A vice-presidential nominee has one job, and one job only—to help the ticket win. That’s why I’ve written that former Georgia State House Democratic leader Stacey Abrams or Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren would be fantastic, and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar would not be. The number one job is to deliver votes. And a new poll of voters in Michigan and Wisconsin show that Warren runs strongest overall—but, also, is runner-up to Abrams among critical Black voters.
There are three schools of thoughts about the vice president. One of them we can discount off the top—the idea that Biden should pick someone who is “moderate” and could appeal to “Midwestern” voters. That’s the pro-Klobuchar argument, and it’s not a very good one. It does nothing to rally the core party base, and we already have the “moderate” at the top of the ticket. There isn’t a voter in the country who will think “I wasn’t going to vote for that crazy Biden communist, but with Klobuchar on the ticket, I’m aboard!”
This, by the way, is the Tim Kaine theory of the case, and her VP pick might have been the single biggest mistake in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
The other two schools of thought have equal validity:
1) United the party. Clinton was hampered by a split and angry left. We’re already in a better place today than four years ago, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders not just dropping out, but enthusiastically supporting Biden. So much so, in fact, that Bernie has been cast out of the “movement” by the implacable left. Just like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently was. Still, there is a distinct lack of energy among the super-activists on the left—the people who will do the heavy on-the-ground campaign work (whatever that looks like in the Age of COVID).
2. Reward the ones who brought you. Biden would be roadkill without the overwhelming support of the Black electorate. Despite the presence of several top-tier Black candidates, South Carolina was with Biden from the first day to the last. As such, he should pick a Black woman as his running mate to reward that loyalty.
Remember, the top priority of the vice presidential nominee is to win. As long as that prime directive isn‘t violated, the either the “unite the party” or “reward those who brought you” approaches are valid. And there are plenty of candidates in either of those categories that would help us win.
But a group of high-net worth donors of color decided to test whether a female Black nominee would help or hurt the ticket in must-wins Michigan and Wisconsin. Clinton lost both states by less than a single percentage point, in large part because of a suppressed Black vote in Milwaukee and Detroit. Getting the Black vote is critical. Not losing the white vote is also critical. So what did the poll find? Here is the percentage of all respondents in each state who said these candidates would be “good” or “great”:
|
Wisconsin |
Michigan |
| Warren |
62 |
53 |
| Klobuchar |
57 |
46 |
| Whitmer |
29 |
69 |
| Harris |
52 |
44 |
| Abrams |
44 |
49 |
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer kills it in her state, but is a non-factor in just-as-important Wisconsin. Abrams looks a little lower than the others in this poll, but that is excellent news. Who the heck knows who the former Democratic House leader in Georgia is? And yes, her barn-busting gubernatorial bid was a national sensation, but her name ID is lower than anyone else on this list—and she still beats out California Sen. Kamala Harris and Klobuchar in Michigan!
And then the winner-winner—Elizabeth Warren, well ahead in Wisconsin, and second only to Michigan’s governor in Michigan.
These are the numbers most relevant to the “win first” job of the VP.
But how about the “reward those who brought you” numbers? The poll looked at Black voter preferences as well. These were the results among Black voters:
|
Wisconsin |
Michigan |
| Abrams |
38 |
36 |
| Warren |
low 30s |
low 30s |
| Harris |
32 |
22 |
| Klobuchar |
20 |
12 |
It’s surprising that Warren does better than Harris among Black voters, and not far off the pace from Abrams. I don’t have exact Warren numbers because they were weirdly not provided in the poll writeup, and the polling memo hasn’t been shared widely.
Both Abrams and Warren were asked this week whether they’d accept the vice presidential nomination, both said yes, and both would clearly be the top choices for Biden to make.
Abrams is low-name ID, but that would change overnight. And her politics and history are solid, she’d help bring the party’s left along. Perhaps not as quickly and efficiently as Warren, but it would happen. Then, put her on a rotation that has her hitting Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, Raleigh/Durham, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Miami, later, rinse, repeat. If we get the Black vote to turn out in those (and other) critical swing-state cities, it gets very hard for Trump to win.
Meanwhile, Warren does not turn off Black voters, and she’d be instant-unity. Not with the irredeemable malcontents of the left, but no one will get them. Heck, Bernie is now a sellout to them. I’m talking about the reasonable, practical left, people who want to get excited for the ticket, but nothing Biden has done has given them anything to work with.
Warren would also help solidify and turn out the white female suburban vote that has swung in our direction the last two cycles, and helped deliver this week’s stunning Wisconsin victory. Biden has proven his juice with the Black community, and President Barack Obama would be an ally in further working to turn out that vote. (And Obama certainly isn’t shy about his appreciation of Warren.)
Either Abrams or Warren would be amazing picks. Both would help unify the party, and both would bring in additional votes to the ticket.
Other options wouldn’t be bad options. But if we’re looking at the bottom line, it really comes down to Abrams and Warren.
