Showing posts with label Kirsten Gillibrand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kirsten Gillibrand. Show all posts

Friday, August 30, 2019

Gillibrand Drops Out (And Others Need To Do The Same)

Slowly but surely, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is winnowing out the candidates who have no chance at securing the nomination.

Some candidates are whining because they couldn't qualify for the third debate to be held in September. They want to blame the DNC for being unfair to them. That's ridiculous. The qualifications the DNC laid down for that debate are low (2% support I four polls and 130,000 individual donors), and anyone who can't meet that should not be in the race.

The latest casualty is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. She dropped out on Wednesday, saying without being in the next debate she just didn't see a path to winning. But I give her credit -- she didn't try to blame the DNC for her own failure, saying:

 “I think the D.N.C. did the best they could.”

She also said:

“I think that women have a unique ability to bring people together and heal this country. I think a woman nominee would be inspiring and exciting.”
“I will support whoever the nominee is, and I will do whatever it takes to beat Trump.”

It was time for Gillibrand to go, and there are at least 10 others who need to do the same thing. They have no chance to win, and are just wasting everyone's time and their donor's money.

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Is The Gillibrand Candidacy A Waste Of Time And Money?

It is an understatement to say the Kirsten Gillibrand bandwagon is off to a slow start. That bandwagon seems to be motionless.

Gillibrand, in the first quarter, raised less money than any of the other supposedly qualified candidates. And in every national poll of Democratic candidates to date, she has scored less than 2% support.

Why is she having so much trouble get her candidacy off the ground?

You might think that it's because she's not well known to voters outside her home state of New York. That's true. But she's not even very popular inside the state of New York. A Quinnipiac University Poll from last March (done of New York voters) showed she has a favorable rating from only 29%, while she was viewed unfavorably by 35%. And it wasn't a whole lot better among Democrats (42% favorable to 20% unfavorable). That's not good when less than half of home state Dems view her favorably. Why should national Democrats support her when her home state doesn't?

Gillibrand was quick to jump on board the "Me Too" movement. Nothing wrong with that, since that's something most Democrats support. But she did it by knifing Senator Al Franken in the back by demanding he resign from the Senate -- because of a right-wing effort to denigrate him with a fake accusation. Most Democrats were upset by that, even women, because they knew Franken was one of the strongest male supporters of women's rights in the Senate.

Another reason for her slow start is that there doesn't seem to be a lane for her to run in. For those wanting a woman to be nominated, there are three other female senators in the race -- Elizabeth Warren (on the left), Kamala Harris (center-left), and Amy Klobuchar (centrist). All are more credible and better campaigners, and that haven't left Gillibrand with a constituency to appeal to.

Also troubling some is her seeming with on issues. As a House member, she was center-right on issues. To become a senator, she moved to the left. What are her real beliefs?

There is no candidate for which the June debates are more important than Gillibrand. She must break out after a great debate performance, and star showing better in the polls. If she doesn't, her candidacy may not last out this year.

Friday, March 29, 2019

Gillibrand's Record On Guns Won't Help Her Presidential Bid

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) is running for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination. But so far, she has been unable to get above 1% or 2% in any of the polls of Democrats.

Part of the reason may be because voters outside of New York are not very familiar with her. But part may also be that Democrats remember she was the first, and most vocal, Democrat to demand that Senator Al Franken resign (even though the charges against him were spurious and unproven).

Now something else has been revealed that won't help her with Democrats -- her past support of gun rights (and her support by the NRA).

Here is part of the report by Andrew Kaczynski and Nathan McDermott at CNN:

Speaking at the official launch of her presidential campaign on Sunday, US Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand singled out the National Rifle Association as an example of special interests taking priority over the will of the people.
"Right now, special interests are displacing the voices of the people of this country. Find me a so-called unsolvable problem, and I will point you to the greed and corruption in the way," Gillibrand said, speaking in front of Trump International Hotel in New York. "The NRA stops popular, common sense gun reform, while stray bullets kill children in our communities."
But during her tenure in the US House of Representatives from 2007-2009, then-Rep. Gillibrand fought vigorously in defense of gun rights, including the right to own handguns. While in the House, the New York Democrat represented a more conservative, rural district, compared to the more liberal statewide constituency she represents as a senator.
Gillibrand's position, which was politically advantageous at the time in earning the endorsement of the NRA in her 2008 re-election bid, could now prove a political liability in the 2020 Democratic primary.
    Gillibrand has said she regrets her past positions and frames her views on guns at the time as supporting hunting rights.
    "On guns, I should have done more, I regret not caring about other communities," Gillibrand said at an MSNBC town hall last week. "My community didn't have the gun violence that other parts of the state had, and, in fact, the biggest issue for upstate New York was hunting rights."
    But Gillibrand's advocacy extended beyond hunting rights. She signed an amicus brief that argued for overturning a handgun ban in Washington, DC, and that private gun ownership was a guaranteed right unconnected to service in a militia.
    The amicus brief was submitted to the US Supreme Court while the court was hearing the 2008 landmark case, District of Columbia v. Heller. The court ultimately repealed the city's strict gun control laws in a sweeping victory for gun rights advocates. . . .
    At the same time the Heller case was moving through federal courts, Gillibrand co-sponsored legislation that would revoke the city's gun control laws. The proposed bill, however, went much further in restricting the city's ability to write its own gun laws than the court's ultimate decision. The core of the proposed bill, called the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act," made it so that Washington, DC, would not be allowed to pass any laws restricting firearm usage and ownership that exceed existing federal rules.
    The pro-gun bill also would have repealed the city's ban on semi-automatic weapons, most registration requirements for possession of firearms and a ban on owning ammunition. These aspects weren't addressed by the Supreme Court. . . .
    Gillibrand's support for such measures was key in her earning the backing of the NRA in her 2008 bid for re-election, with an "A" rating from the NRA indicating she was a "solidly pro-gun candidate." Gillibrand boasted of the "A" rating on her House website.
    "As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, it is a privilege to have the endorsement of the NRA and the support of Upstate New York's gunowners and hunters," Gillibrand said at the time. . . .
    By September 2010, her NRA grade changed from an "A" to an "F." Meredith Kelly, Gillibrand's communications director for her presidential campaign, said she proudly earned the NRA's repudiation.
    "Senator Gillibrand proudly earned an 'F' rating from the NRA a decade ago, and has been a passionate advocate for critical reforms to address the scourge of gun violence across our country ever since," Kelly told CNN's KFile in an email.

    Monday, March 18, 2019

    Gillibrand Makes It Official - She's One Of The 15

    I'm giving myself 30 lashes with a wet noodle!

    I honestly thought Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) was already an official candidate for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2020.

    After all, she's been acting like one. She's stormed all of the early caucus/primary states, and she's been trumpeting her candidacy on every TV show that will have her on. But it looks like I was wrong.

    On Sunday, she made her candidacy "official". Here is the e-mail she sent to Democrats yesterday.
    Defending and perfecting our democracy is a choice we make again and again, and today I’m announcing I’m running for president because my choice is to stand up, fight for it and speak out for our future.
    By coming together to build a movement and win in 2020, we’ll get back to the truth of who we are. We’ll reject self service and return to public service. We will summon the bravery at the heart of our history to root out attacks based on fear. You’ll have leadership who hears you, because that’s always the place to start.
    As I’ve prepared for this moment, I’ve traveled across the country, from Sioux City to Concord to Houston to Charleston. I’ve met people in homes, cafes and breweries. I’ve asked: What do you and your community need? And I carry your answers and stories with me.
    I will fight, from day one in office, for a Green New Deal. We have to keep our air and water safe and protect the future of our planet. We will pass Medicare for All and universal paid family leave, and we will confront the NRA to finally address gun violence and make our communities safer.
    None of this is possible without taking on the corporations and special interests that have exploited the common good for their own profit. So bring them on.We’re going to do this without support from corporate PACs, federal lobbyists or a super PAC. We’re going to do it together, as a movement of the people.

    You can count on me to see this fight through because that’s what I’ve always done.
    I’ve been fighting for more accountability since I got to Congress. I was the first member to post my daily meetings, financial disclosures and taxes publicly.
    I have the most anti-Trump voting record in the entire Senate. It wasn’t anything I set out to do, but a result of asking myself each time: Will this law or cabinet official help or hurt people?
    As president, I’ll ask the opposite: How can we make people’s lives better?
    We’re going to defeat Trump, but we also have to take on everything he represents. The division and finger-pointing. The corruption and self-dealing. The sense that Washington doesn’t care and has stopped listening.
    I hear you. I’m listening. And it’s why I’m running.
    But like any effort to turn the tides of history, we’ll only succeed if we do this together. Take a moment—before midnight—to donate any amount you can and claim your place in this movement.

    From the bottom of my heart, thank you,
    Kirsten

    Saturday, June 16, 2018

    If The 2020 Election Was Today, Trump Would Likely Lose







    These charts reflect the results of a new Public Policy Polling survey -- done between June 8th and 10th of a national sample of 679 registered voters, with a 3.8 point margin of error.

    The poll asked respondents who they would vote for if the 2020 presidential election was today. Trump came up short against all six of the proposed opponents he could face. He finished 14 points behind Democrat Joe Biden, 8 points behind Democrat Cory Booker, 8 points behind Democrat Elizabeth Warren, 6 points behind Democrat Kristen Gillibrand, 5 points behind Democrat Kamala Harris, and 9 points behind Independent Bernie Sanders.

    Monday, April 02, 2018

    Leading Candidates For The 2020 Democratic Nomination


    This chart reflects the results contained in a recent CNN / SSRS Poll. The poll was done between March 22nd and 25th of a random national sample of 1,014 respondents. This chart only shows the responses of Democrats and Independents, and the margin of error for those groups in 8.5 points.

    The respondents were asked whether they could see themselves possibly supporting each of six possible candidates -- Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

    Joe Biden continues to be the leading candidate, followed closely by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand have a lot of work to do if they are going to be serious contenders. But it's still early. There's a couple of years to go before voters have to choose their favorite, and things could easily change.

    One thing I found interesting is the choice of Independents. Sanders supporters claim that he could do something other candidates could not do -- bring Independents around to supporting Democrats. But this poll shows that Biden actually does as well (maybe slightly better) than Sanders among Independents.

    I would like to see a poll that pitted Biden and Sanders head-to-head. I think Biden would easily eclipse him.

    Sunday, February 18, 2018

    Biden Still Would Do Better Than Others Against Trump


    Who has the best chance to beat Donald Trump in 2020? Public Policy Polling asked respondents who they would vote for in match-ups between Trump and Democrats Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Joe Kennedy, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, or Kirsten Gillibrand -- or Independent Bernie Sanders.

    The poll respondents chose Joe Biden as the best candidate to oppose Trump (at least for now). Biden would beat Trump by 9 points, while Sanders and Booker would beat him by 4 points. Warren, Harris, and Gillibrand were tied with Trump.

    I know some progressives don't want Biden as the candidate, but right now he is the obvious choice. Of course a lot could change in the next couple of years.

    The poll was done between February 9th and 11th of a random national sample of 687 registered voters, with a 3.7 point margin of error.

    Friday, January 19, 2018

    Most Voters Don't Want Oprah Winfrey To Run For President



    There is still talk on social media (and on cable news) about the possibility of Oprah Winfrey running for president. What does the general public think? Do they want to see Winfrey run? If this poll is to be believed (and I think it should be), then the answer is NO.

    By a 35 point margin, all registered voters say they do not want Winfrey to run for president, and when only Independents are queried, that margin rises to 36 points. Even Democrats are opposed -- by a 5 point margin.

    The poll then put Winfrey head to head in a primary run against four other Democrats who might run in the Democratic primary. The second chart shows those result (with only Democrats being questioned). Winfrey would do well against Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand, but there are a lot of undecideds in those match-ups. She doesn't do nearly as well against the two current favorites -- losing to Bernie Sanders by 9 points and to Joe Biden by 23 points.

    This is the Politico / Morning Consult Poll -- done between January 11th and 16th of a random national sample of 1,993 registered voters, with a 2 point margin of error.

    Thursday, January 18, 2018

    Biden Is Most Popular Of Possible Presidential Candidates




    I found these numbers interesting, and thought you might also. They are from the new Quinnipiac University Poll done between January 12th and 16th of a random national sample of 1,212 voters, with a 3.4 point margin of error.

    There's still a couple of years before voters need to seriously consider who they want for president in 2020. That's a lot of time, and lots could happen to she things up between now and 2020.

    But if we had to decide right now, Joe Biden is in a very good position. The public views him favorably by a 24 point margin. He is followed by Bernie Sanders with a 10 point margin and Oprah Winfrey with a 14 point margin. Kirsten Gillibrand is not known by enough of the public to have a good rating. And Donald Trump, who will probably be the GOP nominee, is upside-down with a 20 point negative margin.

    Biden is also the only candidate to have more saying they would be inclined to vote for him than not. All of the other candidates are in negative territory on that question -- including Sanders and Winfrey. And Biden also leads all the other when you consider just Democrats and Independents (which would give him the inside track to get the Democratic nomination).

    Voters might have a different attitude by 2020, but at least for right now, Joe Biden is the person to beat.

    NOTE -- Other possible Democratic candidates (Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, etc.) were not included in this poll. I wish they had been, because it would be interesting to see how they rate with the public.

    Thursday, March 23, 2017

    Who Should The Democrats Should Nominate In 2020 ?


    I'm sure many of you will think it's far too early to be picking a candidate for 2020 -- and you are right. But it's not too early to start thinking about who the Democrats have that could win in 2020, because getting Trump out of the White House in the next election is critical for the well-being of this country (or getting Pence out if Trump doesn't last that long).

    The Harvard / Harris Poll asked that question of 2,092 registered voters between March 14th and 16th. The results are shown in the chart above. No "candidate" got a lot of support -- with the leaders being Bernie Sanders (who's NOT a Democrat) at 14%, Michelle Obama (who will not run) at 11%, Elizabeth Warren at 9%, and Hillary Clinton at 8%.

    The overwhelming choice was that someone new was needed. I agree with that. The Democrats need a new candidate without a lot of baggage -- a candidate that can offer a fresh prospective.

    I have a couple of people that I like for the job. They are pictured below -- former ambassador Caroline Kennedy and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. I believe either could energize the party and garner the support of most Americans -- and both are good progressives.



    Wednesday, March 12, 2014

    Senate Bill Won't Fix The Military Sex Assault Problem


    In 2012, there were 26,000 cases of sexual assault in the United States military -- and that's just the number that were reported. It is believed that there were many more that were not reported, because the victim feared retaliation or expected that nothing would be done. That's a serious and shameful problem -- and as the chart above shows, the American public knows it. A new Rasmussen Poll shows that 82% of the public says it is a serious problem.

    Last year, Congress passed a bill that was a good first step in solving this problem. That bill provided an attorney for a victim, made retaliation against a victim a federal crime, required anyone convicted of sexual assault to receive a dishonorable decision, and removed the authority of military commanders to overturn a guilty verdict. But the bill stopped short of making the biggest change that needed to be made -- taking the decision on whether to take a sex assault case to trial away from military commanders (and putting it in the hands of legal professionals).

    Those opposing that change said it would hurt the authority of military commanders to do their job in commanding troops. I think that's ridiculous. They would have the same authority they always had to perform the job they have been given -- to command troops and wage necessary wars. They just would no longer be put in the middle of a sexual assault case, which they have not been trained to deal with. In fact, not having to decide whether to pursue a sex assault case or not might actually help them, since they would no longer be responsible for a decision (either way) that could prove to be unpopular.

    I do think, or at least I hope, that most military commanders would make good decisions on whether to prosecute a case or not. But it only takes a few rotten apples to stink up the whole barrel. And there are weak or stupid commanders who would try to cover up a sex assault instead of prosecuting it -- because they like the officer or soldier, or because they think the officer or soldier is particularly good at the job, or maybe just because they think a sex assault prosecution would look bad for them personally (making it look like they weren't a good commander). These are all things that have no place in the decision on whether to prosecute, and putting the decision in the hands of legal professionals would eliminate them.

    Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) tried to fix this problem this year. She, along with some other senators, introduced a bill that would take this decision out of the hands of military commanders. She had majority support for the bill, but the bill was filibustered and she couldn't get the 60 votes necessary to bring it to the Senate floor for a vote (falling about 5 votes short).

    Instead, the Senate, on a 97 to 0 vote, passed a much weaker bill. The bill they passed would extend last year's law to cover the military service academies, give victims some input into whether a case would be heard in a military or civilian court, and would not allow a "good soldier" defense. But this weak bill still lets military commanders make the final decision on whether a case would be prosecuted or not. In essence, the Senate argued a lot and then did virtually nothing. Commanders can (and many will) still cover up any sexual assaults that take place under their command, and there will be very little that a victim can do about it.

    And I can't blame this entirely on the Republicans. The successful effort to kill the good bill (and pass a weak one) involved senators from both parties. Both Republicans and Democrats voted to keep Gillibrand's bill from reaching the Senate floor (and her bill had support from senators in both parties).

    I'm sure these senators will now go back to their home states and brag that they have solved the problem of sexual assault in the military -- but they haven't, and the American people know that. That same Rasmussen Poll (taken on March 8th and 9th of 1,000 nationwide likely voters, with a margin of error of 3 points) shows that 66% (or two out of every three Americans) believe the decision on whether to prosecute a sex assault case should be taken out of the hands of military commanders.


    Sunday, February 02, 2014

    Democratic Women Senators Call For Economic Justice

    The Democratic women senators just stood together at an amazing event where we delivered a very important message: No American woman should ever work a full-time job and still raise her children in poverty.
    Yet at a time when 400 American families have more wealth than 150 million, an American single mom earning minimum wage at a full-time job takes home just $15,000 a year to support her family -- below the poverty line.
    It's just not right, and we've got to do something about it.
    That's why the Democratic women of the Senate have joined together to say: It is time to raise the minimum wage!
    Raising the minimum wage will help millions of hard-working families -- but it will especially help 15 million American women.
    • After all, American women represent two-thirds of all workers earning the minimum wage.
    • American women are the main breadwinners, or joint breadwinners, in two-thirds of the families across the country.
    • And American women are two-thirds of tipped workers.
    Let me be clear: Raising the minimum wage isn't a job killer; it's an economy booster. Economists predict that raising the minimum wage will add $22 billion to America's GDP while creating 84,000 new jobs.
    That's because when you raise the minimum wage, you help more families earn more income that they can save and spend. That's good for businesses all across the country that sell more goods and services. And when businesses sell more goods and services, they hire more workers.
    It's a virtuous cycle that helps women, that helps families, and that helps our country.
    We are so pleased that President Obama made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his State of the Union address on Tuesday -- and now it's up to Congress to heed his call.
    It's not rocket science: If you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to provide for your family and have an opportunity to get ahead.
    Now let's make that happen.
    Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator

    Tammy Baldwin, U.S. Senator
    Kirsten Gillibrand, U.S. Senator
    Mazie Hirono, U.S. Senator
    Patty Murray, U.S. Senator
    Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senator