2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton isn’t afraid of guns
Hillary Clinton isnt afraid of gunsby Paul Waldman at the Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/11/03/hillary-clinton-isnt-afraid-of-guns/
"SNIP.............
Hillary Clintons campaign just released an ad advocating action on guns, and it seems clear that shes going to continue talking about this issue. In fact, she could be the first Democratic nominee in a long while to treat the issue of guns without fear, and it shows that she has figured out a couple of key things about it that Democrats havent realized before.
One might see Clintons continued discussion of the gun issue (and the agenda on guns she released a month ago) as aimed primarily at Bernie Sanders, whose record on the issue is a mixed one. But from the beginning, Clinton has been simultaneously running a primary and general election campaign, knowing that anything she says now could be used against her later. Clinton employs a small army of pollsters, and you can be sure that they have thoroughly tested this issue in the context of both the primaries and a potential general election to determine what might be a good or bad idea for her to advocate.
It isnt as though Clinton desperately needs the gun issue in order to become the Democratic nominee. At most, it might make a marginal difference here or there. So why risk incurring the wrath of gun advocates? Thats the first thing Clinton seems to have realized: the National Rifle Association and their allies will come after her no matter what.
It doesnt matter if she talks about guns, or doesnt talk about guns. It doesnt matter if she advocates specific restrictions, or doesnt advocate specific restrictions. It doesnt matter if she goes hunting a couple of weeks before election day, like John Kerry did. The NRA will scream Shes coming for your guns!, just like they did with Barack Obama, and Kerry, and Al Gore, and Bill Clinton. Keeping gun owners in a constant state of fear is essential to maintaining their membership and keeping sales strong for the gun manufacturers who are the NRAs partners, and theyll do it no matter who the Democratic nominee is and what he or she says.
................SNIP"
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)It is like gun control folks getting together and taking a stand no matter what the gun lobby wants.
No fear.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)"When you mention that - gun control as a net losing election issue for Democrats - someone is likely to retort, But didnt Al Gore lose his home state because of guns, and doesnt that prove Democrats shouldnt touch this issue?
This is a myth thats been circulating for years, encouraged by gun advocates and spread by timorous Democrats. But its not true.
Al Gore didnt lose Tennessee because of the gun issue, he lost Tennessee because he was a Democrat. The state had been trending Republican for years, and continued to do so afterward (Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama there by 20 points in 2012). There is precisely zero evidence that the gun issue hurt Gore in Tennessee, and what evidence there is suggests that his position on guns helped him win other states with large urban and suburban populations like Pennsylvania and Michigan (I discussed that election, and the concomitant myth that the NRA won Congress for Republicans in 1994, at greater length in this article)."
oasis
(49,408 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I wonder if she'd be as passionate abut guns if the pollsters had told her "Hillary, I'd stay away from this one because only 49.5 percent of the potential voting demographic in the general elections wants to hear about it."
oasis
(49,408 posts)gun violence. She's no different on that issue than any other clear thinking American would be.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Prorestrictionist Democrats are already going to vote for her.
Being a vocal anti-gun Democrat won't help her and could hurt her. Bill made the some mistake and said in his book.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Cha
(297,673 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)says it all (from the Boss)
jfern
(5,204 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)You can't have it both ways
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Time is linear and events happen in a linear progression. Are you exactly the same person you were 10 years ago, 25 years ago, when you were a child? Are people ever allowed live in the present and allow events to inform their decisions in Bernieworld? What you presented is something that occured in an election years ago. Since then, how many school massacres and mass shootings have we had? Are you willing to suspend any concerns you may have about the victimization of people by gun violence to score a cynical political point based on a cheap card trick? Now you see it now you don't. Do you see those deaths?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)But tomorrow can be the best day of your life. We can't change the past gun violence but we can sure make a better tomorrow.
Cha
(297,673 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)and I am glad she is willing to do so. What the gun industry has done to this nation is reprehensible.
Cha
(297,673 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)She is running a smart campaign.
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)And she's right to take on the NRA and the gun lobby directly and emphatically.
Another way she's earned my support.