How an Elizabeth Warren nomination works
Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2016, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)
This is a re-post of a reply I made in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8018681
Which observes that Elizabeth Warren was quietly removed from the Democratic Convention speaker list. It's important to note that I cannot confirm that she was removed from the speaker list at all, so all of this could be bunk, or it could be a fake-out designed to distract attention from the real pick. Anyway, here it is, with some minor edits.
From that one move, several early guesses can be made:
* Removing a speaker from the list is about as big a tell as you can show in the VP guessing game (unless you're Republican and Tim Tebow backs out on you). Furthermore, the timing of this move suggests that it is intentional, designed to tip off the press and tealeaf-readers so that pollsters can run their hypothetical matchup scenarios. It injects enthusiasm into Democrats and shows the general lack of finesse in the Republican pick, and keeps people looking ahead to the Democratic Convention while the dumpster fire burns. Warren can easily be added back to the speaker list if this is a head-fake, but it risks upsetting those of us who would consider the pick of Warren to be an excellent one.
* As best I can tell, Mass. election law now allows for an interim gubernatorial appointment, for up to 160 days, at which point a special election must be held. The current Mass. governor is Republican, and his appointment will have a leg up in the next regular election, and he (it will almost certainly be a "he"
may be able to run in the special election as well. Picking Warren would concede a large but not insurmountable advantage to the Massachusetts Republicans. Democrats must feel confident that Warren's position can be refilled by another Democrat in mid-2017.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vacancies-in-the-united-states-senate.aspx
(The "Senior" Senator has the duty of organizing and informing the caucus of all Members of Congress from that state, on both sides, on matters relevant to that state. It's a powerful position within Congress which can determine everything from patronage to the position of offices in Congressional buildings. In the rare case of a contested Presidential election, the senior Senator has some degree of control over how that state casts its single vote. Note also that emulatorloo below has led us to an article which suggests that the gubernatorial appointment can be avoided through deft maneuvering of the resignation and its effective date.)
* The move would also promote the highly competent Ed Markey to the position of senior Senator from Massachusetts, which certainly puts him in a position for higher office or future cabinet posts. Markey got his current post through a clever double-move by the Obama Administration after the death of Ted Kennedy, in which they moved John Kerry to Secretary of State and created two new powerhouse Senators (Warren and Markey) with the move.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=263986
* Democrats cannot make a move like this without conceding territory in the Senate, temporarily (Edit: yes, they can!). That, in turn, could dramatically influence the course of events that President Clinton can follow in her first five months... UNLESS your internal polling suggests that Democrats are going to wind up holding somewhere around 53-58 seats in the Senate. That range is enough to control business in the Senate, but not enough to override a filibuster. It provides some padding to give a seat away, temporarily. The Warren hand-tip suggests that Democrats are now very confident about regaining a strong majority in the Senate.
* In retrospect it appears as if Mrs. Clinton has been carefully judging the reactions of voters as she appeared with or dangled potential running mates, including Tim Kaine just last week. I recall, but cannot now find, a hypothetical scenario poll from much earlier in the year that suggested that a Clinton/Warren ticket could defeat any combination of Republicans.
* Democrats must also have noted something about the "misogyny vector" which works in our favor. My current assumption is that the racists are the misogynists, so that doubling down on a female ticket doesn't change any minds on the Republican side, but it must have a net positive effect on Democratic and undecided voters. That squares well with my own personal bias, though, so it's not a solid guess like some of the above.
The Senate will sorely miss Mrs. Warren, if she accepts the nomination as running-mate. But Ed Markey is a superb replacement as senior Senator and Massachusetts has a deep bag of competent leadership which can replace Warren through the same process that positioned Warren and Markey. Democrats must feel considerably more confident about the upcoming elections than I suspected, for Warren is an intrepid and potentially risky choice in several ways. The move would suggest high confidence and careful long-range planning on the part of Democrats, which stands out all the more by comparison to the Trump circus. Wonderful!
= new reply since forum marked as read
