Not so recent speculation on a Clinton-Klobuchar ticket

[Bull Moose Base]

From 6 years ago! (Time to get help for election addiction)

How about this: What is the probability of the Democratic ticket in 2016 having 2 women on it?  I'd argue while unlikely not nearly as low as many would assume.  The reason being that if Hillary is the nominee, everyone will as usual engage in the parlor game of guessing the running mate and there's no way the subject would be avoided.  The press will openly look at the "list" and wonder if she could get away with picking a woman and some will clumsily insist it'd be impossible which is of course, an obnoxious assertion that would be met with serious pushback.  Men have had male VPs for over 200 years.  Why should Hillary hesitate to pick Klobuchar or Napolitano or some new female governor?

Besides Klobuchar and Napolitano, also Patty Murray and Warren (who I doubt I had even heard of when I made the original post). They're both 65+ but I've always argued against that being relevant, like on this thread of who Hillary should pick:

Someone younger than 60.

Why?

Anyway, it depends who wins the GOP nomination and how. A good question is who are the likeliest picks for her if Trump is the nominee. Is she confident enough to pick McAuliffe or another woman?

As I wrote then, if Trump is the nominee, Hillary may feel like she can pick a female VP without much risk.

[LLR]

I remain confident this is the best choice.

[Minnesota Mike]

I am biased being from Minnesota but I think she would make an excellent VP.  I am also a big fan of Tim Walz (my congressman), would make an very good replacement for Klobuchar.

It would be to risky a pick but a VP candidate Al Franken would be fun.  One of the key roles of a VP candidate is to be the hatchet man/women going after the other parties presidential candidate. Can you imaging what Franken would do to Trump

[Famous Mortimer]

Klobuchar has got to be one of the top 5 most boring members of the Senate. I seriously can't fathom people saying she's the "top choice" or "best choice". Based on what, tell me. What do you like about this woman? She's fine. I voted for her but she brings nothing to the table that 200 other generic Democratic office holders and former office holders wouldn't also bring. Seriously, why would you want her?

[Minnesota Mike]

Klobuchar has got to be one of the top 5 most boring members of the Senate. I seriously can't fathom people saying she's the "top choice" or "best choice". Based on what, tell me. What do you like about this woman? She's fine. I voted for her but she brings nothing to the table that 200 other generic Democratic office holders and former office holders wouldn't also bring. Seriously, why would you want her?

Disagree on boring. Always found her to be smart, eloquent and surprisingly funny.  Maybe it's a midwest thing.   

[Bull Moose Base]

Klobuchar has got to be one of the top 5 most boring members of the Senate. I seriously can't fathom people saying she's the "top choice" or "best choice". Based on what, tell me. What do you like about this woman? She's fine. I voted for her but she brings nothing to the table that 200 other generic Democratic office holders and former office holders wouldn't also bring. Seriously, why would you want her?

Because a boring, steady hand could be exactly what Hillary needs in a VP in this campaign.  Franken would be extremely dangerous as he looks not much more competent than Trump to a lot of undecided voters.  To me, her top 3 choices for VP are Hickenlooper, Klobuchar, and Kaine in that order, depending on whether her internals are showing more opportunity with white women or more trouble with white men.  All are competent statewide winners from swing states and none would automatically turn over a senate seat or governorship to the GOP (though they would have to scramble in a 2017 VA special, which I why I put Kaine in 3rd place).  

Warren is clearly the 4th best option if she is worried about a Sanders revolt or wants someone, ahem, higher energy in general.  But she has 2 major negatives: the whole fake Indian controversy and an automatic R senate appointment by Baker.  The MA legislature is >2/3rds D and could change this law again to mandate a D appointment, but there would be a political cost.

I've already explained the Massachusetts senate vacancy law but people refuse to pay attention. Warren is in the senate specifically because Mass law already prevents the governor from choosing a long-term replacement for a senate vacancy. There would be a special election within a few months, 3 or whatever.  In 2009, Patrick's appointee only covered the few months until the special election which the GOP won in a huge upset. If he had had the ability to appoint a senator to cover the rest of Ted Kennedy's term, some other Democrat would now be senator instead of Warren. So there is a risk the Democrats blow it again, but more likely a new Democrat would be elected to replace Warren a month or so after Hillary's sworn in. (Warren is unlikely not because of the Republican governor but because she's probably a bit too independent for Hillary's tastes.)

People also aren't paying attention to my original post here. I explained Hillary wouldn't pick Klobuchar to help win the election but because she doesn't need help.

Klobuchar (or any woman) as Hillary's running mate would be anything but a boring development. In any case, being boring isn't a liability for a VP candidate really.

[Famous Mortimer]

If you're going to pick someone who's dull as a virtue, at least pick someone from a swing state.

[Bull Moose Base]

Klobuchar has got to be one of the top 5 most boring members of the Senate. I seriously can't fathom people saying she's the "top choice" or "best choice". Based on what, tell me. What do you like about this woman? She's fine. I voted for her but she brings nothing to the table that 200 other generic Democratic office holders and former office holders wouldn't also bring. Seriously, why would you want her?

Because a boring, steady hand could be exactly what Hillary needs in a VP in this campaign.  Franken would be extremely dangerous as he looks not much more competent than Trump to a lot of undecided voters.  To me, her top 3 choices for VP are Hickenlooper, Klobuchar, and Kaine in that order, depending on whether her internals are showing more opportunity with white women or more trouble with white men.  All are competent statewide winners from swing states and none would automatically turn over a senate seat or governorship to the GOP (though they would have to scramble in a 2017 VA special, which I why I put Kaine in 3rd place).  

Warren is clearly the 4th best option if she is worried about a Sanders revolt or wants someone, ahem, higher energy in general.  But she has 2 major negatives: the whole fake Indian controversy and an automatic R senate appointment by Baker.  The MA legislature is >2/3rds D and could change this law again to mandate a D appointment, but there would be a political cost.

I've already explained the Massachusetts senate vacancy but people refuse to pay attention. Warren is in the senate specifically because Mass law already prevents the governor from choosing a long-term replacement for a senate vacancy. There would be a special election within a few months, 3 or whatever.  In 2009, Patrick's appointee only covered the few months until the special election which the GOP won in a huge upset. If he had had the ability to appoint a senator to cover the rest of Ted Kennedy's term, some other Democrat would now be senator instead of Warren. So there is a risk the Democrats blow it again, but more likely a new Democrat would be elected to replace Warren a month or so after Hillary's sworn in.

People also aren't paying attention to my original post here. I explained Hillary wouldn't pick Klobuchar to help win the election but because she doesn't need help.

Klobuchar (or any woman) as Hillary's running mate would be anything but a boring development. In any case, being boring isn't a liability for a VP candidate really.

I understand, but ending up with a 51/49 R senate for Clinton's first 100 days after she sweeps into the White House with a 54% PV mandate would still be a substantial political cost.

I bet Warren would resign right after the election, meaning most of the vacancy would happen at the end of Obama's term. But I doubt Hillary is too enthused about someone as aggressively independent as Warren as VP anyway so it's probably a moot point.

If you're going to pick someone who's dull as a virtue, at least pick someone from a swing state.

If she ends up picking Klobuchar or any woman, it's probably because she's not nervous about losing so swing states are besides the point.

[Famous Mortimer]

Klobuchar has got to be one of the top 5 most boring members of the Senate. I seriously can't fathom people saying she's the "top choice" or "best choice". Based on what, tell me. What do you like about this woman? She's fine. I voted for her but she brings nothing to the table that 200 other generic Democratic office holders and former office holders wouldn't also bring. Seriously, why would you want her?

Disagree on boring. Always found her to be smart, eloquent and surprisingly funny.  Maybe it's a midwest thing.  

I imagine this some sort of home state bias. You think she's interesting because you've heard her talk more than other Senators. If you lived in Florida, you would think Ben Nelson was surprisingly entertaining. Really though, on the whole, both are about as exciting as socks for Christmas.

[Santander]

Disagree on boring. Always found her to be smart, eloquent and surprisingly funny.  Maybe it's a midwest thing.   

Agree. Ideologically, Klobuchar is too liberal for my taste, but she has a sharp wit and is a very likable person. She's far from being one of the most boring Senators.

[Nyvin]

Al Franken would be too dangerous because it would ruin the argument against Trump about him being a celebrity or reality tv star and not a politician.   Trump could just point to Franken's past television career.

[politicallefty]

I've also thought she would be a great pick, most recently from my post a couple weeks ago:

I know Elizabeth Warren is the most obvious pick if she decides to double-down, but what about Amy Klobuchar? I think one of the issues the Clinton campaign my have with Warren is that she may overshadow the top of the ticket. I'm not saying I agree with that, but they have to be thinking about that. As far as I know, she's somewhere in the middle among Senate Democrats, at least to the left of Tim Kaine and well to the left of Mark Warner. And of course, one of the most important things is that she's very likeable. If Clinton/Gore was a double-down on the Southern aspect, I think Clinton/Klobuchar is the closest analogy for doubling down on the woman aspect. And not that I buy into particular electoral advantages necessarily with a running mate, but she could conceivably have Midwestern appeal to help lock down the region.

The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that Amy Klobuchar is the best running mate for Hillary. I don't understand why some here are saying that she's boring. I don't see that at all, but I do think she's very likeable. She's got a good deal of experience in the Senate, has a solid liberal record, and does a great job reinforcing the top of the ticket (as a running mate should do). There are certain intangibles, I suppose, but I think Clinton/Klobuchar is an overall strong ticket that just seems to feel right.

Admittedly, there is also a chemistry component that is unknowable until the choice is made, but it's one that I think made Joe Biden such a great running mate with Obama (in a way that experience didn't undercut the change argument).

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Klobuchar would definitely make a Clinton ticket more palatable. 

[they don't love you like i love you]

Even I don't care about Klobuchar which is a testament to how boring she is.

But someone boring isn't really a downside to Hillary. After all looking for someone not boring is how McCain ended up with Sarah Palin.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Klobuchar would definitely make a Clinton ticket more palatable. 

One of the few Senators she could pick with relative safety.

[Maxwell]

Boring is probably good for the Clinton ticket - Boring can be a good contrast to whoever Trump goes with.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Klobuchar would definitely make a Clinton ticket more palatable. 

One of the few Senators she could pick with relative safety.

Though this Warren-Trump hullabaloo is pretty entertaining, lol.

[Dr. Arch]

Klobuchar would definitely make a Clinton ticket more palatable. 

One of the few Senators she could pick with relative safety.

Though this Warren-Trump hullabaloo is pretty entertaining, lol.

Yes, I feel this is setting up the stage to both unite Warren, read the liberal wing, and Clinton.

[Kingpoleon]

I hope not. Klobuchar doesn't do anything besides satisfy the "labor progressives." Franken unites the party and provides a strong personality. Wyden and Merkley unite the party, appeal to libertarians, and can attract libertarian-leaning centrists/independents. Bayh or Ray Tomblin brings the Conservative Democrats back into the coalition and holds onto some of Sanders's Midwestern labor support. Booker, Heinrich, and Brian Schatz provide new faces for the future of the party in 2020/2024/2028. Mike Michaud and Brian Schweitzer attract libertarians, isolationists, left-libertarians, and unify the party's establishment, moderates, libertarians, and progressives.

IMO, Michaud or Franken would be the best pick besides the "young good speakers" group. Either one would provide a nice balance to the ticket.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Oh my God someone just seriously proposed EVAN BAYH and to appeal to Sanders supporters at that.

[Famous Mortimer]

Oh my God someone just seriously proposed EVAN BAYH and to appeal to Sanders supporters at that.

You haven't figured out yet that Kingpoleon just names people at random?

[Mr. Morden]

Oh my God someone just seriously proposed EVAN BAYH and to appeal to Sanders supporters at that.

You haven't figured out yet that Kingpoleon just names people at random?

I keep waiting for WalterMitty to come back, to give us a "What about Chris Dodd for VP?" thread.

[Figueira]

I hope not. Klobuchar doesn't do anything besides satisfy the "labor progressives." Franken unites the party and provides a strong personality. Wyden and Merkley unite the party, appeal to libertarians, and can attract libertarian-leaning centrists/independents. Bayh or Ray Tomblin brings the Conservative Democrats back into the coalition and holds onto some of Sanders's Midwestern labor support. Booker, Heinrich, and Brian Schatz provide new faces for the future of the party in 2020/2024/2028. Mike Michaud and Brian Schweitzer attract libertarians, isolationists, left-libertarians, and unify the party's establishment, moderates, libertarians, and progressives.

IMO, Michaud or Franken would be the best pick besides the "young good speakers" group. Either one would provide a nice balance to the ticket.

Michaud would be a good candidate, but I think Ed FitzGerald would be even better.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

If Clinton wants a female, she should pick Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who can also be replaced by another Democrat.

[Ogre Mage]

If we are using the traditional "do no harm" criteria for picking a running mate, Klobuchar is a good choice.  Her seat would be filled by a Democratic Governor, Mark Dayton and she is well within the mainstream of the party.  

Klobuchar would be better liked by the base than Kaine but she doesn't come with his experience as a governor, lieutenant governor and head of the DNC.  Also MN is much less of a swing state than VA.