The only downside of Hillary Clinton — or Bernie Sanders, for that matter — picking Elizabeth Warren as the vice presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket is that Massachusetts has a Republican governor and he would get to pick her replacement, which means the Senate would add another Republican, and the Democrats really need to take back the Senate.
Other than that, I can’t see a downside. Can you?
Yes. For Clinton it would be two women on the ticket. I don’t think that would play well. For Sanders it would be two people with the almost identical philosophies about wealth, spending in politics and Wall Street with little foreign policy experience. For both, going totally old-line politics, Massachusetts already is not a swing state nor does it need to be courted to vote Democratic.
I’m with you, Bob. Warren is doing valuable work as a surrogate for Hillary who has to continue to look “presidential”, calm and unruffled. If she got down in the gutter with you-know-who she’d lose what remaining shine she has. My guess is she’ll pick either an hispanic gent with legislative experience or a person of color, same sort of background in order to wiggle what concessions may be had from a Republican congress.
I’d love to see a VP pick from out here in the west. Maybe Mark Udall or Brian Schweitzer?
Warren is way too valuable in the Senate. As an expert in how the finance system really works, she can spot legislative tweaks to the system as soon as they appear (from ALEC and similar bad actors), and sound the alarm. As VP she’d be out of that loop.
John Hickenlooper, present Gov of Colorado, has been doing some interesting activities that look promising for an invite from the Dem nominee. He says he’s not interested, but you know how that coy look can change. An article in the Denver Post a year ago (5/29/15) listed his specifics. He’s been a geologist (think oil,etc.), a businessman (think beer), a pioneer (think legal marijuana), and a Dem in a purple State. Hmm…..