As the Democratic Party moves forward, some lessons need to be learned from the actions and performance of the last Presidential Candidate.
I have posted here and other places about that candidate’s tendendcy to “shoot” her mouth off without thinking of the electoral consequences. A noble quality for the pure of heart, but that usually isn’t the definition of a politician running for national office, whose goal is to influence people and win votes.
Her comments about the coal industry and “deplorables” could have been miscontrued and taken out of context; but they just provided more questions for those who may have been sitting on the fence plus provided more ammunition to the GOP for ads and social media. It may have been a factor in the Ohio and Penn.
Another example is HRC’s comment about firearms in Oct 2015.
———-excerpt———-
“Hillary Clinton says a gun buyback program similar to the one Australia implemented in 1996 is “worth considering” in the United States.
“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday….
The Australian government purchased more than 650,000 guns from citizens in the compulsory 1996 buyback program….
Clinton criticized rival candidate Bernie Sanders for his record on guns at the first Democratic primary debate on Tuesday.
She announced a new gun control plan earlier this month that did not mention a gun buyback. A Clinton spokesman did not immediately return a request for clarification on Clinton’s stance on guns….
————————-
The Australian Gun law was a compulsary buy back of semi-automatic firearms and put severe restrictions on ownership or purchase of other types. A “need” is required to allow private ownership and self protection is not seen as a need.
That recent rulings as to the 2nd Amendment would make a similar law impossible seems to have escaped the legally trained candidate; but not this article’s authors.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35048251
That idea for the US may play well with certain constituencies, but probably not others…especially states that have large numbers of voters who enjoy field sports. And while many equate semiautomatic arms with military style weapons, they are also the mechanism used in hunting rifles and shotguns…going back to the 1920s and 30s.
Just a few data points-Deer Hunters only (not counting bird and small game hunters which may or may not be covered by the same license)
Wisconsin
400,000+ licensed firarm deer hunters (2013)
Trump over HRC margin 22,177
Michigan-
700,000+ lic firearm deer hunters (2015)
Trump over HRC margin 10,704
Penn-
750,000+ lic deer hunters (2015?)
Trump over HRC margin 68,236
Were Clinton’s statements the reason she lost those states? I doubt it. Was it one more brick in the wall seperating the candidate from her hoped for electorate? Probably. I know it was trumpeted on not just the NRA sites but field sport magazines and web sites.
Of course, a Clinton campaign spokesperson tried to walk back the candidate’s statements, or at least the characterization by her opponents. “She doesn’t mean confiscation” (though the Australian law demands it with compensation); but the words had already escaped her teeth.
But after other flubs and posistion switches, who was inclined to believe her once the issue was out there?
There are multiple states (outside the urban coastal regions) that enjoy shooting sports. Millions of hunters, hobbyists, competition shooters, etc… Fos some it is an important part of their recreation and family tradidtion. They also vote. Are military style weapons necessary? I don’t like them but some do. Anyway. The firearm industry has used Democratic Candidates as punching bags and straw men to promote and market firearms to the fearful. Share prices of manufacturers dropped when Trump was announced the winner; they were expecting another sales bonanza if HRC got in.
So what posistions toward firearms will the future national Democratic Party take that will appeal, or (at the very least) not alienate, those millions of voters?
R