Should democrats drop the gun control issue

[Da2017]

This is the one issue that holds them back.

[TML]

Depends on how "hot" this issue is.

If this is an issue which is "burning" on most voters' minds, then of course the Democrats should emphasize it, since most polls indicate that the majority of the public actually supports more gun control.

If there are other issues which are more pressing, then the Democrats should emphasize those issues more, but that doesn't require them to change their overall position on this issue (and they shouldn't, unless the majority of the public somehow turns against it).

[user12345]

I don't think it is a big of an issue as people think in regards to preventing people from voting for a Democrat. The only people that spit the "they're taking away our guns" nonsense are far right, to begin with.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yes, they should drop the gun control issue.

[Grassroots]

Yes they should drop it. Its increasingly apparent that gun control does not work and that areas are safer with higher gun ownership.

[Dr. MB]

Yes, they should drop the gun control issue.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Absolutely not!!!

[Sumner 1868]

I don't think it is a big of an issue as people think in regards to preventing people from voting for a Democrat. The only people that spit the "they're taking away our guns" nonsense are far right, to begin with.

It's not the NRA types that kills Democrats, it's gun owners who aren't in the NRA and are more on the middle in their politics that nonetheless hear the talking points recycled through third-party sources that kills them. We've had several elections were this occurred out West.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think when we talk about these decisions, we seem to thing that these are changed like a switch being flipped at the DNC. It is not that easy, and when you consider that the Democrats are dependent upon both cities and increasingly inner suburbs, these are the exact places that support gun control. Therefore, it seems rather likely that Dem primary voters would insist upon it.

[King Lear]

Personally I think democrats should avoid this issue like the plague during election campaigns, however that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t address it once they retake control of the federal government.

[dw93]

Drop the more extreme and unpopular aspects of gun control, but keep universal background checks and closing the gun show/internet loophole apart of the platform.

[darklordoftech]

Yes. Voters who want stricter gun laws are densely populated and have a low turnout while voters who fear that their guns will be taken are spread out and have a high turnout. The politicians who want strict gun laws come off as emotionless policy wonks obsessed with "science" and conforming to the rest of the world.

[Sestak]

I'm kind of conflicted on this issue, but I do think they need to turn it down at least partially to be competitive in places like IA, MO, WI, etc. On the other hand, it gets out the base, so I don't really see it happening.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I wouldn’t say “drop it” but play it down some. If we chose the president by popular vote it wouldn’t matter because the issue is popular in cities and liberal densely populated states, but we are dealing with the archaic electoral college.

[Former Kentuckian]

I don't think they should drop it, but I do think they could handle it a lot better. Many times, they look and sound ridiculously clueless and out-of-touch (and almost silly) when tackling the issue, like the horrible photo-op where Elizabeth Warren stopped by with donuts and took selfies during the gun control filibuster.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's very rarely a good idea to abruptly drop an issue. You can push it into the background (as Trump did with many of the GOP's prominent issues) but an outright reversal normally serves to piss people off for little gain.

[Santander]

They should focus on cleaning up the administration of background checks, so that the process actually works efficiently and as intended. Then we can talk about expanding background checks to private sales. Beyond that, they should drop it.

[Mr. Smith]

Drop the more extreme and unpopular aspects of gun control, but keep universal background checks and closing the gun show/internet loophole apart of the platform.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I'm kind of conflicted on this issue, but I do think they need to turn it down at least partially to be competitive in places like IA, MO, WI, etc. On the other hand, it gets out the base, so I don't really see it happening.

Actually, the rust belt has low gun ownership rates.

[Medal506]

I don't think it is a big of an issue as people think in regards to preventing people from voting for a Democrat. The only people that spit the "they're taking away our guns" nonsense are far right, to begin with.

You idiot you're the extremists

[Figueira]

Completely ignoring gun control isn't going to work in the primary. Telling Tom Perez that he needs to ignore gun control is one thing; telling families of gun violence victims that they need to vote for Martin Heinrich over Chris Murphy is another. Focusing on achievable and popular policy goals like background checks while non-partisan activists work on swaying public opinion in other areas would be a good idea though.

[Mr. Morden]

Completely ignoring gun control isn't going to work in the primary. Telling Tom Perez that he needs to ignore gun control is one thing; telling families of gun violence victims that they need to vote for Martin Heinrich over Chris Murphy is another.

Yep.  In a primary race with a big field and no single overwhelming frontrunner, issues that some non-negligible constituency of the primary electorate cares about can't simply be wished away on the grounds that it's not going to help in the general election.  Candidates will seek whatever advantage they can find to win the primary, regardless of whether it might be unhelpful to them in the general.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

What's interesting to me is that although a wide variety of gun control measures are extremely popular in opinion polling, referendums last year on gun control measures in ME and NV (Democratic-leaning states, although yes, they seem more gun-friendly than most Democratic-leaning states) were extremely tight. For whatever reason, that popular public support doesn't translate into electoral success; maybe it's the specifics of each proposal, but I think it's more than that.

More specific to the question at hand; I think there is a little any Democratic nominee can do to avoid being slandered as "trying to take away our guns" by the right. I certainly don't think making small adjustments to policy will make a difference on that front. Aside from having an "A" rating from the NRA, conservatives will tear liberals apart for being too tough on guns, regardless of whether it's a vehemently pro-gun control Democrat or a only kinda pro-gun control Democrat. I would propose that the Democratic nominee in 2020 have a pretty aggressive anti-gun position, on their website and the like, to satisfy the base who will likely be looking for this sort of position, but I would want the nominee to avoid talk of this issue as much as they can in debates or interviews, or try to come off as more moderate. It's not a winning issue among the general electorate, but I also think they should tailor to the Democratic base; they just need to not make it a major point of their campaign.

[choclatechip45]

I think nationally democrats should take Manchins approach. However I know in CT gun control is quite popular even before Sandy hook,  Shays was my congressman growing up and he had a F rating from the NRA. The guy who challenged Himes in 2016 tried to say democrats weren’t tough enough on gun control. I feel like if demcorats in CT drop the gun control it’s something republicans in the state will take up.

[libertpaulian]

I think the Dems should push background checks but stop pushing for things like assault weapon or magazine bans, whether it be during the primaries or during their perioids of trifecta government.