CNN's report yesterday of a Biden-Warren confab must have had Vegas oddsmakers scrambling, Robby Mook despairing, and Hillary Clinton wailing. This would be a formidable alliance, this Biden-Warren thing — formidable in its political positioning; inspired in its conception. It could rechart the primary map overnight, and leave Hillary with the lesser of Democratic bases.
The political press has been asking, Where would Biden fit in? He's an establishment player, they say, in an anti-establishment environment, which, they add, is a role already played by Clinton. To me, this has never seemed a particularly penetrating assessment of Biden's position.
By virtue of his office, the vice president is of course an establishment player. But Biden carries — as he has always carried — an aura of the unorthodox. He rather naturally bridges the two worlds, while Clinton does not. (Paradoxically, it is his enemies who have helped more than others to promote Biden's image of vice-presidential eccentricity, which now plays into his anti-establishment hands. Don't you just love the boomeranging consequences of pernicious intent?)
With Elizabeth Warren in his camp (which, it should go without saying, remains unconfirmed), Biden would add insurgency to his anti-establishment establishmentarianism. He would dramatically position himself away from Hillary and toward Bernie.
At what cost? This could be the world's first free political lunch.
By "Warren in his camp," I mean Warren on Biden's ticket — from the get-go. That, far more than Biden's candidacy itself, would be the earthshaking, Hillary-shattering, Bernie-diminishing move that could, and I'd wager would, wholly rewrite the Democratic primary season's script.
It would underscore the heterodoxy of an otherwise traditional campaign and secure its insurgent flavor. Establishment Democrats worried about Hillary's email troubles might well flock to Biden, and anti-establishment Democrats worried about Bernie's electability might well flock to the Warren side of Biden's ticket.
What's more, a Biden-Warren ticket could make sense of that rumored political idiocy about Joe, perhaps, predeclaring himself a one-term president. (Actually, it's not all that idiotic if one looks at it from the idiotic populist point of view that any one-term presidency would be preferable to the even more idiotic limitation of the 22nd Amendment.) Biden could say that with Warren as his vice president, she would effectively run for his second term while defending his one-and-only first.
The age question would be put aside and ideological continuity guaranteed.
Hillary Clinton may go down in political history as the Democrats' Henry Clay. Lincoln's Whiggish hero was eminently qualified for the White House, and God knows he tried his hardest, time and again, to take it. And yet something always foiled him.
It might even lead to a Hillary-Bernie rapprochement. If they're desperate enough.
Posted by: shsavage | August 24, 2015 at 08:52 AM
I will provide the counter argument. There is only one that matters. Can Biden convince enough Democratic voters that he and only he can beat whoever the Republicans nominate as their candidate. Which means, until they select their candidate, he has to beat all possible match ups and do it by bigger margins than Clinton.
I don't buy the arguments about endorsements or money. Endorsements can change and money can be found. But Joe is in the same fix as the other Democratic candidates. When it comes down to policy there just isn't that much difference on the Democratic side. All the other candidates are therefore forced to rely on attacks on Clinton that they themselves cannot make. This morning I watched as the Morning Joe crew sagely (I say with tongue firmly in cheek) offer the best rationale for Joe to enter the race. Which was that there was too much at stake to take a chance on the unnamed front runner. Supreme Court appointments, potential foreign conflicts, the usual list was provided. Ahh thinks I, time for another old white guy.
Which brings me to Warren. She's definitely not running for president but could she be persuaded to accept an early selection for the VP slot? That is the only way I can see anyone on the Democratic side breaking through to the very large numbers of women backing Hillary. As a progressive favorite Warren is just as likely to grab support from Bernie who already has his own demographic support issues among women and minorities.
Unless and until there is compelling evidence that Republican attacks on Clinton, Benghazi, e-mails, Bill, the Clinton Foundation or any of the mass of other phony Clinton scandals get traction on the left then there is no real reason for Clinton supporters to switch candidates. In many respects the Democratic candidates with respect to Hillary all have the same political problem as the Republicans have with respect to Trump. How do you knock off the leader without losing their supporters in the process. That's a tough problem.
The only argument I see is to try to convince your voters that either Trump or Clinton is so toxic to the general public, that is the other side, that nominating them would risk electoral loss. Most Republicans are already convinced that Trump would ultimately lose and massively. Not so for Clinton and the Democrats.
My conclusion, Joe has his work cut out for him, but if he goes he'd better have Warren and a whole lot of other prominent Democratic women on his side and right up front.
Posted by: Peter G | August 24, 2015 at 09:15 AM
Bernie.
Posted by: Jimiskin | August 24, 2015 at 09:19 AM
The most obvious problem with your scenario is the Democrats already have two-thirds of their own Henry Clay, and his name is Joe Biden. Even with his formidable resume, he's already failed to get the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988 and 2008. Having Warren on the ticked would help with our peeps, but the Wall Street and similar types would be driven to a frenzy against them. Also, Biden is 73 and just as much the Washington insider as Hillary. He's the current VP and would probably be viewed as the second coming of Al Gore. And even though it's relatively early, unlike Peter G I do buy the argument he'd have a hard time catching up in groundwork such as organizing, messaging and fund raising. He also lacks the appeal for the women's vote, which might well be critical. I'd vote Biden / Warren in a heartbeat, but I'd give you 100 to 1 it ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: Bob | August 24, 2015 at 09:39 AM
A few election cycles ago Joe's money problem would probably have been insurmountable but in the era of superpacs money is agile. It isn't controlled by the candidate or their campaign and if the going gets rough for Hillary they can, and I think will switch horses. Ditto for endorsements. But it would take a lot to make that happen and almost all of what it would take is out of the control of Joe or any of the other candidates on the Democratic side. The odds I would offer aren't much different than yours at this point.
Posted by: Peter G | August 24, 2015 at 10:40 AM
Clinton Biden is the ticket that makes more sense....
Posted by: brave captain of industry | August 24, 2015 at 12:53 PM
Even if he does put together a superpac he still has the problem of campaign organization which would be hard to buy unless Hillary sold him hers. It's also hard to imagine what his campaign slogan would be - Third Time's a Charm - Hillary Can't Be Trusted According To The Polls? I'm glad our odds are close.
Posted by: Bob | August 24, 2015 at 01:01 PM
Don't do it, Joe. Please don't do it. He can't win, and he won't win if he runs.
Posted by: Josh | August 24, 2015 at 11:34 PM