AFAIK the only thing she’s said on the matter is to resign the Paris accords (which was a necessary first step but far from adequate given new research findings.)
Leadership entails outlining aspirational goals. I’m sure there are rational reasons to be against the GND as you just outlined, but so far what I’m hearing from Klobuchar is that she’s aiming for the “No we can’t” voter block.
It’s 2020- the start of a new cycle. We need someone with a vision, not Third Way Centrism. I would not someone someone like Klouchbar at all. Harris is about as much to the center as I’d even consider.
Klobuchar is Clinton. Bill Clinton, not Hillary. I don’t know why anyone wants that now.
The GND creates the committee to create the legislation.
CNN is also conflating pragmatism with centrism. Progressive policies can be pragmatic, but the media presents them as mutually exclusive. But that’s how the entire campaign is going to be framed.
Here’s a good post that nicely articulates the problem with Klobuchar’s “pragmatism”:
Candidates who are already focused on managing expectations rather than articulating an ambitious vision don’t belong at the top of the ticket.
The candidate who gives supporters the most exciting and aspirational vision of the future to vote for usually wins. You don’t have to lie to people and tell them that you can deliver on all your grand ideas the first week you’re in office. You can even level with them that you’re putting out a vision of great ambitions and aspirations, and that getting it all done might require not only more than one term, but more than one Presidency. People can accept this and get on board with the idea that you’ll do what you can to realize as much of the vision as possible with the opportunities that you get.
But no one wants to rally around a leader who hasn’t even gotten to office yet and is already talking about what they plan on settling for rather than what we want. And for good reason: It’s self-defeating. If Klobuchar gets elected President on a platform of positions that she’s already compromised and watered down, those become the new administration’s initial agenda; the starting point from which everyone else begins seeking concessions.
This isn’t galaxy brain puppet master jedi mind trick stuff. It’s a principle that young children understand and put into practice all the time, and one that remains just as valid in the highest halls of power: You start out by proposing something bigger and better than what you realistically expect to get in the end. It’s not a difficult concept.
Surprising no one, Sanders announces.
His campaign pitch:
Gotta admit that I’m impressed and not only because it contains this delightful told-you-so screen grab:
Exactly what I was thinking. Which means center-right in my book.
You believe that the center of the country is left of Bill Clinton?
Klobuchar running as the centrist-pragmatist is interesting because its probably (for now) the least-crowded lane.
This popped up in my Google feed this morning. My first reaction was “hey, that’s all right!”
If Klobuchar wins the nomination, she’ll be painted as a radical Leftist by Fox News and RWM just like any other candidate. At that point, in order to “compromise” and be “pragmatic”, we’ll have to end up in the middle ground between Centrist and Crazy Town. No thanks.
I mean, if she’s the nominee she’ll absolutely get my vote, but my enthusiasm will be quite low. And if that’s shared by other potential Democratic voters, that worries me.
Those aren’t the people you need to care about.
Exactly, they’re not, which is why I feel like Democrats should go big in 2020 instead of continuing their jog to the Right in order to chase a continuously moving middle ground.
The choice between Republican From Thirty Years Ago and Trump doesn’t exactly get me fired up.
But there are a lot of folks who aren’t those far right wingers, who ALSO aren’t out in your wing of the democratic party.
THOSE are the folks you need to worry about.
I’m budgeting some time every day to start sifting through the Internet for the perfect “told you so!” gif to deploy when Klobuchar’s run crashes and burns in South Carolina if not before.
More Pell grants are not the fucking answer. Jesus Christ.
You know who else we need to worry about? The people to the left of what you just described. The people that have been largely ignored since Bill Clinton.
What, if we don’t field a 1980’s Republican you’re going to vote for Trump? It plays both ways.
…by nominating Kasich.
Amy Klobuchar sucks.
I will vote for her if nominated.
By it’s nature, the center includes elements from the far left.
Will I vote for Trump? No, because I have very strong ideological opposition to his authoritarian bullshit and his gross incompetence.
But there are a lot of folks in the middle whose opposition to him is nowhere near as strong as mine.
Her answer regarding educational expenses was well considered and reasonable.
Making 2 year community colleges more acceptable within society will have the effect of driving down the cost of 4 year schools, whose cost has largely risen based on the fact that everyone in my generation was basically told, “You need to go to college or you will be a homeless person.” Compared to 1965, the percentage of the population going to college increased by 240%. This increased demand has unquestionably contributed to the increased cost.
The reality is, everyone does NOT need to go to 4 year college, and her pointing this out actually makes sense. Simply giving everyone free tuition to 4 year colleges, when they don’t need to go, makes no sense at all… especially considering that some people can pay for it on their own.
Her answer was good, even if it wasn’t the simple “free stuff for everyone” answer that some seem to want.
