Can somebody explain the rationale for Amy Klobuchar?

on which policies?

Her approach is more moderate than just about every single major Democratic candidate that has declared so far, thus, she has the inside track on the moderate/centrist vote as it stands right now.

For instance, many current candidates are running on Medicare for All; she is running on expanded Medicare/Medicaid. That is potentially a more appealing stance for more moderate/centrist Democrats and independents.

sorry, I mis read your post to mean that there were plenty of more moderate Democrats in the race already.

So, her policies are more in line with the status quo.

She called free college a fantasy
But it's been done before

Perhaps Ms. Klobuchar does not know this.

Reagan became governor of CA 52 years ago.

Dang! I remember that! I was 18 the first time he became governor.

So 52 and 15=old.

I was a day shy of my 1st birthday when he was shot.

And I do not agree with free college for all.

College is outrageously expensive and is most certainly a barrier to many people.

However, that does not mean it needs to be completely free. It should have value to make people respect it. It is a well known psychological phenomenon that people don't respond well to free.

I would shoot for costs in the 25% range of current values with means testing to be further lowered for people in need.

Aside from all that, we have to be careful not to press for college as the answer for everyone. The world needs plumbers and welders and carpenters too. Putting too much emphasis on college just misdirects some young people who would be happier (and wealthier) working with their hands.

In full disclosure, I am a parent of a high school student and I am suffering from full-on sticker shock right now. That doesn't mean I think it should be free.

She said it was a fantasy and we know that is false

But I would agree with her that it is a policy that won't ever happen. It is theoretically possible but it would never have the necessary political backing to get done. With that reality, I don't think it is a good policy position in which to plant our flag.

I certainly want to see a policy for affordable college but "free" is so far over the horizon that it won't sell in the general.

Don't get me wrong, Klobuchar is not even in my top five but I don't think she is wrong in striking a moderating tone on this policy.

When the academics get away with raising tuition at a far higher rate than other inflation, and when the value of a bachelors or masters degree is lessened each year, let's stop funding this stupidity.

Many other countries actually encourage and support students during high-school to decide if they want to be in the academic or trade branches. And most of these countries support students in both areas. The US just tries to gouge everyone. (Dump U anyone?)

the question we should be asking is WHY is college so outrageously expensive. It didn't used to be. I went to college--at an outrageously upscale school. My parents helped but basically I managed with an after-hours waiting gig and work in the summer. It was not out of reach...why should we accept that it is out of reach now, for anybody?

The truth is other advanced nations provide for higher education, just as they--and we--do for education through high school. Is there a fundamental difference I am not seeing? Is there any reason there should be differentiation between basic education for everyone, and further education along divergent paths for everyone? Seems to me that is a great benefit to society as a whole, to educate everyone to the greatest extent possible, in his or her field...and why the EFF should we attach a profit motive to THAT? We ALL benefit from that. Society benefits. The national economy benefits.

This is the mindset we have to address, and change. We need to teach/stress/demonstrate that education does not just benefit the person in school--it benefits us all.

Unless of course the "us" writing policy/laws/etc only want the public trained, not educated. (h/t Molly Ivins)

... I feel competent to offer my opinion that college is, by and large, a racket. It is marketed as the sine qua non to material and social success, and is priced accordingly. Despite the pretense to ivory tower altruism, higher education is a business, pure and simple, and a rather rapacious one at that.


The difference in my experience -- which derives mainly from living and teaching in Japan for eight years -- is that other advanced nations provide free higher education to a much smaller group of competitively selected students. Those that don't qualify as university material are channelled into vocational education. I see the American system, on the other hand, as plagued by a kind of false egalitarianism that holds out the promise of a bachelor's degree for everyone but poisons it with huge debt burdens and an educational experience that increasingly lacks rigor.

affordable option. She is also saying free college for all, is not an affordable option. She is saying that healthcare and education should be affordable. It's a clever strategy, as those who are saying free this and free that, will have to account for HOW to fund it, during the campaign.

but I can see how that would be appealing for some. thanks

about incremental change. Trump and the Republicans are gearing up to play free healthcare as the old well used meme of "We don't need no stinking Socialism", and sad to say that the majority of people in the US haven't a clue about the reality of the differences.

but we'll see how the votes go.

was surprised when Kamala jumped in with free healthcare for everyone and get rid of private healthcare companies. I have a feeling that one is going to come back at her, further down the road.

and you are mis-characterizing medicare for all pretty badly in any case

she did not promise "free healthcare for everyone" or getting "rid of private healthcare companies"

I did hear her say free healthcare too but I can't find it at the moment.

What she said was "Medicare for All". Tapper then said Sander's bill would eliminate private insurance (which is a claim I find highly unlikely - would Sander's bill outlaw insurance companies? Or just make them unnecessary?)

And then Harris said, let's eliminate all the bullshit that comes with dealing with insurance companies - claims forms, etc.

But I don't think I've heard her say anything at all like private insurance companies will be wiped from the face of the earth.


You seem to be deliberately misleading on this point.

yes he said Sander's bill would eliminate private insurance. Kamala had the opportunity to push back on that, but didn't.

You failed to mention (and you have the gall to say I'm deliberately misleading ?) the crucial bit at 2.23, when he asked "For people out there who like their insurance, they don't get to keep it ?" Then she went on with the "let's eliminate all the bullshit" answer.

The first dem who says
"Tax The Greedy Bastards" will have a hit on their hands

That old fool Grassley has run circles around her and DiFi for that matter.

Would I vote for her in the general hell yes.

She is a more traditional candidate who appeals to moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans and Independents.

might as well claim unicorns prefer her: they are almost as rare.

It's like she's back in 1992 or something.

She is a fine person who will do well in Iowa and the midwest. I can see Amy taking Iowa since it is close to her home state.

She has also released her tax returns

Yup.

That said, I do like her a lot and am glad she is in the primary. She is more moderate to her approach yet is often passionate when talking about climate change. That generates an image with respect to climate change that I really appreciate.

having to do with climate change and fossil fuels. Do you think she will advocate for a policy like that?

Combating Climate Change. I support a comprehensive approach that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote the development of energy efficient technologies and homegrown energy resources without burdening our farmers and small businesses. As a member of the Senate Climate Action Taskforce, I am fighting to ensure that efforts to address the threat of climate change are a part of our nation’s energy and environmental policy. I have introduced and supported several bills that would reduce greenhouse gases and strongly supported the Paris climate agreement. I also led a Senate resolution recognizing that global climate change is occurring and will continue to pose ongoing risks and challenges to our country unless we take action. In January 2015, the Senate voted 98-1 in support of a resolution that states that climate change is real and not a hoax. As a former member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I supported Cap and Trade as one solution and was the author of a renewable electricity standard as another. I have opposed Trump Administration nominees who deny the science of climate change.

https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/homegrown-energy-environment-natural-resources

WASHINGTON- U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) spoke on the Senate floor about the need to immediately address climate change and move forward with clean energy and carbon reduction efforts. Her speech followed the publication of a report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which found that the immediate damage caused by climate change will be felt much sooner than originally predicted and outlined the dire consequences of continuing our current pace of greenhouse gas emissions. The study comes just months after the Administration announced their intention to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/10/klobuchar-congress-needs-to-act-immediately-to-take-on-climate-change-and-move-forward-with-clean-energy-efforts

Amy Klobuchar Calls Climate Change A ‘Day One’ Priority In Presidential Town Hall

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/klobuchar-climate-change-cnn-town-hall-2020-democratic-candidate_n_5c6b7837e4b0e8eb46b91627

League of Conservation Voters Scorecard

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/amy-klobuchar

But in pure Klobuchar fashion, she has also called for increasing domestic fossil fuel production.

Still, I love her passion when talking about climate changed and she is very educated on the topic.

She wins in states that quite a few others (sans Biden, Sherrod Brown and similar) might not.

In my mind she is one of three candidates that can actually beat Trump.

Her along with Tulsi Gabbard and Julian Castro are our best chances to take back the White House with coattails to turn the Senate blue.

As much as I love some of our more progressive candidates, I don't see them being able to pull votes from the south and mid-west.

Of course i believe the idea that Tulsi could win is absolutely ludicrous.

because there is almost nothing in their agenda he can attack. They are both populists.
Trump's favorite target is socialists and neither of those 2 women can be attacked on that.
I just don't know enough about Castro to be able to make a valid comment.

https://www.axios.com/2020-presidential-election-republicans-democrats-socialism-c9856b0c-0b57-46e6-9afe-30c953a6f9e8.html

but lost me as soon as you mentioned Tulsi and Castro. Tulsi will be one of the first ones out. Castro at best be a fine VP for Harris.

Thankfully so. Castro has no shot either but at least he’s not friendly with Assad and didn’t spend years attacking President Obama.

The comparison of Amy and Gabbard is one of the worst I've ever seen here.

She seems genuine and willing to push back fast and hard against negative campaigning, as she did with the staffer allegations.

On policy, she making her own way as moderate. She did not jump on free college or the Green New Deal as Harris and Warren did. She voted for the border wall compromise while they voted against it. She was right to support a favorable compromise rather than pander to hardline immigration activists.

...telling Dem voters what they can't have, because truth, or something self-serving to her apparently limited agenda.

She's pissed me right off today, coming off of a very telegenic launch to her campaign. I don't have any trust for this political approach at all. Too proud of slow-walking progressive change.

I'm with you there. We don't have time for that.

Which is the worst of all worlds.

I know it is unpopular to say this BUT the fact is the POLLS--the only information we had prior to the vote--showed rump in a tight race with Hillary* while Bernie beat rump by a mile. Would that have turned out to be the case? We will never know. We do know that Hillary ended up losing to rump by a razor thin margin (and therefore in the electoral college) in states where Bernie did very well. Draw your own conclusions.

For myself, nearing the end of my life on this planet, I have Had It Up To Here with patience and incremental improvements. Fuck that. And I am thinking I am not alone, on either side of the aisle...or, do you have a different explanation for the estimated 8 million Obama-to-Rump voters? Racism?

The political situation is DIRE. The economical situation of most Americans is DIRE. The environmental situation is CATASTROPHIC. But our big concern should be not "over-reaching"? puhleeeeese

*yes we all/everyone assumed she would win, but she was never ahead by more than the margin of error

The right is going to be screaming "Socialism!!!" and "slippery slope!!" at every turn. Sadly, there are A LOT of dumb people out there who think socialism=communism. They don't do research and aren't going to suddenly start doing it.
They make their choices based on the campaign ads on TV and on social media. All one has to do is look at the comments sections on other websites to see it.

This site is an echo chamber, tbh. I like it because it's my views and beliefs, too, but I visit lots of other sites to read what others are saying/thinking/feeling.

Incremental change is what is needed. It's what will work. Most people are moderate. The ones who aren't moderate, right or left, are just louder in expressing their opinions and that makes them appear to be a larger group than they are. After the clusterfuck of the past 3 years, most people just want someone safe and sane and who won't cause another upheaval. A return to normalcy. "The slippery slope to communism" is an upheaval to those voters.

Jumping in with both feet is just going to get progressives burned. I look at the progressive platform, which I fully agree with, as goals to be reached within the next 10 years- and that's pretty damn optimistic.

I think the upcoming generation of voters are going to make a big difference. Once they are in place, it will be full steam ahead on the platform.

All that being said, I will happily vote for any D who gets the nomination. In the primary I will vote for whoever can get the most votes from moderates in the general. We need to pull in some of the R's who are pissed at Dump. This needs to be a clear victory, won by a wide margin

...for that sophistry.

The attacks on our candidate — from Trump, Sanders, Stein (documented in the Mueller indictments). That will not be forgotten and it’s frankly surprising that divisiveness isn’t being denounced.

have you forgotten? the one who was campaigning in Arizona instead of Michigan? the one who apparently subscribed to this tactic:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4632402/blue-collar-democrat

and, yeah, where did that get us?

than the glop of goo occupying the White House. Some of us are old enough to remember when any fight for universal, or even simply increased healthcare coverage was derisively labeled "Hillarycare."

It took quite a coalition of bad actors to bring our Democratic nominee down.

Vladimir Putin and his Oligarchy, The Putin-supported Green party, Facebook bots, Twitter bots, James Comey's ego, an army of neo-Nazi's, The Enquirer, misogynists, racists, MSM obsession with appearing "fair," the Mercers, the NRA, the entire GOP, FOX news, ten Benghazi investigations, dozens upon dozens of hours of endless hounding and "investigations" by Trey Gowdy and his henchmen, and finally, the Susan Fuckin Sarandons and co. of the country; so privileged, misguided or sick in the head to espouse not voting for the Democratic nominee in order to "bring the revolution" or whatever they were babbling about that gave us Trump.

Those are just the ones that jump to mind off-hand. I'm sure there are more.

she remains a centrist candidate who lost the election in the only way that matters.

it did take a lot of bad actors, many of whom have been loose in the landscape for DECADES, un-opposed. And you know what? I don't think you hit on any of them in your post. Our problems are deeper, more structural than those you named. First among them is a government that is not responsive to the needs of the people; that allows and even promotes the growth in the power and wealth of the elite, while for 40ish years Americans have been struggling.

You appear to think that the problem with the 2016 election is that we pushed too hard? We didn't slow walk our demands? Did you notice that rump was running to Hillary's left on health care? On trade? On perpetual war? Of course, we knew he was both a liar and incapable, but those were his positions. And enough people voted for him in the right places for him to win (including, btw, an estimated 8 million Obama-to-Trump voters...those vile racists!).

That alone should be the wake-up call. An insane and asinine individual won enough votes by promising to Do Stuff for People and thereby defeated Hillary Clinton, the most qualified candidate in history. She SHOULD have won in a walk, even with all the headwinds you mentioned. She didn't. Donald Effing Rump did.

At the very least, a modicum of introspection is called for, not about Hillary--about the system. about the party. about us.

or, we can continue to blame everybody else for our problems

"America has been suffering" AKA white males are just now really starting to suffer in ways similar to how everyone else has since the founding and before - so all of the sudden it's an emergency and we have to do something right now I say!!! Guess what? Welcome to the party boys. Instead of just throwing rocks from the margins, Democrats have been the ones doing the heavy lifting, the real work necessary to make progress for decades now. Glad you could join us.

Obama to Trump voters? You do realize voting for a black man doesn't mean you're not a racist. Hell, Ben Carson is a racist and he's a freakin black guy. In Utah, women are more sexist against women than the men, so voting for a black guy is kinda like "but I have a black friend," (or my mother-in-law but I digress) mmkay?

Trump on healthcare: "I'm going to fix healthcare and it's going to be so easy" is not running to anybody's left, it's not even running on the same planet.

Isolationism and nostalgia for an antiquated ideal of an America that never was is not "left," it's delusional.

Introspection has led us to a deep and rich bed of proven, unabashed Democrats who are fresh, young and have an amazing opportunity to capture the Obama coalition and more, without the baggage of a bitter loss. Sanders was not, cannot, will not ever be the inheritor of that coalition. His unfortunate decision to put himself before the greater good - again, can only dilute, divide, weaken and damage our eventual nominee.

I tend to prefer boring smart people over those who want to make things "interesting".

compared to other candidates - Is there a policy reason to think so? Because that could be compelling

That makes her smarter than 97% of Americans.

That might look good compared to the current occupant but that number does not really impress me.

97% sounds good but it still means there are 2000 smarter people at your average professional football game.

Still, it could be smart enough when coupled with common sense, education and work ethic.

I would like to be smarter than ninety seven out of every one hundred people I meet.

Guaranteed to be smarter than almost everyone there.

in Idiocracy.

Allowing you the justification to continue throwing any implications (but in the form of a question, of course) at the wall.

You should try it (research) though... "because that could be compelling..."

why.

It's sincere, but thanks for the snark.

My comment was directed more to the general notion that people who have what should be fairly dull jobs should be "compelling" or "exciting".

I'm happy with "competent", "diligent", "responsible", and "trustworthy".

All four of those adjectives work for me.

She's a proven vote-getter. She'll be strong in the Upper Midwest. It's hard not to like Amy, once you see her a few times. I don't think she has a shot at the Presidential nomination, but as a VP candidate, she'd be hard to beat, really. Then, she'd have a chance to become better known.

Don't know where she stands on climate change but she seems to take a slow incremental approach on everything else and worries how we will pay for anything. We don't have time for slow.

She said that on her first day in office she would "sign us back into the international climate change agreement."

I put Bank on that.

damn sick and tired of White Houses (on all sides) proposing impossible schemes that are ripped to shreds in the process and make more enemies than friends.

Look what happened to Obamacare-- and now there's a movement for a Super Obamacare? Realistically, what are the chances for that?

Free college for all? I'm all for it, and Germany has just done it. France has done it since forever. NYC had City College, which morphed into City University and it was free. I went to CCNY for $28 a term, as did Colin Powell, Ed Koch and many others. But, the open enrollment people won and CUNY was expanded and now costs damn near as much as Fordham.

The last free college in NYC, Cooper Union, lived off of foundation money for years and gave students a damn good free engineering education, but it had to give up and start charging. It still has some full scholarships, and may go back free again, but that's iffy. As in the case of CUNY, the education was free, but you had to work your ass off for it. Tough to get in, and tougher to stay in.

A Klobuchar might say "That's nice. And we'll work toward it as a goal, but I won't make promises I probably can't keep."

You can't have our open/untracked system and free college for everyone. Getting into college should be hard, and it should reflect effort at the high school level. For those who are qualified, it should not be a lifetime burden either. For those who skills are more applicable in other areas, they also should be supported in their efforts in becoming productive citizens.

I am supporting Klobuchar in the Iowa caucus.

I like free college but hard to get into. Old go one step further and say “free but not for all majors”, too. Policy for free college should also have the aim of producing graduates in fields we need most. As someone who culls through a lot of resumes from time-to-time, I’d say half are in majors that have little practical application other than minimal rigor to obtain.

I don't agree with all of his policy points, but it is a useful framework for discussion.

The Case Against Education
by Brian Caplan

I’ll definitely look it up. I’m not an educator but education policy is an interest. I am concerned about the increasing push for free college and the potential unintended consequences. I do think it’ll happen sooner than we expect.

It should teach you how to think critically.

She knows that the votes we need to get are in the center.

it's why folks like her and Brown get similar levels of support even though one is a moderate and one is a liberal.

There's merit to it, but ultimately neither have the charisma or appeal IMO to break through into the top 3.

She comes across as smart, tough, reasonable, willing to compromise, “ likeable” ( gawd I hate that word).

We need to pull in the ‘ middle’ people, the Independents.

I see her , along with Biden, as the best alternative to beat Trump.

Or Klobuchar/Buttigieg; either way, it spells “winning”!

"She's playing for the middle" That's a losing strategy. In 2019 the middle means anti choice and anti gay marriage. Most people who are socially liberal and economic conservative make economic conservatism their priority. For people who are economic liberals, but socially conservative the reverse is true. They value social conservatism over economic liberalism. We can forget about getting many votes from economic conservatives, but we could win over some economic liberals, but not with some weak sauce playing for the middle message.

AFAICT she's the only candidate who is willing to face the fact that people with employer-provided health insurance don't want to change it for Medicare.

Medicare for All is polling at about 70 percent approval, with Dems at about 85 percent:

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all

Now, asking the question in different ways get different numbers, but all are more than 50 percent, certainly not 13 percent.

https://www.apnews.com/4516833e7fb644c9aa8bcc11048b2169

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428958-poll-voters-want-the-government-to-provide-healthcare-for

Replacing private insurance with Medicare polls at 13%.

What polls at 70% is a public option to buy in to Medicare. Which is not Medicare For All.

That the "fact that people with employer-provided health insurance don't want to change it for Medicare." That's an opinion, not a fact. There are many people that have crappy insurance through their employer and would be happy to have Medicare. I certainly prefer the Medicare I have now to the employer insurance I had.

and (when not asked in a completely biased way), it always polls near 75%. Not sure where the Hill got its numbers.

Which is, frankly, less biased than leaving that unsaid.

The majority of Americans with insurance through their employer like it. That's always been the stumbling block

private insurance will always be available in this country, especially as supplemental insurance. That's how it is in nearly every country with universal health care.

Basically nobody but Canada does single payer, largely because people want to be able to purchase private insurance for primary care if they can.

and almost all of them also have private insurance for the margins, for specialized treatments, etc.

Your post consists of two demonstrably false statements, connected by a comma.

Single payer is very rare among national health systems. It's really just Canada. Most others have a mixed public-private model.

Single Payer or Medicare for all means just that: The Medicare system is the only legal way to pay for the treatments it covers. It is illegal in Canada to offer insurance for treatments covered by provincial Medicare. That's the only way single payer can work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare#Regions_with_'Beveridge_Model'_systems

there are single payer systems in addition to Canada. There are places where single payer exists along side private, as I was talking about. There are places that have public health care in addition to single payer. There is the Scandinavian model.

You are using single payer in a narrow way that is not the common use.

This isn't very difficult. If there's more than one entity paying, it's not "single payer". It's right there in the name.

Medicare in the US is a single payer system. If you are talking about universal coverage that is single payer, that is achieved in various ways with various caveats and varieties around the world.

Why bother?

This morning on CBS This Morning, during an interview with Bernie Sanders, Co-Host John Dickerson, stated that polls show that when people are told private health insurance will end support for Medicare For All drops from 70% to 37%.

that time has arrived on DU to start outright bashing or showing extreme concern about the purity of our wonderful Democratic candidates.

Here in Florida I'd love to have Andrew Gillum as governor. Issue to issue he fits my desires. But I made a strategic vote for Gwen Graham in the primary because I understood the terrain, and the situational realities of what Gillum would face in a fall general election, given that Tallahassee FBI situation. It didn't matter if there was nothing to the FBI stuff. Fear sells.

We essentially turned victory into defeat via inept tunnel-vision handicapping by our primary voters, and probably took Bill Nelson down as well due to attachment with Gillum.

I don't want 46% of Americans saying our 2020 nominee is too liberal for the country. That was the number assigned to Gillum in the Florida exit poll. Defeating an incumbent is a monumental task. Everyone here is more or less taking it for granted, which is supreme idiocy. Unless we have the ideal nominee who doesn't forfeit a vital one percent here or there, it will be another razor tight finish.

Klobuchar is best suited from regional and ideology perspective. Frankly I don't want to be running someone who is easily mocked as another coastal liberal...only this time it would be coastal socialist. I post on enough sports sites to know how that would play out. I am a math guy and when I saw Klobuchar's numbers from Minnesota last year I immediately detected how far she exceeded expectation in swing areas. I didn't need Nate Silver's chart a few days later.

More than anything, I have always believed charisma and likability are essential to defeating a presidential incumbent. I started posting that here in 2002. Beto and Klobuchar fit above anyone else. Once I saw how Amy handled the Kavanaugh hearing, it screamed as by far the best performance by any of our senators, in terms of how it would play out with the masses and a personality that translated to a long general election battle. I posted that here instantly, while others were looking for claws. Amy was relaxed, flexible and effective.

You don't have to reflexively respond to everything immediately. It can only lead to trouble. When Kamala Harris made that "modern day lynching" comment last week regarding Smollett I wanted to cringe. It is precisely what I would worry about with her, as opposed to Amy Klobuchar and her superior instincts. I have already posted the theme regarding Harris several times. She has always been on the offensive, given a prosecutor role, attorney general, ideology of her state, and senate hearings. All it takes is a handful of flubs like that in a fall campaign and all the great qualities are demoted, in favor of fear.

Our voters are handicapping Kamala as more special than Amy. The reality is reversed. By far the best combo is someone who comes across as moderate during a campaign but governs as a liberal.

I realize Amy will not win the nomination. Our voters are determined to nominate someone outspokenly liberal. That would be great if 2020 set up like 2018, with an 8 point generic edge. 2020 will be balanced terrain but unfortunately the party that dominates the first term midterm is always absurdly overconfident two years later and loses sight of situational influence.

who publicly called on Franken to resign. That shows a bit of strength and independence in my book.

"People seem to be quite excited about HIS run, but I don't associate HIM with any particular policy or outlook or messaging or anything that I recognize as a compelling rationale to get excited about HIM."

Bernie has the same play book and the only thing I see that has changed is he no longer hates "millionaire" just the Billionaires, wonder why that is!

Way to many good candidates this time around, and I honestly feel, most of them, have a better chance to beat trump than Bernie has, and that definitely includes Amy Klobuchar!

Unlike Klobuchar, doing so still wouldn't open a path for Sanders. Sanders is effectively done after New Hampshire. Nevada, South Carolina and Super Tuesday will not be kind to him, if he even makes it that far.

I like Harris, and Klobuchar, and they both will last longer than Bernie, in my opinion.

I don't see her gaining a lot of traction, but if she does win Iowa and does well in New Hampshire, she'll have more of a chance than Sanders were he to do well in those first two contests.

Unlike Sanders, Klobuchar could be competitive in South Carolina and beyond if she exceeds expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire.

some might point out that one of the policies he is most associated with is medicare for all.

So now you know differently.

Of course, they already have. "Mean". lol.

For me it was the fact that when I saw her on The View she seemed to answer the questions well. She came across as smart and knowledgeable. She also seemed to be able to avoid being led off track by certain questions. She seemed to be able to stay focused on her ideas and what she was trying to get across.

the other reports of how she treats the people who work for her, I failed to see the charm.

I don't support her and I hope she doesn't get the nomination.

I didn't know much about her, but she really got my attention with her performance at this event.

See what you think ...

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/amy-klobuchar-town-hall-new-hampshire/index.html

Before I vote in the primary, I will check the polls and check my gut. Whoever seems to have the best shot of beating Trump, and by the largest margin, gets my vote.