If Hillary Clinton decides not to run, or doesn’t win the nomination, what are some of the other possible Democratic tickets that could emerge from the current crop of candidates? From a Democrat’s perspective, the combination of Jim Webb and Elizabeth Warren would add new faces to the national scene and bring a balanced ticket before the American people.

Report from The Week:

Jim Webb is a genuinely intriguing candidate — a war hero and former secretary of the Navy who actually views our country’s militaristic foreign policy with skepticism, a champion of the American working class against globalization and “boardroom liberalism,” and a passionate advocate for criminal justice reform. On top of that, he voluntarily retired from the Senate after one term, showing that he’s far less enamored of political power than most people who run for the presidency. If he can get people to pay attention to his message, Webb just might succeed in wooing back a large chunk of the white (Scots-Irish) middle class to the Democratic Party.

But he’s unlikely to do so on his own. Webb’s idiosyncratic policy positions combined with his bristly unwillingness to jump through the right “likability” hoops give him limited appeal at the head of a ticket.

But as Elizabeth Warren’s running mate? In that role he’d be fantastic.

I almost can’t believe I’m arguing in favor of Warren jumping into the race. She’s at least a few clicks to my left. Her populist rhetoric makes me uncomfortable. And she’s said very little to indicate that she diverges from the bipartisan Washington consensus in favor of endless warfare.

So why do I find myself hoping that she’ll run? Because she would actually give Americans a choice.

Hillary Clinton has dropped 15 points in the polls since the email story broke. If her numbers continue to soften, she’s going to start looking seriously vulnerable. With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, there’s too much at stake for Democrats to put all their chips on a candidate with clay feet. They need to start looking for other options.

And Warren-Webb 2016 is the way to go.

It’s an interesting mix of progressive activism on the part of Warren, and a folksy Reagan-Democrat appeal on the part of Webb. Many articles have discussed who Hillary Clinton would pick as a running mater. Very few have floated the possibilities if her name doesn’t end up as part of the Democratic ticket.


  1. I do see the reasoning. At the top of the ticket, Warren could soften her message, and Jim-the-Bulldog could gut the opposition. But I don’t see Webb going second-banana.

    It would be much stronger with Webb at the top, appealing to tough Reagan Democrats, while Warren could also appeal to them as a Wall Street/Bankster opponent.

    I think this election might be a lot more “populist” than anyone now thinks. If so, Hillary, JEB, and Rand probably won’t cut it.

    • Goethe your reasoning is sound about Webb not wanting to be 2nd banana – but at the same time I see Warren having no interest in the Veep role

        • Well put.

          But I don’t know why anyone would want the job. Senators can be out there, can try to change things. But the vice president is usually an “unperson” for four or eight years.

  2. A problem is emerging with the “Hillary Clinton Inevitability Tour 2016”, as was exposed during the 2008 Tour -the more people hear and see Hillary Clinton, inevitably they come to the conclusion they don’t like her or what she supposedly stands for. And to be clear, I know she has a solid bedrock of support from the pantsuit brigade and Clinton loyalist types, but those two groups won’t get her elected POTUS. Bill Clinton was at his best as a candidate when he was among the voters, neck deep in retail politics. Hillary can barely hide her disdain for retail politics. I know Lanny Davis and Paul Begala will never admit it, but the Hillary Clinton brand is suffering from a credibility and authenticity gap and the latter cannot be overcome.

  3. I’m too ignorant to know what “retail politics” are but I do know that Webb and Warren are the very opposite of the Democrat spectrum, not even sure Webb is even a Democrat and Warren is a pure Socialist — so I don’t think a chance in Hell of them combining for anything.

    • Sam — what’s crazy is that the Democrooks haven’t figured out the writing on the wall that is so CLEAR for all to see: Hillary has ZERO chance.

      It will be Hilarious to watch them scramble to find another Democrook to replace her for 2016, when Hillary completely implodes!

      Then, the true Democrook Circus will begin…let the laughter start now!
      LOL, LOL, LOL!

      • lets not ass/u/me too much. There are 35 ->40% of the voting citizens who will vote for Die Hündin even if she were “up-the-river”.It will take the true independents quite awhile to see the truth about another lyin’, Democrat Hündin . especially when the leftist MSM will give her a pass and laud her as they did for the first black POTUS and she would be the first woman (??) POTUS.!!! We the People must take control if it are to reunite and bootstrap this very wounded nation.
        Two more years and and we will be close to being non-democratic-verge of a divisive Republic.

    • “Retail politics” just means getting into it–shaking hands, being willing to interact with voters. Bill was a master, because he genuinely likes and trusts people. Hillary don’t.

      Of the two, I think Webb is much better suited to the rough-and-tumble of retail politics. Warren is more reserved, more thoughtful.

      But I think they could work well together. Webb is a no-nonsense straight-talker. But people would like to see Wall Street get its ass kicked, so Warren could be an excellent veep choice.

Comments are closed.