Is Kirsten Gillibrand the most electable female democrat in 2020?

[Possiblymaybe]

Gillibrand has none of Clinton's baggage (real or imagined). That's huge as she'd be able to assemble the same coalition and then add to it as moderate suburbanites (especially the women) would have less reason to wander to Trump.

I like Klobuchar and I think she'd be a good candidate.  Rather a foil to Trump -- what character attacks can Trump lobby on her?  Perhaps a bit dry?

Warren is probably less electable simply because of the antipathy she's already garnered.

McCaskill would do well, too, but no chance she runs.  Can't do a competitive Senate race and then turn around and immediately run for president.

There are a lot of ways in which Harris can be attacked, some legitimate, but most dog-whistley.  Being rather inexperienced and far to the left wouldn't help, though I'd like to see a former prosecutor go after Trump during a debate

I like Gillibrand and Harris. I can't find any baggage for Gillibrand. From what I've read on Gillibrand she is less guarded than Hillary. Agree on Harris. Most of Harris's baggage will be from her Attorney general days.Still Harris is far more charismatic than Hillary. Both don't have anywhere near the baggage real or imagined that Clinton did.

She'll be attacked for her Wall Street connections, of all the female potentials she's the one with the biggest Wall Street problem by far. And she's married to a banker and has received gigantic donations from Goldman Sachs.

"But her record on Wall Street will haunt her. Gillibrand, as usual for New York senators, has worked assiduously on behalf of the financial industry. In 2010 she briefly suggested filing an amendment making it harder to regulate derivatives trading, though she later backed down after a backlash. In 2011, she complained that derivatives regulation would make U.S. banks uncompetitive. In 2013, she and five other Democratic senators wrote to then-Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew arguing essentially for an indefinite delay of regulations on cross-border derivative trading. As Reid Pilfant wrote in 2012, she has "quietly overcome considerable skepticism about her on Wall Street to become a go-to advocate for the financial services industry in her own right.

http://theweek.com/articles/691363/kirsten-gillibrand-2020-not-wall-street-problem

Her record on gun control and especially immigration would at least be something that would be used against her in a primary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/politics/28immigration.html

[Mr. Morden]

I can't find any baggage for Gillibrand.

Well, she can speak Chinese, so she's probably a commie spy.  I mean, here she is in Beijing in the 80s:



Doesn't she look like a spy?

[Illini Moderate]

Clinton-lite is not very electable if the actual Clinton couldn't beat a celebrity tv host.

She's really not that similar to her other than holding the same seat and being a woman. . . Gillibrand also hasn't been subject to 25 years of political attacks either. She's more charismatic and younger as well.

[Mr. Morden]

She'll be attacked for her Wall Street connections, of all the female potentials she's the one with the biggest Wall Street problem by far. And she's married to a banker and has received gigantic donations from Goldman Sachs.

"But her record on Wall Street will haunt her. Gillibrand, as usual for New York senators, has worked assiduously on behalf of the financial industry. In 2010 she briefly suggested filing an amendment making it harder to regulate derivatives trading, though she later backed down after a backlash. In 2011, she complained that derivatives regulation would make U.S. banks uncompetitive. In 2013, she and five other Democratic senators wrote to then-Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew arguing essentially for an indefinite delay of regulations on cross-border derivative trading. As Reid Pilfant wrote in 2012, she has "quietly overcome considerable skepticism about her on Wall Street to become a go-to advocate for the financial services industry in her own right.

http://theweek.com/articles/691363/kirsten-gillibrand-2020-not-wall-street-problem

Regulations on derivatives trading sounds kind of esoteric though.  Can whoever attacks her on that connect her position on derivatives trading to a real impact on people's lives?  That is the question.

[varesurgent]

She'll be attacked for her Wall Street connections, of all the female potentials she's the one with the biggest Wall Street problem by far. And she's married to a banker and has received gigantic donations from Goldman Sachs.

"But her record on Wall Street will haunt her. Gillibrand, as usual for New York senators, has worked assiduously on behalf of the financial industry. In 2010 she briefly suggested filing an amendment making it harder to regulate derivatives trading, though she later backed down after a backlash. In 2011, she complained that derivatives regulation would make U.S. banks uncompetitive. In 2013, she and five other Democratic senators wrote to then-Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew arguing essentially for an indefinite delay of regulations on cross-border derivative trading. As Reid Pilfant wrote in 2012, she has "quietly overcome considerable skepticism about her on Wall Street to become a go-to advocate for the financial services industry in her own right.

http://theweek.com/articles/691363/kirsten-gillibrand-2020-not-wall-street-problem

Regulations on derivatives trading sounds kind of esoteric though.  Can whoever attacks her on that connect her position on derivatives trading to a real impact on people's lives?  That is the question.

Attacking candidates don't need to explain, they'll just label her "friendly to Wall Street."  She'd have to explain why and that becomes hard given that no one understands derivative trading.

[Mr. Morden]

Attacking candidates don't need to explain, they'll just label her "friendly to Wall Street."  She'd have to explain why and that becomes hard given that no one understands derivative trading.

That may do some damage in the primary, but since the thread is asking about electability in the general election, I'm not so convinced that's such a killer line of attack.  Again, barring some easy way to connect the dots between her votes on these topics and regular people's lives.

[PragmaticPopulist]

I'm laughing at the posters in this thread who think Gillibrand is Clinton-lite. She's much more interesting than Clinton and has a more recent track record of getting WWC voters. It'll be interesting to see if she gets another mega-landslide reelection in 2018.

Overall, I think Klobuchar is the best woman the Democrats could put forward.

[Coraxion]

I'm laughing at the posters in this thread who think Gillibrand is Clinton-lite. She's much more interesting than Clinton and has a more recent track record of getting WWC voters. It'll be interesting to see if she gets another mega-landslide reelection in 2018.

Overall, I think Klobuchar is the best woman the Democrats could put forward.

This. She doesn't seem to get enough credit for this. She did extremely well in Upstate New York in both of her elections, with her vote percentage in 2012 being one of the highest ever in the history of New York elections. And, of course, she defeated a Republican incumbent in a pretty "WWC" district.

[varesurgent]

Attacking candidates don't need to explain, they'll just label her "friendly to Wall Street."  She'd have to explain why and that becomes hard given that no one understands derivative trading.

That may do some damage in the primary, but since the thread is asking about electability in the general election, I'm not so convinced that's such a killer line of attack.  Again, barring some easy way to connect the dots between her votes on these topics and regular people's lives.

No argument there. Without the optics of paid speeches to Wall Street, hard for Trump to argue that Gillibrand is closer to big banks

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

I think she would win, but I'm not sure about being the most electable female Democrat. I have little doubt that she would flip MI/WI/PA and probably FL, which is more than enough to win the election, but I think she offers little in terms of energizing minority turnout to put states like AZ or NC into serious contention.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Clinton-lite is not very electable if the actual Clinton couldn't beat a celebrity tv host.

She's boring. The democrats need a "pop". I doubt Trump makes it four years, but he'd blast her all through the primaries. Look for appearance and boringness to be attacked. I thought Gillibrand would wait until 2024 because Cuomo's running. But damn. The democrats will nominate an experienced populist with a lovable personality.

[Coraxion]

Clinton-lite is not very electable if the actual Clinton couldn't beat a celebrity tv host.

She's boring. The democrats need a "pop". I doubt Trump makes it four years, but he'd blast her all through the primaries. Look for appearance and boringness to be attacked. I thought Gillibrand would wait until 2024 because Cuomo's running. But damn. The democrats will nominate an experienced populist with a lovable personality.

Uh... no. She's not boring. She may be boring compared to, say, Bernie, but she's not boring.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

. It'll be interesting to see if she gets another mega-landslide reelection in 2018.

What did you mean by this lol?

She'll likely win 80-20 in 2018.

[PragmaticPopulist]

. It'll be interesting to see if she gets another mega-landslide reelection in 2018.

What did you mean by this lol?

She'll likely win 80-20 in 2018.

Gillibrand 72%
Long 26%

This is what I mean. Gillibrand even won rock-ribbed Republican Hamilton County.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

. It'll be interesting to see if she gets another mega-landslide reelection in 2018.

What did you mean by this lol?

She'll likely win 80-20 in 2018.

Gillibrand 72%
Long 26%

This is what I mean. Gillibrand even won rock-ribbed Republican Hamilton County.

But this is not only expected but virtually guaranteed. Are you saying if she only wins something like 55-45 or 58-40 or something like that then she has no chance in 2020?

[PragmaticPopulist]

. It'll be interesting to see if she gets another mega-landslide reelection in 2018.

What did you mean by this lol?

She'll likely win 80-20 in 2018.

Gillibrand 72%
Long 26%

This is what I mean. Gillibrand even won rock-ribbed Republican Hamilton County.

But this is not only expected but virtually guaranteed. Are you saying if she only wins something like 55-45 or 58-40 or something like that then she has no chance in 2020?

She'd still be okay if she won with less than 60%, but not as good as if she won with over 70%.

[McGovernForPrez]

I think there's a huge difference between the way Gillibrand and Clinton approach their femininity. Clinton was always one to try and downplay it as much as possible. She took very very hawkish positions on foreign policy for example. She tried to remove any doubt within voters minds that she was a "weak" woman. I don't think that ended up working out for her, as she came across in many's minds as condescending or snobbish. Gillibrand on the other hand seems to embrace that more mom-like aspect of herself. I was very anti-Gillibrand up until I read that one interview with her where she talks about her life as a mother. I thought it was extremely humanizing and made her far more relatable than Clinton. She has a really strong "family values" appeal that I think could put her in sharp contrast with Trump.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

I think there's a huge difference between the way Gillibrand and Clinton approach their femininity. Clinton was always one to try and downplay it as much as possible. She took very very hawkish positions on foreign policy for example. She tried to remove any doubt within voters minds that she was a "weak" woman. I don't think that ended up working out for her, as she came across in many's minds as condescending or snobbish. Gillibrand on the other hand seems to embrace that more mom-like aspect of herself. I was very anti-Gillibrand up until I read that one interview with her where she talks about her life as a mother. I thought it was extremely humanizing and made her far more relatable than Clinton. She has a really strong "family values" appeal that I think could put her in sharp contrast with Trump.

No one cares about "femininity." People will vote for a good leader whether it's a male or female.

[Mr. Morden]

I think there's a huge difference between the way Gillibrand and Clinton approach their femininity. Clinton was always one to try and downplay it as much as possible. She took very very hawkish positions on foreign policy for example. She tried to remove any doubt within voters minds that she was a "weak" woman. I don't think that ended up working out for her, as she came across in many's minds as condescending or snobbish. Gillibrand on the other hand seems to embrace that more mom-like aspect of herself.

Agreed.  And I think in general, there's a generation gap on this.  Elizabeth Dole, back in her 2000 presidential race, relentlessly emphasized that she was "tough", presumably figuring that the biggest hurdle for a female candidate for president is having to convince voters that she's tough enough for the job.  Clinton seemed to think along similar lines, and I think Warren (who's of the same generation as Clinton) is similar as well.

But the candidates born in the 60s or later (including Gillibrand) seem more attuned to the fact that female politicians can get burned from both sides:

“If you’re too tough, you’re not feminine. If you’re too feminine, you’re not tough enough. There’s a very small space between those two that is safe territory.”

This younger generation of female pols seems more adept at navigating that space, though that doesn't necessarily mean they always make the right choice.  Gillibrand goes farther in the other direction than I think any other woman with presidential ambitions that I've seen.  E.g., tearing up in an interview when she talks about being hormonal as a new mother, and how this impacted her views on gun control.  Is that a step too far for American voters in terms of a woman running for president embracing her status as a woman?  I guess we'll find out.

[McGovernForPrez]

I think there's a huge difference between the way Gillibrand and Clinton approach their femininity. Clinton was always one to try and downplay it as much as possible. She took very very hawkish positions on foreign policy for example. She tried to remove any doubt within voters minds that she was a "weak" woman. I don't think that ended up working out for her, as she came across in many's minds as condescending or snobbish. Gillibrand on the other hand seems to embrace that more mom-like aspect of herself. I was very anti-Gillibrand up until I read that one interview with her where she talks about her life as a mother. I thought it was extremely humanizing and made her far more relatable than Clinton. She has a really strong "family values" appeal that I think could put her in sharp contrast with Trump.

No one cares about "femininity." People will vote for a good leader whether it's a male or female.

You completely missed the point.

[HisGrace]

Clinton lost because of all the baggage she had accrued over the course of 20+ years lead to her being perceived as corrupt and because she's a big stiff, not because of her moderate views. Gillibrand has neither of those things.

[Tintrlvr]

One point that I have not seen mentioned is that, last I heard, Gillibrand's husband was not a United States citizen, and I don't think there have been any moves recently for him to acquire citizenship. While almost certainly not going to be an issue in a Democratic primary, this seems like a prime line of attack (if totally unfair) in a general election and probably hurts her electability at least a little bit. Especially given he'd be a prospective first First Man, which for very obviously sexist reasons would be assumed by many to be a more politically involved position than some First Ladies (Melania being the clear contrast, although Laura Bush was also very much out of political view). Hillary Clinton and to a lesser degree Michelle Obama were relatively politically involved in ways where I can see there being some discomfort in the public with having a non-citizen making those calls. Gillibrand would at least have to shy away from talking about her family being a "team" from a governance perspective the way Clinton and Obama did. (I've never heard him speak so don't know what he sounds like but would be terrible on the campaign trail for him to speak with an English accent, too.)

[Mr. Morden]

One point that I have not seen mentioned is that, last I heard, Gillibrand's husband was not a United States citizen, and I don't think there have been any moves recently for him to acquire citizenship. While almost certainly not going to be an issue in a Democratic primary, this seems like a prime line of attack (if totally unfair) in a general election and probably hurts her electability at least a little bit.

That is interesting.  I knew he was British, but didn't realize he wasn't a US citizen.  Actually, I guess I did know, since there was a thread about that back in 2012 which I posted in, but I guess I forgot:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=165457.20

That said, I imagine that the chances are high that he'll apply for citizenship between now and 2019, should she actually decide to run for president in 2020.  It would be a little weird for her to run for president and have her husband unable to vote for her.  (Maybe there'll be attack ads saying "Even her own husband has never voted for her!"  )

Anyway, yeah, easy enough to fix by having him apply for citizenship within the next two years.  If Cory Booker is willing to get married for the presidency, then surely Gillibrand can talk her husband into becoming a US citizen.

[BlueSwan]

When did Gillibrand gain all this popularity on atlas?  I feel Klobuchar, Harris & Warren are all much better/stronger options for a female Democrat to win.  Each for their own reasons; they have unique appeals that could build winning coalitions.  Not sure what winning coalition Gillibrand would build.

Totally agree.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

No, unfortunately, Elizabeth Warren is. Klobuchar, McCaskill, Gillibrand, and others are way better imo.