I really wish that this drumbeat for a Clinton-Warren ticket would simply go away as it really only makes sense for Hillary and no one else - certainly not Democrats as a whole. Why Elizabeth Warren would willfully neuter her effectiveness as a progressive voice by becoming Vice President, where your beliefs are by definition subservient to the President's, is beyond me. And with a chance to flip the Senate, why would Democrats want to potentially lose a Senate seat that is safely in their hands. Remember, the current Massachusetts governor, Charlie Baker, is a Republican, having defeated Martha Coakley in 2014. He would be able to make an interim appointment until a special election occurred, some 5 months after Warren vacates her Senate seat. That would mean that Democrats would lose a safe vote in the Senate during whatever short honeymoon period, if any, Clinton may get and until June, 2017. And let's not assume that Democrats would automatically win that special election - Scott Brown defeated the very same Martha Coakley (do we see a pattern here?) in the special election to replace Ted Kennedy after his untimely death. And that lost vote in the Senate turned out to be critical on a host of issues. Yes, having Warren as her VP would probably help Hillary shore up her support with Sanders' supporters. But for everyone else on the Democratic side, it just doesn't seem to make sense.
With the revival of the drumbeat for Elizabeth Warren's selection for Vice President by Hillary Clinton, I guess I'm going to have to re-post my thoughts from over a month ago on why this is a terrible idea. Yes, it will help Hillary solidify her support with Sanders' voters, but progressives lose not only a powerful voice in the Senate but also what could be an important Democratic vote.
I really wish that this drumbeat for a Clinton-Warren ticket would simply go away as it really only makes sense for Hillary and no one else - certainly not Democrats as a whole. Why Elizabeth Warren would willfully neuter her effectiveness as a progressive voice by becoming Vice President, where your beliefs are by definition subservient to the President's, is beyond me. And with a chance to flip the Senate, why would Democrats want to potentially lose a Senate seat that is safely in their hands. Remember, the current Massachusetts governor, Charlie Baker, is a Republican, having defeated Martha Coakley in 2014. He would be able to make an interim appointment until a special election occurred, some 5 months after Warren vacates her Senate seat. That would mean that Democrats would lose a safe vote in the Senate during whatever short honeymoon period, if any, Clinton may get and until June, 2017. And let's not assume that Democrats would automatically win that special election - Scott Brown defeated the very same Martha Coakley (do we see a pattern here?) in the special election to replace Ted Kennedy after his untimely death. And that lost vote in the Senate turned out to be critical on a host of issues. Yes, having Warren as her VP would probably help Hillary shore up her support with Sanders' supporters. But for everyone else on the Democratic side, it just doesn't seem to make sense.
I really wish that this drumbeat for a Clinton-Warren ticket would simply go away as it really only makes sense for Hillary and no one else - certainly not Democrats as a whole. Why Elizabeth Warren would willfully neuter her effectiveness as a progressive voice by becoming Vice President, where your beliefs are by definition subservient to the President's, is beyond me. And with a chance to flip the Senate, why would Democrats want to potentially lose a Senate seat that is safely in their hands. Remember, the current Massachusetts governor, Charlie Baker, is a Republican, having defeated Martha Coakley in 2014. He would be able to make an interim appointment until a special election occurred, some 5 months after Warren vacates her Senate seat. That would mean that Democrats would lose a safe vote in the Senate during whatever short honeymoon period, if any, Clinton may get and until June, 2017. And let's not assume that Democrats would automatically win that special election - Scott Brown defeated the very same Martha Coakley (do we see a pattern here?) in the special election to replace Ted Kennedy after his untimely death. And that lost vote in the Senate turned out to be critical on a host of issues. Yes, having Warren as her VP would probably help Hillary shore up her support with Sanders' supporters. But for everyone else on the Democratic side, it just doesn't seem to make sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment