Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren's first joint campaign appearance Monday further stoked speculation that the Massachusetts senator could be a leading contender to become Clinton's running mate.
But how beneficial would this actually be to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee? A look at the pros and cons of a Clinton-Warren ticket.
She relishes attacking Trump
Aside from some of his vanquished GOP rivals or Clinton herself, few national political figures have drawn the ire of Donald Trump more than Warren. The Massachusetts senator has been unrelenting in her attacks on the real estate mogul in recent weeks, even before she formally endorsed Clinton. During Monday's rally, for instance, she referred to Trump as "a nasty man who will never become president of the United States."
And just like "Lying" Ted Cruz, "Little" Marco Rubio and "Low energy" Jeb Bush before her, she's earned derogatory nicknames from the presumptive GOP nominee, who's taken to calling her "Goofy" Elizabeth Warren and, more controversially, Pocahontas, a reference to her Native American ancestry that came under dispute during her 2012 Senate run.
Running mates traditionally play the role of attack dogs during the fall campaign, and it's clear Warren not only enjoys antagonizing Trump but also seems to get under his skin. If she could successfully distract him from making a case against Clinton in the fall and get him off the populist message that resonated with many working-class voters during the primaries, Warren could prove a valuable asset to Clinton.
Bernie Sanders has said he'll vote for Clinton in the fall, even though he still, technically, remains a Democratic presidential candidate. The bigger challenge for Clinton will likely be ensuring that the millions of voters who backed him during the primaries vote for her as well. If there's one person other than the Vermont senator himself who would convince disenchanted Sanders voters the Democratic ticket was worth supporting in November, it'd likely be Warren, whose crusades against Wall Street made her a bona fide hero to many liberals.
An even more historic ticket
This one could, potentially, cut both ways. Clinton is already the first woman to lead a major-party presidential ticket. A ticket featuring two women would underscore the historic nature of the choice voters would face in November and could spark enthusiasm about a presidential nominee who, despite her barrier-breaking primary win, still inspires mistrust and a lack of passion among some voters, including many Democrats.
However, a key challenge for Clinton in holding off Trump could be maintaining enough support among white, working-class voters in Rust Belt states such as Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, where the New York billionaire hopes to make in-roads with his populist message and bashing of the Washington establishment. Would Warren be the ideal candidate to allay concerns about Clinton to those voters? Perhaps not.
Home state not in play
A traditional reason to choose a running mate is the notion that they might put their home state in play when it otherwise may not be or help lock down a swing state. It's debatable how often this actually happens, though there are occasional examples, such as Lyndon Johnson helping to boost John F. Kennedy in 1960 in Texas.
Massachusetts is not exactly a battleground state, to say the least. Ronald Reagan was the last Republican nominee to win the Bay State, which he carried during his 1984 landslide re-election bid. President Obama won it with 60% of the vote in 2012. If Warren ends up the running mate, it won't be because she's from Massachusetts.
The risk of being overshadowed
If there's one thing a running mate shouldn't do, it's overshadow the candidate at the top of the ticket. Warren would bring star power to the fall Democratic campaign, which could be a good thing, but would Clinton really want a running mate whom many in her party may prefer at the top of the ticket?
Additionally, it's worth noting that Warren was, for a long while, the lone female Democratic senator not to endorse Clinton. Would Clinton be more likely to pick someone who was with her from the beginning, someone like Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota?
Suffice it to say, at this point in the process there are more questions than answers, so for now, let the speculation continue.