I mean, I'd love to see it, because I pink puffy heart Elizabeth Warren something fierce.
But realistically, no, this will not happen
The Dems still need Elizabeth Warren working her magic in the Senate, and if Hillary wants to gain any traction with angry Berners and/or Trump haters that are at a loss on who to vote for now, she's really going to need a young, white guy. I don't like that she "needs" a white, male running mate to be more palatable to the masses, but this is the world we live in right now.
Newp. She's stronger in the Senate and they need as many strong Ds there as possible. The MA governor is a Republican and would be able to fill her seat (same reason Sherrod Brown isn't a consideration); it's only a 160 day appointment after which there will be a special election but unless they can get a strong D candidate, the seat will go to the R appointee as the incumbent because people are lazy. The misogynists won't vote for two vaginas.
Did I miss anything?
I feel the same. I'd love to be proven wrong on all points, though.
It took Elizabeth Warren far too long to endorse, besides.
I have a couple thoughts on that. I know we're all surprised that I have thoughts and type them out too.
Elizabeth Warren is a bulldog on Wall Street oversight. She is also pro-reduced college and bullish on income inequality. She had no problem letting Bernie's message get heard, because it's a message SHE wants heard. Also, there was never really a close race numbers-wise, and there was already an issue with "Hillary has 500 super-delegates even before the race started, it's so rigged." The Berners were adamant that Elizabeth was "their" girl, their Madonna. "If she was running they'd vote for her" perfect woman candidate. Since Hillary had a commanding lead during the entirety of the race, she didn't need Elizabeth's support and having her support Hillary before the nomination was clinched would have been a sure path to a flaming-out of the Berners, which would hurt the party immeasurably. This way she is a "sell-out" but only because she's supporting the presumptive nominee. If she came out for Hillary earlier, she would have been much, much, much worse than a mere sell-out, something more than a traitor to the cause and worthy of whatever hell is rained down on her for her massive betrayal to Bernie and his message which is her message, etc.
Supporting her when she did, after she became the presumptive nominee, was a smart, calculated move to cause as little damage as possible. I am absolutely certain it was done in concert with the Hillary campaign. Because she was never going to support Bernie, unless by some miracle he became the presumptive.
It took Elizabeth Warren far too long to endorse, besides.
Nah, this is not the issue. I think it was really clear once Clinton had an unmistakable lead that her non-endorsement of Sanders was a tacit endorsement of Clinton. If she really truly believed Sanders would've been better, she would've endorsed him early on. But she was playing the game by not endorsing so the Berners wouldn't turn on her and she could still be a rockstar fundraiser for down ticket races.
I still agree with 2curlydogs, though, that she's not going to poach a senator.
I don't know man. They've been secretly meeting for months. Something's up.
I'd bet these are strategy meetings. I think Warren has supported HRC for a while but was fine with letting BS's positions be heard. Now she is preparing to go into surrogate mode and help HRC win and they have been planning some moves.