No, Elizabeth Warren Should Not Be Vice-President

Nothing suggests the shallowness of most people’s political analysis, even well-informed people, then how they talk about the vice-presidency. Why do people see a largely useless position, barring a president’s death, as a place to put a completely capable and even great political figure, just because they like them? In other words, Elizabeth Warren as Vice-President would be an absolutely terrible idea. Even assuming she wanted it, why would she leave the Senate, where she would be a lot more powerful? This is even worse when mainstream pundits suggest things like this. Today we have Dana Milbank:

But Democrats would be foolish to think this guarantees victory for Clinton in November, because, for all his faults, Trump has an advantage: He connects with Americans feeling economic anxiety. With his talk of China “killing us” on trade and Mexico “destroying us” on manufacturing jobs, he has the potential to best Clinton in an area that traditionally benefits Democrats: a perception that he cares about the problems of ordinary Americans.

This “empathy gap” propelled President Obama past Mitt Romney in 2012 and nearly allowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to topple Clinton in the primaries. If Clinton can’t fix the problem, it could doom her in November.

But there is, in this case, a silver bullet for Clinton: She can make Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) her running mate.

Though formal deliberations have yet to begin, the notion of a Clinton-Warren dream team has already been contemplated at Clinton’s campaign headquarters in Brooklyn. And there is likely to be more such talk, for several reasons:

Putting the liberal icon on the ticket would reunite the party and energize Sanders supporters who feel Clinton didn’t go far enough in adopting his theme of economic justice.

An all-female ticket would electrify Democrats and widen a gender gap that is already wide enough to swallow Trump, long accused of misogyny.

Above all, Warren’s passionate populism would provide a perfect antidote to the oft-bankrupt billionaire Trump. If Clinton embraced Warren, and more of her agenda, she could match Trump’s appeal to disaffected, white, working-class voters.

This is mostly nonsense. Fundamentally, Milbank makes the classic mistake of confusing the white working class with “real voters.” Trump does have appeal with the white working-class, yes. But how many of those people would vote for Hillary just because Elizabeth Warren is the VP? And what about minority voters? In a nation increasingly without a “center” except among Beltway journalists and Joe Lieberman’s house parties, the election is going to be about turning out the base. Regardless of what white college-educated leftists think about themselves, the actual base for the Democratic Party are black and brown people. And while I don’t think Elizabeth Warren would turn these groups off in any meaningful way, she is less likely to spur turnout among them than a candidate of color. But then maybe it doesn’t matter, after all research on the impact of a VP selection seems to suggest it doesn’t matter much. So if that is the case, why take Warren out of the Senate, where she is an enormous and unique asset? The only reason I can think of is to make the group of Sanders voters who hate Hillary happy. I certainly don’t think she somehow trumps Trump’s authenticity argument against Hillary, in any case.