progressive senator!

this position, but that's the definition of public service: doing something you might prefer not to do for the greater good.

Why in the world would she settle for something way less?

Nope, we need her in the senate.

Plus it won't help getting Bernie people to vote for her.

Warren is about service. She's not about ambition.

fantastically in the senate.

I think that the party will be as united as it can get. No matter who gets nominated, there are always some folks who are so bitter and negative following a primary disappointment that the party just cannot count on them. And, if the ticket does not include their candidate (at the top) there is no hope of their participation. Adding Warren will not fix that. Fortunately, the people who can't continue to participate as Democrats are a distinct minority.

That is what VP's do. And we can't worry about uniting with those won't unite...have to hope we can make it without them. The fact we have Trump may help...time will tell.

and of course presidential comments were going around, she said one of the reasons she would not take the job was because her family did not want her to. I'm sure they have their own reasons, but as we all know...families get dragged into the political boxing ring, too.

She's doing an awesome job where she is. Providing a progressive front foil for HRC is not likely at the top of her list...Reid or no Reid.

"Elizabeth Warren won't rule out the possibility of becoming likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's running mate, telling Mic in an interview on Tuesday that her focus, for now, remains on serving as the senior senator from Massachusetts.

"Right now, I just want to be clear. I love my job. I'm here in the United States Senate doing exactly what the people of Massachusetts sent me here to do. I'm in the thick of the fights to try to level the playing field, to try to un-rig this system and that's what really matters to me. That's where I'm headed," the progressive favorite said in a sit-down with Mic's Zeeshan Aleem.

Read more:
• Elizabeth Warren Fires Back at Trump: "Really? That's the Best You Could Come Up With?"
• A Hillary Clinton-Elizabeth Warren Ticket May Be in the Cards, Campaign Hints
Asked whether she'd foreclose the possibility of joining Clinton's ticket, Warren was hardly Shermanesque in her response.

"You know, this is something we've got to get all of our nominations settled on the Democratic side," Warren said. "For me, I'm going to keep doing my job every single day and I'm not thinking about another job."

https://mic.com/articles/143231/elizabeth-warren-won-t-rule-out-being-hillary-clinton-s-2016-vice-presidential-nominee#.gUB1wfyXV

she want to leave an amazing job as Senator and muck around in the mudslinging? She'd be asked constantly about predatory lenders, just for a start, she'd lose her committee appointment, likely. She has been one of the most favorable and well-loved Senators. The VP would be a serious demotion. And because of her well-known name, is likely to get the same treatment as Hillary.

She'd also lose a great deal of reputation with progressives and be smirched with the "hanging legal chads" swirling daily.

Let's just say I'll be surprised. I'm pretty sure Julian Castro is available.

making her VP is a way to neutralize her.

Biggest mistake Hubert Humphrey made was signing on as LBJ's veep. Tom Lehrer did a song about it. Note the line "Once a fiery liberal spirit, but now when he speaks he must clear it". Do we want Warren in a position like that.

in a GOP Senate with a GOP House and a GOP crazy president...it would be better if she helped defeat Trump...and we took the presidency, the Senate and the house is now possible with Trump at the top of the GOP ticket.

I'm referring to losing Warren's seat if she's picked for VP not the presidential election.

or try to remove her by other means.

If she wanted to, she would be free to be 99% as progressive as Warren. As long as there was a tiny bit of daylight between the two, she could say, "Get rid of me, and you get her."

Papa Bush did a cruder version of this when he picked Dan Quayle to be his VP, but Quayle was just straight up life insurance.

Or at least that's what I thought until the GOP nominated Baby Bush in 2000. Then I realized Quayle was the John the Baptist of dunces in presidential politics, and Baby Bush was the angry, entitled Jesus.

I don't know what that analogy makes Trump.

Warren as VP just neutralizes Warren's pesky presence in the Senate, and is a huge waste of Warren.

I will not vote for that.

And frankly, not only will Warren be sidelined, she'll be forever tainted with the inevitable legal problems coming down the pike which may ultimately take down that administration in one fell swoop.

I don't believe for a second Warren would put herself in either position.

Not to mention the loss of her position in the Senate which would be really stupid.

It seems to me this story is being floated to give progressives false hope.

Not buying it for a minute.

We need her in the Senate. She can be far more effective there than in the office of VP. It is a waste of her talents.

Trump is going to be talking non-stop about her wall street speeches, and those speeches basically go against everything Warren believes in.

Besides, VP candidates do a LOT of fundraising, and I'm not sure Warren would be a great fit for that kind of role.

I'm sure she knows better than anyone that the DINOs are going to pull all the stops to try to lure her out of her Senate seat, where of course she has the most influence.