HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Elizabeth Warren and ?

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 02:08 PM

 

Elizabeth Warren and ?

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."
5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Biden/Warren
0 (0%)
Sanders/Warren
4 (80%)
Will not run
0 (0%)
Will run in a future election
1 (20%)
What's your say?
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

17 replies, 2028 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 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply Elizabeth Warren and ? (Original post)
greiner3 Sep 2015 OP
Duckhunter935 Sep 2015 #1
Metric System Sep 2015 #2
delrem Sep 2015 #4
Proud Public Servant Sep 2015 #7
DamnYankeeInHouston Sep 2015 #10
delrem Sep 2015 #11
Proud Public Servant Sep 2015 #14
delrem Sep 2015 #16
Proud Public Servant Sep 2015 #17
Skwmom Sep 2015 #12
Garrett78 Sep 2015 #13
fadedrose Sep 2015 #3
AtomicKitten Sep 2015 #5
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #6
brooklynite Sep 2015 #8
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2015 #9
bigwillq Sep 2015 #15

Response to greiner3 (Original post)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 02:11 PM

1. Warren/Sanders

 

Or Warren/Biden. Both great 👍

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Original post)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 02:31 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 02:53 PM

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

Obama/Biden likewise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 03:19 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 04:00 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 08:28 PM

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" I think Warren will be a good bet for 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #11)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:38 AM

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 8, 2015, 08:23 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #16)

Tue Sep 8, 2015, 01:22 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 01:54 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 03:08 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Original post)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 02:36 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Original post)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 02:59 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Original post)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 03:09 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Original post)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 03:44 PM

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

Not a chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Original post)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 03:57 PM

9. I would prefer Sanders/Murray.

 

A NE/NW ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Original post)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:40 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread