Gillibrand is "pumping millions into ads"

[question everything]

From

http://www.startribune.com/fuzzy-math-democrats-spend-big-to-draw-small-dollar-donors/558443412/

Facing a Wednesday deadline, a handful of Democratic White House hopefuls are racing against time — and odds — to qualify, trying desperately to meet the donor targets as well as reaching 2% in four approved public opinion polls.

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is pumping millions into online and TV advertising. Billionaire climate change activist Tom Steyer, a late entry to the race, has also spent $3.8 million on Facebook ads trying to boost his name recognition and rapidly add donors.

Others simply gave up — or dropped out.

=====

Might have been posted here already. What caught my eye was the millions spent by Gillibrand. Yes, I don't think she has any supporters here. But besides her being the first to go after Franken, what is she campaigning on? Yes, the vague "women issue." There are six women here, including the "guru" Williamson. So what, exactly is she promoting? Oh, she went after Biden for an opinion from 40 years ago, or something. Figured that if Harris could (with a short lived jump in the polls) why not her?

I kinda remember someone, a constituent? who early posted that it was not about Franken but about other issues. But I still wonder.

[guillaumeb]

1. At a certain point, some of the crowd must realize that the support is not there.

And that does not mean that the candidates who fail to make the cut are bad, simply that their message does not resonate with enough voters.

[hlthe2b]

2. There are a lot of bad feelings from the likes of Bennett, and other "low perforning" candidates...

including those who got into the race late and those who missed by only one or two polls in the two standard criteria.

While part of me thinks, "great, let's winnow down," I have to admit that it does make me uneasy to see candidates forced out this early--by way of excluding them from free media exposure in the debates.

So, maybe we should have a second night dedicated only to those who did not qualify for the main event (Keep the original qualifying 10 to their own night). It seems disparaging and much like the "children's table" comparison, but it might be the only way to appease candidates and supporters who believe they are being "railroaded" by the party.

[Thekaspervote]

3. Agree!! Why should anyone be silenced

[qazplm135]

9. they aren't being silenced

not getting to debate because you are drawing minimal support is not being silenced.

I'm only drawing one percent less support than a lot of these candidates and I'm not even running. Am I being silenced by not being allowed to debate?

[LincolnRossiter]

16. Exactly. If just declaring for the presidency entitled one to be taken seriously, why shouldn't we

all run? Some of these guys are pulling literally zero supporters in polls—so the same number as all of us posting here.

Stay in and waste your supporters’ money for as long as they’re willing to throw it at you. But don’t act as though the DNC owes you support.

[Hortensis]

13. "Silenced?" Oh, agree! This current "DNC glass always empty

and dirty" view doesn't begin to expose the truth. So let's toss this in it: Over 2000 candidates either filed to run in the Democratic presidential primary or formed formal exploratory committees. And we were only ALLOWED to hear about 26 of them.

Now if THAT isn't proof that democracy's dead and that the evil DNC pulled the trigger, I don't know what is.

Sigh. Just imagine a nation where The People could choose, where elections weren't hopelessly corrupt before they began, where WE weren't the ones effectively silenced...

SPECIAL NOTE FOR THOSE AGREE: Don't.

[MicaelS]

7. They had to know this would happen...

With so many candidates in the race. I really do not feel sorry for the 1% or less.

As far as Gillibrand, she dug her own grave. She has no one to blame but herself.

[calguy]

11. They all knew the rules before they jumped in

They all had 2 debates to get exposure they needed. Those who did not make any headway with 2 debates will probably not get any gains in the next 2. Out of 20+ candidates the party simply has to narrow the field. I like the debate rules and I think it's working for the best. Out of 20 candidates there are going to be a lot of losers. That's just reality.

[hlthe2b]

14. That's true, but ingnores fact that these rules eliminate opportunity for the less wealthy/funded

to gain name recognition, support, without finding some way to front a bunch of costly $$ ads as Gillibrand (who I don't support at all, mind you) is trying to do--as well as Steyers-- for the October debates, when the appearance on national tv for sanctioned debates would even the playing field.

They do have a point. We are making it such that only those with lots of name recognition, self-wealth, major support going into the primaries are likely to be able to sustain a campaign-even through the early months.

People like Bennett aren't contesting that the rules were well-publicized ahead of time, just that they favor those described above and afford little to no opportunity to others to run.

I'm mixed on my feelings as I've already stated. Part of me is relieved that we are winnowing out this early. Part of me likewise doesn't like the ramifications of what this means for future elections.

[qazplm135]

17. Buttigieg was wealthy?

Harris is more wealthy than Bullock? Or Booker? Castro?
None of them are more wealthy combined than Steyer.
If Gillibrand can afford millions in ads, I would suggest to you that she's plenty wealthy, she just didn't catch on.
Warren and Bernie isn't necessarily more wealthy than some of the other candidates and they made.

Yeah, I'm sorry but this argument simply doesn't fly.

[hlthe2b]

19. All four got in early and had more name recognition than the bottom tier.

I could likewise say your argument "doesn't fly," but I'd like to keep this a cordial discussion and keep rudeness out of it. We are on the same side after all and I clearly stated I was mixed in my feelings on this--merely taking the devil's advocate for the argument.

[qazplm135]

20. so you think questioning your argument equals rudeness?

Interesting take.

[hlthe2b]

21. No. I made clear what I found to be rude. Even quoted it back to you. Surely you didn't miss that?

Ever thought about responding to something with which you disagree by stating "I disagree" (and why) rather than deriding the other poster?

[qazplm135]

22. saying your argument doesn't fly

derides you how exactly.

[hlthe2b]

23. Done.

Obviously no point in further interaction, given you don't wish to converse, debate, but fight. Save it for the RW or go kick the trashcans. I'm not your punching bag. Nor do I intend to be one.

[qazplm135]

24. pretty simple question

but hey go ahead and alert. I mean if it's so obvious I'm deriding you, I should be warned for it yes?
So alert on it.

[comradebillyboy]

4. Hope springs eternal...

[msongs]

5. nobody is being forced out. marginals can campaign til convention if they want nt

[JGug1]

6. Not About Franken?

For me, Franken is MORE than enough. She is way too self serving for my taste. I hope she doesn't make the stage.

[question everything]

10. Same here. But as I said, someone posted here, some months ago

about earlier stands for which she, of course, apologized.

And....unless one of them is the nominee, for me he rest of the senators here, except Klobuchar (not sure about Sanders), were quick to join her..

[delisen]

8. "Vague "women issue" ? What do you mean?

Gillibrand is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

She has along history of standing up against sexual abuse in the military and also for abuse against gay and transgender persons.

It was Chuck Schumer the Senate Minority Leader who led the the drive to to force Franken's resignation and which a majority of Democrats then supported.

Franken has recently talked about Schumer's role as the leader.

Gillibrand may have been the first to call for Franken to resign but she was not the leader of the pack nor did she have the power of Schumer to to drum up support from the other senators-including the ones now running for president.

Gillibrand has never made a secret of her stand on sexual abuse accusations. She acted consistent with her beliefs. My belief was different - but I respect her stand.

The rest of the senators followed the lead of the head of the democratic caucus-Schumer had power over them, Gillibrand did not.

[question everything]

28. She dropped, but I wanted to reply to you

I appreciate your points. I have not followed her Senate career because, yes, I was soured by the Franken affair.

But I agree that she was not the only one. Schumer is not running for president, but all the other senators who are presidential candidates, except Klobuchar quickly joined the firing squad. And, as I have stated several times on these pages, unless one of them is the nominee I would never consider any of them. In the famous New Yorker story, it was mentioned that several senators now regret calling for his resignation, none of the presidential candidates have.

What I meant by "women issue" was that she appeared to be a single issue candidate. Many here were saddened by the departure of Inslee but he, too, was a one issue candidate. Cannot work, certainly not in a crowded field.

Last, I was already prejudiced against her and the way she declared her candidacy, on Colbert, him holding her hand with loving eyes, she coyly declaring... was so unprofessional, certainly unpresidential. And, a 50 year old "young mom?" Turned me off. But if she is a good senator I hope that she can make major contributions.

[delisen]

29. Thanks for your response!

[grantcart]

12. She is an eggregious flip flopper.

Not talking about evolving a new position, but nakedly jumping from one position to another out of pure political ambition.

When she represented a rural Congressional district in NY she was very pro gun, maybe the most pro gun Democratic Congressperson.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/the-flip-flopping-nature-kirsten-gillibran

While serving her upstate constituents, on immigration and guns she sounded more like a Texas conservative than a New York liberal. She opposed efforts to extend state drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants, and earned herself an “A” rating from the NRA, sponsoring a bill to delete background check information after 24 hours.

Then, she was appointed to Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat in 2008. On the day of her appointment, Mayor Michael Bloomberg publicly criticized her for her staunch opposition to gun control.

Now she portrays herself as a strong anti gun activist.

Gillibrand went after the NRA during her town hall event, during which she claimed the nonprofit Second Amendment organization “car[ed] more about their profits than the American people” and referred to them as “the worst organization in this country.”

. . .

“Gillibrand called us the worst org in the country, but when she represented NY20, she wrote us: ‘I appreciate the work that the NRA does to protect gun owners rights, and I look forward to working with you for many years,'” the NRA tweeted. “Now that she’s looking to crack 1%, she’ll say anything.”

She is the only Democratic Senator I wish would get primaried and sent to pasture.

[customerserviceguy]

18. She's the very definition of a political chameleon. n/t

[grantcart]

25. And now ex presidential candidate

[Dagstead Bumwood]

27. And that's an even better title.

[jberryhill]

15. It would be cooler if she put all the money into a rocket...

...and then exploded it way up high, so that we could all go "Oooooh" and applaud.

I'd love to see that instead of ads for someone for whom no one wants to vote.

[PoliticAverse]

26. Gillibrand ends Presidential campaign...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287257797