Anyway, no tossups, RCP has it 51 GOP, 49 Dems. I don’t think that will be the final result, some of those Republican incumbents are just polling too low, but 52 might be the best Democrats can hope for at this point. 50-51 is the most likely result.
Liz herself said the idea of her as SecTreas was “a fun thought”, and her background makes her well-suited for the role.
I want Liz to have fun.
I want Wall Street bankers to not have fun.
I want to have fun watching Liz have fun making Wall Street bankers not have fun.
[sub]blam[/sub]
Treasury requires economic expertise which she doesn’t have. She’s staying in the Senate for many reasons, and that’s one of them. Hillary Clinton is not about to have a failed Cabinet appointment fulfilling the wet dreams of progressives who didn’t support her in the first place.
And a flag-sewing contest. 
What could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, but a law background is actually perfect for SEC, although she’ll still need help with the technicalities of securities law.
The idea of Liz Warren kicking ass in some enforcement department may sound appealing, but it’s a bit like GWB going around kicking tyrants’ asses. Moral certainty is no substitute for actually knowing what you’re getting into. Who knows, the banks might actually love Warren in that position because she’d be easy to fool. Just don’t do anything obviously shady and you’re in the clear, she’ll never figure it out. What does she know about banking or finance other than what she’s mad about?
But here’s the big problem. Hillary Clinton, the most pro-Wall street nominee the Democrats could ever have nominated, is going to be President barring a major upset. Liz Warren will be lucky to even get facetime with Clinton unless Clinton needs her to sell progressives on something. Clinton’s not going to turn Liz Warren loose on the people who have made her a gazillionaire.
She’s not a gazillionaire yet.
“Clinton’s not going to turn Liz Warren loose on the people who [del]have made[/del] will make her a gazillionaire”
There, I fixed that for ya.
I disagree with all this stuff about Clinton’s supposed affinity for investment bankers.
At a certain time in her life it was in her interest to cozy up to these people and she did that. At another time in her life it might be in her interest to attack these people and she’ll do that.
It’s not like she went around giving speeches to these people because of any sort of ideological affinity. They paid her quite a lot of money and she told them things they were interested in hearing. At this point she has enough money anyway, and now her interests are in making sure her political career is a big success. If she determines that it would be helpful to her to turn loose some progressive hero and build up some left wing street cred, then she’ll do that. If she thinks it’s not worth it politically, then she won’t.
That’s true, but the banks wouldn’t have made the investment if they didn’t think it would pay off. They are kinda important to the economy, and a good economy would do more for Clinton than fulfilling progressive fantasies.
That’s true, but the payoff is not - as you assume - that she’ll do their bidding later. The banks are well aware of how politics work.
The payoff for the banks is immediate. It’s a big prestige-builder for them - both in the eyes of their employees and in the eyes of their clients and potential clients - to have a former First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State speak to their meetings and conventions. That’s enough for them to shell out that kind of money.
Of course, if they can schmooze her up and create some personal connection that they can possibly use later, all for the better. But that’s not what it’s all about.
Somehow adaher being opposed to the idea makes me want Warren at Treasury even more.
Faulty reasoning, but being a Doper you should know that.
Warren would have been fine on CFPB. Well, not really, I’d hate to see her there, but at least she’d accomplish the goals supporters of hers desire. Treasury just does not fit her skill set at all. I mean if you want to put her there and cost Clinton reelection because she tanks the economy by being ignorant about money supply issues and inflation and the stock market, go right ahead.
I’m somehow unconvinced of the authority behind your description of Warren’s skillset, nor do I assume her at Treasury (or Clinton in the White House) will undermine the U.S. economy.
Secretaries of the Treasury have almost always had an economics background. She has a law background. Now Jack Lew also has a law background, which is unusual, but Lew has an extremely varied and accomplished resume. Heck, Jack Lew could be President, easy with his immense qualifications.
Warren has done two things: professor, Senator. Secretary of the Treasury is a critical job that requires a real resume. It’s not an unserious job, like being an elected official.
Repetition isn’t making your case for you. I stand by my probably unlikely but nevertheless pleasing fantasy election outcome / cabinet appointment.
Back to the Senate, Blunt leads by +1 in MO, Burr by +0.8. That’s very worrying for the GOP majority, although if I was a betting man I’d say Burr pulls it off(ross is just WAY too liberal for NC), and Blunt falls(Kander is fresh faced, a vet, and represents change over Blunt’s DC ways).
First poll I’ve seen out of KY shows Rand Paul very, very safe. That’s good to see. I wasn’t sure how a libertarian would are in KY, but KY voters seem to like him quite a bit. 55% of the vote in the last poll.
It’s down to 58% Dems. 
I suspect the Senate analyses may be a bit misleading, in that senate polls are not updated as often as presidential ones. Since these various prediction models use aggregated polls, they tend to use at least some outdated ones, and don’t capture the latest movements as well as presidential models do.
ISTM that the change in Senate numbers is related to the moves in presidential numbers, but a bit delayed. If Trump keeps moving up, I would interpret that as a plus for Republican senate chances, but if he crests, then I assume this is reflected in the Senate races as well, even if the poll aggregates don’t show it yet.
All politics is local. The ups and downs (for Hillary in the past week, mostly down) of the presidential race will have some limited impact, but I suspect relatively little.
Any given senate candidate can obviously do better or worse than the presidential candidate. But there’s obviously some coattail effect. All else being equal, changes in the presidential races will impact senate races. All things aren’t necessarily equal in any particular race, but on average the rest tends to even out.