Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Amy for prez? She’s No. 1 among ’13 women who should think about running’

Sen. Amy Klobuchar is no household name nationally. But U.S. senators run for president all the time.

Amy Klobuchar for president in 2020? It’s a long shot, but I’ve heard crazier ideas, and it’s getting some buzz in The New Yorker magazine.

Liz Fedor has a piece in MinnPost this morning speculating that Klobuchar might be thinking about running for governor in 2018, when Gov. Dayton steps down. I’ve heard that speculation too, and it makes plenty of sense. There are somewhere between 10 and 100 Minnesota pols mulling that race, but how many of them would want to take on Landslide Amy, who was re-elected to the Senate in 2012 by a 35-percentage-point margin?

True, she faced little-known Republican Kurt Bills in that one, but that’s mostly because bigger-name Republicans didn’t like the odds. When she was first elected to the Senate in 2006, she was supposed to have a tough race against Rep. Mark Kennedy, but it turned into a 20-point rout.

I also heard some buzz about Klobuchar as a possible Supreme Court nominee under President Hillary Clinton, but that ain’t happening.

But president? Klobuchar is no household name nationally. But U.S. senators run for president all the time. So, when I saw this piece, in which Amy Davidson of The New Yorker rolled out a list of “Thirteen Women Who Should Think About Running for President in 2020,” and saw that the first name on the list was the senior senator from Minnesota, I thought I’d at least pass it along. Writes Davidson:

1. Amy Klobuchar, senior senator from Minnesota. Popular, practical, appealing, progressive—picture her, for a moment, on a debate stage with Donald Trump, cheerfully taking him down. Why shouldn’t she beat him? Klobuchar has been in the Senate since 2006. When a Minnesota television station asked her, just after the election, if she might consider running in 2020, she said, ‘We just got through a Presidential race, and I love my job and what I do now, and more than ever we need people in the Senate that can work across the aisle.’ We might need people like Klobuchar in the White House even more.”

p.s. No. 2 on Davidson’s list is Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

p.p.s. Do you think an exercise like this could wait until after Inauguration Day?

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (27)

  1. Submitted by Don Oberg-Hauser on 12/14/2016 - 09:21 am.

    Amy for prez?

    She’s a hipper Hillary but I don’t think she would be able to appeal to the rest of the country. She tends to stick to safe issues. She’s a good party Democrat, but we’ve seen where that led us this cycle. Maybe in 3 years, she’ll show more initiative in taking on controversial issues. Running for Gov in MN would be a good stepping stone position for her, so I could see her going for that instead.

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 12/14/2016 - 11:07 am.

      Finger In The Wind Amy

      Remember how hard she fought for the legislation to give consumers greater protection for cell phone contracts? Wow, that was really going out on a limb there. I know several people who wanted worse protections. (Your irony metered should be pegged now.)

      This last election was in large part about economics, and that came out as a debate on TPP. Where was Klobs on that issue? Do you recall? Probably not, because she was tight lipped. Perhaps the most important issue of the election, and she had little to say. Recall also that she voted for the Korean Free Trade agreement.

      And more recently she voted for the 21st Century Cures bill, primarily a give away to Big Pharma.

      AWOL on TPP, in favor of Big Pharma, based on just what is it that people say she’s a “progressive?” Democrats get warm and fuzzy feelings about Klobs; I have no idea why. Being a progressive is more than being in favor of gay marriage.

  2. Submitted by beryl john-knudson on 12/14/2016 - 10:44 am.

    “She tends to stick to safe issues”

    Wish it were otherwise…but the first commentator is right I’m afraid. Nice person, smart but cautious. Not a trail blazer when the issues get too controversial. But then what do I know?

  3. Submitted by Dave Craig on 12/14/2016 - 10:51 am.

    I would appreciate it if all candidates get a fair shake and the DNC doesn’t play favorites like it did with Clinton.

    • Submitted by Eric Ferguson on 12/14/2016 - 08:06 pm.

      There isn’t anything the DNC can do

      It doesn’t matter who in the DNC prefers what candidate. The DNC doesn’t run primaries. States do. Bernie just plain got outvoted.

      • Submitted by Pat Berg on 12/15/2016 - 10:57 am.

        How about all the others?

        How about all the others who may have thrown their hats into the ring had the party insiders not made it so clear that it was “Hillary’s turn”?

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 12/18/2016 - 05:23 pm.

        This is simply a false claim

        The claim that the DNC party elite had nothing to do with promoting Clinton and securing her nomination is simply a false claim. I agree we need to move on, and making false claims about the primaries needs to end as well.

        • Submitted by Pat Terry on 12/19/2016 - 12:22 pm.


          The DNC might have preferred Clinton, but Sanders lost by millions of votes. In fact, he appeared to be more competitive because he benefitted from voter-suppressing caucus states. The process was rigged in his favor and he still lost badly.

  4. Submitted by Mike Downing on 12/14/2016 - 11:05 am.

    Senators have no executive experience…

    Amy Klobuchar is a good Senator who has a good future ahead of her. She would be very wise to gain executive experience by running for MN Governor in 2018 since Senators have no executive experience.

  5. Submitted by Frank Phelan on 12/14/2016 - 11:16 am.

    Didn’t Work, So Try It Again?

    The last Dem presidential candidate was a social liberal who supported free trade and was not seen as a threat to corporate interests. That candidate had her keister handed to her in rural areas of the country, and dragged hundreds of own ballot candidates down to defeat.

    So now, some is talking about running a social liberal who has supported free trade agreements and is not seen as a threat to corporate interests (see her support for the 21st Century Cures Act, which Big Pharma lobbied hard for.)

    Is there something I’m not seeing? Why would the 1K out of work Carrier employees (the ones whose jobs DID go to Mexico) vote for Klobs when they didn’t support Hillary?

    Trump would relish cleaning the clock of a safe, middle of the road candidate like Klobs.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 12/14/2016 - 04:15 pm.


      does not have Clinton’s financial baggage. Despite which Clinton received at least 2.5 million more votes than Trump.
      Klobuchar is a much better ‘retail campaigner’ than (Hillary) Clinton — I’ve been at live rallies. She would be much better at convincing Democrats to get off their collective kiester and vote, which is why we lost.

  6. Submitted by John Ferman on 12/14/2016 - 11:21 am.

    An Amy Campaign Would Surprise Many Pundits

    One fact about Amy is that one of her ‘chips’ comes from her dad, Jim. She can communicate and she does it well. And as fast as the Repubs stack up Amy baggage they will find those bags are filked with helium. Trouble is she is very good in the Senate, so sefishness says stay there.

  7. Submitted by Steve Titterud on 12/14/2016 - 11:37 am.

    If the claim that Sen. Klobuchar is a “progressive”

    …isn’t enough hyperbole, why not go further and say she has wings and can fly ??

  8. Submitted by Roy Everson on 12/14/2016 - 02:33 pm.

    Wait another generation, folks

    There is no evidence America is ready for a woman president. America was also not ready for a black president, as evidenced by the racial nature of the reaction of his opponents, who defeated his preferred successor.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 12/15/2016 - 09:35 am.

      Let’s say that

      ALL Americans are not ready for a black president.
      The fact that his approval ratings right now are high shows that MOST Americans are.
      Some never have been and never will be.

    • Submitted by Pat Terry on 12/15/2016 - 01:44 pm.


      I’d say the fact a mediocre woman candidate who ran a poor campaign got more votes and lost the presidency by under one percent in a couple of states is pretty good evidence.

  9. Submitted by Charles Holtman on 12/14/2016 - 05:43 pm.

    An obscenity

    The horserace orientation of media coverage contributed substantially to the catastrophic failure of self-governance that has just occurred.

    The media now are leaping nimbly over the four years of devastation that lies ahead to begin the horserace coverage for 2020?

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/15/2016 - 09:10 am.


      Coverage of this year’s election was all about the “horse race” and scandals. There was nothing about policy. Now, the horse race is starting again and we haven’t hit Inauguration Day. It’s as if we can overlook the devastation the Trump regime will wreak on our nation and the world because there’s another election coming that can undo it all.

      That will be small comfort in the years to come.

      • Submitted by Charles Holtman on 12/15/2016 - 12:35 pm.

        I’d say it’s even worse than that.

        It’s not that the media or broader public are operating on the notion that the damage can be undone in four years. It’s that what the folks we elect actually do has ceased to have any meaning … instead it’s the passive entertainment of the horseraces, one after another. Civic life as an afternoon at Hialeah.

  10. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 12/15/2016 - 11:25 am.

    My vote…

    I’d like to see Kobuchar as Governor and Gabbard as president. They’d both win, and bring the legislators and congress with them.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 12/15/2016 - 01:11 pm.

      So far

      Gabbard has even less national name recognition that Klobuchar.
      First she ought to get elected Governor, which is where most Presidents start.

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 12/19/2016 - 08:02 am.

        Again with the Clinton mentality?

        This is the kind of reasoning that put Clinton on the ballot and if a democrat is going to take the White House in 2020 we have to do better than that.

        Here’s a list of candidates than had no national name recognition when they announced their run for President: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and a guy named Obama. And Obama had never been a governor. I can provide a list of democratic presidential candidates that were never governors as well, one was named Kennedy. Neither of these conditions are necessary for a successful presidential run.

    • Submitted by Pat Terry on 12/15/2016 - 01:31 pm.

      Gabbard is a non-starter

      She got some progressive cried for jumping on the Bernie bandwagon and quitting the DNC, but when you dig a little deeper it’s not pretty. No surprise she met with Trump.

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 12/18/2016 - 10:30 pm.

        This article isn’t credible.

        I don’t have time to dig into it further but this article raises several red flags for the attentive reader. The author makes several claims about Gabbard but then claims that there is no evidence to support those claims because Gabbard has “scrubbed” the internet. This is simply not a credible claim, no one can “scrub” the internet.

        Beyond that the author makes another claim that Gabbard is somehow associated with Narendra Modi (the current Prime Minister of India) and shares some alleged right wing ideological agenda with Modi. However beyond the fact that Gabbard and Modi both belong to the Gaudiya Vaishnavism sect of the Hindu faith, the author presents absolutely no evidence of any association much less a shared right wing agenda.

        In short the piece a rather transparent effort to monger fear and anxiety regarding Gabbard’s religion.

  11. Submitted by Greg Olson on 12/15/2016 - 03:56 pm.


    It’s time people who vote Blue take a hard look at Party leadership, compare what they are willing to risk in negotiations, what they take responsibility for, who they blame for current circumstances, and how that all fits with our Party’s elected leaders stated goals and promises to us. I don’t recall Obama promising he’d repeatedly bargain with my Medicare and Social Security. I never heard him promise the poorest people in the country he’d propose the Sequester which left tax breaks for the wealthy in place, making it the responsibility of the poor to bear the burden of reducing spending when so little is spent on them. All this in the background where the two stimulus packages went to resuscitate the “too big to fail” banks which are even bigger now than they were in 2009. The poor souls who retirement was gambled away by these thieves get to work until they die. They won’t be voting Blue and they have families. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. The last thing we need in a candidate is one that’s cozy to the pharmaceutical industry, Wall Street, and Trade Agreements.

  12. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 12/20/2016 - 10:34 am.

    My vote part two

    I’m not saying Klobuchar would be a bad president, but I think democrats need to form a deep and nationwide campaign that targets local and national offices. Frankly, I don’t see any other democrats in MN that could keep the governors mansion blue in the next election and the MNDFL will likely promote the lamest candidate they can find as usual. We need a candidate that can rise above party mediocrity like Dayton and Franken did, and while I can think of some other good candidates Klobuchar’s name recognition and statewide popularity give her a clear advantage.

    Gabbard would be very strong presidential candidate that would represent a critical liberal shift for the democratic party. American’s are ready to vote for a woman, they just didn’t want to vote Hillary Clinton, in fact I think democrats went out of their way to find the woman candidate the so many Americans didn’t want to vote for. Gabbard is young, savvy, smart, liberal if not progressive, and she’s telegenic and charismatic. She’d also run an issue oriented campaign and likely find a compelling theme. in short the opposite of HRC. Like Bill Clinton, Obama, and Carter her relative obscurity would work in her favor because the American voter is and will probably still be in the mood for a candidate who will challenge the status quo. And unlike MM, Hawaii looks to be on more solid ground to keep its governor blue.

    While Klobuchar could win the presidency, Gabbard has just a good if not a better shot. If Klobuchar runs for MN governor and Gabbard for pres, we get a two-fer. If Klobuchar runs for pres we get a blue pres but a red governor.

    • Submitted by Aaron Albertson on 12/23/2016 - 07:18 am.

      I think Klobuchar should run for governor

      Nolan should run for Senate as I think he’d have the Next best Senate appeal. My breakdown would be as this
      1st- Trump tapped into it, however, it’s been trending blue otherwise. With the right candidates they could win. My prediction is Klobuchar and Nolan could both win
      2nd- Seeing as the Dems will try to flip it, i’d say both have a good shot at winning the district, but it would be about 50-50
      3rd- Obviously been getting more blue, but still fairly conservative fiscally. I think Klobuchar could win, but not Nolan
      4th- Both would win easily
      5th- Both would win, and should employ the Ellison model to increase turnout
      6th- Both would lose. No chance this district goes blue in 2018
      7th- Seems to be quite conservative socially, but there are some fiscal liberals there. I bet Klobuchar would lose, but Nolan could win
      8th- Obviously Nolan’s home district, and I think without Trump at the top of the ticket, both could win this district.

Leave a Reply