She is popular in the large state of New York. Kirsten Gillibrand was a moderate Dem (Blue Dog) and only 51 currently. She is not known as ardently anti-gun, though she has moved towards more regulations since Sandy Hook.
She speaks well, it will take a while for the Republican machines to tar and feather her as a liar or a Pelosi liberal.
We generally know the Dems need a young candidate, a popular Governor might be better, but none seem to stand out. Most of the other popular potential candidates will be 70+ by the time of election or maybe Beto O’Rourke who has not even held a Senate seat yet.
While I’m partial towards Gillibrand, I think it’s way too early to make a decision. There are plenty of other good candidates who are likely to run, and I want to get a better fix on where they stand and what they’re like. I’m thinking about Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown, and Elizabeth Warren. And I’m hoping one or two others that I like might run.
With respect to the age issue, Harris is 54, Booker’s 49, Klobuchar’s 58, Brown’s 66, and Warren’s 69. (JFTR, I don’t think either Biden or Sanders will be a viable candidate this cycle, which is why I didn’t list them. Warren or Brown might, though.) So as I see it, the field’s more tilted towards a new generation than to the geriatric set.
So no reason why not Gillibrand at this time, but the same is true for a number of others. It’s still 2018; the primaries are over a year away. Plenty of time to size them up.
I’m a Democrat, but she starts off just one point above Bernie Sanders on my list. Her little publicity stunt of stabbing Al Franken in the back earned her no favor with me. I’ll be looking elsewhere in the primaries.
I’m not convinced a Senator is the right choice, I’m not convinced a New Yorker is the right choice, I’m not convinced a woman is the right choice. At least for the top of the ticket. That’s why I don’t like Gillibrand. I could probably overlook one of those things, but not three. ETA: Also the Al Franken thing. I don’t think that did her any good, it “branded” her (that’s what most of Americans’ first impression of her was), for better or worse.
The job of a legislator is to investigate issues, brainstorm solutions, and finalize an answer via compromise.
The job of the President is to oversee the smooth functioning of the government and to have a greater strategy for the country, to sell to the legislators.
Gillibrand seems to be a yes-man to whatever the polls are saying which, while perhaps making her popular, is in essence the opposite of what a legislator is supposed to do to. I’ve not seen any evidence that she is particularly fit for her job as a legislator, let alone the Executive Branch. And she’ll get hammered to hell for being so close to Hillary Clinton. And really does just come across as “younger Hillary Clinton”.
If that horse already failed you twice, hoping that a younger clone will somehow do better is probably not a recipe for success.
That’s one of the biggest points in her favor, IMO. She was one of the bravest Democrats in that particular instance, bucking the older conventional-wisdom crowd and recognizing that with #MeToo we need to treat sexual assault and harassment much more seriously. And Franken used to be my very favorite Senator.
In favor of her winning or in favor of you liking her? You may not realize it but your views on how to handle sexual harassment are far off the mainstream.
And speaking of winnability, the OP might look into when the last time was that a Democrat from the northeat won the presidency.
In favor of me liking her. As far as where she’s from, the same argument was used against Obama – when was the last time a Chicago/Illinois Democrat won the Presidency? We’ve only had 5 Democratic presidents since Truman… not exactly a large sample size. I think what state they hail from is of far, far lesser importance then their political talent, as far as ability to win elections.
Not that I’m even favoring Gillibrand at this point – I just like her. If forced to cast my vote this second, I’d vote for Klobuchar. But assuming she ran a good primary campaign, I’d be happy with her as the nominee.
I don’t think the question for any candidate is “why not”. It’s “why”. She’s relatively young, she’s moved to the left and is now a fairly standard issue liberal. That’s all fine, but she needs a signature issue. What will it be? “Restoring the moral center” (from a tobacco lawyer). Abolishing ICE?
She’s apparently a good fund-raiser, which might help her.
Fighting sexual assault in the military as well as in broader society could be her signature issue. Not sure if the country cares about fighting sexual assault enough for that to work, though. We should, as a country, but I’m not sure if we do.
I like Gillibrand fine and would happily vote for her for POTUS. Of course if the GOP candidate is Trump (as seems very likely at this point) I’d vote for my geriatric incontinent cat if she were the Dem candidate.
Right now (and subject to change any minute) my dream slate is Joseph Kennedy III/Tammy Duckworth. Together they hit about every demographic except age, and I think running two young people against the GOP’s tired old white men is a good idea.
Yes. Bravely throwing a potential rival for the nomination under the bus when opportunity presented.
You really are not that naive to think it was not that rather than sudden attack of the principles?
Are you talking about the time Booker was in college and wrote about how he was personally affected by patriarchal rape culture? If you’re actually interested in that, I’d be happy to contribute in another thread, but it would seem like a hijack for this one.
Doing the right thing is doing the right thing, whatever the motive. I can’t read her mind, but I’m inclined to support people who do the right thing, whatever the reason, over people who do not do the right thing.