The 2016 Democratic nominating contest looks unprecedented so far.\u00a0The party has neither an incumbent president with a VP already in place, nor a competitive field of potential nominees,\u00a0each ready to step up if anyone else falters.\u00a0Instead,\u00a0the Democrats have one candidate who is so far ahead in her own party’s primary race that she\u00a0resembles an incumbent president,\u00a0but no one is obviously ready to replace her should she hit a major obstacle.<\/p>\n
By the way, I am not predicting\u00a0that anything will happen to her. She seems healthy enough, and most of her past has already been relentlessly vetted. But she is human and she could face a crisis\u00a0in the 19 months before Election Day. Democrats have serious grounds\u00a0to worry that if something does\u00a0happen to Clinton, they would be left without a plausible nominee at all.<\/p>\n
If, on the other hand, she were to name a VP candidate soon,\u00a0then a strong\u00a0replacement would be ready\u00a0should she have to withdraw for any reason. Meanwhile, she would have a second Democratic heavyweight to campaign with her for 19 months (possibly someone who would otherwise have been a competitor). Finally, the\u00a0announcement\u00a0could counteract any\u00a0drawbacks to Clinton’s candidacy, such as her age and her reputation\u00a0as a classic insider.<\/p>\n
There are obvious drawbacks to naming a VP\u00a0more than a year before the\u00a0customary date:<\/p>\n
1. It would look arrogant. It\u00a0would indicate that Clinton thinks she is positioned like an incumbent president.\u00a0But she could address that impression directly, saying that she learned the hard way in 2008 that her nomination is hardly inevitable. There are other likely Democratic candidates, and she realizes\u00a0that one of them\u00a0could defeat her. She has\u00a0simply chosen to share her VP choice with the public early; other candidates can do the same.<\/p>\n