Meanwhile, even Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard have met the 65,000 donor threshold
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is having a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week as her 2020 presidential campaign team figures out that she may not make the cut . . . for the Democrat presidential debates.
Unable to reach 65,000 unique donors, Gillibrand may not take the stage with fellow Democrat presidential hopefuls like the ever popular Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard, both of whom have managed to reach that threshold.
Kirsten Gillibrand in an email to supporters says she still hasn’t reached 65,000 unique donors. This is something Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard have reached pic.twitter.com/lQ2LckIt3N
— Emma Kinery (@EmmaKinery) April 26, 2019
As Mike noted last year, Gillibrand’s campaign has been flailing since before its inception, largely due to her embrace of the #MeToo movement, an embrace many Democrats and their donors thought a bit too tight and a bit too lingering.
New York Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has already made it clear that she intends to run for president in 2020. In an ultimate twist of irony, her enthusiasm for #MeToo may be her undoing.
She is already having a problem with Democrat donors for supporting Al Franken’s resignation last year.
Democrat donors withheld funding for Gillibrand’s campaign, as reported by the Hill earlier this month.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D-N.Y.) presidential campaign suggested Sunday that the campaign’s low first-quarter fundraising totals could be partly attributed to backlash over Gillibrand’s decision in 2017 to call for the resignation of Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).
In a memo obtained by The New York Times, the campaign reportedly said there’s “no question” that donors are retaliating in response to Gillibrand calling on Franken, who had been accused of sexual harassment, to step aside.
“There’s no question that the first quarter was adversely impacted by certain establishment donors — and many online — who continue to punish Kirsten for standing up for her values and for women,” the memo reads.
Compounding Gillibrand’s Al Franken problem is the growing sense among Democrats that the Trump economy will be hard to beat in 2020.
In the absence of an economic slowdown, however, Trump is still benefiting from top-line numbers that Democrats are having difficulty undermining. Unemployment remains low, the economy is expanding and, on Friday, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq stock indices both reached record highs.
According to a recent CNN poll, 71 percent of Americans rate the nation’s economic conditions favorably. On an issue that voters reliably say they care deeply about, Trump’s otherwise dismal public approval ratings are holding above 50 percent.
“Our view is that Democrats would be very wise to recognize how steep the mountain is on the economy,” said Matt Bennett of the center-left group Third Way. “There are things about this economy that are very popular — low unemployment, a lot of jobs, there’s been some real wage increase. We attribute zero, zero percent of that to good Trump policy … But he will claim credit, as he does for the sun rising and everything else, and we have to be aware that that could be potent.”
He said, “What that means is that we need a very clear economic narrative that resonates deeply with the voters that we have to win, and we better not be caught up in our own blue bubble world.”
That “blue bubble world” includes identity politics, of course, and the news from female Democrat primary voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina is not good for Gillibrand.
Across Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, three of the first states to hold 2020 nominating contests, dozens of women told The Associated Press that they are worried about whether the country is ready to elect a woman as president. Their concerns are political and personal, rooted as much in fear of repeating Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Trump as in their own experiences with sexism and gender discrimination.
These worries have created a paradox for Democrats.
Women are among the party’s most energized and engaged voters, accounting for more than half the electorate in the 2018 midterms. Democrats sent a historic number of women to Congress last year and have a record number of women running for president, including Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.
But the Oval Office has been elusive, and given Democrats’ deep desire to oust Trump, some don’t want to take any chances with their nominee.
“I think a lot of people voted for him because they didn’t want to vote for her,” Katrina Riley, a 69-year-old from Summerville, South Carolina, said of the 2016 contest between Trump and Clinton. “And I don’t want that to happen again.”
Helen Holden Slottje, a 52-year-old New Hampshire attorney, noted the irony in women raising concerns about nominating a woman.
“I fear for that with women, that it’s, ‘Well, we had our chance. We had Hillary. Hillary didn’t pan out. Best to just pick another 65-year-old plus white guy who has the best chance of winning,’” Slottje said.
If she can’t get in the race (or even in the debates), Gillibrand is in a tough spot, largely of her own making, when it comes to her viability as the second ticket spot selection on the eventual 2020 Democratic ticket.
Did she burn her bridges with her enthusiastic #MeToo condemnation of Democrat males, from Franken up to and including former president Bill Clinton?
Time will tell, but if she doesn’t make the Democrat primary debate stage, she may want to start some schmoozing among the top tier 2020 Democrat contenders, both of whom are white males . . . one with a particularly problematic #MeToo profile.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.