According to Politico, some of the most influential Democratic donors on Wall Street are sending Hillary Clinton a clear message: choose Elizabeth Warren as VP and you'll lose us. The threat is a serious one for the presumptive Democratic nominee, who has taken over $32 million from the financial services industry this cycle alone.
The ultimatum represents a tough choice for Clinton. Picking Senator Warren could help her campaign broaden its base and attract some of the legion of Bernie Sanders’ supporters, including the 1.1 million donors who helped him raise a record-setting quarter of a billion dollars. But in doing so, Clinton could lose the support of one of her key sectors, responsible for roughly 11% of all of her campaign’s fundraising in the 2016 cycle.
For the media, the irony is almost too perfect: an "establishment" Democratic candidate, whose campaign has been plagued by accusations of excessively close ties with big banks, is now forced to choose between the Democratic base and Wall Street.
So what exactly would be the tradeoff, in quantifiable terms? We decided to look at the financial sector’s political giving to President Obama’s campaigns as a way to approximate what Clinton stands to lose if, in fact, she were to choose Warren.
In 2008, the financial sector gave $62.8M to President Obama’s campaign - roughly double what Clinton has raised from the industry so far in 2016. It is safe to assume that she would at least match that figure, if not beat it, given the Wall Street ties she developed during her husband's tenure as President, and her own stint in the Senate representing New York.
Fortunately, technology affords us a way to counter the influence of big money in politics. Do you think Hillary Clinton should choose Elizabeth Warren as her VP? Or perhaps Bernie Sanders or Cory Booker? Now you can make yourself heard by endorsing and pledging to support Clinton if she chooses your favorite candidate as her Vice-President.