Kirsten Gillibrand
- Thread starter Hank Reardon
- Start date
I haven't the foggiest idea what I think yet.
She does matter, in part because she's from New York, she's female and has positioned health care as a right. How much?
I dunno.
I'd prefer she get the nod over Warren simply because I'd rather see Warren in the Senate -- where she could be monumentally effective legislatively -- than in the White House.
Otherwise I have no strong impressions or opinions, one way or another. She's made a name for herself on so-called "women's issues"; she'd better broaden her appeal if she wants to win.
Otherwise I have no strong impressions or opinions, one way or another. She's made a name for herself on so-called "women's issues"; she'd better broaden her appeal if she wants to win.
Let's listen to her.
2013 NYT:
November 2018 Social justice warrior, not a word about jobs and the economy:
Nov 2018 Colbert (long):
Jan 2019 Colbert, for children, healthcare is a right, children's education, job training for all, against institutional racism, greed, corruption and lobbies
She seemed relaxed and uptone in the first three videos. In the last, when she announced her candidacy, she seemed a bit nervous and didn't face the audience one single time, just Colbert. She'll have to overcome any trepidation she has or people will sense that she doesn't have the confidence to take on the job.
2013 NYT:
November 2018 Social justice warrior, not a word about jobs and the economy:
Nov 2018 Colbert (long):
Jan 2019 Colbert, for children, healthcare is a right, children's education, job training for all, against institutional racism, greed, corruption and lobbies
She seemed relaxed and uptone in the first three videos. In the last, when she announced her candidacy, she seemed a bit nervous and didn't face the audience one single time, just Colbert. She'll have to overcome any trepidation she has or people will sense that she doesn't have the confidence to take on the job.
She’s a very formidable candidate for no other reason than she brings the most credibility to the #metoo movement. Biden has the Anita Hill problem, Harris has the sexual harassment of a staffer problem, and Bernie has some issue with a staffer and harassment that came up recently.
She’s a cold, calculating politician that comes across as a sweet, attractive woman. She was a conservative Democrat when it served her purpose, and has gone all progressive lately. I think she would govern from the center. I also think she has the best betting odds of all the Dem candidates, along with Brown. She reminds me of a younger Hillary Clinton without the real or imagined scandals.
She has pissed off a lot of Dem donors by throwing Al Franken and Bill Clinton under the bus, but then, that also gives her credibility as a true champion of the #me too movement. She is a notoriously big time fund raiser in New York and the east coast. A two woman ticket of Harris/Gillibrand may not win the general, but they would shatter fund raising records, as they own their respective money enclaves on both coasts.
She’s not my first choice, although I could quickly get behind her if she won the nomination.
She’s a cold, calculating politician that comes across as a sweet, attractive woman. She was a conservative Democrat when it served her purpose, and has gone all progressive lately. I think she would govern from the center. I also think she has the best betting odds of all the Dem candidates, along with Brown. She reminds me of a younger Hillary Clinton without the real or imagined scandals.
She has pissed off a lot of Dem donors by throwing Al Franken and Bill Clinton under the bus, but then, that also gives her credibility as a true champion of the #me too movement. She is a notoriously big time fund raiser in New York and the east coast. A two woman ticket of Harris/Gillibrand may not win the general, but they would shatter fund raising records, as they own their respective money enclaves on both coasts.
She’s not my first choice, although I could quickly get behind her if she won the nomination.
Kamala Harris, by contrast. Very articulate, presents a big picture view that I find impressive. I could see her winning the nomination because of her rhetorical ability.
January 11, 2019
January 11, 2019
I like a Kamala-Beto ticket. In either order. I also like Amy Klobuchar. Should be an interesting field.
I think Gillibrand is tough and smart. I disagree with most of the criticisms made against her. It looks like she’ll run, and it’ll be interesting to see how she does.
It’s way too early to pick anyone. They’ll all have a process to go through, and I’ll wait and see. But at this early stage Gillibrand looks like a plausible candidate. In a way that people like Julian Castro and Tulsi Gabbard do not. Which means that Castro or Gabbard might be the nominee.
It’s way too early to pick anyone. They’ll all have a process to go through, and I’ll wait and see. But at this early stage Gillibrand looks like a plausible candidate. In a way that people like Julian Castro and Tulsi Gabbard do not. Which means that Castro or Gabbard might be the nominee.
Another good one. Social justice warrior 24/7. Very positive person, which is attractive to voters. Still need to hear her talk about jobs.
This is annoying:
Another challenge to Gillibrand in a Democratic primary is her record. Her political career began in 2007 in the House, where she served an upstate congressional district. Gillibrand’s political positions at the time were much more conservative, and she was among the least liberal members of the Democratic caucus in the House, ranking 209th out of 241 during her 2007-09 term. She held an “A” rating from the NRA and was against protectionsfor sanctuary cities. When Gillibrand was appointed to Clinton’s Senate seat, some on the left wereoutraged. But she made a quick switch in her ideology, embracing a range of liberal policies and seeing her NRA rating downgraded to an “F.” As of December 2017, she was the seventh-most liberal member of the 46-person Democratic caucus. There could be some worry that her voting history — or her hasty disavowal of it — could be used against her by primary opponents battling to prove their liberal bona fides.
Another challenge to Gillibrand in a Democratic primary is her record. Her political career began in 2007 in the House, where she served an upstate congressional district. Gillibrand’s political positions at the time were much more conservative, and she was among the least liberal members of the Democratic caucus in the House, ranking 209th out of 241 during her 2007-09 term. She held an “A” rating from the NRA and was against protectionsfor sanctuary cities. When Gillibrand was appointed to Clinton’s Senate seat, some on the left wereoutraged. But she made a quick switch in her ideology, embracing a range of liberal policies and seeing her NRA rating downgraded to an “F.” As of December 2017, she was the seventh-most liberal member of the 46-person Democratic caucus. There could be some worry that her voting history — or her hasty disavowal of it — could be used against her by primary opponents battling to prove their liberal bona fides.
I wouldn't count her out. She is a very good politician who knows how to win elections.
I don't understand why you think that Castro isn't a plausible candidate. I think any candidate you can point to and say, "that person has a natural constituency" has a chance in a crowded field.I don't see a natural constituency for Gabbard, and she is pissing people off by the day.
Unless an Oprah or Biden enter the fray and suck the oxygen out of the race, I think virtually any candidate has the potential to go viral and become the shiny object. Even with Biden, I'm suspect as to how deep his support truly is among primary voters.
So the 2007 Rep. Gillibrand who had to win elections in upstate New York will be introduced into evidence against the 2019 Sen. Gillibrand who represents the liberal state of New York. That's annoying.
It might be annoying, but its politics. Should she gain any traction, that will be the attack line against her. (or even before she gains traction)
If that's a cogent assessment of our actual politics then I'm obviously out of it. You've just picked the two Pet Rocks in the Democratic field, and predicted that they'll be the ones unless the nomination goes to Oprah (!) or Joe Biden, who couldn't be more jarringly out of step with the times. It's like you're just making this stuff up.
You misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting that it's either them or Biden/Oprah. I wouldn't give Castro more than a 1% chance of winning the primary. (Probably closer to .5%) I'm suggesting that face value, Castro is no less implausible than many of the other dozen+ candidates who will be in the race.
What I'm claiming is that unless an Oprah type candidate enters the race and takes the air out of the ball, long-shots have a shot.
If after what Trump pulled off you don't believe that it's not implausible, then I don't know what to tell you.
Yes. Longshots have a chance. So why is no one talking about Jason Bateman? Because he is one of my favorite TV and movie personalities.
If after what Trump pulled off you don't believe that it's not implausible, then I don't know what to tell you.
That's what 538 suggests.
"There could be some worry that her voting history — or her hasty disavowal of it — could be used against her by primary opponents battling to prove their liberal bona fides."
Her name is too long to be an effective candidate. The majority of the Americans do not have enough patience to hear her name in full before they flip the channel.
So true. Hickenlooper works much better.Her name is too long to be an effective candidate. The majority of the Americans do not have enough patience to hear her name in full before they flip the channel.
Yes. As you say, there could be some worry that questions about Gillibrand's "liberal bona fides" could hurt her in the Democratic primary. As I said, this is annoying. Because I'm a liberal who isn't impressed when told "that's politics."
Maybe Gillibrand will prove a bad candidate. But no Democrat with a lick of sense would reject the obviously liberal Gillibrand because she got her successful start in upstate New York. Candidates who want to place themselves to her left may make noise about that, but unless they're actually better candidates I won't care.
I fully agree with you, but Rockfish is the intelligentsia. We don't know how the party mean will react to these attacks. No one anticipated that Joe Crowley would be successfully attacked for not being liberal enough. (or maybe some did, but I'm not connected to those circles)
She would be my choice. Nice smile with sharks teeth type of woman.
She's a real contender. Very politically savvy and comfortable in her own skin unlike the female Senator from NY she replaced. She sounds authentic when she talks.
People are really underestimating Gillibrand if they just call her Hillary 2.0 or Gillary.
People are really underestimating Gillibrand if they just call her Hillary 2.0 or Gillary.
That ticket would dominate.
My choices as well. In either order. I’d think that Harris/Beto would be the more likely option, unless Beto catches fire. Harris is a former prosecutor, and at least in multiple senate confirmation hearings, she comes across as well prepared and direct. She handled Barr fairly well yesterday when he was being evasive on an answer. Plus, she’s attractive. That never hurts. That shouldn’t matter. But it does.
But that could all change. I’m not wedded to that particular ticket. There’s a lot of good options this time.
What's not been really talked about much is that CA has moved their primary up to early March. This will change the dynamic significantly. Should naturally benefit Harris.... if she can hang around that long.
Yeah, that's been hard to keep in mind. It's a game changer.
It's also good that it happened, partisanship aside. The largest state should have a say in the nomination process, and they've been out of the discussion since the 70s.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You raise an interesting point and one that I find myself choosing different sides on perhaps a daily basis.
Should a politician be their real self when they run or should they morph into something more closely resembling their constituents’ desires? For many this isn’t an issue because the candidates spawn from the same pools of the constituent desires. But when people do obviously change to chameleon into their constituency, I find it irritates me and makes me think that they’re not adding value as an elected official. Any bag of carbon can simply float polls and vote along the results, but I want my leaders to vote the right way given their access to expertise and information far above their constituency.
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
I also struggle with finding the line between when Burke's advice should be followed and when it should not. However, not to speak for Rock, but I don't read that as his objection. Rather I read his objection as using differences between a person's judgments and actions in different jobs in different years as a mode of attack against that person.
I certainly think we can all agree that Burke's maxim doesn't suggest that a representative should be unresponsive to either the interests of her constituencies or new information. But that's what accusations of flip-flopping almost always are: attacks against someone for actually being responsive.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Good response. There is surely a spectrum of how to represent a constituency between using information and judgement and between going with what the people want. The spectrum probably becomes of greater import as the constituency grows and becomes more noise than signal. Advancing from the House to the Senate increases the constituency and thus, in my opinion, should force a good elected rep to vote what’s best for the larger constituency using the new set of tools and judgement and less on what the constituency “wants” or thinks they want.
I haven’t followed Gillibrand’s career. But I can say that what turned me off about Romney as a presidential candidate was just how ridiculously (cartoonishly really) he did a 180 on some of the more impressive acts he carried out as governor.
The other part of the flip-flopping indictment is, we should flip-flop. As facts change so should our beliefs.
She was first elected to congress as a pro-gun, pro-life, Democrat.
Like all D's, she has sold her soul to the progressives.
I’m understand Trump supporters and self-labeled “conservatives” attacking Gillibrand and other reps for flip-flopping because the two aforementioned groups haven’t changed their mind about anything since age 10.
Best I can tell, her two biggest flipflops were on firearms and immigration.
On guns, she went from an A to F with the NRA. On immigration, she went from opposing amnesty and drivers licenses to the exact opposite position.
What material facts changed other than her elected office and needing to appeal to a different constituency? And I'm not taking a position on her candidacy.
In this case, it probably is who she is representing. But there are facts that change, even for these issues. There are people, maybe not as many as some of us would like, to whom something like Newtown or Las Vegas was a sea change in the gun debate.
I watched her segment on the Rachel Maddow show last night. Rachel drilled her on the changes in her beliefs and actions. She said that she started re-evaluating her views after spending time in NYC with a family of a young girl that was killed by a stray Bullet.
She didn’t move the needle either way for me after watching it. If she did have changes of heart, they’re either really genuine or she’s a helluva actress. I’d have to see more of her in action to decide.
It’s tougher for women candidates. And that sucks.
Also, for me, the ability to change your beliefs is a positive. As you become exposed to more and more, your beliefs should change- either they are strengthened, or discovered to be based on false information. But, that change should be more or less gradual- not like what Mitt Romney did a few years ago. He was obviously very uncomfortable with some of the new positions he was forced to adopt in the primary. And it showed.
The dem debates are going to be awesome.
