Is Steve Bullock acceptable to the Democratic base post-Parkland?

[Suburbia]

Is Montana Gov. Steve Bullock acceptable to the Democratic base and the Parkland shooting survivors after the shooting?

Bullock comes from a gun-friendly state, the Western state of Montana.

Is Bullock acceptable?

[History505]

He would be acceptable imo if he were to get far and become the Dem nominee, I don't think this would really haunt him.

[Medal506]

Democrats apparently don't like anyone who's not 100 percent pure communist so probably not

[Thunderbird is the word]

No but I already didn't see him as an acceptable candidate because he doesn't really appeal to any faction of the party other then the dwindling number of white socially moderate blue dogs which could get him 10-15% in Iowa at best and he'd only do that well if Biden doesn't run. He's a boring white male in the era of #metoo and is too centrist for the Bernie/Warren wing. I could see him potentially making it to the VP shortlist depending on who the nominee is but I think he's a long shot for the top of the ticket.

[Sestak]

No but I already didn't see him as an acceptable candidate because he doesn't really appeal to any faction of the party other then the dwindling number of white socially moderate blue dogs which could get him 10-15% in Iowa at best and he'd only do that well if Biden doesn't run. He's a boring white male in the era of #metoo and is too centrist for the Bernie/Warren wing. I could see him potentially making it to the VP shortlist depending on who the nominee is but I think he's a long shot for the top of the ticket.

Democrats apparently don't like anyone who's not 100 percent pure communist so probably not

You guys realise Bullock IS NOT A GODDAMNED BLUE DOG, right?

[CookieDamage]

No but I already didn't see him as an acceptable candidate because he doesn't really appeal to any faction of the party other then the dwindling number of white socially moderate blue dogs which could get him 10-15% in Iowa at best and he'd only do that well if Biden doesn't run. He's a boring white male in the era of #metoo and is too centrist for the Bernie/Warren wing. I could see him potentially making it to the VP shortlist depending on who the nominee is but I think he's a long shot for the top of the ticket.

Democrats apparently don't like anyone who's not 100 percent pure communist so probably not

You guys realise Bullock IS NOT A GODDAMNED BLUE DOG, right?

They know, they just have to be dishonest or else they're criticisms disparaging Dems won't have any legs. Unlike Dems criticizing Republicans, which I'm thankful we are given plenty of fodder for.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

He'll only become unpalatable if he runs on a platform of mealy-mouth platitudes about mental health which I'm sure he has enough sense not to do.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

He'll never be acceptable in any way. He's not progressive enough.

[YE]

He should take the Bernie Sanders route and maintain that gun companies shouldn't be sued but flip on an assault weapons ban. But be aware if he does, he's done winning statewide in MT, and honestly could damage the state party a bit.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

He should be. He's the formula it takes to actually win the electoral college. The Dems cast their lot with the fickle champagne liberals and unreliable college voters; They'll never go for someone electable ever again.

[Free Bird]

Implying that people don't regrettably forget about shootings after a month or two, much less two years.

[Devils30]

He could actually speak really intelligently on guns if he crafts the right message. Support an AR-15 ban but explain that guns are a big part of the culture in rural areas and people in Montana use them to hunt. He should go pretty left on economics, support higher taxes on the rich, student loan reform and a medicare buy in at 50.

[Joey1996]

He should take the Bernie Sanders route and maintain that gun companies shouldn't be sued but flip on an assault weapons ban. But be aware if he does, he's done winning statewide in MT, and honestly could damage the state party a bit.

He probably shouldn't be running for president then

[YE]

He should take the Bernie Sanders route and maintain that gun companies shouldn't be sued but flip on an assault weapons ban. But be aware if he does, he's done winning statewide in MT, and honestly could damage the state party a bit.

He probably shouldn't be running for president then

I mean if he was progressive on other issues, I don't think he's unacceptable. But I honestly don't know where he stands on the issues. It's harder to evaluate governors than senators in general. However, guns are serious downside for him in a primary where the ideological differences are small. The best thing on that issue he could do is what I said to minimize damage without completely flip flopping.

[Joey1996]

He should take the Bernie Sanders route and maintain that gun companies shouldn't be sued but flip on an assault weapons ban. But be aware if he does, he's done winning statewide in MT, and honestly could damage the state party a bit.

He probably shouldn't be running for president then

I mean if he was progressive on other issues, I don't think he's unacceptable. But I honestly don't know where he stands on the issues. It's harder to evaluate governors than senators in general. However, guns are serious downside for him in a primary where the ideological differences are small. The best thing on that issue he could do is what I said to minimize damage without completely flip flopping.

I mean if he is in a situation where his stance can put him at odds with his state party and the national party, he just shouldn't risk it. Taking no stance on an assualt rifle ban is preferable as governor of Montana, but it just won't fly with Democratic voters across the country...and this is coming from someone who isn't in favor of an assualt weapons ban. Why risk the possibility of not even making it out of the 2020 primary and guaranteeing a loss in the next gubernatorial race?

[Sestak]

He should take the Bernie Sanders route and maintain that gun companies shouldn't be sued but flip on an assault weapons ban. But be aware if he does, he's done winning statewide in MT, and honestly could damage the state party a bit.

He probably shouldn't be running for president then

I mean if he was progressive on other issues, I don't think he's unacceptable. But I honestly don't know where he stands on the issues. It's harder to evaluate governors than senators in general. However, guns are serious downside for him in a primary where the ideological differences are small. The best thing on that issue he could do is what I said to minimize damage without completely flip flopping.

I mean if he is in a situation where his stance can put him at odds with his state party and the national party, he just shouldn't risk it. Taking no stance on an assualt rifle ban is preferable as governor of Montana, but it just won't fly with Democratic voters across the country...and this is coming from someone who isn't in favor of an assualt weapons ban. Why risk the possibility of not even making it out of the 2020 primary and guaranteeing a loss in the next gubernatorial race?

He'll be term-limited in 2020... Or do you mean whoever succeeds him as Democratic nominee?

[Dr. MB]

I like Steve Bullock a lot.

He's not a moderate, but he sure does have the appearance of one.

But honestly, I think he should run against Steve Daines in 2020.

[Joey1996]

He should take the Bernie Sanders route and maintain that gun companies shouldn't be sued but flip on an assault weapons ban. But be aware if he does, he's done winning statewide in MT, and honestly could damage the state party a bit.

He probably shouldn't be running for president then

I mean if he was progressive on other issues, I don't think he's unacceptable. But I honestly don't know where he stands on the issues. It's harder to evaluate governors than senators in general. However, guns are serious downside for him in a primary where the ideological differences are small. The best thing on that issue he could do is what I said to minimize damage without completely flip flopping.

I mean if he is in a situation where his stance can put him at odds with his state party and the national party, he just shouldn't risk it. Taking no stance on an assualt rifle ban is preferable as governor of Montana, but it just won't fly with Democratic voters across the country...and this is coming from someone who isn't in favor of an assualt weapons ban. Why risk the possibility of not even making it out of the 2020 primary and guaranteeing a loss in the next gubernatorial race?

He'll be term-limited in 2020... Or do you mean whoever succeeds him as Democratic nominee?

Ah, didn't realize Montana only had 2 terms. Would probably still hurt the state party if he took a strong stance on assualt rifles though.

[Kingpoleon]

He could actually speak really intelligently on guns if he crafts the right message. Support an AR-15 ban but explain that guns are a big part of the culture in rural areas and people in Montana use them to hunt. He should go pretty left on economics, support higher taxes on the rich, student loan reform and a medicare buy in at 50.

ArmaLite AR-15 or Colt AR-15? There’s a difference.

[President Johnson]

I think yes, but may be biased.

Democrats should really consider puting this guy on top of the ticket. He's a solid progressive and moderate on guns and fiscal policy, strong on campaign finance reform, has charisma and no baggage and a fresh alternative. I hope Bullock makes an effort to become more present on the national level. He needs more name ID to have a chance.

[Sadader]

Not any less than Bernie. He’s not a right wing nutjob (he vetoed a few gun bills that would have allowed guns in post offices, and would have made concealed carry universal), but still seems pretty pro 2A, so has the bona fides to pull off the “gun control is not taking all of your guns away” message to placate both sides.

Bullock is a likable guy and a good speaker. He’s an excellent candidate for Veep, and I think he’d have a lot of appeal as a Presidential candidate.

[sverkol]

No one thinks that Bullock is a blue dog just because he is from a red state,Bernie supporters love Steve and they respect him.
How ever  i think that Steve should run for senate in 2020,we can find another good presidential nomaniee but this senate seat is very importent.

[Thunderbird is the word]

No but I already didn't see him as an acceptable candidate because he doesn't really appeal to any faction of the party other then the dwindling number of white socially moderate blue dogs which could get him 10-15% in Iowa at best and he'd only do that well if Biden doesn't run. He's a boring white male in the era of #metoo and is too centrist for the Bernie/Warren wing. I could see him potentially making it to the VP shortlist depending on who the nominee is but I think he's a long shot for the top of the ticket.

Democrats apparently don't like anyone who's not 100 percent pure communist so probably not

You guys realise Bullock IS NOT A GODDAMNED BLUE DOG, right?

They know, they just have to be dishonest or else they're criticisms disparaging Dems won't have any legs. Unlike Dems criticizing Republicans, which I'm thankful we are given plenty of fodder for.

Don't group me together with Sestack, maybe i'm wrong and Bullock deserves a closer look.
 *shrugs*

[Rookie Yinzer]

Yes.