OK, so if 30% are gun owners, and 90% of them are “moderate,” and half of them voted for Hillary, that’s 14% of voters that you claim Harris might lose.
But those are moderate gun owners - if they are moderate, they wouldn’t choose whom to vote purely on the basis of their position on gun control, would they? Anyone who says “I’d never vote for someone who supports stricter gun control” is by definition not a moderate.
Right. But you see, Harris wants *radical *gun control. She wants to ban all handguns for a start. She supported SF’s attempt to ban handguns. As AG she slid in a crazy ruling that banned the sale of any new handgun design in CA.
Plenty of voters, in fact a plurality- supported Hillary’s rather moderate gun control platform.
But *banning all handguns *would alienate those moderate gun owners.
Just as with many issues, you can get a lot of support with a moderate position, but not with a radical one.
Basically, with moderate gun owners, you’re Ok if you don’t seem like you wanna take their guns away. Take the guns from those radical preppers & Militia guys? Ok, but not mine.
As has been shown, around 60% of Americans support *some sort *of gun control. But very few support a ban on handguns, maybe 20% or so.
I don’t want the gun issue to become a sidetrack, but it’s relevant insomuch as it’s a kind of litmus test for a lot of voters and therefore a good gauge IMO of a candidate being competitive in the election.
Banning handguns is a really ridiculous and implausible proposal, let’s face facts here. There may have been a time when the primary “public face” of gun ownership was hunting, but that time is over, today the “public face of gun ownership” is about self-defense. Not JUST home defense, although this is a large motivator of it, but also personal self-defense outside the home, where a handgun is the only practical firearm to use. I don’t agree with open carry; I don’t agree with the “hero mentality” of people thinking their gun makes them some kind of superior guardian of justice…not interested in hearing people lecture about “shepherds and sheep” or whatever.
The fact remains at its most basic core, that if someone is emotionally invested in the idea of protecting themselves bodily, a firearm is the most practical tool for this purpose, in terms of power, reliability and ease of use (let’s face it, you can take self-defense classes and learn techniques, but this generally requires more of an investment of time and training to actually be effective, than the use of a firearm.)
The issue of training is a significant one, and there’s no question, there are a lot of people out there with firearms who have NOT had adequate training. This means not only training in the safety rules of marksmanship, but also the techniques of AVOIDING physical confrontation and DE-ESCALATING conflict rather than initiating it…to not go looking for trouble (I think George Zimmerman, for example, is a gun owner who went looking for trouble). Hell, this applies to police as much as it does the rest of us.
I think stressing the importance of training, and raising the possibility of it being mandatory for handgun ownership, is a form of gun control advocacy that has a chance of bridging some common ground between right-wing and left-wing leaning people. But you have to first accept the fact that handguns exist and are available for people to use. “Make handgun ownership safer” is a position that a candidate could espouse without alienating all but the most extreme gun owners. “Make handgun ownership impossible” is a position that’s immediately going to box that person into a category that is, I believe, undesirable if the candidate wants to be competitive.
Any politician who has espoused an outright ban of handguns is, I feel, going to have that thrown at them relentlessly during the campaign ads, people all over the Midwest and South are going to be bombarded with TV commercials bringing this up, it just makes the candidate operate from a position of weakness right from the start, and - because ‘wanting to ban handguns’ is so closely linked in so many peoples’ minds with ‘coastal elite’ - in a larger sense opens the candidate up to being called out of touch with the common people of Middle America.
There are eight sitting Senators in the race for the D nomination. Of the eight, Sanders, Warren, Harris, Booker, Merkley and Gillibrand have all signed on to Sander’s M4A plan. Are 6 out of 8 of these candidates “too liberal”?
The remaining two, Klobuchar and Brown — by coincidence(?) the two I most support and probably NOT by coincidence the two from pinkish Flyoverland — have not endorsed Sanders’ specific plan but are still strong proponents of UHC. Brown even has his own single-payer plan.
Realistically one must treat Sanders’ M4A as a way to frame the debate — it certainly will not be enacted into law during this Congress. Pelosi wants to focus energy on rescuing Obamacare rather than pushing pie-in-the-sky. But this is more a matter of politics than policy.
But I mention that 8 out of eight of these Senators are strong supporters of UHC in the context of the discussion that some D’s may be “too liberal.” What is that even suppose to mean?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Keep up, folks. The context of this subthread is whether Kamala Harris is “stupid” and/or “too liberal.” And let’s be charitable enough to stipulate that sticking to one’s principles even if it reduces one’s electoral chance is not “stupid.”
UIAM, DrDeth means “Second Amendment” when he writes “Constitution” and means “wanted to reduce the gun violence which plagues post-rational America” when he writes “supported violating.” Please contrast Harris’ principles with those of a Potus who happily commits felonies to serve his personal lusts and greeds.
Guns! Guns!! GUNS!! And DrDeth considers himself a “moderate” single-issue obsessionist.
And you American voters wonder why you can’t have good things. Go ahead and re-elect an obvious criminal as long as he doesn’t want to take away your Guns! Guns!! GUNS!!
Bah.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ETA. Write “To improve D electoral prospects, gun control shouldn’t be advocated” and I’ll agree — indeed I frequently make the same point myself here. But write gibberish like “supported violating the Constitution” and I’m no longer entirely certain your opinion is worth squat.
She supported and as DA said was legal: wiki* Proposition H was a local ordinance on the November 8, 2005 ballot in San Francisco, California, which gained national attention for its banning of most firearms within the city…The proposition was later struck down in court.*
More wiki:*Gun law
Harris has an F rating from the National Rifle Association for her consistent efforts supporting gun control.[186] While serving as district attorney in San Francisco, Harris, along with other district attorneys, filed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, arguing that the Washington, D.C., gun law at issue did not violate the Second Amendment.[187] In her second term as district attorney, she said that getting guns off the streets was a priority.[188]
During her run for Senate, she was endorsed by former U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, shot in Tucson in 2011. She was also endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[189]
In response to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Harris supported the call for more gun control. Believing that thoughts and prayers are inadequate answers to the shooting, she stated that “…we must also commit ourselves to action. Another moment of silence won’t suffice.”[190]*
The Second Ad is part of the Constitution, no? And her viewpoints are against the ruling of the Supreme Court, no? So, her support of banning handguns (and in fact nearly all guns) was indeed a violation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has so ruled.
I am not in any way a “moderate” single-issue obsessionist." Altho I am a moderate, I vote overwhelming Democratic, and have held Democratic office. I have no issue with the type of gun control that the Supreme Court said was legal under the 2nd Ad. I am, obviously, against Gun control that is NOT legal under the 2nd Ad. I support the Constitution.
And like i said, the kind of gun control Hillary put on her Platform isnt bad, and altho may have lost her a few votes, but even you admit supporting the banning of all handguns far too radical for the electorate.
Proposition H sought to restrict handgun possession among San Francisco residents within city limits to police and certain security professionals, and to ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition within the city. …The San Francisco Board of Supervisors enacted penalties for violation of this ordinance, including mandatory jail time. Until April 1, 2006, residents would have been able to surrender their handguns to any district station of the San Francisco Police Department or the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department without penalty (no refund of buying cost was planned).
Not only banning but taking without recompense. And she supported this.
p.s. I suppose anyone who supported the Defense of Marriage Act was in favor of violating the Constitution, because that law was later ruled unconstitutional.
Pro-spy-on-all-american-citizens and anti-privacy and fourth amendment (one of only 16 D’s voting for Protect America Act of 2007, voted yes on Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008)
Pro-big media and bullshit copyright terms (introduced Commercial Felony Streaming act)
Pro-war (voted for increased Iraq funding, voted for war in Libya).
Anti-Craigslist / weirdos / sex-workers - she backed SESTA, the law that got Craigslist personals taken down (the only good personals site for certain flavors of kink) and forced sex workers back into much more dangerous streetwalking/pimp systems instead of being able to use the internet (also destroying law enforcements ability to police for trafficked / underage people on those sites), and is broadly very “think of the children!” in terms of sponsoring legislation taking away privacy and speech rights in favor of questionably-effective morality policing measures.
Those issues matter to me enough that I would take any of the many other candidates who AREN’T all those things while still being progressive (Booker’s a good example), but do you pro-K folk see other additional great qualities that Klobuchar brings that offset her stance on those things, or do you just not care/are in favor about those issues?
She ruled it was legal enough to be put on the ballot and also supported it before. Afterwards she filed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, supporting DCs handgun ban.
I may not be the best person to answer this, since I’m not at this point favoring any particular candidate; but I do like Klobuchar, and so I’ll give you a response, understanding it may not be a response you’re really looking for :).
I guess I’d say a couple of different things. First, I’d say that lists of votes lack context, and context (to me) is extremely important. In addition to knowing THAT she voted the way she did on these bills, I’d like to know WHY. I can sometimes understand a vote, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it, and in a case like this I’d like to give a candidate I otherwise like a chance to explain what she was thinking. So without context it’s difficult to say what I think about Klobuchar’s stance on these issues.
That’s especially true because I looked a couple of these things up. I thought I remembered the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008 as the one that banned waterboarding and that Bush eventually vetoed, and it’s hard for me to understand why you might disapprove of that. So I checked it out, and it turns out that…pretty much every Democrat in the Senate voted for that bill. Kennedy did and Kerry did and Sanders did and Feinstein did and Klobuchar did and see U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session for the list. So, what did you find objectionable about Klobuchar’s vote? Or were you referring to a different vote? Or did I misread what you were talking about somehow? Because it seems like any self-described progressive would approve.
Then I looked at the increase-funding-for-the-Iraq-War vote, because that one surprised me too, and it turns out she did vote for increased funding, but she provides an explanation (Senator Amy Klobuchar): Klobuchar voted for troop withdrawal twice, only Bush vetoed each bill, and Klobuchar was worried about leaving the troops without enough weaponry or equipment to fight the war they were being forced to fight. “My vote today does not in any way diminish my desire to end this war responsibly, quickly, and safely for our troops,” she wrote. In my opinion, it’s seriously misleading to imply that Klobuchar was voting to support the war. I’m curious–did you know about the context of this vote? If so, do you think she was lying in her explanation?
So, context. I looked up two of the things you mentioned, and quite honestly I would like my candidate to have voted the way Klobuchar did on both of these bills. To me it seems that these positions are appropriate, just, and yes, progressive, and I’m surprised that you don’t think so. I haven’t looked up the others, but based on these two I wouldn’t be shocked to see that there’s an awful lot more gray here than the numbered list above suggests.
It’s also fair to say that in general I think these are small potatoes as issues go. This country desperately needs major intervention regarding health care, reproductive freedom, gun violence, immigration, and voting rights, to name a handful; given how critical these issues are, it’s really hard for me to get worked up about regulation of Craigslist (though in general I do think sex work should be much more legal than it is). I’m not somebody who thinks that big corporations are the root of all evil, there are plenty of other evils running around as well, and so I would never base my opinion of a candidate on her positions on copyright law. If these are big issues to someone else, fine; but they are barely on my radar compared to what I think is truly important.
Klobuchar in short seems to be a candidate who shares my general goals and priorities, and that’s vital. I don’t expect that I will like all her policies or agree with all of her votes (or those of anybody else–hey, I campaigned for Obama twice and I thought his education policy sucked). But what I’m looking for is someone who I believe will fight in general for what I believe in, and will do so effectively. There are other candidates who might also fill the bill, but it’s easy for me to imagine that Klobuchar could be that person.
Klobuchar is also near the top of my list. Thank you, Ulf, for spending the time to demonstrate that two of her alleged bad votes were OK.
Citing votes out of context is all too common. The most egregious example that comes to mind is calling Hillary a war-monger for her vote on the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which passed the Senate 77-23. The speech Hillary gave explaining her vote makes it very clear why she voted Yea despite that she opposed the war. I’ve posted that speech before and been thanked for that ignorance-fighting … but after a delay the ignorant prattlers just continue prattling.
There are many specific issues where reasonable people disagree. As an example, any pundit who thinks the sex ads on Craigslist is an issue which should change our feelings for a candidate is a pundit all of whose opinions can safely be dismissed.
