 [Bearing Arms] It’s not shocking to learn that Giffords is going to back anti-gun candidates for president in 2020. We expect that. We expect it kind of like we expect Shannon Watts to say something really, really stupid.
However, one might not expect the organization to start its push this early, especially when there are so many anti-gun candidates still fighting for the opportunity to represent the Democratic Party.
And yet, it is.
The gun control organization founded by gun violence survivor and former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords is sinking nearly $200,000 into digital ads starting Monday in three key Super Tuesday states: Minnesota, Texas, and Colorado.
The ads feature eight presidential candidates ‐ including top contenders like Biden, Warren, and Sanders ‐ speaking directly to camera about their plans to curb the gun violence epidemic in the country.
The short videos allow each candidate to speak personally about how gun violence has impacted their role as a public servant or shaped their policy-making process. They’ll run mostly on Facebook and YouTube.
"What we want to do via our Gun Safety President campaign is put these candidates directly in front of the gun safety voters and let them decide for themselves," Peter Ambler, the executive director of the organization, told VICE News. "Across the country at kitchen tables, people are talking about keeping their communities safe, keeping their kids safe, not impeachment."
In addition to Biden, Warren, and Sanders, there will be spots for Sens. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Beto O’Rourke.
However, a number of candidates are noticeable by their absence. Among them are Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who has been accused of being a Russian asset by Hillary Clinton, and Julian Castro, who took issue with door to door gun confiscation.
Of course, both are polling lower than two percent in the polls, which might explain it. After all, Giffords may well opt not to back candidates who aren’t polling at least two percent, which would be fair. As it is, most of those at the lower end of the spectrum don’t have a hope in hell of winning even this far out, so why not focus on those polling better? 
|
