Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, December 30, 2017

It used to be that Bernie Sanders was an ideological lone ranger in the Senate. Now, a whole host of potential presidential hopefuls are racing to represent the liberal grass roots on their issues of the day -- and pulling the Democratic Party's center of gravity further to the left. The trend was apparent throughout the fall among the half-dozen Democratic senators drawing the loudest buzz for 2020 -- aside from Sanders (I-Vt.), the group includes Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

I recall the Dem debate how quickly it devolved into who could give away more for "free" than the other. 2020 race should be interesting. I also wonder where that concern the deficit and debt, and our children and grand-children will have gone?

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

All that being said, Bernie is leading the 2020 race over my girl Kamala.
www.predictit.org

#1 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-12-30 11:48 AM | Reply

Cory Booker has been one of my favorite Dems since he became a mayor of Newark. I'd vote for him as president as long as he doesn't change his principles.

#2 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-12-30 11:58 AM | Reply

Kirsten Gillibrand lost my support with her demand that Al Franken resign. I'll never support her unless she manages to get the nomination and then I will hold my nose as I vote for her but I don't think she will ever get the nomination with the amount of anger most of us Democrats have towards here today.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-30 01:01 PM | Reply

Kirsten Gillibrand lost my support with her demand that Al Franken resign.

Go easy on her Danni, it was for show anyhow, Franken wasn't going anywhere (prediction) he might not run again, he will fulfill his term, the Democrat leadership made it so she could look like feminist supporter without consequences.

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-12-30 01:07 PM | Reply

"the Democrat leadership made it so she could look like feminist supporter without consequences."

Well, they failed. There will be consequences to Kirsten. Like Danni and myself, many Dems won't vote for her in the primary and will only vote for her by default if she gets the nomination. In addition to trying to remake herself into a feminist icon, she is trying to remake herself into a Sanders style progressive:

"A member of the Democratic Party's relatively conservative Blue Dog faction while in the House, Gillibrand has been seen as moving her political positions and ideology increasingly leftward toward that of a more liberal progressive since her appointment to the Senate."

en.wikipedia.org

She's been moving even more to the left since Hillary lost and Bernie took over the Democratic party.

#5 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-30 05:28 PM | Reply

Well, they failed. There will be consequences to Kirsten.

Look at my predict_it link, she's number three.

She's been moving even more to the left since Hillary lost and Bernie took over the Democratic party.

Hence her movement up the predict_it poll.

You haven't proven your case, she isn't dropping by any stretch of the imagination.

#6 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-12-30 06:12 PM | Reply

I would also state her opinion on Franken is consistent with her opinion on CLinton which was stated much earlier.

But Gillibrand's appetite for biting the hands that feed her might actually be just what brings her success in the Democrats' all-but-free-for-all scramble for leadership. She sniffed out the direction of the party months, even years ago, and has been tacking hard to the left ever since. She is attuned to the base, fluent in the new mediums of activism and, perhaps most importantly, knows how to spin.
fivethirtyeight.com

The more I learn about her, the more I am surprised either of you two would support her.

"A" rating from the NRA? Her flipflopping will cost her, she isn't an ideologue, just blowing with the wind, much like BillClinton.

#7 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-12-30 06:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

All I know is that Kirsten took a beating on both her twitter account and fb page for her comments on Franken, with many Dems, including NYers, vowing never to vote for her. I haven't gone that far, but I won't vote for her in the primary unless she dials back her stance on #metoo from her statement saying all women must be believed and all forms of harassment deserve the same punishment.

#8 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-30 06:21 PM | Reply

Trump claims he once defeated SALT and would have been willing to get rid of it if Dems had come to him, so by his own admission, it's a bad deal for Democrats and blue states:

TRUMP: And if I did bipartisan, I would have done something with SALT [the state and local tax deduction]. With that being said, you look back, Ronald Reagan wanted to take deductibility away from states. Ronald Reagan, years ago, and he couldn't do it. Because New York had a very powerful group of people. Which they don't have today. Today, they don't have the same representatives. You know, in those days they had Lew Rudin and me. ... I fought like hell for that. They had a lot of very good guys. Lew Rudin was very effective. He worked hard for New York. And we had some very good senators. ... You know, we had a lot of people who fought very hard against, let's call it SALT. Had they come to me and said, look, we'll do this, this, this, we'll do [inaudible]. I could have done something with SALT. Or made it less severe. But they were very ineffective. They were very, very ineffective. You understand what I mean. Had they come to me for a bipartisan tax bill, I would have gone to Mitch, and I would have gone to the other Republicans, and we could have worked something out bipartisan. And that could've been either a change to SALT or knockout of SALT.

www.nytimes.com

What Trump, and some of his supporters on here, don't seem to get is that there are a lot of Republicans and Trump voters in blue states like NY that will be hurt by SALT too.

#9 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-30 06:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#9 Sorry, posted in wrong thread.

#10 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-30 06:34 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"She sniffed out the direction of the party months, even years ago, and has been tacking hard to the left ever since."

Nah, she tacked left after becoming a senator because (from above link):

"A member of the Democratic Party's relatively conservative Blue Dog faction while in the House, Gillibrand has been seen as moving her political positions and ideology increasingly leftward toward that of a more liberal progressive since her appointment to the Senate. In both cases, her views were significantly defined by the respective constituency she served at the time[1] -- a conservative congressional district versus the generally liberal state of New York, especially as defined by New York City."

Her hard left tack only came after Clinton lost and Bernie took over the Democratic party. Claiming Kirsten sniffed out the direction of the party years ago is rewriting history and giving her too much credit.

PS Representing "a conservative congressional district" (large parts of which are rural) is how she originally got the "A" NRA rating.

#11 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-30 06:42 PM | Reply

This hit the nail on the head on Gillibrand:

"perhaps most importantly, knows how to spin."

She will do and say whatever she thinks will get her elected to higher office, which makes her very dangerous.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-31 12:18 PM | Reply

"I would also state her opinion on Franken is consistent with her opinion on CLinton which was stated much earlier."

Her 2017 opinion of Clinton, not her previous opinions.

#13 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-31 12:29 PM | Reply

Her 2017 opinion of Clinton, not her previous opinions.
#13 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

So she was against Clinton before she was for Clinton, seems like a convenient position....

Think RoC hits your statement right out of the park.

#14 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-12-31 12:40 PM | Reply

#14 So she was against Clinton before she was for Clinton, seems like a convenient position....

No, she had always been for both Clintons. Without their support over the years, she would not exist as a politician.

"I would also state her opinion on Franken is consistent with her opinion on CLinton which was stated much earlier."

I thought you were talking about Kirsten's opinion of Bill Clinton with regard to the sexual harassment claims against him. She basically ignored them until this past year.

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-31 12:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort