Start A Petition

Clinton's Wall Street Donors Revolt After Warren Emerges as VP Contender

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: Economy, U.S., Elizabeth Warren, Election 2016, Wall Street, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Party )

- 1099 days ago -
While "no American politician in recent history has done more to harness the powerful anti-Wall Street sentiment" than Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton has received a windfall in financial sector donations.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Darren Woolsey (218)
Monday June 20, 2016, 10:47 pm
Shared to spread awareness, Judy

Top Democratic donors in the financial industry are threatening revolt after news broke that top Wall Street critic and progressive darling Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is one of the leading candidates for vice president under Hillary Clinton.

An in-depth report published by Politico on Monday cites a dozen interviews with Clinton's Wall Street backers—of which there are many—warning that the coffers will dry up if Warren is chosen.

"If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her," one top Democratic donor told Politico reporter Ben White.

"They would literally just say, 'We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you’ve had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can't trust you, you've killed it,'" added the anonymous bundler, who has reportedly helped raise millions for Clinton.

Sheryl G (359)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 5:42 am
"If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her," one top Democratic donor told Politico reporter Ben White.

Well let's see how "progressive" Hillary is.

Personally I think pulling Elizabeth Warren's name out is to make Hillary "appear" more Progressive. The Establishment knows that Elizabeth carries a lot of the same people who supports Bernie. I highly doubt it is something that Hillary is seriously considering.

The only reason I'd see them place Elizabeth in the VP role is to muzzle her, because the VP role is a quiet backseat. I don't think Elizabeth would be all that quiet and I suspect the two women would have their, well let's say "moments". Hillary wants to be the Queen bee, she'd not take a chance on that.......

I'm also not sure if the Party would risk a two woman ticket. I mean I'd have NO issue with that, IF the ticket had both Progressive women on it, but many might still not be ready to vote for a two woman ticket. Some Republicans are willing to crossover to Clinton for her NeoCon policies but might think again if both were a woman.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 12:11 pm
I agree with Dandelion on this. I smiled at this headline, "Clinton's Wall Street Donors Revolt---". They were already about as revolting as you can get!! Thanks Judy.

Kathy B (106)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 12:25 pm
When I 1st heard HRC was vetting Warren, I thought that would be a good thing, as she may assure us that HRC would maintain some semblance of progressiveness. The other side of this is of course to muzzle Warren.

There are many that are unhappy with Warren for endorsing HRC they see her as selling out to the progressive cause.

Donna G (42)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 12:28 pm
I don't think that Elizabeth Warren should be VP. Personally, I always thought that if Hillary was going to choose a woman to be her VP, it would be Debbie Wasserman Schultz. They share the same values. Elizabeth Warren is best right where she is as Senator.

But, the Democratic Convention is next month and strange things could happen. The Washington State Democrats has endorsed Bernie Sanders at its state convention. I am not a delegate, so I won't be going to the convention in Pennsylvania next month.

I have been supporting Bernie Sanders with a small monthly donation; but, if he is not the nominee, I will vote for a different woman, other than Hillary.

Tuesday June 21, 2016, 1:04 pm
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.”
― Walter Scott, Marmion


Birgit W (160)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 1:26 pm
Thanks for sharing.

Janet B (0)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 2:03 pm

Lois Jordan (63)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 2:23 pm
Noted. Thanks, Judy.

Oh, so now Wall Street is picking the ticket? Silly me, I forgot......the choices are ALWAYS theirs, not the voters. We just make the whole "election' thing LOOK credible.
And, like Janice stated above, I also giggled at that headline. Too rich!

JL A (281)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 6:03 pm
If we are dealing with either Clinton or Trump as POTUS, I'd prefer to have Warren in the Senate fixing their proposals for us so nothing harmful to ordinary people slips through nor giveaways to Wall St. and other corporations or wealthy folks.

Mitchell D (82)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 6:08 pm
I hold the belief that the country is not ready for two woman ticket.
and, ye, Wall St. will have much to say about the ticket, I am sure.
I would like to see Liz position herself for a future run.

Cheryl Aaron (18)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 6:39 pm
There's no such thing as "the country's not ready for..." That was said of President Obama's campaign, too. The people who want to hold onto their power will fight financially for any candidate who will do their bidding. That said, Warren is as good as anyone else against Trump. The job of the voters is too keep holding our elected officials accountable for their decisions...peace.

Fran F (116)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 6:51 pm
Warren is definitely needed in the Senate, as JL A. noted. Otherwise I would like her to be the Dems' VP candidate.

Trish K (29)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 6:54 pm
I want Warren in Massachusetts. She is a firebrand and she is making her way. I don't want her soiled by the Clintons. She will someday run for President when she is ready.
Who wants to be VP ? How about George Clooney.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 7:49 pm
Thanks Judy,

Warren's staying in the senate: Sick'em, Lizze, Sick'em Girl!..Sick'em!.....RrrrrrrrrrrRrrrrrrrrrrrr

As for Appall Street, it can f*ck off. Truth is, it ain't going anywhere but onto The Hilliary Express to *KA-CHING* Town.


Sheryl G (359)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 8:02 pm
Remember Elizabeth Warren will be 67 in a few days, and while Bernie Sanders is 74, I realize she will still 71 in 4 years. However if the one who is in the White House is already a Democrat would she step up against them, is highly doubtful, which would mean another 4 years added on to give her the age of 75. I just don't see it and she really hasn't expressed a real desire to be in that position.

margaret cochran (41)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 10:02 pm
need her in the senate

Lynn Squance (235)
Tuesday June 21, 2016, 11:06 pm
I was one that said a few years ago that I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren run for POTUS in 2016. But now, I see things differently. Even having Warren as VP would tend to muzzle her, making her impotent at what she does best. The reaction of some of Clinton's Wall Street donors shows just how tenuous Clinton's hold on Wall Street could be.

Roslyn McBride (26)
Wednesday June 22, 2016, 3:57 am

Darren Woolsey (218)
Wednesday June 22, 2016, 1:06 pm
Here we see the reality of Who's Who, and What;'s What in American politics.

Judy C (91)
Wednesday June 22, 2016, 6:10 pm
I have thought all along that if Clinton did choose Warren as VP, it would be to get her out of the Senate, where she could be of much greater influence. Anyone who thinks that Wall Street is going to make millions of dollars in contributions to Clinton without expecting something in return, is in la la land. Those kinds of people don't make contributions to anyone out of the kindness of their heart.

JL A (281)
Wednesday June 22, 2016, 6:19 pm
illustrates this IMO Judy

JL A (281)
Thursday June 23, 2016, 7:58 am
Republicans Stormed The Democrats’ Sit-In To Vote For Letting Wall Street Rip Off Americans

JL A (281)
Thursday June 23, 2016, 8:26 am
Nearly Half of Sanders Supporters Say They'll Refuse to Support Clinton in the General Election

JL A (281)
Thursday June 23, 2016, 8:48 am
Poll: Sanders would make best VP draw for Clinton

yet it seems Wall St. may make the decision instead of what would win
Kaine rises to top of Clinton's veep list

Peggy B (43)
Thursday June 23, 2016, 12:09 pm
Clinton has to pick a popular candidate for VP because she cannot win on her own. She only has part of the Dems supporting her. She won't have most of Sanders voters as like myself was Independent and just registered Dem to vote for Sanders. With Sanders being suppressed in the beginning and up until the end and their popular vote so close and the superdelegates such a blatant cheat it's beyond my comprehension that they gave her the nomination. Sadly Trump will succeed because of the Democrat party's idiocy.

JL A (281)
Thursday June 23, 2016, 8:50 pm
Money and politics on the local level:
D.C.’s White Donor Class: Outsized Influence in a Diverse City

JL A (281)
Friday June 24, 2016, 6:07 am
Build, Bernie, Build!

JL A (281)
Friday June 24, 2016, 6:29 am
From The Ashes Of Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Rises An Army Of Candidates

JL A (281)
Friday June 24, 2016, 12:20 pm
Wall St. and the media's loss of independence:

JL A (281)
Friday June 24, 2016, 9:12 pm
An interesting analysis including a shifting set of priorities related to VP:

Judy C (91)
Saturday June 25, 2016, 1:56 am
Thanks for all the links, JL.

JL A (281)
Saturday June 25, 2016, 1:09 pm
You are welcome Judy and if you choose, you may post any that others have not already (which includes most)
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.