Sanders may not be around, though.

I read your post wrong

Of all the possibilities, this is the one that gets my motor runnin'!

She will get more done in the senate

where we really need someone to take on the repubs there and the causes we value her for.

use if we lose the presidency because if that happens we won't retake the Senate or have a shot at the House....if she can help make sure Trump loses, we need her as VP. The courts are at stake:Roe V Wade. Should the GOP get the presidency, the courts and congress..all progress since Roosevelt would be lost.

I think a better pick (provided he passes the vetting process) is Sherrod Brown. He is from a swing state, he is very blue collar, quite liberal and he would appeal to some of those men who just can't seem to get past the fact that Hillary is a woman. (Yes, that would be sexism.) I admit I don't know ALOT about him, but I like what I have seen.

No on Warren or Brown.

We need both Brown and Warren in the Senate. In Brown's case, Johnny Kasich (the mailman's son) would appoint a right-wing tool to Brown's seat. We need strong majorities in the Senate and strong voices.

from has a Democratic Governor who'll choose their replacement.

particularly independents to HRC--and probably EW can do it better than anyone.

but Kasich would appoint a GOP and it would be harder to take the seat back than Mass. I live in Ohio.

Elizabeth Warren could not stand up to her "friends" in the BernieBro movement, and thus demonstrated a disappointing lack of courage. I'll be sickened if her fence-sitting non-endorsing antics win her the VP slot.

When Elizabeth didn't endorse Bernie, it gave Hillary Massachusetts!

By staying out of the fray - like Obama and other national Democratic officials - she kept all options open!

She didn't alienate Hillary supporters.

She didn't alienate the progressive 'left' that adores her.

Bernie was a democratic socialist - a reasonable 'bridge too far' for a party democrat with a national audience and following.

It's almost like it was planned!

Those people went full BernieBro on her for not endorsing him leading up to Massachusetts and she's been under the bus multiple times. They simply couldn't resolve the idea that "If Warren is okay with Hillary, Hillary can't possibly be the corporate demon that we're making her out to be".

I'm looking forward to the surprise.

Would you mind if I 'borrowed' one?

For you and others

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107154136

With all of the misogyny going on in this election, I haven't had time to process that this is really happening, and a woman is getting the nomination for Presidential candidate. I'm going to be a mess on Tuesday, lol.

I bet there's a lot of us out there.

Think about when Clinton chose Gore. A running mate can also amplify and reinforce a candidate's strengths.

And she has a real penchant for ripping Trump a new one.

I also would like to see Klobuchar's name get more mentions.

But I really want this to be an election about all 3 branches of government. Does Hillary need Elizabeth to win? I don't think so. And we also have to build our bench and start grooming candidates for 2024. That's why I really like the O'Malley VP (ignore the DMV bias though), he has a combination of youth, energy, policy detail and executive experience (major city Mayor/state Governor) and he doesn't take away from our existing strengths anywhere else.

It would let the air out of the Bernie "tire on fire" almost immediately. It would boost down ticket races, in which case losing one Democratic senator for a few months (see the advice given Reid) would not make a difference. If the Democrats win back the Senate, I don't think it will be by one senator.

Clinton/Warren would be a relentless team to take on the Republican imbeciles, since both Hillary and Elizabeth are tough as nails. And it would unify the party. All Democrats would be very excited and optimistic. Both Hillary and Elizabeth are unbelievably strong personalities. They would not cower. This particular male is highly enthusiastic about the idea. I do not think Castro would have anywhere near the impact of Warren. He is too young and too inexperienced.

Massachusetts is about the best state to steal a senator from, given its requirement that a new election be scheduled within 145 to 160 days, despite the problem of having a Republican governor. But remember, Charlie Baker is no ordinary Republican. He is well-liked in Massachusetts, precisely because he avoids the insane partisanship of his own party. Even if he appointed a Republican to replace Warren, he might choose someone acceptable to Massachusetts Democrats. I wouldn't even put it past him to pick a Democrat.

Overall, I believe that Warren would help Democrats win more contested seats than would otherwise be the case.

Elizabeth is a two-fer; her progressive credentials are sterling, and her history as an ex-Republican should make attractive to Indies.

Having said that, I don't honestly think our country is ready for two women on the top ticket. Too much in the way of covert misogyny as it is.

It will be a good pick but the country isn't ready for a two woman ticket, unfortunately.

eom