Discounting the possibility of fraud, former First Lady Hillary Clinton eked-out a victory over Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in the Iowa caucuses. This despite her attempt to use Senator Sanders’ vote for The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to drive a wedge between herself and the Vermont septuagenarian. Because of her attempt to use her position on gun control to drive a wedge between herself and Senator Sanders? I’m so confused! You may say I’m a gun blogger. But I’m not the only one . . .
Anti-ballistic billionaire bully boy Michael Bloomberg’s agitprop generation operation, The Trace, is having trouble parsing Clinton’s win.
Quinnipiac University’s caucus day poll showed that only 3 percent of Democratic Iowa caucus goers ranked guns as their most important issue. That’s not nearly as high as the percentages listing the economy, health care, or even climate change as their top priority — but it’s also well more than the margin separating Clinton and Sanders in the final result.
Perhaps more significantly, other survey data shows that the gun issue may have helped prevent more Clinton voters from defecting to Sanders as the race tightened. The highly regarded (though obviously not perfectly accurate) Des Moines Register-Bloomberg Politics poll, which released its final pre-caucus poll on Saturday, found that 10 percent of Clinton supporters had backed Sanders at some earlier point in the race before coming home to Clinton during the race’s closing stretch.
Separately, surveys of caucus-goers entering their precincts found that among those making up their mind on election day, 45 percent broke for Clinton, versus 42 percent for Sanders. Some of those voters no doubt made their decisions based on the bigger question of electability. But by using Sanders’s gun record to paint him as just an ordinary politician, Clinton provided another reason — perhaps a crucial reason — not to feel the Bern.
Hmmm. With just three percent of left-leaning Iowans voting their guns, I think it’s wishful thinking to think that Secretary Clinton owes her razor-thin victory margin (again, discounting fraud) to her superior anti-gun animus. But boy do Bloomberg’s bilious bloggers have it in for Senator Sanders.
Gun-safety advocates will never absolve Sanders for his perceived sins of backing the gun-industry legal shield law and his subsequent attempts to explain his position as one intended to protect mom and pop gun shops in Vermont.
Look in the mirror much? Doubtful. Anyway, The Trace has one thing spot-on: the formerly soft-on-guns Democratic front-runner (discounting fraud) or her eventual replacement will have some ‘splainin’ to do to Americans who reckon if they like their guns they should be able to keep their guns.
. . . we have not heard the last gun policy-centric ad or talking point of the 2016 cycle. The distinctions between Clinton’s and Sanders’s gun records may not tip the Democratic contest, but the differences between the parties on the issue is vast. No matter who the Democrats and Republicans nominate, on guns there will be much to debate when the race turns to the general election.
Copy that. With the Republican candidates who are squidgy on gun rights — New Jersey Governor Christie and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush — fading at the first furlong, the question for firearms freedom lovers will be: how important are gun rights to middle America? We shall see.