Kirsten Gillibrand had a better chance of being president 10 years ago

[Barack Oganja]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://nypost.com/2018/07/07/kirsten-gillibrand-had-a-better-chance-of-being-president-10-years-ago/

I definitely don't agree with all of Gillibrand's past stances, and moving left as her party and the country move left on certain issues is understandable. However, I think she is pandering in a way no other Senator is, and that lack of political savviness will hurt her. It's hard to say exactly what she stands for and differentiate her from the others.

[IceSpear]

Post-transformation Gillibrand can't even poll above two percent in national polling after more than a decade as a high-profile Senator. There's absolutely no reason to believe that her herrenvolk incarnation of 10 years-past would be doing better than, like, John Delaney or something.

The quip re: her BETRAYAL OF ISRAEL is adorable, too, and certainly shreds any credibility the article might've had.

Primary polls this early are meaningless, it's just name recognition. Bernie was polling at 0% in 2014.

[ON Progressive]

Post-transformation Gillibrand can't even poll above two percent in national polling after more than a decade as a high-profile Senator. There's absolutely no reason to believe that her herrenvolk incarnation of 10 years-past would be doing better than, like, John Delaney or something.

The quip re: her BETRAYAL OF ISRAEL is adorable, too, and certainly shreds any credibility the article might've had.

Primary polls this early are meaningless, it's just name recognition. Bernie was polling at 0% in 2014.

This. There are a lot of people who don't even know who their own state's Senators are, nevermind Senators from other states.

[henster]

Yes a conservative columnist from the NY Post definitely has a good read on Gillibrand.

[Zaybay]

Post-transformation Gillibrand can't even poll above two percent in national polling after more than a decade as a high-profile Senator. There's absolutely no reason to believe that her herrenvolk incarnation of 10 years-past would be doing better than, like, John Delaney or something.

The quip re: her BETRAYAL OF ISRAEL is adorable, too, and certainly shreds any credibility the article might've had.

Primary polls this early are meaningless, it's just name recognition. Bernie was polling at 0% in 2014.

This. There are a lot of people who don't even know who their own state's Senators are, nevermind Senators from other states.

The problem with that is that she has gotten a lot of name recognition. Shes in the news all the time, headlines about her support, on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. Many polls are able to peg ratings for Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, who were all were relative unknowns who are now in the spotlight, like KG. Yet all three have higher national ratings than her. She is senator of NY, she has a large base that should support her. Cory has NJ, a medium state, Kamala has CA, which is large but voted 35% against her in a Dem election, and Warren has my home state and some Bernie Bros, yet all seem to have decent enough name rec to get a good amount of voters in the primary. Hell, in the same primary polling, Andrew Cuomo has a higher amount of support from Ds.

I personally doubt her chances in 2020, and I doubt her old incarnation would do well either.

[Rookie Yinzer]

This thread is a reach.

[Mr. Smith]

You kidding? She's in a great place right now, or should be on paper.

Her problem is that she ceded to the dues payer in 2013 from her state and looks a little like her even, and said payer somehow couldn't make a 3 million lead that managed the best leads in Georgia, Texas, and Arizona in twenty years and instead lost The Midwest to an even bigger elitist.

Compound that with the field now open for nearly anyone with D next to their name, preference to those with politics of Hubert Humphrey or George McGovern rather than Bill Clinton or Nelson Rockefeller.

Also 10 years ago was when Hillary was someone the establishment were skeptical of just because of the name, and Iraq/Recession was all that mattered. She could've had all those positions she takes now, or she could've been as conservative as '80's Al Gore and potentially won Arkansas/Missouri/Montana and possibly even Georgia/West Virginia against McCain/Romney/Huckabee along with the other Obama states.

It's just not as simple as even then. More polarized on everything.

[Mr. Morden]

The problem with that is that she has gotten a lot of name recognition. Shes in the news all the time, headlines about her support, on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox.

I don't think her national name recognition is all that high, to be honest.  I wish there were more pollsters testing the favorability #s for the likely 2020 candidates, so we could get a better read on their name recognition, but here's a Fox poll from January, that has her national favorability at:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=283045.0

favorable 18%
unfavorable 17%
don't know 65%

So only a third of respondents have an opinion of her, though it's a bit higher for Dems.  My recollection is that that's similar to what other polls have shown, though I don't think there have been any that tested her favorability in the last few months, which is why I had to go back to January.

For whatever reason, the 2020 Dems have been mostly unsuccessful so far in becoming well known.  Contrast that with the Republican field four years ago at this time, when folks like Christie, Cruz, and Rubio all managed to get more than 50% name recognition despite never having run for president before.

[Mr. Smith]

The problem with that is that she has gotten a lot of name recognition. Shes in the news all the time, headlines about her support, on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox.

I don't think her national name recognition is all that high, to be honest.  I wish there were more pollsters testing the favorability #s for the likely 2020 candidates, so we could get a better read on their name recognition, but here's a Fox poll from January, that has her national favorability at:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=283045.0

favorable 18%
unfavorable 17%
don't know 65%

So only a third of respondents have an opinion of her, though it's a bit higher for Dems.  My recollection is that that's similar to what other polls have shown, though I don't think there have been any that tested her favorability in the last few months, which is why I had to go back to January.

For whatever reason, the 2020 Dems have been mostly unsuccessful so far in becoming well known.  Contrast that with the Republican field four years ago at this time, when folks like Christie, Cruz, and Rubio all managed to get more than 50% name recognition despite never having run for president before.

Trump sucks the air out of everything. I imagine the GOP field would have similar troubles had that 77,000 gone the other way.