-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Reuters: Senator Warren to endorse Clinton, sources say
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
A Clinton Warren ticket would be my dream scenario tbh.
Warren has been phenomenal in the Senate and with her attacks on Trump she has shown she is a good attack dog for the Democrats. She would also appeal to the more reluctant Bernie supporters/progressives to vote for Clinton. Her being a woman and making the ticket even more historic would just be icing on the cake.
Realistically though I don't think she will be the VP. Based on PoliGAF (who are always on the ball with political predictions and have never steered me wrong) it looks likely that Clinton will choose someone like Tim Kaine or Tom Perez as VP. There's also a risk that Warren's Senate seat might go to a Republican appointed by the MA Governor.
Yep, those VP picks sound about right. There's no one Hillary can really put up as her VP that will sway the hardcore Sanders supporters, partly because there's not many qualified people left that haven't been lumped into the "establishment" for endorsing Clinton. Even someone like Sherrod Brown, who is at the Elizabeth Warren level of progressive-ism, is "tainted". Also, there is a portion of Bernie-or-Bust supporters that don't know enough about politics for a progressive VP pick to make a difference... they think Warren and Sanders are the only ones out there that are in the same area of the political spectrum.
lightskintwin
Banned
Well a lot of women have been conditioned to hate Hillary.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Elizabeth Warren as vice president is what it would take to get me to vote for Clinton.
How about her as majority leader of the banking and finance committee in a Dem Controlled Senate?
Screw VP. Stump for Clinton and get the best job post Nov!
LyleLanley
Banned
What's this now?
Alpha Centauri
Member
I've talked to some people who have said "One woman is ok, two is too much." "I wouldn't vote for Trump, but I wouldn't vote"
Its people like that she has to be mindful, because unfortunately there's a lot more of them than one would think. They are on the wrong side of history, but that doesn't help the present.
Its people like that she has to be mindful, because unfortunately there's a lot more of them than one would think. They are on the wrong side of history, but that doesn't help the present.
User 463088
Banned
lightskintwin
Banned
Primarily Bernie supporters, independents and conservatives.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Warren backs Clinton, Bernie supporters expose themselves to be frauds to an even deeper extent
I'm not really sure what makes it fraudulent to support a different candidate than your otherwise intellectual ally does?
Dude's going to be so busy responding to every little comment each hits him with that he won't have time to even campaign. You know he can't help but respond.
And he has no one to back him up.
RPGCrazied
Member
Except his CNN supporters. Lol, man, they are so pathetic to watch. I cringe every time I see them on.
User 463088
Banned
I don't think that's the point anyone is making, unless I'm wrong.
Liberal politicians exist in a state of quantum flux. They're either establishment, neoliberal, corporate sell outs, or they're ideologically pure and good and awesome. It seems that in the last few months the deciding factor between these two potential states of being is who they elected to endorse in the primary. That's why a liberal like Barney Frank is under the bus, while someone like Gabbard (who with her complicated history doesn't really meet the purity requirements that have come into being) is perfectly fine.
In the real world, you're 100% right. You can support Warren and not support Hillary if she decides to endorse her. That's totally cool. But in the world that's been created during this primary, it seems impossible. And I think that's totally sad. It's something I hope we find a way to fix, because we do not need a Lefty Tea Party.
Optics and symmetry.
Fancy Harvard black man chooses blue collar white uncle type.
Evil warmongering child strangler chooses homey beer drinking dope.
LiquidSolid
Member
Pfft, what? Bernie is the Ultimate Warrior.
They're calling her an establishment stooge for supporting Hillary. She was awesome yesterday and now suddenly a completely different person just because she's not backing the candidate they want her to back. There is no in-between for a certain fringe of Bernie supporters.
Yep. One female candidate is Inspiring, whereas an all-female ticket is easily represented as a Feminist Agenda.
Ok, several angles to consider
1) There have been all male tickets .. like .. forever
2) If there are people who would be bothered by an all female ticket, wouldn't they already be bothered by a female being head of ticket?
3) Warren has no bad history with Clinton, they seem to get along, and she covers the more left wing which should encompass the youth vote and the independents that Sanders brought in
4) An all female ticket increases the chance that Trump would bury himself with misogynistic attacks. Warren seems really good at getting under his skin.
But the (big) problem is that that would leave the door wide open for Charlie Baker (MA gov, R) to nominate her replacement, obviously a Republican, in the Senate, with the possibility of jeopardizing the bid to retake control of that chamber...
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Brown's a solid progressive, but he's more like "a little left of Hillary" than Warren or Sanders are. Among the most visible progressives, Warren and Sanders really are in a league of their own.
Democratic senators ranked left-right (score from -1 to 1 left to right) since 2007:
Carte Goodwin*: -0.747
Elizabeth Warren: -0.671
Tammy Baldwin: -0.557
Paul Kirk**: -0.518
Mazie Hirono: -0.514
Bernie Sanders: -0.512
Ed Markey***: -0.504
Cory Booker: -0.489
Roland Burris: -0.473
Mo Cowan: -0.46
Some entries of note further down the list:
Sherod Brown: -0.446
Hillary Clinton: -0.373
Barack Obama: -0.351
Joe Biden: -0.318
Some conservative Democrats:
Jim Webb: -0.173
Evan Bayh: -0.163
Ben Nelson: -0.03
Most progressive Republicans:
Olympia Snowe: 0.09
Susan Collins: 0.09
Scott Brown: 0.125
* Carte Goodwin: This score is wrong; Goodwin was a seat filler for a few months and the score calculation function messes up when it doesn't have enough data.
**, ***: These score are probably substantially correct but come with the same warning that I mentioned with Carte Goodwin that we probably wouldn't use them in comparisons just in case.
Note that these scores are based on roll-call voting behaviour, so to the extent that there's an issue that separates Democrats intellectually but that there's never a vote on, we don't see it here. Certainly there are issues on which Obama was well to Hillary's left despite the gap in their scores and many people who have emerged as substantively progressive thought leaders have mixed voting records (Kirsten Gillibrand at -0.31, say.)
These are 1st dimension DW-Nominate scores taken from the current voteview database.
Okay but you thinking that someone is wrong doesn't make them a fraud. Someone can support Warren's politics and her record, and also seriously disagree with her choice to endorse Hillary. That's not fraudulent or hypocritical. You might view it as stupid or dogmatic, of course. But dogmatism is the opposite of fraud, it's excessive sincerity. If someone sets out to say "I support the political left and oppose corporate power that I see embedded in the democratic party" (which I think is probably pretty representative of the Bernie holdout mindset), then there's no fraud from saying "Elizabeth Warren is a progressive and I support her" and then discovering that she's endorsing an institution you view as corrupt, and then regarding her as progressive but feckless and being disappointed in her. You don't need to agree with Bernie people, you can call them stupid or extremist or just fundamentally unwilling to listen to reason or whatever, it's just "fraudulent" seems like a transparently incorrect attack on them. They're steadfastly sticking to principles as they articulated them before this event happened.
User 463088
Banned
It cannot be Brown. Kasich gets to name his replacement for the last two years of Brown's term. We can't let an incumbent advantage go to the GOP in Ohio, especially considering Strickland is going to screw this up for us.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Let's not overreach now.A Clinton Warren ticket would be my dream scenario tbh.
Warren has been phenomenal in the Senate and with her attacks on Trump she has shown she is a good attack dog for the Democrats. She would also appeal to the more reluctant Bernie supporters/progressives to vote for Clinton. Her being a woman and making the ticket even more historic would just be icing on the cake.
Realistically though I don't think she will be the VP
I don't want Warren or Bernie as Veep. It's a useless job. Get someone young to gain experience to become the successor to Clinton (hopefully in 2024).
Warren believes in the same values they claim to believe in. By demonizing her they're demonizing what she's standing for, so I describe them as frauds because it seems to me their pettiness overrides the values they originally claimed to be so passionate about.
A Link to the Past
Banned
It's ridiculous to see people who no longer consider Warren progressive. It really just emphasizes how little some people care about the issues.
I was just using Brown as an example of someone who is similar to Bernie on a lot of the issues that gained him traction on the national stage and who works together with Bernie pretty regularly in Congress. Unfortunately, there are a lot of GOP governors out there, which further limits Clinton's options if she wants to pick someone from the Senate.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
It's not fraudulent for a hard-right lunatic to describe Marco Rubio as a sellout traitor who supports Amnesty even though those are not a correct description of him and he's substantively a conservative Republican in his positions and votes. And in fact this is literally what we're seeing: a wide segment of the Republican party considers anyone who is left of Mike Lee and Ted Cruz to be "RINOs". That's dogmatism, and extremism. It's not fraudulence. And it wouldn't be fraud if Ted Cruz tomorrow said "We need to come up with a solution for illegal immigration that protects children who grew up here and have worked hard to fit into American society" and they turned around and threw him under the bus. It may well seem petty that they would cling to such an outrageous sticking point and throw away their respect for a person who is 99.9999% in line with them, or maybe one of their best chances to be heard in government. If you want to call that stupid or unrealistic or whatever, be my guest. But it's not hypocrisy or fraud.
I hope you can see the analogy here.
Bernie diehards who would call Warren a sell-out for being a good partisan Democrat, interfacing with the party, and making a decision to endorse Clinton aren't demonizing what she stands for broadly, they're demonizing the stance they disagree with. You might call them hacks--normally people use a party hack to someone who supports their party over their principles, but I guess it could apply to someone who has principles and is unwilling to compromise with a party. But again, fraud implies that they don't have values when what you're experiencing is an excess of values unrestrained by sense or compromise.
And look how easily they get worked by anyone with half a brain
User 463088
Banned
According to the Politico article, Brown is no longer on Bernies approval list since he endorsed Hillary.
IceBringer
Banned
Establishment shill! Bet she's paid for by millionaires and billionaires
Interficium
Banned
Not as much as those red-blooded death-threat-sending reddit-warrior white-twentysomething-males, certainly.
Whaaaattt... as someone who voted for Sanders and feel my political views align more closely with him than Clinton (I consider myself more "progressive" than them both, actually), this is crazy to me. Doesn't he need allies in Congress, even if he had won the primary? I'm sad to say I've lost a ton of respect for him in the last few months.
Who is calling her that? I supported Sanders and I don't think this. Are you just talking nonsense or are you talking about a minority of Sanders supporters or what?
Something I've noticed on GAF is that around 50% of the criticisms Clinton supporters have against Sanders supporters are wildly exaggerated and often completely fabricated.
shinra-bansho
Member
"Are you trying to blow up the universe now? Who's going to go for two women on the ticket? We could all eat pussy all day long!"
Interficium
Banned
Guess you haven't been on her facebook page lately.
That makes no sense to me. Why would Warren being in a useless position make you vote for the ticket?
Elizabeth Warren as vice president is what it would take to get me to vote for Clinton.
Not that I wouldn't mind Warren, although I don't think she's what Clinton is looking for, but I think she would do just as well or better by staying in the Senate.
Sanders does everything in his power to ensure other people don't want to work with him. It's been his MO for 25+ years - he's just a toxic person.
QuantumZebra
Member
Elizabeth Warren as vice president is what it would take to get me to vote for Clinton.
If realizing that Donald Trump would be your President doesn't get you to vote Clinton - I can't possibly fathom how Warren being VP would get you to.
Already in progress
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
its pretty sad reading through all of that stuff
I'm glad she's endorsing Hillary, not that that was ever in doubt. But I don't want Warren as VP. As far as I can tell, she doesn't add anything to the ticket besides progressive street cred which I think will become less of an issue for Hillary over the next few weeks regardless of who she picks for VP.
Eh, it'd win over some bernie or bust folk that will probably think to themselves something along the lines of: "Well, at least if Hillary gets arrested Warren can come in and be the president".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked