The Veepstakes: Senate Edition

Without getting into the final weeks of the primary campaign, we can all agree that the nominee, whoever it may be, will need a running mate. Some of the most prominent names thrown out in these kind of discussions are United States Senators- Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown or even Bernie Sanders if he does not win the nomination.

The problem with choosing a Senator, of course, is that control of the Senate may hinge on just a couple of seats in 2017. If Republicans continue in their refusal to confirm Garland, control of the United States Supreme Court is on the line. Even if Garland IS confirmed, there could easily be more vacancies before the 2018 midterms.

Control of the Senate will be absolutely critical to pushing a Democratic agenda under a Democratic President, or halting a radical Republican one under Trump. What this all means is that the method for replacing these Senators is an absolutely critical calculation in terms of whether or not they would be a good pick. There are great arguments (political and practical) to be made for many, many Democratic Senators. Can they help in a swing state or with an ideological bloc of the party? Do they have a particular demographic appeal? Are people going to be comfortable with them stepping in as President if something terrible happens?

The thing is, there are MANY people who fit the bill, and none who are perfect. The political consideration of who steps in for them has to be a major piece of the puzzle.

Laws on Senate vacancies vary from state to state, so it is critical to look at those laws when considering various options.

Sherrod Brown (Ohio)

He says he doesn’t want it, and I believe him

Sorry. I love Sherrod Brown in nearly every way, but he’s a nonstarter. Under Ohio law, Governor Kasich would appoint a replacement, who would serve through the remainder of the term. That means that Brown’s seat would be held by a Republican who would have two years’ of incumbency headed into the 2018 midterms in a purple state.

Ohio Democrats are already spending a lot of energy and money taking out a Republican Senator this year. To take Brown out of the Senate just to sit in the VP’s office while handing Republicans a seat for the next two years doesn’t seem like a smart strategy. Beyond that, Brown is probably too old to be the heir apparent in 2024 so we’d be taking a strong, progressive voice out of the Senate and consigning him to a place where he’d have less impact and likely no future payoff.

Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts)

Seriously, again with  the VP talk?

Senator Warren has been talked about as a potential VP pick as soon as she made it clear she was NOT a potential P pick. Leaving aside the question of whether she wants the job (I don’t believe she does) we can look at how she would be replaced. And there is actually a way to work it out so that we don’t get screwed out of a seat with Warren as the VP pick, but it is a bit complicated. Under MA law, the Republican governor would appoint Warren’s replacement- but that replacement would only serve until a special election could be held. That special election must be held 145-160 days after the vacancy occurs. What does that mean? If Warren were to be the nominee and hold onto her seat through the election, we would end up with a special election in the winter or spring depending on when she actually resigns, a one-off election like the one that sent Scott Brown to represent one of the bluest states in the country. A special election like that is a big gamble, to say the least.

IF, however, Warren were to resign her Senate seat in order to run for the Vice Presidency, she could schedule her resignation in a way that all-but guarantees that the special election will be held with the Presidential general election. If the vacancy is official any time between June 1st and June 16th, the November 8th election will fall right in the midst of the 15 day window for the special election. It is almost inconceivable that the Republicans would try run TWO statewide elections within that two week period.

This means that we’d have a Republican Senator for MA for the lame duck period of June through November. It means that the Democratic candidate in November would have the advantage of not only Presidential election turnout in a state the Democrat is overwhelmingly likely to carry but would ALSO have the additional draw of Warren being on the ticket.

This could work, I suppose, but it would be a bit too cute by half in my estimation and I don’t think Warren wants the gig.

Al Franken

I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and gosh darn it people like me

This is an interesting one. As one of the only (maybe the only, I’ll take another look) Senators who won in 2014 and serves in a state with a Democratic Governor, Franken would be one of the lower-risk picks as far as a replacement goes, depending on how he does things. Under Minnesota law, a replacement is appointed by the Governor (in this case, a Democrat) and then an election will be held in November to fill the seat. If Franken were to resign his seat by June 28th (six weeks before the MN fall primary date) the special election to fill the seat would be held on the same day as the Presidential election. We’d have a Democratic incumbent in the only state Reagan never won running with Presidential turnout. The flip side, though, is that if Franken waited longer to resign, the election would be held in November of 2017. It would be one of only a few elections that November, which means resources could go to keeping the seat and a Democrat would have the advantage of incumbency but it would also be a strange off-year election for Minnesota and could be unpredictable.

Either way, the winner of that special election would be up in 2020, again with the advantages of Presidential turnout in a blue state. (For context, if Klobuchar were tapped it would mean an election in either 2016 or 2017 and then another in 2018)

Kirsten Gillibrand (New York)

If you have to pick just one of us...

The laws in New York are similar to those in Minnesota, but are based on 59 days before the primary election rather than six weeks. Unfortunately, New York’s fall primary is on June 28th, meaning that if Gillibrand were to become the Vice President, her replacement (appointed by a Democrat) would be up for a special election in November of 2017, which is a bit unpredictable even in New York.

The other wrinkle is the fact that Gillibrand and Clinton both call New York home. If Clinton were the nominee and tapped Gillibrand as her running mate, there is a small Constitutional issue. Contrary to popular belief, a President and Vice President can be from the same state. That said, the electors from that same state cannot vote for both of them. If that were the ticket, the New York electors in the electoral college could only vote for one of the two candidates. Given the number of electoral votes New York commands, this could cause some serious confusion if the race is close. If it meant that neither VP candidate got a majority of electoral votes, it could come down to the House of Representatives electing a Republican VP to serve under President Clinton. In an election that close, we could even end up with a tied Senate meaning… all kinds of terrible things. Gillibrand is not a good option for Clinton, and only a shaky one for Sanders.

Tim Kaine (Virginia)

There has been some buzz about Tim Kaine in donor circles, so we’ll take Virginia just to round things out a bit (I don’t think he’s a likely pick partly for the reasons laid out here and several others).

In Virginia, a Democratic Governor would appoint his replacement. So far so good. If the vacancy occurs 120 days before the state’s primary then the special election to fill the seat by the voters would be held this November. Unfortunately, that deadline has already passed. That means that the replacement election would be held in November of 2017. That is a bit of a wild-card in most states, but Virginia is one of the few states that holds Gubernatorial (and other statewide) elections in odd years. Governor McAuliffe, who would be appointing Kaine’s replacement, will also be on the ballot next November, and has shown he can win in an odd year. There will already likely be resources and investment in Virginia in 2017 meaning that this off-year election would be, perhaps, less risky than in another state. That said, the incumbent Democrat would be appointed in 2016, run in November of 2017 and have to run AGAIN in November of 2018. They’d have the advantage of incumbency, but they’d have to be a pretty prodigious fundraiser to build up a warchest to compete in a midterm election in a purple state with just a year to do it.

Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

Things would probably be okay as far as finding a replacement

If Bernie does not win the nomination and Clinton decided to tap him as her Vice Presidential nominee, Vermont law is pretty simple.

If Sanders were to resign his office, his replacement would be elected on the same day as the Presidential race (and then would stand again in 2018). If he held his office until after the Presidential race was decided, the election would have to be held within three months of the vacancy occurring (there would be no interim Senator appointed in either of these scenarios). That would mean an early-spring special election in Vermont for a United States Senate seat. While in many places that could spell trouble, I have no doubt that Vice President Bernie Sanders would be able to pick his successor and help them win a landslide victory in Vermont.

While I don’t think he’d be interested in the job, and I don’t know that Clinton would be all that interested in having him on the ticket, Bernie is a safe pick at least in terms of the makeup of the Senate is concerned. The main issue with him would be having the seat vacant during the first few months of the Administration (though if control of the Senate came down to that seat, Bernie would be the tie-breaker in the Senate anyways).

What does it mean?

There are more Senators who could be tapped than the ones listed here. Obviously there are challenges for all of these Senators even if we’re only looking at the mechanism by which they would be replaced.

President Obama took a great deal of heat for cannibalizing the Senate and some red-state Governors for his cabinet. His own Senate seat has been held by a Republican since 2010 (the Democratic governor of IL appointed a Democrat to fill the rest of his 2004-2010 term). With so much on the line, it seems likely that Clinton or Sanders will both be aware of how much rests on control of the Senate and will take these factors into consideration.

I think it is unlikely that a Senator will be tapped for the Vice Presidency. That said- we have very few elected Governors, so the pool of clearly experienced people is small for Democrats. The Veep selection will be a very interesting window into the thinking about how the Democratic candidate intends not just to campaign, but to govern.