The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

Elizabeth Warren still isn’t going to be Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential pick. Here’s why.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) endorsed Hillary Clinton for president on June 9, but the two haven't always seen eye-to-eye. (Video: Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
Placeholder while article actions load

The "Elizabeth Warren for Vice President" chatter is at an all-time high Friday. Between Warren's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign on Thursday night and the planned meeting between the two women today, many people are already penciling in Warren on the ticket. And, there is an argument to be made for why Clinton picking Warren makes sense.

I don't buy it — for two major reasons.

The first is that one of the keys to making a good vice presidential pick — both for campaign and governing purposes — is chemistry. Ask anyone who has been intimately involved in a VP vetting process, and they will tell you that the single most important thing — aside from ensuring that the pick has no obvious skeletons in the closet — is to figure out if the two politicians like one another and get along. Presidential campaigns are brutally stressful. Being president and vice president is even more so. If the presidential nominee and his/her vice presidential pick don't, at root, have some rapport, things can go south in a hurry.

Think John McCain and Sarah Palin. McCain met Palin only briefly before picking her. The Palin pick was a disaster for a lot of reasons, but one of the big ones is that Palin started going totally off the reservation within weeks of being named. And, although McCain continues to defend the pick publicly, talk to anyone who is being honest, and they will tell you that Palin was such a bad choice in no small part because she and McCain didn't really even know one another.

Which brings me to Warren and Clinton. Warren got lots of attention on Thursday night for endorsing Clinton. Part of that is because she is a national figure who is regarded as one of the leading voices of liberals. But, another big part is that she was the only Democratic women senator who hadn't endorsed Clinton long ago. And, it's not only that: When asked about the race for the past six months, Warren painted it as essentially a toss-up between Clinton and Bernie Sanders. For all of that time, it wasn't.

Trust me when I tell you that Warren withholding her support — and making sure that people knew she was still withholding her support — did not and does not sit well in Clintonworld. Warren was already regarded by many within the Democratic establishment — including a decent-sized chunk of the Obamans — as a bit of a grandstanding, holier-than-thou figure. (Her relationship with Clinton has been very up and down through the years as well.) Warren's decision to keep on the sidelines throughout the primary process only reinforced that sense for many people.

Remember that one of the essential jobs of the vice president is to make the president look good, oftentimes at your own expense. (See Season 1 of "Veep.") Given Warren's reputation — and the way she has treated the primary process thus far — there are no doubt questions within the Clinton orbit about whether she would be willing and able to play second banana both on the campaign trail and in the White House if the ticket wins. Those are not the sort of doubts that lend themselves to making a shortlist.

The second big reason I have doubt about Warren is that picking her would be widely regarded as a sop to the liberal left. And, to date, there's no real reason to think Clinton needs to court the left in the race going forward.

In the May Washington Post-ABC News poll, almost 8 in 10 (77 percent) of self-identified Democrats had a favorable opinion of Clinton. Forty-four percent of that group felt strongly favorable. Her numbers among "liberal" Democrats were much the same; 79 percent favorable with 48 percent of that bloc strongly favorable. Clinton's numbers were better than Sanders's in that poll. Seventy percent of Democrats had a favorable opinion of him; 67 percent of liberals felt the same.

Those numbers are far from an outlier. One of the most overblown — and misguided — storylines in the 2016 Democratic primary race is that Clinton wasn't liked by liberals. She quite clearly was — and is.

Given the roller-coaster relationship between Clinton and Warren, the sole reason that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee puts the Massachusetts senator on the ticket is to solve a problem on her left. A problem that doesn't exist — and seems unlikely to develop unless the end of Sanders's campaign turns into a disaster that unsettles large numbers of his liberal supporters.

If Clinton doesn't have a problem on her left to solve, then adding Warren to the ticket only brings potential problems. She is an unapologetic liberal and someone who is directly in line with Sanders on the dim view that she takes toward Wall Street as well as the wealthiest Americans. Warren is loathed by conservatives, and a Clinton-Warren ticket might be the one thing that could convince lots of Republicans who are uncertain about Donald Trump to make a lesser-of-two-evils vote for the real estate mogul.

It would also allow Trump to paint the ticket as "the most liberal in the history of America" or some such, a potentially potent attack for him as he tries to turn the spotlight away from his shaky candidacy. Trump may say that of the Democratic ticket no matter who Clinton picks. But, you don't want to make it easy for him if you are a Democrat.

Vice presidential picks are the most personal and closely guarded of all decisions within a presidential campaign. That makes them inherently hard to handicap. So, it's possible Clinton has an amazing meeting with Warren today and winds up putting her on the ticket. But, I sincerely doubt it.