I think she (Klobuchar) is the best pick. This general election will, like always, turn on the swing states. That means mostly the Upper Midwest. Trump will win the South, save maybe VA and NC, the non-coastal inland West, and the Great Plains. The Democrat nominee will win the Northeast and the West Coast. That leaves the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes region as hotly contested. Klobuchar will shore up the Upper Midwest. She’ll also get some boost from the novelty of being the first woman VP or Pres. I expect many women would have voted for any woman but Hillary—who carried enormous baggage.He is a featherweight - one of the most superficial political figures I've ever seen. There's truly nothing there. By far the biggest asset he had was the media. They licked his nut sack 24/7. It was more favorable than what Obama got in 2008.
And this will show how stupid the electorate was and is. Beto is a joke - just a dumbass with no accomplishments to his name, and he almost defeated Ted Cruz.
Six years earlier, Ted Cruz's opponent was a guy named Paul Sadler. Sadler wasn't "intersectional" and didn't pretend to be like Beta did, and he didn't make women horny. However, he was a man of real accomplishment. He spent 12 years in the Texas House, and he had a comprehensive knowledge of the issues. (I know, because I worked there and saw the guy in action. The hair on his left nut has more brains than Beto O'Rourke does.) Furthermore, he carried some of the most important and complicated education and tax legislation of the decade. He leaned Left but was overall a moderate and wasn't very partisan. He worked very well with Democrats and Republicans and generally had a reputation of honesty. In other words, he was a statesman. Despite all that, nobody threw money at him. Nobody got excited about him. Nobody gave him much of a chance, and no surprise, he lost by 16 points.
I'm not saying that people should have chosen Sadler over Cruz. Texas should elect conservatives. However, by any objective or mature evaluation, Sadler was 100 times more deserving of someone's vote than Beto O'Rourke was. If you didn't vote for Sadler but did vote for Beta, you're pretty much a dumbass and probably shouldn't have the right to vote at all.
I doubt that he will choose Klobuchar. She brings in moderate Midwestern appeal, but Biden is fairly good at attracting that himself. Furthermore, though she is everything you say she is, she is also boring and won't inspire young voters and leftists who will want someone young, intersectional (more so than Klobuchar who might be the whitest woman in America), or hard left. Biden will need to make overtures to them if he wants his base amped up. He could get someone who's intersectional - Harris (kinda black), Booker (also kinda black and maybe gay), or Buttitgieg (very white but very gay), or he could get someone who's less intersectional but hard left like Warren (hard left and very white but at least pretends not to be and is also female).
I also admire the way she boldly and clearly called bullish!t on Bernie and Warren’s healthcare $ numbers. That pissed off Bernie and Warren, but won her points with the more normal Dems And the Independents.
She’s just got to hang in there and keep inching up the charts. If this is a contested convention (and it might be), she would be a good compromise candidate. The superdelegates are party insiders and she’s a female Senator from the Midwest. Else, she’d make somebody a good VP candidate.
Her weaknesses: her stereotypical ‘loud-mouthed pushy Yankee woman’ plays terribly in the South which could hurt in Southern swing states like VA and NC. She lacks charisma. Her jokes are terrible and forced. Black voters are less than enthralled with Amy K thus far.
Last edited: