I’ve already written that concern about Elizabeth Warren’s Senate seat is not a good reason to oppose her being Joe Biden’s running mate, so I’m disappointed to see Harry Enten of CNN make it a central argument against her. First, the Massachusetts legislature can easily change the law so that Governor Charlie Baker cannot choose a Republican replacement. Second, even if they don’t do this, current Massachusetts will assure that a special election is held by the beginning of June at the latest. There’s a small risk that the Republicans could begin Biden’s term with control of the Senate if the elections result in 50-50 tie. There’s also a small chance that the Baker’s interim replacement could win the Special Election, as Scott Brown did after Teddy Kennedy died. These are small risks that can be avoided completely if Massachusetts Democrats play hardball, and they should be willing to do so if it means that Warren might become vice-president.
Enten also argues that Warren is useless to Biden because she’s very unpopular and doesn’t do anything to help Biden where he is weak (among young voters and Hispanics, for example). Meanwhile, Biden is already crushing it with progressives and suburban women, so he doesn’t need a boost.
It’s useful to disabuse people of some of their lazy assumptions, so I welcome Enten’s argument that Biden is already doing very well on the left, but for much the same reason I don’t like the rest of his piece. Much like it’s a flawed assumption to think Biden needs to shore up his left flank, it’s erroneous to think that Warren only has potential appeal to the far left, or only to suburban women.
Enten is on stronger ground when he points out that Warren has traditionally run weaker than expected campaigns even in victory, and that she has high negatives. If that reveals some flaw in her skills as a retail politician, it could be a real cause for concern. But she has other skills that most of the alternatives either lack or have in less abundance. She is extremely well-versed in policy and excellent at explaining things–attributes that helped Bill Clinton immensely both as a candidate and a president. She’s a willing attack dog who is fearless in talking to the press and in taking on partisan and press criticism. She’s also got a populist streak that transcends any pinched Cambridge liberalism and fits nicely with Biden’s Average Joe appeal. She has some administrative experience, too, as the creator of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. She meets the test of being prepared, and that is (or should be) the most important thing.
If research reveals that Warren could cost Biden the election, he should strike her off his list, but otherwise she is an extremely solid choice who has tremendous upside as a governing partner. There are certainly other good choices, but an argument can be made against each and every one of them that is at least as compelling as the one Enten makes against Warren.
I am very much in agreement with you. I think she would make an amazing VP candidate, a terrific VP, and an excellent president should the need arise. Personally, my only concern is that it would be more challenging for her to run for President in four (or certainly eight) years than a younger candidate would be at that time.
Nothing against Warren, I personally like her a great deal. But lately I’ve kind of gravitated towards Stacie Abrams. If nothing else I bet she would kick Trumps ass given half a chance, literally.
If we want to pry more educated suburban voters away from Republicans like posited in another post, Warren is the best choice. Heck, she was a registered Republican for about 5 years. So she probably has a very good speech about becoming disenchanted with the Republican Party once Newt Gingrich completed his takeover, and finding a home in the Democratic Party.
So, she’d shore up the left while having crossover appeal, and has the necessary skillset of being a talented political fighter. I think Biden should pick her. But then again, I’ve been on the Warren bandwagon for the past year, and want to see her get a chance to rebuild the executive branch.
Good point.She knows the enemy.
I think Kamala Harris is the best all around candidate for VP. Everything that has happened across the country in the past week only backs that up in my opinion. Biden would be wise to choose a strong, smart, former Attorney General, and woman of color who is nearly 25 years younger than him.
Well said. I’ll just add that even while limiting himself to a female running mate, Biden *still* has an impressive pool of candidates. It’s not just Warren and Harris; it’s also Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Baldwin, Demings, Rice, Yates, Lujan Grisham, Whitmer, Cortez Masto, Lance Bottoms, and Abrams (and I’ve no doubt missed a few).
This is, among other things, a great lesson in the value of affirmative action. For nearly 50 years (staring with the 1972 national convention), the Democratic party has insisted on having equal representation for women at its highest levels. Do that for a few decades and this is what you get.
Chuck Schumer for…something. Warren for Majority Leader. She can do more good there than in the Veep office