Senator Gillibrand formally launches presidential campaign

[webfact]

Senator Gillibrand formally launches presidential campaign

By Ginger Gibson

 

FILE PHOTO: Democratic 2020 U.S. presidential candidate Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) greets customers while campaigning for president at Revelstoke Coffee in Concord, New Hampshire, U.S., February 15, 2019. REUTERS/Brian Snyder/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand formally launched her presidential bid on Sunday morning, announcing she will deliver her first major speech next week in front of Trump International Hotel in New York City.

 

Gillibrand, who launched an exploratory committee earlier this year as a precursor, joins more than a dozen other Democrats who have already formally entered the contest to win the nomination to challenge Republican President Donald Trump in the November 2020 election.

 

"We need a leader who makes big, bold, brave choices. Someone who isn’t afraid of progress," Gillibrand says in a video released Sunday morning to formalise her entry into the campaign. "That’s why I’m running for president. And it’s why I’m asking you for your support."

 

Gillibrand, 52, had already been campaigning in key states that hold early primary contests. She has struggled to see her polling numbers increase in the wake of her initial announcement, a benefit some of her other opponents enjoyed after starting their campaigns. Gillibrand remains at 1 percent in most public opinion polls of the Democratic primary.

 

Gillibrand opted to use a video instead of a speech at a rally, the traditional method, to formally launch her campaign. She will travel on Monday to campaign in Michigan, followed by stops in key early contest states of Iowa and Nevada.

 

On March 24, Gillibrand will deliver a launch speech in her home state in front of TrumpInternational Hotel in New York City, to take "her positive, brave vision of restoring America’s moral integrity straight to President Trump’s doorstep," her campaign said.

 

The launch video released Sunday morning alludes to several policy debates, including immigration, gun control and climate change.

 

"We launched ourselves into space and landed on the moon. If we can do that, we can definitely achieve universal health care," Gillibrand said in the video. "We can provide paid family leave for all, end gun violence, pass a Green New Deal, get money out of politics and take back our democracy."

 

Gillibrand has sought to position herself as a unifying figure who can appeal to rural voters.

 

Some in the Democratic party believe an establishment figure who can appeal to centrist voters is the way to victory. Others argue a fresh face, and particularly a diverse one, is needed to energize the party's increasingly left-leaning base.

 

Gillibrand was a member of the centrist and fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition while in the House of Representatives. Her positions became more liberal after she was appointed to fill the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton in New York when Clinton became former President Barack Obama's secretary of state.

 

Gillibrand then won the seat in a special election and was re-elected to six-year terms in 2012 and 2018. She has attributed the ideology shift to representing a liberal state versus a more conservative district.

 

As a senator, Gillibrand was outspoken about rape in the military and campus sexual assault years before the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and assault first arose in 2017.

 

In late 2017, as she pushed for a bill changing how Congress processes and settles sexual harassment allegations made by staffers, some prominent party leaders criticized her for being the first Democratic senator to urge the resignation of Senator Al Franken, who was accused of groping and kissing women without their consent.

 

During the same period, Gillibrand said Hillary Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, should have resigned from the White House after his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, which led to his impeachment by the House. Some criticized the senator for attacking the Clintons, who had supported her political career.

 

(Reporting by Ginger Gibson; Editing by Nick Zieminski)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-03-18

[Cryingdick]

More cannon fodder that will ultimately feed upon eachother.

[khwaibah]

Just another turd to be flushed.

[Cryingdick]

6 minutes ago, khwaibah said:

Just another turd to be flushed.

The only chance the dems have is Biden and I am sure he is assessing right no if he wants to become a slave to the new green deal folks. The situation is ugly to say the least.

[alex8912]

17 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

The only chance the dems have is Biden and I am sure he is assessing right no if he wants to become a slave to the new green deal folks. The situation is ugly to say the least.

But after one term he will be 82 after 2 terms ( if he is still alive ) 86! 

I think he needs to retire on a high note this year. Do us all a favor. 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand formally launched her presidential bid on Sunday morning, announcing she will deliver her first major speech next week in front of Trump International Hotel in New York City.

Another Dem that can't get Trump out of her head.

It amazes me that someone with 1% is able to get financial backing.

[lannarebirth]

More like failure to launch, so she's having a do over. Her original announcement came in January, but I guess not enough people noticed.

[quandow]

Kirsten WHO?

[Nyezhov]

5 minutes ago, quandow said:

Kirsten WHO?

A pandering fork tongued hypocritical political hack who lied her way to office and who would stab her mother in the back if it got her a vote.

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

A pandering fork tongued hypocritical political hack who lied her way to office and who would stab her mother in the back if it got her a vote.

This condemnation coming from an ardent Trump supporter. Double standards much?

[helpisgood]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Some in the Democratic party believe an establishment figure who can appeal to centrist voters is the way to victory.

 

Okay, whether it works or not, I can understand the concern for the "centrist voters," however they may be defined.

 

Yet, why "an establishment figure"?  Were not the two big surprise candidates of 2016 Trump and Sanders, who both uniquely and strongly attacked "the establishment" in different ways, however sincere they may have been?  Also, the 2018 midterm elections were clearly not an endorsement of the establishment politician as well. 

 

Yes, Gillibrand is a woman, which makes her appeal different.  However, Hillary Clinton had some difficulties disassociating herself from banks, etc., - among other problems - whether you think that was fair or not, but she lost (well, okay, just the Electoral College, but that's another topic).  Of course, those establishment ties may have played a role in losing such key rust belt and "flyover states" as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.   

 

Again, so much for the appeal of "an establishment figure."

 

I guess those supporting such an establishment figure are maybe Dems who are part of the so-called "establishment" and would get better deals if an establishment candidate wins? 

[Jingthing]

 

Okay, whether it works or not, I can understand the concern for the "centrist voters," however they may be defined.

 

Yet, why "an establishment figure"?  Were not the two big surprise candidates of 2016 Trump and Sanders, who both uniquely and strongly attacked "the establishment" in different ways, however sincere they may have been?  Also, the 2018 midterm elections were clearly not an endorsement of the establishment politician as well. 

 

Yes, Gillibrand is a woman, which makes her appeal different.  However, Hillary Clinton had some difficulties disassociating herself from banks, etc., - among other problems - whether you think that was fair or not, but she lost (well, okay, just the Electoral College, but that's another topic).  Of course, those establishment ties may have played a role in losing such key rust belt and "flyover states" as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.   

 

Again, so much for the appeal of "an establishment figure."

 

I guess those supporting such an establishment figure are maybe Dems who are part of the so-called "establishment" and would get better deals if an establishment candidate wins? 

You're wrong about the midterms. The main reason the democrats won back the house was more moderate candidates often with military records winning more purple districts that went for 45 in 16. Yes the more leftist ones like Aoc get all the press. She is from one of the most solid democrat districts in the country. Literally a donkey would win in that district against an actually good republican if there was such a thing.

 

Your other points for 2020 I don't know yet. 2020 isn't 2016 or 2018. Democrats are probably going to try to thread the needle and try to build a coalition including centrist independents and silly democrats that voted for 45 before that is also clearly for progressive policies such as health care access for all that are actually overwhelming popular.

Buttigeig?

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

The only chance the dems have is Biden and I am sure he is assessing right no if he wants to become a slave to the new green deal folks. The situation is ugly to say the least.

I think Biden would win and he's not a bad choice but I totally disagree that he's the only one that could beat 45. I think most of them could.

 

I'll never forgive Gillibrand for what she did to Al Franken who was 1000 times the politician she is. The sooner she drops out the better.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

[Thainesss]

Im loving the playing field thus far. Have zero doubt Trump will be elected if these fools are his opposition. Trump will eat them alive. Not a natural human being in the group of them. All of them have to act like they are something they arent and need to be coached just to appear normal. 

 

And Gillibrand is the most white-bread, milquetoast faker of them all. 

 

Im sure Kamala will have some hot sauce in her purse and some Tupac on her phone though. 

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

Im loving the playing field thus far. Have zero doubt Trump will be elected if these fools are his opposition. Trump will eat them alive. Not a natural human being in the group of them. All of them have to act like they are something they arent and need to be coached just to appear normal. 

 

And Gillibrand is the most white-bread, milquetoast faker of them all. 

 

Im sure Kamala will have some hot sauce in her purse and some Tupac on her phone though. 

I find your overconfidence hollow. I do think the democrats need to run and run hard as if 45 could be reelected. Yes, he could. But that doesn't mean he will. 

 

As far as Gillibrand, well almost all of the current choices have low odds to be nominated and she's one of those with low odds. In her case, I hope they stay low. Biden's better numbers have been earned not only based on name recognition but also his very long record, and I do mean very. O'Rourke's better numbers seem based on magic fairy dust. The more I see him the more I don't like him, but in case he's nominated -- GO BETO!

The fact that very dark horse Buttigeig actually has some (of course little) chance of being nominated and then president is a telling sign of just how unusual this time is in American political history. People are actually listening to him and giving him a chance -- based on what I've heard, he deserves that chance. 

Edited March 18, 2019 by Jingthing

[bendejo]

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I think Biden would win and he's not a bad choice but I totally disagree that he's the only one that could beat 45. I think most of them could.

 

I'll never forgive Gillibrand for what she did to Al Franken who was 1000 times the politician she is. The sooner she drops out the better.

 

 

Full agreement on the Al Franken thing.  She can take her Suzie Creamcheese act and go to hell.

The big difference between the Dems and the GOP is that the Repubs don't draw eachother's blood in public, whereas the Dems are like the white trash couple who stage their domestic shouting matches in the Walmart parking lot.  There's a famous quote by Saint Ronnie that Repubs never go against another of their kind; I would look it up but I'm already feeling nauseated.

 

I don't like Biden.  I learned who he was in 1988 and pegged him as a "bs as usual" pol and it's been downhill since.  The "sad man of personal tragedy" will not win him an election.  Also he has so much mess in his history I'd suspect there are GOP operatives praying he is the candidate.  That plagiarism scandal from '88 was never reconciled, it's just not talked about anymore.  For now.  On the other hand he could be the one to lure GOP voters who are sick of the current guy.  Biden is a veteran of the days when there wasn't that much philosophical difference between the two parties.

 

Beto?  I'm already bored.  Ambitious young go-getter -- am I on Sand Hill Road?

 

But yeah, the priority is to get us out of the Orange Nightmare.  I think the next election will be about personality more than policies.  Sorry Liz.

 

 

 

[Cryingdick]

On 3/18/2019 at 2:23 AM, Jingthing said:

You're wrong about the midterms. The main reason the democrats won back the house was more moderate candidates often with military records winning more purple districts that went for 45 in 16. Yes the more leftist ones like Aoc get all the press. She is from one of the most solid democrat districts in the country. Literally a donkey would win in that district against an actually good republican if there was such a thing.

 

Your other points for 2020 I don't know yet. 2020 isn't 2016 or 2018. Democrats are probably going to try to thread the needle and try to build a coalition including centrist independents and silly democrats that voted for 45 before that is also clearly for progressive policies such as health care access for all that are actually overwhelming popular.

Buttigeig?

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

The far left are beginning to decline in popularity already. I asked my mom (who is a diehard democrat) who she would vote for out of that bunch? She actually said Trump. lol I think people who aren't on the ground over here are out of touch that believe it or not this latest wave of dems are hated and despised as much as *gasp* Trump. Trump will be re-elected for the second time losing the pop vote but getting the rust belt and everywhere else. 

 

Keep living in your bubbles of confirmation bias realms such as this forum or where ever else you go. The media (especially social media) is painting a completely different picture than what the reality on the ground is.

 

There isn't the money to pay for healthcare on that level. That's the thing many people would possibly support it but that kind of money doesn't exist. You can have healthcare added or keep your social security. You can't have both. Many younger people are going to finance their own health insurance and retirement fund. You would be batsh!t crazy to think SS will be around if you are 20 years old today. 

 

All the billionaires if you took 100% don't equal trillions. Bezos, Buffett, Gates. After that the amounts drop off severely. You would literally not get $500 billion. Here is where my comment on SS comes in. If they print money to do it the USA will be downgraded on its credit rating very quickly. That's already a threat with just the status quo. 

 

The dollar would drop sharply. Making the debt harder to service compounded by higher interest rates as we struggle to keep the debt afloat. That would be the end of it. I can tell you any Farang living abroad on a fixed income would be the first to suffer. If you want a very low dollar vote for people likely to print money and spend on fairytales you might regret what you asked for.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Cryingdick

[earlinclaifornia]

8 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The far left are beginning to decline in popularity already. I asked my mom (who is a diehard democrat) who she would vote for out of that bunch? She actually said Trump. lol I think people who aren't on the ground over here are out of touch that believe it or not this latest wave of dems are hated and despised as much as *gasp* Trump. Trump will be re-elected for the second time losing the pop vote but getting the rust belt and everywhere else. 

 

Keep living in your bubbles of confirmation bias realms such as this forum or where ever else you go. The media (especially social media) is painting a completely different picture than what the reality on the ground is.

 

There isn't the money to pay for healthcare on that level. That's the thing many people would possibly support it but that kind of money doesn't exist. You can have healthcare added or keep your social security. You can't have both. Many younger people are going to finance their own health insurance and retirement fund. You would be batsh!t crazy to think SS will be around if you are 20 years old today. 

 

All the billionaires if you took 100% don't equal trillions. Bezos, Buffett, Gates. After that the amounts drop off severely. You would literally not get $500 billion. Here is where my comment on SS comes in. If they print money to do it the USA will be downgraded on its credit rating very quickly. That's already a threat with just the status quo. 

 

The dollar would drop sharply. Making the debt harder to service compounded by higher interest rates as we struggle to keep the debt afloat. That would be the end of it. I can tell you any Farang living abroad on a fixed income would be the first to suffer. If you want a very low dollar vote for people likely to print money and spend on fairytales you might regret what you asked for.

Seems like cryingdick fits you well.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Seems like cryingdick fits you well.

Anything to contribute to the OP, or are you just into deflecting?

 

I wonder how long she has till the money runs out. I can't believe any serious moneymen will continue to back a sure loser.

[Cryingdick]

13 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Seems like cryingdick fits you well.

 

LOL My fellow posters are sifting through the garbage because anything but America suits them. I am happy so let's so who is crying in 2020. It won't affect me much either way. There is only 11 years 9.53 months left now anyway. 

 

The dems can't win with the college and they know it.

[quandow]

13 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Seems like cryingdick fits you well.

Cheap shot. I HATE Trump and rarely agree with Cryingdick, but he keeps it civil and has thoughtful, though mostly wrong, comments. (See what I did there - left handed compliment?) ????

[quandow]

There is a certain sad but true aspect that must be part of every winner in this contest - crowd appeal. Bernie and Trump have the greatest crowd appeal, and anyone who says otherwise is not facing facts. Senator Gillibrand will never have that certain something that draws such YUGE numbers. I'm reminded of Stephen King's "The Stand" and believe this election will be much the same as this story's ending.

[lannarebirth]

28 minutes ago, quandow said:

There is a certain sad but true aspect that must be part of every winner in this contest - crowd appeal. Bernie and Trump have the greatest crowd appeal, and anyone who says otherwise is not facing facts. Senator Gillibrand will never have that certain something that draws such YUGE numbers. I'm reminded of Stephen King's "The Stand" and believe this election will be much the same as this story's ending.

Gillibrand gets some Big Pharma and Wall Street money to seed her campaign. Maybe some M I L F interest. After that, she's done.

Edited March 21, 2019 by lannarebirth

[quandow]

9 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Gillibrand gets some Big Pharma and Wall Street money to seed her campaign. Maybe some M I L F interest. After that, she's done.

Oh, she is certainly a M I L F, but interest in boinking doesn't result in votes.

[lannarebirth]

18 minutes ago, quandow said:

Oh, she is certainly a M I L F, but interest in boinking doesn't result in votes.

You can't say this kind of stuff now, but as recently as 20 years ago Cosmo used to write articles for women about the candidate they found the most sexually attractive and of course that was who got the womens vote. I don't know if it's different now.

 

Additionally, when she ran for Congress she ran in a traditionally conservative district so her platform was pro gun and anti immigrant. Fortunately for her she got bumped up to the Senate by Obama right quick in order to fill Hillary Clintons vacant post upon being named Secretary of State in Obamas administration.

Edited March 21, 2019 by lannarebirth

[quandow]

19 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

You can't say this kind of stuff now, but as recently as 20 years ago Cosmo used to write articles for women about the candidate they found the most sexually attractive and of course that was who got the womens vote. I don't know if it's different now.

When women were asked why they voted for Bill Clinton, they replied they thought he was sexy. Can't say the same about Hillary.