How the DNC forces Gillibrand and others to bend their tents


Kirsten Gillibrand and other candidates are essentially driven out of the race by Democratic leaders.

And it's not necessarily a bad thing.

The pitch has been too inflated to create overcrowded debate stages and stifle everyone's message, with the exception of the few best candidates. A party would be crazy not to try to win the competition to those who really have a chance to be named.

Gillibrand clearly stated that she was dropping out of school because she had not participated in the debate on the only ABC debate next month in Houston. Losing this visibility makes a viable application almost impossible.


The field, which once numbered around 20 people, has already lost Eric Swalwell, Seth Moulton, Jay Inslee and John Hickenlooper.

Other people who have failed to cut the debate, such as Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, Montana Governor Steve Bullock, New York Mayor Bill Blasio and the representative of Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard, still standing. By a thread, I would say.

As a former DNC official said, Fox News editor Mo Elleithee told The New York Times:

"If you're a few months before the Iowa caucuses and you can not have 130,000 donors or 2% in a few polls, it's up to you. There is an appetite to start being able to focus on the candidates who have shown the most movement in this race. "

Some of the other 10 candidates on the Houston scene are complaining that the Democratic Party is putting pressure on credible politicians before they have a chance to gain ground, for example in Iowa or New Hampshire. But if after several months, you're behind Andrew Yang (who made the cut), you're not going anywhere fast.

Some people in both parties run for president as a branding exercise, to get a book deal or a cable gig, knowing that they have no real chance of winning. Look how many profiles of Marianne Williamson you had to read.


But Gillibrand is a practicing senator who hoped to ignite by placing women's issues high on her agenda. It did not work. The New York legislator has never broken the statics.

Some, like Rachel Maddow, praised her only presence in the race, as well as that of Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and the other female candidates, as a breakthrough in gender. And it's good that one woman is no longer forced to bear this burden.

But Gillibrand herself blamed sexism for its low number of polls, telling CNN a few months ago, "I think people are generally biased against women."

How then to explain the increase of Warren in the polls? Gillibrand also said in this interview that there is a bias against "younger women".

The Washington Post Magazine recently evaluated his outstanding candidacy with the following title: "In 2019, it is unforgivable for a presidential candidate to be boring".

I'm not saying that Gillibrand was deadly boring, but she never had the time, either on the stump or in the first two debates, where she said something important or controversial enough for voters to are interested in it more closely. I mean, she never even had the nickname Trump, although he tweeted sarcastically about his release.

The post wrote, "Perhaps his recalibration on firearms and immigration is often referred to as a pimp. This may be because his role in the resignation of the Al Franken Senate was presented as a disadvantage for Democrats and an advantage for it. It may be sexism: the methodical and cautious journey to the presidency seems to be read as a natural expression of the ambition of charismatics who sweat through rallies in the spotlight of the stadium, but who feel themselves so forced when it is associated with a rash.

May be.

But watch how Pete Buttigieg managed to catapult himself into a serious argument with a series of interviews and provocative speeches. When you think of the woman who was first appointed to Hillary Clinton's seat in the Senate, no personal quality comes to mind, no question beyond her crusade against sexual harassment, and this is not was not enough.

Now that the DNC is forcibly reducing the field, voters – and the media – can focus more on those who could win the nomination. Gillibrand told the Times that a woman named would be "exciting and inspiring," but did not rule out approving anyone who could beat Donald Trump.

Source link