I posted this yesterday:
Take with all the appropriate grains of salt. A whole shaker’s worth. I’m not going to argue that this is true, because who the hell knows. Other reports suggest that California Sen. Kamala Harris is a front-runner. Maybe there are 10 people who are “front-runners.” All I’m going to write here is that whether the rumors I’m hearing are true or not, Klobuchar would be a disastrous pick for VP.
1. Amy Klobuchar would be Tim Kaine 2.0.
Klobuchar promises exactly what Tim Kaine promised—competent technocracy. In a world in which a Democratic victory was guaranteed, that’d be totally okay. We could use a great deal of competent leadership just about now. But we don’t have a guaranteed Democratic victory. Quite the opposite, in fact. Yes, the coronavirus might scramble things, but we can’t assume so. We have to assume that they'll keep their coalition intact.
Hillary Clinton had one job in 2016—win. Kaine did nothing to make that happen. His job was to be an able backup for Hillary if something happened to her, but he did nothing for the ticket. He didn't unify a party split by the Bernie Sanders primary challenge. He didn’t deliver any territory that might otherwise land in Donald Trump’s column. He didn’t reinforce any of Clinton’s perceived weaknesses (other than, perhaps, having a penis). Clinton very specifically picked him for his governing prowess, and that’s not the VP’s first job. The VP’s first job is to get elected.
Notice the Republicans: Dick Cheney brought the neocons aboard the George W. Bush ticket. Sarah Palin was a desperation move to shore up John McCain’s weakness with his base. Donald Trump picked Mike Pence to shore up a disgruntled Christian right. Their VPs are designed to help unite their party. It doesn’t always work (no one was going to beat Barack Obama in 2008), but it’s a sound strategy.
Biden has one job in 2020—win. He would be well advised to pick someone who helps deliver the White House, first and foremost. We have plenty of women who would do that, and still provide competent governance in case he was incapacitated. There’s no need to compromise on the electoral front.
2. Klobuchar doesn’t unite the party
As in 2016, our party is split between center-left and left-left factions. Consistently, throughout the campaign, it was the two left-lane candidates—Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren—who brought out the biggest crowds. Sure, that wasn’t enough to actually win the election, but do you want those excited crowds out working for the nominee, making phone calls, knocking on doors, evangelizing to their friends, coworkers, and family, or do you want them sitting at home simply casting a ballot?
We have a choice between continuing the primary wars deep into the general election, or settling them with a unity ticket that makes (most) people happy. Yes, not every Sanders supporter will be happy, but we can do better than pick someone that explicitly says, “I’m turning my back on the energized faction of the party.”
3. Klobuchar doesn’t have special appeal to the Midwest and Rust Belt
You’ll hear this one a lot: Klobuchar helps us win in the Midwest and Rust Belt, and we have key battlegrounds in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
Yes, those are critical battlegrounds. But if Biden can’t bring Pennsylvania on his own, we’re already screwed. Wasn’t that the whole point of Biden being safe? That he’s from Scranton and can speak the language of working-class rural whites?
But beyond that, Klobuchar parked herself in Iowa—one of those midwestern states—for four years. She put everything she had into the state. And the result?
Pete Buttigieg: 26.2%
Bernie Sanders: 26.1%
Elizabeth Warren: 18%
Joe Biden: 15.8%
Amy Klobuchar: 12.3%
She got fifth place in Iowa, the only “serious” candidate to do even worse than Biden in the state.
There is nothing about Klobuchar that makes her more likely to win Midwestern states than Kaine could do to win rural white people (an argument many made, given his success in winning Virginia rural whites during his gubernatorial run).
4. And our Midwest problem was not necessarily white people
Yes, Trump scooped up disgruntled white voters by appealing to racism and bigotry. But our biggest problem in 2016 wasn’t those white people: it was a depressed urban vote in Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, and other black strongholds. It wasn’t an accident: Republican governors in those states swept into office during the 2010 Republican wave, and immediately set out to make voting harder. It’s no accident that voting in Republican-leaning suburbs is easier than in Democratic-dominated cities and college campuses.
We’ve made huge strides in reversing those voting impediments: all three of those states now have Democratic governors and secretaries of state. While we won’t have the kind of active suppression we had in 2016, many of the structural impediments can’t be erased by fiat, as they were acts of the legislature. We have to work hard to remove as many of those barriers as possible. But we also need someone who can directly speak to the concerns of those voters, which is why I am a fierce advocate of a black woman on the ticket.
Some might argue that Biden has done a good job of activating the black vote all by himself, and he doesn't need a black VP nominee to make further gains. They might be right. I haven't seen data one way or another to validate that argument. But even assuming it’s true, the next demographic battleground is educated suburban white women—the only demographic to have shifted in any significant way since 2016.
Again, I think we need to lock down our core base demographics first, and so I prefer a black woman on the ticket. But if suburban women are the play, then why not pick the candidate who best won educated white women in the primaries? That’s Elizabeth Warren. She’d also be a unifying force, helping bridge the left-center divide. Nothing in Klobuchar’s history suggests she’d be any better than Warren on that front, and she wouldn’t deliver the critical “party unity” component.
So why would would picking Klobuchar be of any possible interest to Biden? This is as good a theory as any:
Klobuchar would certainly be in Biden’s shadow. We’d pretty much forget she was on the ticket, just like we forgot that Kaine was on Clinton’s ticket. But how would that be a good thing? It would be beyond gross negligence if the Biden camp went that direction, just to protect Biden’s alpha status.
The party electorate is resigned to Biden’s nomination, but let’s not pretend that there’s huge excitement for him. People considered him the “safe” choice in these troubled (and getting more troubled by the hour) times. Biden didn’t win because of a massive grassroots army. He was broke. His rallies were empty. He lacked any field or volunteer network. He won because people knew and trusted him—the end. I don’t say that to criticize or diminish; I’m merely stating a simple fact.
Fear of a second Donald Trump term will certainly motivate many to work hard for Biden. Count me in that camp. But fear alone isn’t a sufficient motivator. It wasn’t enough for Clinton in 2016.
People want a reason to work hard for the ticket, not just against Trump. Biden just isn’t that person, but a dynamic running partner would be. I’ve long advocated for a black woman like Stacey Abrams or Kamala Harris. Elizabeth Warren would be a unifying force. Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth would be amazing, and so would Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin, if we didn’t risk losing that Senate seat in a special election. We don’t lack amazing women who would bring a spark to the ticket.
So let’s hope that Klobuchar is, in fact, not at the top of any VP list, not if we want to maximize our chances of winning in November. Remember, the VP nominee has one job—to help us win the election. If she can't do that equal to or better than anyone else, then she shouldn't even be on the list at all.
