The Clinton Veepwatch, Vol. 1: Elizabeth Warren
In which Unconventional examines the likely Democratic nominee’s possible — and not-so-possible — vice-presidential picks. The first in an ongoing series.
Name: Elizabeth Ann Warren
Age: 66
Resume: U.S. senator from Massachusetts; former special advisor for the Consumer Protection Bureau, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, and professor at Harvard Law School; author or co-author of nine books
Source of speculation: Vice President Joe Biden. According to a report Thursday morning in Politico, Biden may have taken his sweet time deciding whether or not to run for president in 2016 — but he knew from the start that he would have wanted Warren as his running mate.
Apparently, Biden first floated Warren as a possible sidekick — he seemed “particularly enthusiastic” about the idea — during his earliest strategy sessions with advisers. Biden even proposed the pairing to Warren herself during their much-hyped lunch at the Naval Observatory last September. She was “noncommittal” but “not displeased,” according to Politico.
Of course, Biden decided — eventually — not to run for leader of the free world. But he still wants Warren to succeed him as VP. As Politico put it, Biden “recently told associates that Warren would be an equally smart pick for Hillary Clinton.” And now his associates are talking up the prospect of a Clinton-Warren ticket. In public.
“She’s clearly someone anyone would consider,” said Ted Kaufman, a former Delaware senator and Biden’s longtime aide and confidant. “Elizabeth Warren is really a great leader, and someone who is dynamic and articulate. If you listen to what she says, it’s on point, it’s factual, it’s thoughtful. I think she would add a lot to Hillary’s ticket, to every ticket. The most important thing is governing. Warren is someone you’d like to have by your side when you’re making these tough decisions.”
Backstory: The notion of a Vice President Warren is nothing new. Before Bernie Sanders, “self-described democratic socialist senator from Vermont,”became Bernie Sanders, “rumpled dream president of progressives everywhere,” Warren was the left’s top White House pick for 2016. MoveOn.org and Democracy for America launched a draft campaign. The Ready for Warren super PAC spent a year trying to entice the Massachusetts senator to run. The coverage — and speculation — was endless. When Warren finally, firmly ruled out a presidential bid in the early months of 2015, everyone just started buzzing about whether she would wind up as the party’s vice-presidential nominee instead.
By pointedly refusing to endorse either Clinton or Sanders, Warren has done little to silence such buzz. Asked last September whether she would consider running for vice president, she told the Associated Press that it was “something I’m not talking about” — hardly a Shermanesque denial.
“I have a job,” Warren added, “and my job is to go down to Washington and fight for the people of Massachusetts.”
Warren has stuck to that line ever since. In an interview with Mic earlier this week, for instance, she repeated that she is “not thinking about another job.”
“We’ve got to get all of our nominations settled on the Democratic side,” Warren said.
Translation: she’s not not interested.
Odds: They might be improving — even if Warren remains a long shot.
Clinton is a cautious person. She knows it’s risky to run for president as a woman. Putting another woman on the ticket probably strikes her as one risk too many.
There’s actually some scientific evidence to support this line of thought. As T.A. Frankrecently pointed out on VanityFair.com:
When it comes to triggering sexism, research indicates, “two” seems to be a potent number, more so than “one” and more so than “three.” A 2008 studyconducted by organizational scholars Denise Lewin Loyd, Judith B. White, and Mary Kern found that being part of a “minority duo” makes those around you far more likely to revert to stereotypical thinking about you. For example, if you’re the sole woman on a board and express a set of views, your colleagues are likely to consider your arguments without much bias. On the other hand, the study shows, if you’re one of two women on a board and both of you are in agreement, then your colleagues are much likelier to attribute those beliefs to the coincidence of your shared sex. … Clinton is seen by voters first and foremost as a Democratic presidential candidate, and not simply a female. But if she were to pick Warren as a running mate, gender could start to color many people’s views much more.
Factor in their clashing styles — Clinton is a workhorse; Warren can be something of a show horse — and consider all of the cutting stuff Warren has said about Clinton’s ties to Wall Street , and it isn’t hard to see why Hillary is likely to pass.
Why? Because with Donald Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee — and with Bernie Sanders still giving Clinton hell in the Democratic primaries — running alongside Warren might make a little more sense now than it did a few months ago.
Imagine that, despite having Trump to unite against, Bernie-or-Busters are still lukewarm about Clinton as the convention in Philadelphia approaches. Warren could get them fired up and ready to go.
Imagine that Trump campaigns against both parties as a renegade reformer and proves to be a more potent general-election threat than the pundits anticipated, opening up an unprecedented lead among working-class whites and encroaching upon swing voters that Clinton hoped to own. Teaming up with Warren could counteract those trends by boosting Democratic turnout and helping Hillary capitalize on Trump’s weakness among women.
Imagine that Trump continues to attack Clinton from the left on Wall Street and trade . Warren could help to insulate her from those attacks.
Imagine that Trump dominates media coverage for the next few months — a dark art that was probably his greatest asset in the GOP primary. Tapping Warren — a surprisingly unboring pick who’s an expert media manipulator in her own right — could be Clinton’s best chance to even the score.
And imagine that Clinton wants to continue to hover above the Trumpian fray, letting others tussle with the tinsel-haired mogul instead. (As she recently told reporters: “ I am running my campaign. I am not running against him.”) Warren has already proven to be the Democratic Party’s most able Trump attack dog, launching an agile, unrelenting Twitter war against @realDonaldTrump last week — a war that, by most accounts, she is winning.
“Here’s the thing,” Warren tweeted on May 6, sounding for all the world as if she were auditioning for the running-mate role. “You can beat a bully — not by tucking tail and running, but by holding your ground.”
None of which means that Clinton will select Warren. At all. Or that she should. Just that — given Sanders’ staying power and Trump’s peculiar rise — the possibility has suddenly become a lot more intriguing.
Want to read more about the 2016 elections? Get full coverage from the Yahoo Politics team.
