Amy Klobuchar and Other Plan B Democrats in 2016

[rogead]

Originally Posted by ay1915

I am a political junkie and have been hoping for a more competitive Democratic field for next year's election. For those who hope Hillary will have a challenger, I hope everyone now realizes that Elizabeth Warren is not running (nor should she run, because she is inexperienced in all aspects aside from Wall Street-based reform). Warren would be better suited either in the Senate or maybe in the Clinton administration.

Anyway, who do you guys think could be the strongest candidate that is not being highlighted in the media?

I think Senator Klobuchar (while not the strongest overall candidate) is an underrated one in the 2016 conversation. She is a part of the Farmer-Labor branch of the Democratic party (so, she would have a populist edge to her). She seems to have a friendly demeanor and is not terribly polarizing for standing with the left-of-center Farmer-Labor. She is also known for working across the aisle.

Overall, she is not tied to Wall Street. She is liberal, not a hawk, yet known to compromise. She is relatable, down-to-earth and seems genuine. She is ambitious. She would be more electable than Warren, because she is not as confrontational and divisive in tone/demeanor.

I know Klobuchar has put support behind Hillary, but why aren't more Democrats pushing for her to run? And who should they be encouraging to run against Hillary instead?

There's nothing populist about Amy Klobuchar. She is the more conservative of Minnesota's two Democratic senators. She's certainly ambitious and politically savvy, but if you look at the bills she has sponsored, they largely fall into the "feel-good" category. In spite of her ambitions, she simply doesn't have Clinton's party machine connections yet. Although, being female and being considered a moderate, she might be a long-shot VP candidate in an unlikely scenario in which Clinton is not the presidential candidate.

Progressives in the party--and there really aren't very many--would be well advised to support Warren. She is the only potential candidate who has at least minimal progressive credentials (Bernie Sanders, of course, is not a Democrat, nor would the party even consider him as a nominee). However, Warren will be totally unacceptable to the party's inner circle. Feminists have an extraordinary amount of rank-and-file power within the Democratic Party, and they see Clinton as a symbolic figure who has the best chance to become the first female US President. In addition, Clinton is strongly pro-Wall Street and pro-capitalist. This matches the ideology of the Democratic Party's power structure. For all practical purposes, the nomination is already hers. Now it's simply a matter of whether or not someone will be able to somehow take it away from her.

[mufc1878]

Originally Posted by ay1915

My initial post was not asking if Klobuchar was running, because I think it is clear that she will wait until after 2016. My main question was why aren't Democrats pushing her to run? She is liberal, a populist, down-to-earth personality, known to compromise/not divisive, and she is not a hawk. All of those qualities are aspects that Hillary is lacking.

I'm sure the common response will be that Klobuchar would have a hard time winning, but I think Elizabeth Warren would have a difficult time winning as well (and that sure hasn't stopped people from urging her to run).

If you have any contacts on the hill, you know that Klobuchar's staff does not really like working for her. She isn't all puppies and sunshine.

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, she has not used her senate position to articulate a singular visionary focus that resonates with the times.

With Obama it was "I was right on the war, HRC was wrong. I am therefore visionary and provide hope and change". The war was the seminal issue in 2007 (prior to financial crisis). If HRC voted against the war, she becomes POTUS. It is that simple as Obama would not have had enough contrast.

With Warren it is "The banks/big biz are vultures & I will slit their throats (metaphorically). Wealth/Income inequality is something the populous can feel and taste with the fiber of their being, and I can try to change that trajectory."

HRC IMO is another GHWB41. Pretty resume (though nowhere near as impressive as 41's) but lacks a vision.

Klobuchar, as a senator, has not really used the platform to articulate a vision and therefore it is why she isn't being pushed to run.

[drishmael]

Originally Posted by rogead

"There's nothing populist about Amy Klobuchar. She is the more conservative of Minnesota's two Democratic senators."

That's not saying much.

"She's certainly ambitious and politically savvy, but if you look at the bills she has sponsored, they largely fall into the "feel-good" category. In spite of her ambitions, she simply doesn't have Clinton's party machine connections yet. Although, being female and being considered a moderate, she might be a long-shot VP candidate in an unlikely scenario in which Clinton is not the presidential candidate."

I don't think it's such a long-shot. If she doesn't wind up as Senate majority leader or on the Supreme Court, I'm betting she'll end up on a presidential ticket sometime in the coming decades. Another scenario, admittedly less likely, is tapping her to run for governor of Minnesota in 2018. Based on past results, she'd seemingly be a shoo-in, and with the DFL controlling the legislature in 2021 (2020 is a presidential year), there'd be an opportunity to redistrict the MN GOP out of existence.

[Drewcifer]

Klobuchar tends to speak in vague, empty platitudes, mostly full of the feel good variety. The ghost of Paul Wellstone she ain't. Unless she can raise her game she should be nowhere near the Presidency. If a Minnesota senator were to run for President I would much rather it be Franken. Despite the perceptions caused by his earlier career as a comedian, he is the real deal in terms of articulating and advancing a progressive agenda. He is much more of an intellectual too.