Warren brings with her the left vote

The argument

Before her own presidential campaign came to an end in March, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren ran a progressive campaign popular among leftist voters – votes that will be transferred to Biden if he chooses Warren as his running mate. Although Biden has announced a number of increasingly progressive plans he will implement if elected, many voters remain unconvinced of his commitment to the left agenda. Choosing Warren as his running mate would not only signal Biden's commitment to a greener and more progressive agenda, but Warren's presence in the White House would ensure this commitment. Warren outlined many of her progressive reforms during her presidential campaign which aimed to elevate working-class families and communities. Since ending her campaign and endorsing Biden for President, Warren has been working with Biden by advising him on progressive economic policies. She has also endorsed some of Biden's recent plans for personal bankruptcy, social security benefits, and student loan debt. Warren would be Biden's ticket to the young and progressive voters, both key voter groups who Biden has struggled to secure.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Some fear that by choosing Warren as his running mate, Biden may end up alienating some of his more moderate supporters who oppose Warren's progressive agenda. But the biggest concern with Biden choosing Warren as his VP is the effect it will have in the senate. The Massachusetts Governor is a Republican, meaning he would likely elect a republican to fill her Warren's vacant Senate seat. If Biden wins the election but loses the Senate he will struggle to establish change as President and it would be only a partial win for Democrats. This is especially true if Biden wants to nominate a Democratic Supreme court Justice, as he would need a Democratic Senate to confirm it.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Popularity with a bloc during a primary does not establish transferability. Warren's own campaign ended before most contests were held, and her supporters were not a unified group deliverable by an endorsement — the premise assumes exactly what the primary result had put in doubt. [Rejecting P2] "Signal and ensure" are different claims and only the first has support. The vice-presidency carries no policy authority, so a running mate cannot guarantee an agenda; and the premise counts only the votes such a pick might gain, never those it might cost. The counter-argument raises the concrete objection that goes unanswered — that under Massachusetts law at the time a Republican governor would have named her interim replacement, putting at risk the Senate seat the agenda in question depended on.