Kirsten Gillibrand Struggles To Meet Donor Threshold To Make Debate Stage
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.
ADVERTISEMENT“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.
Comments
Kirsten has accomplished zilch since coming to congress. It appears being a woman is her only qualification.
Actually, she managed to flip flop on just about every major issue since her days in the House representing a more conservative district in NY. Even in a party known for major flip floppers her “evolution” is pretty remarkable.
She has no core values and voters know it.
Gillibrand does own the stupidest thing said during the Kavanaugh hearings, even edging out the misandric Senator from Hawaii. And she said it with such fervour:
” I believe her because she’s telling the truth”.
Not just dumb, but irrational.
But but but but……
She’s got lady parts!!!
You say that like it’s a bad thing bw. Considering her leftist beliefs I consider it a plus that she hasn’t accomplished anything other than being complicit to the more fascist of the dem senators.
Gillibrand might as well drop out now and save herself further embarrassment.
The same goes for the former governor of my home state, John (took my mom to Deep Throat) Hickenlooper.
We need to start a bracket-style prediction of how quickly each of the candidates will drop out.
First prize, a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book.
No first prize a copy of Das Kapital. Second prize the Little Red Book.
1st Place – one copy each of Das Kapital and Mao’s Little Red Book,
2nd Place – two copies of each
I’m tempted to toss a few bucks her way just to get this lunatic on the stage. Although a neighbor of mine took this to an extreme when he registered to vote as a Dem in the primary because he thought that Obama would be an easy opponent for McCain. Then 4 years later he had an opportunity to be an RNC delegate for Romney (he went to school with him) but was rejected since he never changed back to Republican.
Helen Holden Slottje, a 52-year-old New Hampshire attorney, noted the irony in women raising concerns about nominating a woman.
No “irony” there at all. Women are in favor of anything which works to women’s advantage. That does not necessarily mean a woman in the Oval Office. Rather, that’s an unattractive option—Mencken long ago pointed out that “On one issue, at least, men and women agree; they both distrust women.”
Money raised is a funny way to pare the debates down.
Gives you a sense of what they think the most important things are.
They’ll just change the rules to accommodate her.
No way they exclude a woman
Yes. A much better alternative would be how many times a candidate has said he has evidence of collusion.
Gillibrand is struggling to meet any reason why she is in the US Senate.
Gillibrand initially ran as a pro-Second Amendment, anti-tax, limited abortion Democrat.
Upon election, she immediately became a No Guns For Individuals, unlimited taxes for the living or dead, abortion after birth of the baby, No First Amendment Rights For Conservative nut case.
In a single minute on her election she turned into a bizarre fascist monster.
Interesting that 3 years later they fail to recognize the real reasons that Hillary lost and continue to blame sexism, etc., if they told AP the truth. As said many times about fanatics and “true believers” it is next to impossible for them to realize that their earlier failed idea was actually bad and now, after re-evaluating it, see that it was bad from the start.
Hillary was a bad candidate:cold, arrogant, saw herself as the heir apparent, no actual experience, and the list goes on. Then coupled with the super delegate mess, the bathroom server, Benghazi… she was doomed. Only the fanatics who bought into the whole “womens’ solidarity” mantra kept it as close as it was.* Until the ladies of the left sit down and take the Hillary candidacy down to bare metal to see the flaws, they are on thin ice for 2020…
But they won’t, can’t, do it because: plumbing.
*And thanks to Jill Stein who ended up putting the puck in the wrong net.
All of this ^^ and she ran a horrible campaign. She just assumed she had WI, MI and PA locked up.
Her whole political career has been based on one lie after another and now she vies with hillary as to who is the biggest liar.
Sorry, but that’s no contest.
Her Herness has the lying, deceit, treachery and underhandedness gig all sewed up without waking from her Chardonnay coma.
Gillibrand in comparison with the Master of Lies is but a mere amateur; a child playing with fibs.
This is how Democrats see America. They see sexism and racism where it doesn’t exist, because they expect to see it. The country has been ready to elect a woman as president for at least 25 years, probably longer. Electing a black president was surely a bigger hurdle, and the country was ready for that by probably 1996, or 2000 at the latest. By 2008 the country was so enthusiastic about the idea that it was willing to suspend its disbelief and fall for The Won’s flimflam. Clinton’s loss in 2016 had nothing to do with her sex.
That’s exactly right, a lot of people did vote for him because they didn’t want to vote for her. But not because of her sex. On the contrary, she got a lot of votes for no other reason than her sex, while Trump didn’t get any because of his. If Clinton had been male she’d have lost in a landslide.
If not for the ‘desire for a female president’, Hillary might have gotten closer to 42 or 43%
I doubt Franken was the driver. He was a creepy comedian from Minnesota that voted along far-left party lines who got caught ‘creeping’ on a woman red-handed. Including photographic evidence. There is no way Franken digs out from the damage caused by that photo. He ruined his career all on his own.
My hunch is that the donor backlash against Gillibrand is from Team Clinton supporters after Gillibrand aligned herself with women against Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Clinton, Inc. and the DNC when the MeToo ‘contract hit’ was put out on Trump after the Billy Bush tape.
I would imagine the only reason she was supported in her re-election is because the alternative would have been a Yucky Republican. If you think I’m kidding just look to Virginia which refuses to act against the top 3 simply because the 4th in line could be a republican. They simply can’t have that so they’ll ignore things that would end the career of any other person.
The republican response? They’ll send out a sternly worded letter or something.
May her pogrom against Americans be short and indelible.
Empty Pantsuit.