In 2006, Kirsten Gillibrand won a campaign for New York’s 20th district, which is both upstate and far more conservative than NY as a whole, and she managed to win again in 2008. Representative Gillibrand ran a campaign that would be unrecognizable to Senator Gillbrand – she described herself as “a firm opponent of any proposal that would give amnesty to illegal aliens” and she also pointed out her record on guns by highlighting her “100% voting record with the National Rifle Association (NRA).”
However, after Hillary Clinton was made Secretary of State, Representative Gillibrand became Senator Gillibrand and the rest as they say was history. Senator Gillibrand proudly brags about her F from the NRA, was the first Senator to call for abolishing ICE, and is by many metrics, a very left wing member of the Senate.
While everyone is entitled to change their mind and going from representing a rural district to a very liberal state might entail some policy changes, Gillibrand’s flip flopping on almost every issue seems a bit excessive which might lead someone to question which set of policy positions was sincere and which set was adopted solely for the purposes of getting elected. Traditionally, people view flip floppers as bad because they want someone with the courage of their convictions whatever those may be but if moderate policy is a desire, a flip flopper makes an ideal candidate.
President Bush carried Gillibrand’s district in 2004 with 54 percent of the vote – compared to the statewide presidential race where he got 40 percent. He did almost 15 percent better in her district than in New York as a whole. Gillibrand moving from that district to becoming a statewide official and changing everything along the way only had two possible explanations – first that her policy positions were informed by her district/state’s partisan lean and as that shifted, they shifted along with that or second, she genuinely changed her mind on damn near every issue from tax cuts to support for the US campaign in Iraq to the other issues mentioned above over the course of a few years. Occam’s razor would suggest the former and that is why Gillibrand deserves the votes of some moderates.
The United States as a whole is midway between her old district and New York State’s partisan lean so electing her would mean electing someone who would probably modify her positions to make sure she is in a strong position to get reelected – like she has done several times before. Moderates might consider voting for her over voting for an ideologue who is dead set on going right or left – she might not have many positions of her own that are agreeable but the ability to shift them at the drop of a hat is not one that should be ignored.
Finally, if none of that convinced you to consider voting for her, realize that she used to rep a company that delivered nicotine the old fashioned (and more attractive) way so she at least used to be cool.
I understand the idea that a person running for puclic office should have “the courage of their convictions,” but how do we differentiate between a “flip-flopper” and someone who changed their mind in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to their “courageous conviction?” Good post.Report
I like that KG takes an originalist approach to the definition of Representative. What a breath of fresh air! Probably doesn’t translate to Presidential, but hell yeah I want my rep to rep her electorate before during and after any changes!Report
I expected Franken to come up.Report
I was more expecting Joe Piscopo or Gilbert Gottfried to come up, because nobody ever expects that.Report
I find that less of an affront than her continued support of mattress girl and other #metoo excesses. A little pragmatic flexibility is good, intentional blindness to facts not so much. Same deal with the cringey privilege stuff from last week. I’ll be glad once she’s off the stage.Report
I am in a place where it’s possible to run on Franken not as an affront but as a way to reach out to fence-sitting moderates. “Hey, all those people are cynical as hell. I follow my principles where they lead. *EVEN WHEN IT’S NOT IN MY TRIBE’S INTEREST TO DO SO*.”
It’s a selling point.
I have no idea why so many Dems are not only willing to turn away from what she did but actively *DENOUNCE* it.
It’s nuts.Report
I’m going to go out on a bit of a limb, and give people a little credit (stupid, I know). Outside of the progressive activist subset I think that kind of principle is exactly what people don’t want and that we might just be hitting the backstop for the offense archaeology it stands for.
Look at the Northam situation in Virginia for example. Every time they poll it they find that those who are supposed to be most outraged want him to stay.
Also there’s this New Yorker article from a couple weeks ago she might not be eager to discuss.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/the-case-of-al-frankenReport
So… she’s an amoral windsock. She’ll say whatever she needs to in order to get elected, and has no core beliefs other than being elected. And we have no clue what she’ll do after she’s in office.
Sorry, I’m going to pass on this one.Report
That’s a nice way to put it. But, I wonder if Gillibrand’s challenge is that while she’s willing to be flexible on her own positions to court an electorate, she runs into problems as the electorate broadens and she can’t send a consistent signal to any particular constituency.
That is, in her original district her positions were clearly aligned; so too with the State of New York… what’s interesting about the two is that she doesn’t need the former to retain the latter… so she’s not really signalling any moderation, rather she’s the “extreme middle” of different groups. That’s not really moderation.
Her campaign doesn’t really show her trying to grab a US Middle Vector range, but rather chasing votes, somewhat haphazardly, mostly to the left – or so it seems from my distant vantage. Its not that she possesses an uncanny ability to follow the lodestar to the electoral middle (of her constituency), she’s unmoored and adrift. And for any constituency, like the US as a whole, where there’s not even a “simple middle” she’s not only adrift but rudderless.Report