A very good point. To add a bit, Obama’s was a gifted speaker. Harris is not in his class.
So we had a past thread in which the data was presented that moderate gun owners want some gun control and that gun control is nowhere near the big issue in their minds. They simply are not afraid that anyone is going to come and take their guns right now (and after Heller they certainly should not be), and they are more afraid of gun violence right now. Meanwhile the data clearly showed that the other side, those who want stricter gun control measures, do rate it as a higher item.
So no. You have to mollify those many many voters who want more gun control or you will lose. Too weak on the issue is a bigger risk than too strong.
You of course miss the point.
Testing out what the law was, how the courts would judge in the states in the nation, was something many were doing. And it has been decided. It is established.
There is no fear that handguns will be banned anymore. No matter how slippery the slope, be it frictionless, the bottom is not so far down now. No matter who is president, not without constitutional amendments passing or a completely new court.
I can say that the data is clear that right now being too weak on gun control is more likely to decrease turnout for a D than being too strong is to increase votes against the D. The fact that HRC’s positions would be labelled “gun banny” prove to me that any position advocating stronger gun control that will appeal to those who may not otherwise vote (younger voters, Black voters, female voters as broad demographics) will be smeared as that. And pandering to those few who will turn out only when the NRA fear mongers will hurt more than help. The fear mongering gun banny smears will happen against any D and will help them in this cycle.
As to Harris, her gun control position and the other Ds will be pretty much the same. Each will be falling over themselves to sound stronger on it during the primaries. Pretty much all will promote stupid assault weapon bans but everything else they promote is going to be pretty mild or even superfluous. And it will be labelled by the GOP as gun banny fer sure.
Very few are in Obama’s speaking class FWIW. Harris to my listen though is the best of current crop. Brown’s good just because it is different and very authentic (Sanders has that too.). The others, including Booker to my listen, not so powerful or authentic sounding.
I’m a California resident, and I think Kamala Harris is fantastic. How many others agree with me, I can’t say.
What point do you think I’m missing?
You seem to be saying that pre-Heller, local municipalities were testing the limits of what was permissible under the law and acceptable to their electorate. As a result, some measures like the gun ban passed in SF (Prop H in 2005). Do I have that right?
That’s not the point I’m making. Even absent Heller, prop H was contradicted by CA state law that had been well established. If state law says that cities cannot do X, and then a city says, nah, we’re going to do X, that’s not testing what the law is. That is ignoring what the law is. That Harris would support this shows Harris’s views. In 1982, nearly 23 years prior and therefore well established, a similar law was pushed and signed into law by Diane Feinstein. That law which also banned handguns within the city of SF, was also struck down by the courts.
This had nothing to do with Heller. CA has statewide preemption for gun laws. The state legislature intends to occupy all of the space regarding gun laws and therefore cities are preempted from enacting their own. This was the basis upon which both the 1982 ordinance and the 2005 proposition were struck down.It was already decided, and established in CA that what Harris supported contradicted state law. So your claim that it is decided isn’t very reassuring, since Harris has shown she doesn’t care about what the law is.
You say there is no fear that handguns will be banned anymore, save for a constitutional amendment or a new court. I disagree. The right can be widdled away by lower courts and by inaction by the high court. Would you say the same thing about abortion? That it’s settled law and there is no fear that abortion will be banned anymore? Just last year there were additional gun bans passed in CA. There are new restrictive gun laws passed with regularity. Without Trump being elected, I fully expected Heller to be neutered even more than it already has been by lower courts. No, SCOTUS needs a stronger majority to take bolder action with regard to firearms. Any person Harris would nominate would likely not fit that bill.
A new court is always just one president away, given a certain set of circumstances.
How that plays into the calculus of the electorate is a different line of discussion. I’m not sure what policy position will be a winner for the Democratic Party.
But you see they are afraid. Harris has shown a complete disregard for the 2nd Ad. and when she cant do a handgun ban, she tries a run around, like a ban on all new models of handguns, based upon totally spurious bad science. And a ban on all guns and magazines over 10 rounds. End runs. That would ban the Glock, for example, and the Beretta, two of the most popular handguns in America, even with Police and security. And “Assault weapons” can be defined however you want- and Harris is perfectly capable of pressing for a ban on all semi-automatics. She already supported a ban on all rifles with magazines over 10 rounds. And semi-automatic shotguns and rifles are very popular with deer and duck hunters. The “Moderate” gun owners. So yeah, they would be afraid.
If you are just talking banning new sales of AR15 like guns, sure, that might work. But when Harris pushed the handgun ban in SF, it was a confiscation with no recompense. So there are “assault weapon bans” and “assault weapons bans”- one would ban new sales of guns designed after military weapons, one would confiscate all semi-automatic weapons without recompense. The first the moderates would go along with, the second would terrify them.
The point is, yes Harris will say anything to get elected. Her new public stance will sound quite a bit like all the others. But actions speak louder than words, and The GOP and the NRA will gleefully point out her earlier actions. And those *actions *will scare the moderates.
Yes, she’ll say what it takes to get elected, and that would *include *supporting gun control. If the Russian-front GOP and the Russian-front NRA choose to help emphasize that, it’s all for the good of our society. So, for that matter, is *honest *interpretation of the *entire *Constitution.
I’m a California resident, and can’t remember any impression Harris made on me one way or another, as SF DA or state Attorney General.
As a senator, all I can recall is her grandstanding during the Kavanaugh hearings; giving the impression that she knew something big related to a conversation Kavanaugh may have had…which never came to fruition. So, she’s about my 6th favorite Democratic candidate at the moment.
What I like about her is that she’s very outspokenly anti-Trump. She says what I want to say about Trump’s policies, but much more eloquently.
She might just have a following if she’s attracting conspiracy theories. Coming soon to a Facebook meme near you.
If she wants to ban guns, she’s got my vote and she doesn’t have the gun lover vote. If she doesn’t want to ban guns, she still has my vote and still won’t have the gun lover vote. If I was in the NRA, I’d be more worried about my organization having ties to Russia than about any microstamping.
Which Democrat doesnt?
The word is “whittled,” you yankee.
Probably the one that appeals to the minority, urban, younger, & heavily female voters they want to turn out. Probably something less than “ban all handguns”—but with an ability for states and possibly localities to license & regulate firearms pretty tightly. If this doesn’t appeal to you, a GOP-leaning pro-gun voter, well, too bad.
My 20,000 foot view of the 2020 primary is that there are four factors which will be helpful to a candidate. First, and most important, is not being too closely associated with either side of the Great Pissing Match of 2016. The other three are being a minority, a woman, and under 60.
Harris is the only candidate in the field thus far who checks all four boxes. I have no idea if she is a good enough politician to take advantage of her starting position, but I think that position is excellent.
For years, I’ve been predicting that the nakedly ambitious California Democrat to run for president in 2020 would be Harris’s mentor, Gavin Newsom. And his career is certainly progressing that way: mayor to Lt. governor to governor, right on schedule. But where I went wrong was the timing: due to our accelerated election cycle, he would’ve needed to announce for president the same week as his inauguration as governor, and that’s not a good look. 
Other than your own preferences, is there some reason you think those are actually important boxes to tick? The first one, sure bury the hatchet and all that. But you’re relegating experience/record, charisma and policy positions to afterthoughts?
Sadface.
I just want someone who can defeat Trump, who has coattails to help democrats win races at the state and local level, and who is willing to use every ounce of power given to them in the executive branch to get their agenda pushed through.
If Harris can do that, I’d be happy to vote for her.
I dont think any of those last three will help in the general election, they may not be as big of a hindrance as in the past, but they are certainly not advantages.
I’m predicting Newsom will run (and get the nomination) in 2028.
If Newsom can get medicare for all passed in california, he will be a shoe in to get the nomination for president.
The Democratic candidate absolutely must appeal to the young, women, and minorities. And being those things probably helps in appealing to them. But it’s neither a guarantee nor a requirement. Consider, for instance, that in Texas, an Irishman appealed much more to Hispanics than another Hispanic did.
Right. Appeal to is not the same as be one.
And of course a young, female minority veep could balance the old white guy Pres candidate.