Amy Klobuchar 2020 campaign megathread

[Comrade Funk]

In terms of electability she is the worst. She will lose to Trump by a huge margin because she is unelectable super low energy, is uninspiring & a charisma vacuum. Even Gabbard who is a terrible candidate may be better than her.

If people want a Corporate neoliberal female candidate, they might as well pick Kamala Harris who is way better than Klobuchar.

"Anybody but Bernie Sanders is unelectable because I SAY SO!"

[Rookie Yinzer]

Cool. I could see myself supporting her before Warren and Gillibrand.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Way too hawkish.

[Big Abraham]

Way too hawkish.

Yup. Welcome to the Democratic Party

[7,052,770]

She would probably be a great running mate for Booker. Any other male nominee should probably pick Harris unless Klobuchar does really well in the primaries.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The biggest threat to Trump most likely. Question is if she can take off.

Shes as close to "generic Democrat" as you can get. That's great in the general but a hindrance in the primary. I'm not sure she can overcome how vanilla she is.

She's literally a liberal Michele Bachmann minus the charisma. I don't get why people think she's such a threat to Trump.

How is Klobuchar like Bachmann aside from being a woman from Minnesota? 

[Dr. Arch]

YESSSSSSS!!!!! All hands on deck!

100% for Klobuchar.

[CookieDamage]

In terms of electability she is the worst. She will lose to Trump by a huge margin because she is unelectable super low energy, is uninspiring & a charisma vacuum. Even Gabbard who is a terrible candidate may be better than her.

If people want a Corporate neoliberal female candidate, they might as well pick Kamala Harris who is way better than Klobuchar.

"Anybody but Bernie Sanders is unelectable because I SAY SO!"

[lfromnj]

The biggest threat to Trump most likely. Question is if she can take off.

Shes as close to "generic Democrat" as you can get. That's great in the general but a hindrance in the primary. I'm not sure she can overcome how vanilla she is.

She's literally a liberal Michele Bachmann minus the charisma. I don't get why people think she's such a threat to Trump.

UH Michelle bachmann is the idiot who almost lost a Romney +15 district as an incumbent in 2012.
Klobuchar is the candidate who managed to Carry a trump +30 district.

[Mr. Smith]

Seriously? Ugh!

This'll go about as well as Joe Lieberman '04.

[Mr. Morden]

Way too hawkish.

Yup. Welcome to the Democratic Party

It's not just "the Democratic Party" though.  Klobuchar is notably more hawkish than everyone else in the 2020 Dem. field, even (like Hillary Clinton at one point) having been in favor of a no fly zone in Syria.

[Big Abraham]

Way too hawkish.

Yup. Welcome to the Democratic Party

It's not just "the Democratic Party" though.  Klobuchar is notably more hawkish than everyone else in the 2020 Dem. field, even (like Hillary Clinton at one point) having been in favor of a no fly zone in Syria.

Gillibrand also co-sponsored the "Free" Syria Act with her.

She's par for the course for most Dems. Not that that's a good thing.

[Mr. Morden]

Way too hawkish.

Yup. Welcome to the Democratic Party

It's not just "the Democratic Party" though.  Klobuchar is notably more hawkish than everyone else in the 2020 Dem. field, even (like Hillary Clinton at one point) having been in favor of a no fly zone in Syria.

Gillibrand also co-sponsored the "Free" Syria Act with her.

She's par for the course for most Dems. Not that that's a good thing.

Gillibrand, unlike Klobuchar, voiced skepticism of the US being involved in Syria at all by 2015:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-gillibrand-obamas-syria-strategy-wont-work-long-term/

Gillibrand also sounded ambivalent about the US mission in Libya back in 2011:

https://observer.com/2011/03/on-libya-gillibrand-and-nadler-sound-different/

And of course, Gillibrand, like the majority of Senate Dems, was critical of both of Trump's attacks on the Assad regime for chemical weapons use, while Klobuchar called it "the right thing to do".

Klobuchar also voted for the anti-BDS bill, while nearly all of the other 2020 Dems voted against it.  None of the others running or looking to run for prez in 2020 are as hawkish as her, as far as I can tell.

[Big Abraham]

Way too hawkish.

Yup. Welcome to the Democratic Party

It's not just "the Democratic Party" though.  Klobuchar is notably more hawkish than everyone else in the 2020 Dem. field, even (like Hillary Clinton at one point) having been in favor of a no fly zone in Syria.

Gillibrand also co-sponsored the "Free" Syria Act with her.

She's par for the course for most Dems. Not that that's a good thing.

Gillibrand, unlike Klobuchar, voiced skepticism of the US being involved in Syria at all by 2015:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-gillibrand-obamas-syria-strategy-wont-work-long-term/

Gillibrand also sounded ambivalent about the US mission in Libya back in 2011:

https://observer.com/2011/03/on-libya-gillibrand-and-nadler-sound-different/

And of course, Gillibrand, like the majority of Senate Dems, was critical of both of Trump's attacks on the Assad regime for chemical weapons use, while Klobuchar called it "the right thing to do".

Klobuchar also voted for the anti-BDS bill, while nearly all of the other 2020 Dems voted against it.  None of the others running or looking to run for prez in 2020 are as hawkish as her, as far as I can tell.

I will admit she's somewhat to the right of the other contenders on foreign policy, bit it's hardly a noticeable difference. Booker also co-sponsored the anti-BDS bill, as did Bennet who might run, as did plenty of other Senate Democrats who likely aren't running. Gillibrand's "criticisms" of the airstrikes in Syria seem to me a double standard, considering she praised American initiatives in Libya during the Obama administration.

"The President has been clear, this is a limited action in coordination with a broad coalition of allies, including those in the Arab world, who have asked for help in protecting civilians."

Those are her words. She was never ambivalent about NATO intervention.

[TML]

Yay! Another candidate to further split the corporatist/establishment vote!

[Ogre Mage]

Called it.

I think she will run.

[Shadows]

In terms of electability she is the worst. She will lose to Trump by a huge margin because she is unelectable super low energy, is uninspiring & a charisma vacuum. Even Gabbard who is a terrible candidate may be better than her.

If people want a Corporate neoliberal female candidate, they might as well pick Kamala Harris who is way better than Klobuchar.

"Anybody but Bernie Sanders is unelectable because I SAY SO!"

Sanders is definitely the most electable easily. But Klobuchar is the worst. Harris will probably win who knows.

I am not going into policy issues with Klobuchar. I think she is a total failure because of how dull, uninspiring, boring & uncharismatic she is. Ben Carson is much more high energy than Klobuchar & Carson is super low energy. You can't have that type of candidates running for President.

Even if Beto is a bit of a neoliberals in terms of Wall street issues, he is much more charismatic as a candidate than Klobuchar.

[Sir Mohamed]

I like Klobuchar and she would most likely defeat Trump in the GE, but doubt she's likely to win the nomination. She must IA, a rural state neighboring her own, if she wants to stand a chance.

[MABA 2020]

Meh, she shouldn't bother won't win the nomination

[Former Kentuckian]

Endorsed!

[Woody]

Overrated candidate.

[JG]

I feel like the only reason she gets so much support on Atlas is because she is from the famed Midwest. Policy and positions wise, she is basically Hillary 2.0. who most people seem to despises on here. Had she been from Connecticut, nobody would have looked twice at her.

[mgop]

she's dark horse. only candidate that can do some damage to big 5 (warren, beto, kamala, bernie, biden).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Amy Klobuchar is the very definition of inoffensive generic Democrat. The country isn’t ready for such a candidate. They elected Trump as a rebuke of people like Klobuchar. Though she does actually pay lip service to bread and butter voters, her record in Congress is indistinguishable. She’s way more personal and likeable than her other colleagues and probably would do ok in a Trump/Clinton-less version of 2016, but times have changed.

She’ll be out after Iowa, but she’ll learn from it and come back when the country’s mood stabilizes.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I'll admit I'm a bit surprised. I didn't think she would run.

I'm with you on this, Abe.  I'm not shocked she's joining the race, but I am surprised.  She doesn't stand much of a chance of winning.  Maybe she's angling for a veep nod or a cabinet position?