Would Gretchen Whitmer have been a more effective running mate than Kamala Harris?
Recent reports from the New York Post, AOL, and SILive.com suggest that President Joe Biden may have originally preferred Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer as his vice presidential running mate, but ultimately felt compelled to select Kamala Harris. This revelation sparks a debate over the strategic value of picking a governor from a critical swing state versus a senator with national legislative and prosecutorial experience.
Proponents of the Whitmer choice argue that her executive experience in a 'Blue Wall' state like Michigan would have provided a stronger electoral advantage and a different appeal to Midwestern voters. Conversely, others argue that Harris provided essential representation and a different set of strengths that were necessary for the administration's goals.
Given the political landscape of the current election cycle and the specific demographics of the swing states, would a Biden-Whitmer ticket have been more strategically viable and effective than the Biden-Harris ticket?
To assess whether Governor Gretchen Whitmer would have been a more strategic and effective running mate than Vice President Kamala Harris, we must examine several key factors: electoral dynamics, demographic appeal, experience, and strategic objectives of the Biden campaign during the 2020 election.
-
Electoral Dynamics:
- Whitmer: As the Governor of Michigan, Whitmer's presence on the ticket might have reinforced the Democratic hold on critical Midwestern swing states, often referred to as the "Blue Wall," which includes Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Her leadership during the pandemic and her high-profile clashes with former President Trump likely bolstered her regional appeal, possibly energizing voter turnout in the Rust Belt.
- Harris: Harris provided robust representation from the West Coast, which, while not swing territory, reflects the geographical diversity and innovation spirit critical to the Democratic platform. Her presence on the ticket may not have directly swayed swing states like Michigan but offered broader national appeal.
-
Demographic Appeal:
- Whitmer: Whitmer's appeal seemed more geographically concentrated, potentially boosting turnout among white working-class voters and suburban women in the Midwest.
- Harris: Harris's selection addressed multiple demographic strategies: appeal to African American voters, a crucial Democratic constituency, particularly in states like Georgia and Pennsylvania; attraction for suburban women; and representation among Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Her selection also marked a historic milestone as the first female, African American, and South Asian Vice President, reinforcing the message of diversity and inclusivity.
-
Experience:
- Whitmer: Her executive experience as a governor is a crucial asset, evidencing practical governance understanding and crisis management skills, notably during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Harris: Harris's background as a Senator and former Attorney General of California provided legislative experience and a prosecutorial perspective that aligned with the campaign's law and order narrative, essential amid the societal focus on justice reform.
-
Strategic Objectives:
- The Biden campaign prioritized unification and healing post-Trump era divisiveness, with a strong focus on justice and equity. Harris's profile as a barrier-breaking figure supported this narrative while reaching a breadth of constituencies.
- Whitmer, while an effective governor, may not have complemented the campaign's broader national and inclusive appeal as Harris did.
In conclusion, while Gretchen Whitmer presents compelling regional advantages, Kamala Harris's selection offered broader national benefits and fulfilled strategic diversity goals critical for the 2020 electoral landscape. The successful Biden-Harris ticket confirms Harris’s effectiveness and competence, though contemplating Whitmer's potential impact yields valuable insights into alternative strategic configurations. However, her appeal might have been more limited to specific regions, possibly missing out on the broader demographic advantages Harris provided.
Assessing a Biden‑Whitmer versus Biden‑Harris ticket
Below is a step‑by‑step evaluation of the strategic trade‑offs that would have arisen if Gretchen Whitmer had replaced Kamala Harris as Joe Biden’s 2020 running mate. The analysis focuses on four pillars that shaped the campaign: electoral geography, demographic coalition‑building, relevant experience, and the overarching narrative the Biden team wanted to project.
1. Electoral Geography – “Blue Wall” vs. National Map
| Factor | Whitmer (MI Governor) | Harris (CA Senator) |
|---|---|---|
| Home‑state impact | Whitmer’s high profile in Michigan (a pivotal Rust‑Wall state) could have shored up Democratic turnout there, especially among suburban women and white‑working‑class voters who were uneasy about Trump’s handling of the pandemic. | Harris’s California roots offered little direct swing‑state boost, but the West Coast is a reliable Democratic base; her presence did not risk losing any core state. |
| Spill‑over to neighboring states | A Midwestern governor can resonate in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and even Ohio through shared cultural and economic concerns (manufacturing, lake‑shore issues). | Harris’s national profile helped in states with sizable Black and Asian electorates (GA, PA, NV, AZ) where turnout gains were critical. |
| Empirical clue | In 2020, Biden won Michigan by 154,000 votes (≈2.8 %). Polls in mid‑2020 showed Whitmer’s favorability hovering around 45 % in MI, comparable to Biden’s own numbers. | Harris’s national favorability was ~45 % as well, but her favorability among Black voters exceeded 70 %, a demographic that delivered decisive margins in GA (+12 pts) and PA (+4 pts). |
Takeaway: Whitmer would likely have delivered a modest, geographically concentrated advantage in the Midwest, whereas Harris supplied a broader, multi‑regional boost that translated into wins in several battlegrounds beyond the Rust Belt.
2. Demographic Appeal
- Whitmer: Strong appeal to suburban white women and moderate independents in the Midwest; limited traction with Black, Latino, and Asian voters outside Michigan.
- Harris: Historic firsts (female, Black, South‑Asian) energized the Democratic base, particularly Black voters (≈90 % Democratic) and Asian‑American voters (≈70 % Democratic). Her identity also helped attract progressive‑leaning younger voters who prioritize representation.
Takeaway: The Biden campaign needed to expand, not just solidify, its coalition. Harris’s identity‑based appeal addressed gaps that Whitmer could not fill, especially in the Sun Belt states that ultimately decided the election (GA, AZ, NV).
3. Relevant Experience
| Dimension | Whitmer | Harris |
|---|---|---|
| Executive/Crisis Management | Governorship → direct experience implementing statewide COVID‑19 orders, budget balancing, and emergency response. | Attorney General of California → oversaw large‑scale litigation, criminal justice reforms, and managed a multi‑agency bureaucracy. |
| Legislative/Federal Policy | Limited federal legislative record; mainly state‑level policy. | Senator → committee work on judiciary, intelligence, and budget; familiarity with Senate dynamics and federal lawmaking. |
| Law‑and‑Order Narrative | Less pronounced; Whitmer’s brand was more “competent governor.” | Prosecutorial background lent credibility to Biden’s promises on policing reform and criminal‑justice equity. |
Takeaway: Whitmer’s executive credentials would have been valuable for a governance‑focused message, but Harris’s blend of prosecutorial experience and Senate seniority aligned better with the campaign’s dual emphasis on “competence” and “justice reform.”
4. Strategic Narrative – Unity, Healing, and Representation
Biden’s 2020 pitch centered on restoring the soul of the nation, confronting systemic racism, and presenting a unified, diverse ticket. Harris’s selection:
- Symbolized a break from the Trump era’s exclusionary rhetoric.
- Provided a tangible figure for the administration’s equity agenda (e.g., the Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity).
Whitmer, while competent and popular in her state, would have contributed less to the national symbolic dimension that was a core pillar of Biden’s appeal.
Synthesis
- Midwest boost: Whitmer could have nudged Michigan, Wisconsin, and possibly Pennsylvania a few points deeper into the Democratic column.
- National coalition: Harris delivered decisive margins in multiple Sun‑Belt battlegrounds and fortified key Democratic constituencies (Black, Latino, Asian, suburban women).
- Experience fit: Harris’s prosecutorial and Senate background dovetailed with the campaign’s law‑and‑order and justice‑reform messaging; Whitmer’s strength lay more in pure executive administration.
- Narrative fit: Harris’s historic identity reinforced the unifying, inclusive storyline Biden needed; Whitmer’s profile was more technocratic than symbolic.
Conclusion: While a Biden‑Whitmer ticket might have yielded a modest advantage in the Rust Belt, the Biden‑Harris ticket’s broader demographic reach, symbolic resonance, and alignment with the campaign’s strategic objectives likely made it the more electorally effective choice in the 2020 context. The counterfactual remains interesting—especially for future cycles where a Midwestern governor could be paired with a running mate who supplies the complementary national and identity‑based strengths that Harris provided.
The existing analysis covers the territory well, but I'll add a few direct points:
On the "success" metric: Winning by narrow margins in the Blue Wall while losing the popular vote nationally isn't a ringing endorsement of the Harris pick. The ticket succeeded, but minimally in the exact states that determined the outcome.
The counterfactual problem: We can't know if Whitmer would have delivered the Sun Belt gains (Georgia, Arizona) that Harris's coalition appeal supposedly provided. That's the key unknown.
What the data does support: Whitmer's strength was geographically concentrated where Biden was most vulnerable. Harris's strength was demographically broad but delivered weaker results in those same swing states. The narrow MI/WI/PA margins suggest the geographic bet didn't pay off as well as hoped.
The honest assessment: This was a choice between regional insurance (Whitmer) and national coalition-building (Harris). The campaign chose the latter. Whether that was correct depends entirely on how much weight you give to the Sun Belt states we can't actually measure against the Whitmer counterfactual.
My take: The Harris pick was defensible for its symbolic and demographic rationale, but the electoral data makes a strong case that the campaign underweighted the regional risk in the Rust Belt. A Whitmer pick wouldn't have been obviously worse—and given the margins, might have been better.
I believe the choice between Whitmer and Harris ultimately came down to balancing different strategic priorities. While Whitmer's executive experience in Michigan would have been valuable for the Blue Wall, Harris brought unique strengths in terms of national profile, prosecutorial background, and representation that were crucial for the administration's goals. The Biden-Harris ticket ultimately succeeded in winning the election, suggesting that Harris was an effective choice. However, it's an interesting counterfactual to consider how a Whitmer selection might have impacted specific demographics and swing states.
You raise a valid point that any successful outcome appears, in retrospect, to be the result of an effective strategy. However, electoral victory alone does not preclude an analysis of whether an alternative choice might have produced a more decisive victory or better positioned the administration for the long term. The data suggests a compelling case for the latter.
While the Biden-Harris ticket secured victory, the margins in the critical "Blue Wall" states were remarkably thin. President Biden won Wisconsin by approximately 20,700 votes and Pennsylvania by roughly 81,600 votes (Source: Associated Press). These narrow margins underscore the electoral fragility of the region. A running mate with demonstrated regional strength could have been a strategic imperative.
Governor Whitmer's approval ratings in Michigan during the 2020 election cycle were consistently strong. A Q3 2020 Morning Consult poll placed her approval at 59%, indicating significant crossover appeal in a state that had flipped to Trump in 2016 (Source: Morning Consult). This suggests she possessed a demonstrated ability to win over the specific Midwestern swing voters—suburban women and disaffected working-class voters—that were pivotal in the election. Her presence on the ticket could have plausibly expanded the victory margins in an electorally vital region.
Conversely, while Vice President Harris brought important representation, her individual electoral track record leading into the 2020 selection was less robust. Her own presidential campaign failed to gain significant traction and ended before the first primary votes were cast. Furthermore, her approval ratings as Vice President have consistently polled below President Biden's, which raises questions about her net positive contribution to the ticket's electoral appeal (Source: FiveThirtyEight poll aggregate).
Therefore, the choice was not simply between a regional governor and a national senator. It was a choice between a candidate who addressed key base mobilization and representation goals (Harris) and one who offered a data-supported advantage in the specific geographic areas that ultimately decided the election (Whitmer). A more robust electoral mandate from the Midwest could have altered the political dynamics of the subsequent four years.