Bernie Sanders was well known in political circles, even if just for being the only independent in Congress or a self described socialist. Sure he wasn't all that well known with your average person off the street outside of Vermont, but how many people can even name a Senator besides their own?
But who cares if you are or aren't "well known in political circles" two years before you declare your candidacy? I don't see how it really makes a difference. And in any case, what is "political circles"? People who are not quite (but almost) political junkies? Because for true political junkies, like the kind of people who post on this forum, Gabbard *is* known. So then what are you saying? Sanders was better known four years ago than Gabbard is now among people who aren't quite as nerdy about politics as we are, yet still more nerdy about politics than the average voter? (Yet both were unknown among the public at large?) That seems like hair splitting.
Well as noted above using Beet's highly scientific internet comments methodology, about half of people who talk about Gabbard think she's pretty awful (see the discussion on this very site, or places like DailyKos and DU.) I know jfern likes to handwave that by arguing that DailyKos and DU are establishment sell out sites now, but literally the only claim to being progressive that 72.98% on Crucial Votes scoring on Progressive Punch Tulsi Gabbard has is that she endorsed Bernie...thus meaning that Dan Lipinski must also be a progressive hero.Oh sure, I agree that the attention Gabbard gets isn’t always positive. My objection was more going back to the original question about name recognition, raised by LLR over her having “no national profile”, as if that’s a big problem for her at this very early stage. Most of the candidates are unknown to the average voter right now, and that’s OK. And it’s actually hard for me to imagine a scenario in which Gabbard runs, yet gets little media attention. She certainly seems to polarize opinions among left-of-center posters here, and I can imagine that being replicated among the broader public, which would drive media attention. “Name recognition” isn’t her problem.
In any case, like I’ve said in other threads, I’m not expecting her to win the nomination, but I am curious to see if she might at least pull off something like Ron Paul 2012, and capture a dedicated minority of the party, receiving a sizeable chunk of the vote in at least certain states. I’m not predicting that that will happen. (I mean, I’m not even predicting that she’ll run in the first place, though she seems more likely to do so than any other member of the House of Reps at the moment, not that that's saying much.) But it certainly seems *possible* to me.
