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.

[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.

[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.