Attended her Fox News town hall tonight in Raleigh. It was my first time attending an event like this. Was seated on stage to side. Was facing directly at the camera, could read their teleprompters and was so close I could see the horrible pancake makeup they packed onto Bret Baier’s face. It was a pretty cool experience. Both to attend as a voter, but to also see the production element. Credit where credit is due: Fox News did a pretty good job and the hosts were fair. That said, there were only about five questions or so from audience members. I definitely expected more questions. Overall, though, was a great experience and I’d highly recommend checking out a similar event if/when they come to a town near you.
As expected, she was great. Personable, pragmatic and very prepared. Its really amazing how in-depth she can get into policy, how the legislative process works and the like. Her ability to talk about policy detail is extremely impressive. Her answers were so detailed and lengthy that Bret Baier made a joke about her talking less during the first commercial break. She handled the predictable Fox News question on abortion masterfully. A woman that identifies as a Trump voting Democrat (I have many questions), asked the question and appeared to be a single issue voter. Klobs nailed it. Gave a great answer on the corona virus. I saw Fox News circulating that clip. Biden would have tripped, fell and cartwheeled off of the stage if he attempted to talk about the issues at the length she did. It’s really sad it’s all coming to end for her. She’s almost a victim of her own doing: a detail-oriented moderate pushing incremental change. With the underlined being two factors that might have worked against her when it comes to galvanizing support and creating a following. A large majority of the electorate doesn’t know or care to hear the details. It bores them. A large portion of them think Washington sucks and want major structural change, and won’t find her platform of incremental change to be appealing. Let alone someone that can talk ad nauseam about said incremental change. You can’t really put some of her key policy initiatives on a bumper sticker.
Thanks for the recap. I went ahead and voted for Amy last weekend when I voted early, but I went in knowing she probably wouldn't win. I've been most impressed by her and what she stands for, but America isn't in a place right now where it will accept a candidate like her. I think the way her campaign sort of stalled at the beginning hurt her quite a bit and it was only recently that she's been able to gain traction. However, Mayor Pete basically nerfed her at the Nevada debate and she didn't respond well in that moment...unfortunately, that was also the most watched debate of the season. I'd be surprised if she gets picked up as VP by anyone, which is probably OK, Dems need her in the Senate. She's still relatively young (59) so another run isn't out of the question and maybe the time will be right for her then.
The Nevada debate hurt her, no doubt, but Pete wasn’t even mentioned last night. His campaign is on life support and the hosts treated him as such. But, yeah, it’s just a weird political climate. The consensus goal is clear: beat Trump. And a Trump, despite his warts, is still quite the force to deal with. I think most feel it’s going to take a political heavyweight to take him out. It’s why the Amy’s, Pete’s, Yang’s and other regular politicians had trouble competing with the frontrunners. They’re just not well known enough at the national level. Each might have had their moments, but at the end of the day a known commodity is going to get the benefit of the doubt from the average voter. They’re just not there yet and couldn’t generate enough excitement. Amy is cabinet material, and yes, even VP material. She would be a great ideological foil to Bernie, and would offer strength and credibility in the Midwest. Minnesota is also safely blue [knock on wood] with a Democratic governor, so replacing her Senate seat wouldn’t be a setback for the party (as opposed to, say, those suggesting Sherrod Brown). Both Amy and Pete would benefit tremendously from a cabinet position.
As a former Minnesotan who has a different political view than Klobuchar, the main thing I like about her, is that she actually performs her job as a senator.
You know that was uncalled for, why can't we talk up are favored candidates without tearing down somebody else?
I appreciate your at-length write-up here. And you're correct: her policies don't play big. Who needs all that boring s*** when you can have HEALTHCARE FOR ALL, FREE TUITION, and ERASED STUDENT DEBT? Politically I'm more in her lane because I know even if Sanders gets elected he'll get none of those policies passed into law, let alone paid for (he still won't give an answer about how to pay for it). Some of the moderates will have to get out of the race after Super Tuesday so that Sanders has some competition. Then again, Sanders voters tend to be an all-or-nothing lot. I can't have my guy? I'm not going to let you have your candidate, either: that'll teach you.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/amy-klobuchar-south-carolina/index.html "When you look at the campaign, do the people who have been there from day one, did they think they would last this long?" a South Carolina source close to the campaign said to CNN. "They never built a plan. Now they are here and they have been doing just what they've always been doing. There wasn't a course correction." That strategy may ultimately spell doom for her campaign as Klobuchar fights to remain viable after Super Tuesday. "I'm dumbfounded," says former South Carolina Democratic legislator and CNN analyst Bakari Sellers, who noted Klobuchar has effectively cut off her chances with the base of the Democratic Party. "I'm trying to figure out how she thinks she can be the nominee without the black vote. Pete Buttigieg has at least tried. Amy Klobuchar doesn't even try. It's evident. South Carolina voters are paying attention and are going to punish her in the primary."
If you read the entire article it explains the problem: lack of funding. Her campaign had to wedge just about all of their resources into Iowa and NH. Then had to scramble after her success in NH, and simply lacked the ground game and infrastructure that some of the other candidates had already established. Tom Steyer isn’t polling 13-15% in SC because voters are blown away by his resume, accomplishments, national profile or affinity for for-profit prisons. They’re supporting him because he’s flooded the airwaves with endless advertising. Same with Bloomberg obviously, although I don’t even think he’s on the ballot in SC. I’m not saying she’s run a perfect campaign, by any means. I think she hurt herself in the first 2-3 debates by refusing to challenge other Democrats, and instead only directed criticism at Trump. Noble but foolish strategy. I also think she hurt herself majorly in the Nevada debate. She knew the question about the Mexican President was coming, botched it and then let Mayor Pete get under her skin. The optics were pretty terrible. Some things you just can’t control, though. She’s new to the national scene. She isn’t a billionaire. The idea of her toppling established political heavyweights like Bernie and Biden with huge fundraising apparatuses was always a longshot. I’m not even convinced if her campaign redirected resources into SC it would have made much of a difference. Look at Pete and Warren. They’ve spent money and have campaigned extensively there without moving the needle. Sometimes it’s just hard to run against a Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders.
I agree - I don't really blame her in any way. She's faced with an impossible task. But I think the article brings up a fair point: how did she expect this to work? As it mentioned, Pete at least looks like he's *trying* to win black support. She's never really even made an attempt - so what is her endgame?
I don't particularly like the idea of going after X group support .... If your policies are good , they should be just as good for every group. Maybe I'm just sick of the identity politics .... when I look at people , I don't see black white and other , I see Americans pretty much all in the same boat regardless of race creed or color.
Pete supporters chiming in like their candidate isn’t also toast. Very nice That said, I admit: she needs new lines. The corny mom jokes were a bit much.
Could have been a miscalculation, but I’m assuming they approached it thinking they’ll cross that bridge when they got there. That they simply didn’t have the resources to do much of anything beyond Iowa and NH. She took advantage of the free advertising (network interviews) as often as she could. I remember reading she either was or still is leading all candidates in TV interviews. They probably made the assumption the increased TV exposure, along with her generally stellar debate performances, would help her message resonate. Which it did, in the grand scheme of things. Just clearly not enough.
I voted for Amy too. I know someone else will probably win Arkansas, but I don’t care. Amy is the best candidate. I don’t care if dumb everyday Americans can’t see it.
this sounds pretty much as close to an endorsement of Klobuchar as they can get without actually coming out and saying it directly https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...64bd86-5a6f-11ea-9b35-def5a027d470_story.html We should pay more attention to the Democrats who pay attention to reality Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) speaks during a campaign rally at the State Theater in Falls Church, Va., Friday. (Tom Brenner/Reuters) By Editorial Board Feb. 28, 2020 at 7:26 p.m. EST COMING OFF one of the least-edifying debates of the campaign season, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) agreed in an interview Friday that the format has not tended to promote voter understanding of the candidates’ positions. “It’s been really hard for the candidates who are not Bernie Sanders to express their policies and their ideas,” she said. The pattern: Mr. Sanders promises unlimited free stuff to everyone; other candidates propose smarter, more targeted approaches — and then get slammed for lack of boldness. Making their case has been even harder for the pragmatic and straight-talking candidates in the race because two billionaires — Mike Bloomberg and Tom Steyer — have saturated the airwaves with incessant television advertising. In reality, Ms. Klobuchar’s agenda — like those of former vice president Joe Biden and former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg — would be pathbreaking. Ms. Klobuchar wants to crack down on pharmaceutical companies, introduce a generous public health-care plan, scale up college affordability, invest in vocational training, pour money into infrastructure, enact public campaign financing and press states to shorten prison sentences. Tackling climate change by getting the country to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would be her “number-one priority.” So Ms. Klobuchar and others in her lane set ambitious goals. But they do not entertain the fantasy, sold by Mr. Sanders and, to a lesser degree, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), that bold change can be achieved with few-to-no hard choices or little care for the risks. On climate change, for example, Ms. Klobuchar wants to tax greenhouse gas emissions, among other proposals. A price on carbon would spur the transition to clean energy far more efficiently than having politicians arrogantly take it upon themselves to design a green economy in minute detail from Washington. She would help poor and middle-class children go to college but let the wealthy pay tuition. She recognizes limits on how much debt the government can take on. Like Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg, Ms. Klobuchar understands that change can come only through the hard work of coalition-building. “Being willing to reach out,” she said, “should not be viewed as a negative in the Democratic primary.” She noted that Mr. Sanders refused to support compromise immigration legislation during the George W. Bush years. “That was one moment of leadership: Were you willing to work with the Bush administration on a path to citizenship?” she said. She also argued that, with President Trump on the ballot, inclusive governing is good politics. People outside the left wing want to restore decency to the White House, and Democrats should appeal to them. In a more rational presidential selection system, these ideas and arguments would get more of a hearing. Holding primaries, not caucuses, would make less likely the designation of a front-runner based on minuscule total numbers of votes. Public matching funds would give qualified candidates a fairer chance to compete against plutocrats. Debates would elevate substance over angry cross talk. But even without such reforms, it’s not too late for voters in the coming primaries to fairly examine the records and platforms of the candidates.
Winning black voters isn't about identity politics. It's about making efforts to introduce yourself to them, communicate with them, understand what issues are important to those groups, build trust, etc. It's no different than any other target group (students, retired people, moderates, liberals, environmentalists, teachers, etc) except that there are a whole lot of them in the Dem primaries and they tend to move as a block historically. She's likely to finish 6th in South Carolina out of 6 candidates and have no momentum going into a Super Tuesday filled with black voters. She spent something like $5 million in advertising this week - none of it in SC, and she left the state several days ago. When she was there, she made no real attempts to talk to black leaders/etc. For all the crap Pete (rightfully) gets about his failures with black voters, he at least recognizes he can't win without having support from all sections of the Democratic Party, so he's made lots of efforts to reach out. It's pretty much failed, but he's likely to finish 3rd/4th in the 10-15% range today and collect some delegates as opposed to 0-4%, and gives him a chance to live another day. I'm just not understanding where she goes from here.