Kirsten Gillibrand Preparing for 2020 Presidential Run

[Frodo]

Perhaps it's time we give her a second look.  Can anyone see her successfully winning the nomination and then the White House with all of the Democratic Party enthusiastically behind her?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

source

[Famous Mortimer]

I like Gillibrand and I think she would be a decent president but her plan is to run a continuation of Hillary Clinton's "Yaaass Qween"/bankers and Beyconce/"woke" campaign. Although it might work because of the changing demographics of the country, I think it's a bad strategy and it certainly doesn't inspire much hope that her administration would be particularly progressive.

[justfollowingtheelections]

All you need to know about this fake a** "progressive": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzbBB_uN9ns

She's one of the most pathetic choices the Dems could make.  I honestly wish Zephyr Teachout would primary her.

[Shadows]

Hillary 2.0. NYT has been hyping her up with fluffy articles!

She is definitely running in 2020 as is Booker. I now hope Biden runs & this pretenders drop out as Biden will coalesce the moderate vote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She was pro gun in the House, but then in the primary last year teared up with complaining about how pro gun the major (Senator, governor, representative) Vermont politician of the last 25 years (and probably ever) with the lowest NRA rating was. Pathetic.

[Mr. Smith]

Hillary actually had a sorta Nixonian charisma to her, she has none of that AND all traces of just the Moderate Heroism.

[moderatevoter]

She was pro gun in the House, but then in the primary last year teared up with complaining about how pro gun the major (Senator, governor, representative) Vermont politician of the last 25 years (and probably ever) with the lowest NRA rating was. Pathetic.

If I recall, she mentioned keeping guns under her bed, and she had a fairly tough stance on immigration as well.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I like Gillibrand, and she might win MI, WI, and PA from Trump. 

Honestly, I view MI and WI as anomalies that will go back to the Democrats if there are no third parties and no problematic candidates like Hillary nominated.  I'm not as sure about PA; there is a huge swath of PA that is socially conservative, and the shift toward the GOP in industrial Western PA is not promising for the Dems. 

The key is how America reacts to Trump, and to the demonstrators.  If the demonstrations that are going on now become a way of life, Trump will win handily in 2020.  There is still enough of Middle America left that will not abide politicians who side with rioters, and the Democratic Party has a number of slow learners on this issue.  Gillibrand has more sense than many of them, but I'm not sure that she has the guts to buck them.

[Tender Branson]

Nice. Gillibrand would probably be a good candidate.

A younger version of Hillary (just without all the baggage and controversy) and someone I could definitely see myself voting for against Trump.

And she has Austrian ancestry.

[Suburbia]

Gillibrand would be a good candidate in 2020. She is Hillary Clinton without the baggage. She idolizes Hillary. She will win reelection easily in 2018 (unless Susan Lucci runs), but she would be a center-left candidate, and she could do well with black voters and Latino voters.

[Figueira]

She does have a history of winning rural white voters. Then again Clinton before 2016 was known as the candidate of the white working class. Who knows?

[Vosem]

She spearheaded the condemnation of the UN resolution on Israel in the Senate. I definitely like her; I just don't see which of the early states she could actually break through to win. It seems like Booker should be able to eclipse her as the technocrat-ish candidate, and Klobuchar's strength in Iowa could let Gillibrand even be overshadowed as the feminist-ish candidate.

[RaphaelDLG]

Please God no.  This is, as many have accurately pointed out, doubling down on the same HRC identity politics neoliberalism bullsh**t.  Gillibrand is way too weak on financial regulation, which is not surprising for someone whose constituency is New York.

[Hoosier_Nick]

If Gillibrand wins the nomination, this shows how Democrats have not learned our lesson and have (once) again chosen big business over the voters. She may beat Trump, but she seems more unlikely to do so than almost every possible candidate.

[Mr. Morden]

What is her path to winning the nomination?  What factions of the Democratic primary electorate would give her a winning coalition?

As I noted here, she seems to heavily focus on what, for want of a better term, one might call “women’s issues”.  E.g., campus sexual assault, sexual assault in the military, the price differential between men and women in health care, insurance coverage for maternity care, paid family leave, etc.  During Mattis’s confirmation hearing, she used her time to ask about women in combat, and LGBT people in the military.  She even has a leadership PAC that donates exclusively to female candidates, and she tends to campaign for and fundraise for out of state female candidates, but not really for out of state male candidates.

Is this a smart strategy for winning the Democratic nomination?  Are there really enough women among the Democratic primary electorate who’ll be swayed by the identity politics appeal for this to be a winning formula, especially since she presumably won’t be the only woman running?  Or does she need to work on broadening her issue set in order to not be pigeonholed into this niche?

[Deblano]

I like Gillibrand and I think she would be a decent president but her plan is to run a continuation of Hillary Clinton's "Yaaass Qween"/bankers and Beyconce/"woke" campaign. Although it might work because of the changing demographics of the country, I think it's a bad strategy and it certainly doesn't inspire much hope that her administration would be particularly progressive.

If it didn't work in 2016, I doubt it will work in 2020 unless Trump's approval ratings are below 20%.

[Tintrlvr]

I like Gillibrand and I think she would be a decent president but her plan is to run a continuation of Hillary Clinton's "Yaaass Qween"/bankers and Beyconce/"woke" campaign. Although it might work because of the changing demographics of the country, I think it's a bad strategy and it certainly doesn't inspire much hope that her administration would be particularly progressive.

If it didn't work in 2016, I doubt it will work in 2020 unless Trump's approval ratings are below 20%.

It would have worked with most candidates the Democrats could have put up against Trump, it just didn't work with Clinton. Clinton's problem wasn't that her campaign was too "coastal", it was that Clinton was too much of a known quantity with too many entrenched, sometimes irrational negative views about her among the public. Gillibrand doesn't have that baggage and would have trounced Trump in 2016 running the exact same campaign as Clinton (not commenting on whether she would win with the same campaign in 2020 as that is in part dependent on how Trump comports himself over the next 3.5 years), even if it isn't a particularly great campaign strategy. Whether it would have worked against a better Republican candidate is much more difficult to say; perhaps not. One must remember that, despite the fact that he won the election, Trump was a truly terrible candidate.

[Progressive]

I really think the only way to know how she'll do is to see how she carries out her campaign.

If, let's say, early on frontrunners appear to be folks like Cory Booker or Roy Cooper or Mark Warner, etc., it's possible that her staunch opposition to Trump could launch her as the real activist progressive candidate. It depends on the mood of the electorate. I think everyone should jump in and run and see where the winds of the campaign take them.

[Deblano]

If, let's say, early on frontrunners appear to be folks like Cory Booker or Roy Cooper or Mark Warner, etc., it's possible that her staunch opposition to Trump could launch her as the real activist progressive candidate. It depends on the mood of the electorate. I think everyone should jump in and run and see where the winds of the campaign take them.

lmao, what year is this? Neither of those two (or any other white Southern Democrat) could even conceivably lead the pack in a Democratic Primary anymore.

I think that Roy Cooper could at least be a decent running mate. He might be able to energize social liberals considering he ran against McCrory over the "bathroom bills" fiasco.

As for Mark Warner, lolnope xD.

[henster]

Gillibrand has been pretty good on working on Upstate/Rural needs and Upstate is basically a mini Midwest in some ways. If she kills it up there again then I think she has a strong case for her candidacy.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Cooper is exactly the kind of candidate the Democrats need if they want to win. Not him specifically, but he's a good model. He reminds me of a more controlled Joe Biden in a lot of ways.

I sincerely doubt he'll win the nomination, though.

[henster]

Cooper is exactly the kind of candidate the Democrats need if they want to win. Not him specifically, but he's a good model. He reminds me of a more controlled Joe Biden in a lot of ways.

I sincerely doubt he'll win the nomination, though.

The problem is Cooper given the situation with the NCGA he will likely have few real accomplishments going into 2020. Steve Bullock is exactly what the party needs right now.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I like Gillibrand and I think she would be a decent president but her plan is to run a continuation of Hillary Clinton's "Yaaass Qween"/bankers and Beyconce/"woke" campaign. Although it might work because of the changing demographics of the country, I think it's a bad strategy and it certainly doesn't inspire much hope that her administration would be particularly progressive.

This.

[MAINEiac4434]

Gillibrand strikes many, including me, as Hillary Lite, with all the benefits and drawbacks of that. In many ways she doesn't have the baggage of Hillary, but has a history of moderate votes, especially in the House. She's gone HAM on Trump cabinet picks though.

[DK_Mo82]

I hope Booker Gillibrand and cuomo all run. Because I like none of them and they will eat up each others air and donors.  Leaving the left wing candidate the only one the voters can remember that didnt sound like normal boring politician.  

I have heard People make the argument people will want boring politicians again after Trump. I disagree because boring politicians usually are liars. If you can get a boring one who isn't a liar and not from the Northeast maybe you have a chance.    Kamala Harris they will dress up as a crosbreed Beyonce/Michelle Obama.

Barack Obama once expressed his desire for Harris.