Elizabeth Warren - good or bad VP pick for Clinton?

[madelka]

Discuss.

[RaphaelDLG]

Good strategically. 

As someone who idolizes Warren, I'm torn as to whether I want her as VP or in the Senate.

[President Johnson]

Bad. Hillary doesn't need another woman. Kaine, Booker or Castro would be smart picks.

[MK]

Bad. Shes already losing men by wide margins.

[BlueSwan]

Excellent pick. The best, infact.

Basically the election comes down to holding the Obama alliance together. Warren as VP goes a hell of a long way in terms of accomplishing that. She also brings some much needed enthusiasm to the ticket.

Seemingly the objections against Warren are:

1) She will scare off the centrists.
Ordinarily I would say that is a very fair objection, but not when your opponent is Donald freakin' Trump. Had the GOP elected someone sane I would NEVER have picked Warren as VP. Not in a million years. But against Trump, she is the way to go.

2) She's another woman.
Honestely, if the idea of a woman as president appals you, you are not voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of how macho her running mate is.

3) She's as old as Clinton.
So what. Trump is as old as Clinton as well.

4) She might clash too much with Hillary.
This is my only real concern. Two strong women on the same ticket. Can Warren be controlled? Some people say she is very loyal. Others say that she was a nightmare to work with when she was advising the Obama administration. I don't know. As I said, it is my only real concern, but it is not big enough to put me off the idea.

Basically, the significance of the VP pick is generally overrated. There's no real reason to pick a VP from a swing state, the difference will typically be minimal. There's no real reason to "balance the ticket" with a male, someone young or someone from a minority. The VP spot should mostly be used to bring the party together and create excitement. Sarah Palin managed to do that for John McCain, until people started to realize that she was dumber than Forrest Gump. Elizabeth Warren poses no such risks.

[BlueSwan]

One further point. I like the idea of branding a ticket. That is easy with Clinton/Warren. Two super intelligent older women. Clinton/Kaine is just super bland and non-exciting.

[IceSpear]

Bad. Shes already losing men by wide margins.

That's exactly the point though. I doubt she has much more room to fall among white men. In a poll where she was leading by 4 she was only winning like 25% of white men, which is pretty mindblowing. It might be better to just write them off and double down on swaying white women.

I'd still prefer Kaine since he's safe and could add a point or two in crucial VA, and I don't think she needs to be risky. But Warren is a pretty good higher risk/higher reward candidate. I'd prefer her over Castro at least.

[Torie]

Bad idea I think. She will not help much in rounding up uber-protectionist Bernie supporters who might be tempted to drift to Trump. But she might off put some moderates or more conservative folks who normally vote Pub, or are swing voters, but don't want to vote for Trump. And then there is the two women thing, FWIW. Hillary does not need to make such a risky choice.

[NeverAgain]

Good, for Hillary's campaign. Bad, for the Senate.

[This account no longer in use.]

Horrible pick. We don't need all the loony leftists in the Democratic Party shilling for Clinton. (sane, MODERATE HERO)

[Wells]

Elizabeth Warren would make a great pick for Secretary Clinton. She would help bring liberals and women to Clinton's campaign. But she would be better in the Senate.

From experience playing The Campaign Trail, Cory Booker is the best choice strategically. (He brings African-Americans to Clinton at Obama levels.) But games don't predict real-life.

[Santander]

Bad, because she's a terrible politician and a showboating loon who will not help Clinton accomplish anything in the White House.

I can accept Kaine, Warner, Booker, Franken, or Brown. They're all respectable people. Pocahontas is not.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think overall... it'll actually end up a lot more of a wash than people think.

I don't think losing her from the Senate is worth it, honestly.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I don't think it matters, really. Clinton will probably win, and whether she wins or loses, it probably won't be because of her VP candidate.

[Young Conservative]

TERRIBLE (but I'm glad)
1. The ticket is already thought of as elitist. This will only help Trump among working class voters
2. Clinton is already losing men by double digit margins and has maxed out her female support
3. This attempt to get progressives will do little to overcome the already done damage.
4. Massachusetts has a republican governor.

[JerryArkansas]

TERRIBLE (but I'm glad)
1. The ticket is already thought of as elitist. This will only help Trump among working class voters
2. Clinton is already losing men by double digit margins and has maxed out her female support
3. This attempt to get progressives will do little to overcome the already done damage.
4. Massachusetts has a republican governor.

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. I'll give you that.

[Hermit For Peace]

Bad. Two strong females don't work well together. Seems to me that Hillary needs to pick someone who is appealing to the male population. Bernie people need to suck it in and take whoever works best with Hillary -- her choice.

[mgop]

even she is better than castro

[This account no longer in use.]

even she is better than castro

Really can't argue with this.

[Maxwell]

She's better than Castro or Kaine, but it's not a choice that excites me. She's better as an advocate for better bank policies.

[Virginiá]

I'm worried that an all-woman ticket will split the electorate along gender lines even worse, in addition to the other massive divisions going on. But as others said, Hillary probably can't lose much more of the male vote, regardless of who she picks. Warren might be able to help bring back some of those white male Bernie supporters - That is, assuming they didn't intend to come back around once the primary was over.

As for the Republican Governor problem - Some picks aren't any better in this regard. Sherrod Brown is off the table because of Kasich, and while Virginia has McAuliffe, picking Kaine or Warner means that the replacement Senator will have to run in an off-year general election in 2017, where Democrats tend to do worse in statewide races when their party holds the presidency. It's very risky. Massachusetts is a considerably better choice in this regard.

[Hermit For Peace]

I gotta say that I have faith that Hillary will make an intelligent choice, nothing like the McCain/Palin debacle.

[ElectionsGuy]

Probably good, helps some salty Sanders supporters come her way.

[Fubart Solman]

Probably good, helps some salty Sanders supporters come her way.

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of them were fans of the Draft Warren movement to begin with.

[RaphaelDLG]

Probably good, helps some salty Sanders supporters come her way.

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of them were fans of the Draft Warren movement to begin with.

That's the case with me and a lot of my friends.  I know a few very young people who got into politics because of Bernie, but most everyone else was a Liz fan first.  I still like her better.