Elizabeth Warren - good or bad VP pick for Clinton?

[TDAS04]

Not good strategically, but I'd enthusiastically support the ticket.

[This account no longer in use.]

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.

Don't be silly. We both know that every Sanders supporter is a misogynist white male who  is only voting against Clinton because she's a woman. They'd never vote for a woman like Warren.

[Wells]

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.

I wanted Warren to run too. Bernie Sanders was the next best thing.

[pho]

Bad. Hillary needs someone more media friendly, someone with charisma to balance out her lack of natural ability. Elizabeth Warren is just loud and ideologically abrasive to a majority of people.

Also, if the idea is that Elizabeth Warren reunites the Democratic Party, remember that she refused to endorse Bernie and his supporters savaged her for it. The worst of them, the Bernie or Bust crowd, probably wouldn't want her.

[King]

She'll be a great pick.

And Mass fills Senate vacancies by special election not appointment (see Scott Brown) so no need to worry about Baker.

[JMT]

I'm so torn about this. Personally, all other aspects aside, she is my number one pick. I think she'd be an amazing vice president.

Strategically, it's hard to tell. I think Warren would help bring on Bernie voters who don't love Clinton. Ultimately, she needs Bernie voters to win this election, so picking Warren would be smart in that regard.

Warren being a woman I really think has nothing to do with anything. If someone is opposed to electing a woman, having a male on the ticket won't change that because the top of the ticket, Hillary, is still a woman. Plus, someone who really doesn't want a woman is a type of person who would likely be attracted to Trump anyways, regardless of who the Democratic nominee was.

The largest obstacle would be the fact that Massachusetts has a Republican Governor. Charlie Baker would likely appoint a moderate Republican to the seat (Richard Tisei, Baker's former Lt. Gov running mate, comes to mind as a possibility) and this Republican could run for the seat his or herself. While I realize a Democrat would likely win the special election to fill her seat, we've seen Scott Brown and Charlie Baker elected in the state, so in a low voter turnout special election, I wouldn't completely count the GOP candidate out. To me, that's a scary thing, considering Democrats have a real shot to win back the Senate this year. Every seat counts, and risking a Republican in the Senate here (even if its only temporary) would be highly disappointing to me and other Democrats.

So in the end, there's many positives and negatives. I'm hoping Hillary choses to go a different route, and pick a progressive that excites Bernie supporters but doesn't risk losing control of the Senate. Who that candidate is, though, I'm not exactly sure.  

[JMT]

She'll be a great pick.

And Mass fills Senate vacancies by special election not appointment (see Scott Brown) so no need to worry about Baker.

Well, Scott Brown proves the point. A Republican under the right conditions can win in Massachusetts. Baker would likely appoint a moderate to the seat, and if that person runs in the special election, they are the incumbent. I fear that Republicans could win in a low turnout special election.

[DS0816]

Elizabeth Warren should stay in the U.S. Senate.

Vice president is not the role she should have.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Hillary needs a MODERATE VP pick. 

I would recommend Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO).   My second recommendation would be former Gov. Steven Beshear (D-KY).  As a Hail Mary, she should offer the VP slot to Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME); that would be a blockbuster.

Hillary needs to Go Big or Go Home.  And she needs to not cave to Bernie's demands.  She can't change her past record, and she's already shifted a number of positions to the left.  Position-wise, at this juncture, many Bernie supporters should be asking what more do they really want.

[Santander]

Hillary needs a MODERATE VP pick. 

I would recommend Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO).   My second recommendation would be former Gov. Steven Beshear (D-KY).  As a Hail Mary, she should offer the VP slot to Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME); that would be a blockbuster.

McCaskill is a very good attack dog but she is not likable. There's a reason why her constituents call her "McCackle". Steve Beshear is too old and a Kentucky Democrat - he's pro-coal, he appealed gay marriage to the Supreme Court and privatized Medicaid. That makes him basically a Republican at the national level. Susan Collins has problems speaking, which basically disqualifies her. She'll eventually get at least half behind Trump anyway.

[politicallefty]

Personally, I do want Hillary to pick a woman as her running mate. Overall, I am partial to Amy Klobuchar. However, in light of her recent attacks on Donald Trump, I am more supportive of adding Elizabeth Warren to the ticket than I was in the past. My biggest concern is that she might be too good at what she does. I don't want a situation where the running mate overshadows the top of the ticket. That is not the recipe for victory in November. I do think she would be a definite net positive though. She's a strong nod to the base and easily fills the attack dog role that gives red meat to the base while at the same time reinforcing her basic campaign themes.

The largest obstacle would be the fact that Massachusetts has a Republican Governor. Charlie Baker would likely appoint a moderate Republican to the seat (Richard Tisei, Baker's former Lt. Gov running mate, comes to mind as a possibility) and this Republican could run for the seat his or herself. While I realize a Democrat would likely win the special election to fill her seat, we've seen Scott Brown and Charlie Baker elected in the state, so in a low voter turnout special election, I wouldn't completely count the GOP candidate out. To me, that's a scary thing, considering Democrats have a real shot to win back the Senate this year. Every seat counts, and risking a Republican in the Senate here (even if its only temporary) would be highly disappointing to me and other Democrats.

Does no one think that the Massachusetts General Court won't pass a new law requiring the Governor to appoint a replacement from among a pre-selected list chosen by the party holding the seat? They had no issue stripping Governor Romney of all appointment authority in 2004 and granting Governor Patrick temporary appointment authority in 2009. I don't think they would overturn either law. Instead, they could require Governor Baker to appoint from a pre-selected list chosen by the Democratic Party (as it holds the seat currently), as is the law in a couple other states. It's not overturning either law, but merely enhancing them to best represent the people. Considering the current composition of the MA General Court, the votes should easily be there to override an almost certain veto.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

Warren being a woman I really think has nothing to do with anything. If someone is opposed to electing a woman, having a male on the ticket won't change that because the top of the ticket, Hillary, is still a woman. Plus, someone who really doesn't want a woman is a type of person who would likely be attracted to Trump anyways, regardless of who the Democratic nominee was.

The largest obstacle would be the fact that Massachusetts has a Republican Governor. Charlie Baker would likely appoint a moderate Republican to the seat (Richard Tisei, Baker's former Lt. Gov running mate, comes to mind as a possibility) and this Republican could run for the seat his or herself. While I realize a Democrat would likely win the special election to fill her seat, we've seen Scott Brown and Charlie Baker elected in the state, so in a low voter turnout special election, I wouldn't completely count the GOP candidate out. To me, that's a scary thing, considering Democrats have a real shot to win back the Senate this year. Every seat counts, and risking a Republican in the Senate here (even if its only temporary) would be highly disappointing to me and other Democrats.  

I've thought the same about the first paragraph for a while. It would be like the two southerner strategy of 1992.

I hadn't thought about the second part though. I'm not sure why; after all, it's why I wouldn't pick Sherrod Brown if I was her.

[Ebowed]

4) She might clash too much with Hillary.
This is my only real concern. Two strong women on the same ticket.

I'm sure people were concerned that Obama and Biden weren't good together.  Two strong men on the same ticket and all.