As w/ original (now-deleted) tweet, no attempt to defend the incredibly convenient timing of Gillibrand's policy switches. Opportunism charge, of course, would be absurd if leveled against Klobuchar.https://twitter.com/ScottGreenfield/status/949656861040676865 …
-
-
Replying to @kcjohnson9
There might be something here, but it's probably a bad norm to aggressively go after politicians for changing their mind. If I was a politician I'd change my mind all the time as I encountered new information (which I'd seek out). Presumably this happens to some politicians?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats @kcjohnson9
And maybe the convenient timing just reflects that a reason to change one's mind often correlates with motivation and time to revisit the rationale for one's original thinking?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
Easy to see that for an issue or two. When it happens over & over again, much harder to make such a case. Reason why charge sticks to Gillibrand is that her opportunism is unusual even for opportunistic pols.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kcjohnson9
Is there an enumeration somewhere? Is it possible she just takes positions early without really having a strong reason (goes with her party, not unreasonable) and then changes her mind when she finds a reason to revisit (also tribal)?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
Sure, it’s possible (no one can get inside her mind). But even that explanation would be disqualifying as a possible pres’l nominee.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Don't agree. It would be normal. Most people get their starting position on anything through tribal affiliation and revisit their opinions once there's a strong reason to do so. I don't think there's anything wrong with that abstractly.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.