Following last week’s tragic shooting in Oregon, Hillary Clinton is making big promises on gun control. She’s even gone so far as to promise “executive action” to restrict gun sales, even though such measures would be constitutionally questionable. Even President Obama, who has not exactly been shy about wielding executive power, seems to think he can’t do anything about unilaterally restricting guns judging by his press conference last week.
The fact that Hillary’s coming out so strong in favor of gun control is the clearest evidence I’ve yet seen that she is really, really worried about even winning the Democratic primary at this point. In fact, here’s the HuffPo headline — one that Team Hillary no doubt wanted — “Hillary Clinton Goes Big On Gun Policy, Creates Contrast With Bernie Sanders.” Here are the key paragraphs:
Sanders has defended his vote by arguing that the alternative would be akin to punishing a hammer-maker if someone used a hammer as a weapon. But gun control advocates argue that the law opens the door to negligent manufacturers who don’t fear being penalized when their firearms flood a community or market.
Clinton’s gun control push doesn’t appear to be an attempt to out-progressive Sanders so much as a thorough rethinking of how to patch up a hole-laden system of gun laws.
That last line about Hillary Clinton not being a political opportunist is generous to the point of absurdity. Her campaign doesn’t seem to do anything that isn’t focus grouped or poll-tested. It seems clear she’s trying to get to the left of Sanders, who’s from Vermont where all of the Democrats are unique in that they are both very liberal and very pro-gun. (Another progressive darling from Vermont, Howard Dean, had an A rating from the NRA and was endorsed by that organization eight times for governor. In 2002, Dean was even on record as being against any new federal gun laws.)
So let’s assume Hillary Clinton sees an opportunity to get to the left of Sanders on guns and possibly appeal to parts of the Democratic base that have been abandoning her. (And if she’s not worried about Sanders at this point she should be; he had a rally of 24,000 people in Boston this weekend, and he’s been polling higher than Obama was at this point in 2007.)
The problem is, that while elements of the liberal base may want a crackdown on guns, and she may need that support to get through the primary, going big on the issue creates a Mitt Romney problem for her in the general. If she makes a big issue of it now, she’s most likely going to have to tack back to the center after staking out more extreme positions on guns to win the primary, much the way Romney did on immigration and other issues in 2012. The contrast between Romney’s “severly conservative” primary rhetoric and his more moderate rhetoric in the general election dogged Romney, and it’s hard to see how it won’t dog Hillary Clinton on guns as well.
Because being the vocally anti-gun candidate is really bad politics. Recall what happened after the Colorado legislature passed gun restrictions in the wake of the Aurora shooting. Voters recalled the two state senators that made it happen five months later. Clinton held her press conference on guns today in New Hampshire, another swing state, where the legislature is so pro-gun in April they voted repeal the the law requiring a permit for concealed carry. (New Hampshire’s Democratic governor vetoed the bill.) Guns are also a very animating political force in Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida. It’s safe to say Hillary Clinton can’t just write off the swing states.
This is either a really shortsighted bit of political messaging or her campaign’s internal numbers show she’s really in trouble in the primary. If Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign is anything to go by, it’s probably a little bit of both.
