Presidential Candidates that are pro vaping?

[Jman8]

Thanks for the like @bigdancehawk as it gives me reason to bump this thread. Here's hoping that in 2016 we learn of presidential candidates that are clearly pro vaping.

 

[Luisa]

Thanks for the like @bigdancehawk as it gives me reason to bump this thread. Here's hoping that in 2016 we learn of presidential candidates that are clearly pro vaping.

Don"t count on it. By the time of the election-what will be,will be.

 

[Friday13th]

I've recently seen some ECF members mention that they were contacting (tweeting?) the presidential candidates concerning the FDA deeming. They were also contacting Ben Carson (possible HHS Head) and Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. So far no responses have been mentioned.

Then I saw a Fox News Hannity interview with Lewandowski a couple of days ago. Mainly discussed VP search but discussed other things. While discussing Republican values, Lewandowski used the words "overzealous government agencies burdening small businesses with egregious regulations."

Vaping or the FDA was not mentioned but I can't help thinking (wishful thinking) maybe Lewandowski was letting us know that we were heard? Or at least maybe we could use those words when contacting the candidates since they like to use them in their 'values speech.'

It was at about 2:35 in this clip. (Sorry there's a short commercial as usual)



If link doesn't work, google Fox News Hannity Lewandowski VP search dated May 10

 

[nicnik]

I've recently seen some ECF members mention that they were contacting (tweeting?) the presidential candidates concerning the FDA deeming. They were also contacting Ben Carson (possible HHS Head) and Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. So far no responses have been mentioned.

Then I saw a Fox News Hannity interview with Lewandowski a couple of days ago. Mainly discussed VP search but discussed other things. While discussing Republican values, Lewandowski used the words "overzealous government agencies burdening small businesses with egregious regulations."

Vaping or the FDA was not mentioned but I can't help thinking (wishful thinking) maybe Lewandowski was letting us know that we were heard? Or at least maybe we could use those words when contacting the candidates since they like to use them in their 'values speech.'

Pretty much all Republican politicians say that, some more loudly than others. Libertarians too. And here and there, a Democrat.

 

[Jman8]

I don't see why if you are going to espouse this "overzealous government agencies burdening small businesses with egregious regulations" you wouldn't just speak to the FDA and vaping issue?

I'm thinking if one did, right now, millions of vapers would notice. They'd want to hear a little more, but for some (arguably thousands) it could be enough for them to make a decision to vote for them.

If any candidate did a 3 minute speech on hating FDA overzealous regulations on eCigs, I feel confident they'd have 2 million voters willing to support them in 2016 elections. Am I mistaken, or is 2 million voters not something that is desired by a candidate?

 

[Friday13th]

I agree. I believe the candidate would gain millions of vaper voters plus lots of our friends and family! Whether the candidate be a Dem, Rep, Lib or Independent.

Lewandowski is just a campaign manager - it would need to be the actual candidate doing the FDA speech (whichever side they are - right, left or in between).

Some would bring up the double-edge sword thing and say it may be perceived as a negative and alienate some people. I don't care if Glantz and his drinking buddies vote differently than me. The general public non-vapers would probably just hear the 'overzealous regulation harming small business' part.

I'm also trying to imagine if I was part of the 'never someone' crowd, would this sway my vote? Maybe not, but it would sure make me think about it real hard.

At least it would make public this FDA fiasco!

Maybe CASAA will do a CTA to write all the candidates?

 

[nicnik]

I don't see why if you are going to espouse this "overzealous government agencies burdening small businesses with egregious regulations" you wouldn't just speak to the FDA and vaping issue?

I'm thinking if one did, right now, millions of vapers would notice. They'd want to hear a little more, but for some (arguably thousands) it could be enough for them to make a decision to vote for them.

If any candidate did a 3 minute speech on hating FDA overzealous regulations on eCigs, I feel confident they'd have 2 million voters willing to support them in 2016 elections. Am I mistaken, or is 2 million voters not something that is desired by a candidate?

They'd probably take a hit, too, unless they are skillful and persistent in how they present it. OTOH, there are probably plenty of vaping voters who aren't going to vote solely on the issue vaping.

Done well, it could be a boost for them. Done really, well, could be a big boost.