Tulsi Gabbard will win the Democratic nomination in 2020.

[Bojack Horseman]

I don't see Tulsi even having a chance at the nomination.  Just on sheer optics- she's a snooze fest... I would not be good at all for motivating voters to turnout etc.  Unless you have a wealth of experience... the you need charisma & a bit of the X Factor... neither of which she has.

She has most of the Sanders wing locked up if Warren decides not to run, and has the potential to be extremely formidable.

How does she have the Sanders wing "locked up"?

Nobody besides Sanders himself has the Sanders wing locked up. If he doesn't run, then most of his supporters wouldn't have a candidate that satisfies them even if Karl Marx himself ran.

[Figueira]

I don't see Tulsi even having a chance at the nomination.  Just on sheer optics- she's a snooze fest... I would not be good at all for motivating voters to turnout etc.  Unless you have a wealth of experience... the you need charisma & a bit of the X Factor... neither of which she has.

She has most of the Sanders wing locked up if Warren decides not to run, and has the potential to be extremely formidable.

How does she have the Sanders wing "locked up"?

Nobody besides Sanders himself has the Sanders wing locked up. If he doesn't run, then most of his supporters wouldn't have a candidate that satisfies them even if Karl Marx himself ran.

I don't think Sanders has the Sanders wing locked up either.

[Devout Centrist]

Democrats will ravage Trump for being close to Putin for the next four years. How can they do that and then nominate someone close to Putin?

Remember how Obama was, for years, attacked as weak on Putin? John McCain? Mitt Romney?

There's a difference between being called weak on another nation versus praising their foreign policy in an area where most Republicans and Democrats agree it's wrong.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Democrats will ravage Trump for being close to Putin for the next four years. How can they do that and then nominate someone close to Putin?

hopefully Democrats don't spend the next four years attacking Putin, I want them to win.

[Higgs]

The Dems nominating Gabbard would be a wondrous step in the right direction.

Even if Trump lost to her, the fact that he shifted the Democrats towards Tulsi Gabbard would be a huge positive.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The reason I said she has a chance is that a Bernie Domestic Policy and a Trump Foreign Policy is probably a runner right-now.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Why would Tulsi even run? She has more in common with the alt-right than most dems

[Metallifreak10]

Hmm.. I would support her over Trump.. I voted for Gary Johnson this last time, even though I considered Trump the lesser evil. But I'd vote Democrat if she was the nominee in 2020. Unless if by some miracle, Rand Paul beat Trump in the primaries (won't happen), so that Rand was the nominee.

 But Gabbard vs Trump?

Tulsi Gabbard ✅

[Mister Mets]

Democrats will ravage Trump for being close to Putin for the next four years. How can they do that and then nominate someone close to Putin?

Remember how Obama was, for years, attacked as weak on Putin? John McCain? Mitt Romney?

It wasn't as big an issue for Democrats before.

Now Putin's blamed for President Trump.

[JustinTimeCuber]

her aggressive association of ISIS with Islam

and the ISLAMIC State in Iraq and Syria can't be at all tied to Islam?
"They're bad people so they can't be real Muslims" - Liberals
"They're bad people and are Muslims so all Muslims are bad people" - Conservatives
"They're bad people and are Muslims, and Islam may be a motivation for their action, but most Muslims are decent people." - People who can think critically

[Figueira]

her aggressive association of ISIS with Islam

and the ISLAMIC State in Iraq and Syria can't be at all tied to Islam?
"They're bad people so they can't be real Muslims" - Liberals
"They're bad people and are Muslims so all Muslims are bad people" - Conservatives
"They're bad people and are Muslims, and Islam may be a motivation for their action, but most Muslims are decent people." - People who can think critically

The reason why people like Obama don't like to associate ISIL with Islam too much is because they don't want to offend Muslims who might be of help defeating ISIL. It isn't because they're stupid and think that No True Muslim can do anything bad.

[JustinTimeCuber]

If he doesn't run, then most of his supporters wouldn't have a candidate that satisfies them even if Karl Marx himself ran.

*facepalm*
I'm not a commie -_-

[Hindsight was 2020]

her aggressive association of ISIS with Islam

and the ISLAMIC State in Iraq and Syria can't be at all tied to Islam?
"They're bad people so they can't be real Muslims" - Liberals
"They're bad people and are Muslims so all Muslims are bad people" - Conservatives
"They're bad people and are Muslims, and Islam may be a motivation for their action, but most Muslims are decent people." - People who can think critically

The reason why people like Obama don't like to associate ISIL with Islam too much is because they don't want to offend Muslims who might be of help defeating ISIL. It isn't because they're stupid and think that No True Muslim can do anything bad.

^This

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Why would Tulsi even run? She has more in common with the alt-right than most dems

The alt-right has little in common with itself beyond race and immigration.  After that you get widely divergent views on economics, social issues, and foreign policy.

[Shadows]

She is 100% right on the rebels though. They are worse than Assad. Most of the rebels have association with Al Qaeda. Assad is reasonably secular while these rebels are radical extremist Sharia Islamists, 100% Sunni & theocratic.

I remember US training 60 rebels to fight ISIS in a pilot project- Everyone backed out I think after the training - 4 or 5 people odd agreed. Many of them even like ISIS & only consider Assad evil

These rebels have got many truces from Assad - Assad let some prisoners go, offered amnesty etc. And these rebels themselves have used chemical weapons on people similar to Assad. Also these rebels in many places are bombing & killing civilians.

Imagine the f**kery - CIA & the army backed 2 different groups with arms once & they ended up killing each other. Apart from Kurds, most of these folks are worse than Assad (or as bad) & are not very different to ISIS!

Democrats will ravage Trump for being close to Putin for the next four years. How can they do that and then nominate someone close to Putin?

Remember how Obama was, for years, attacked as weak on Putin? John McCain? Mitt Romney?

There's a difference between being called weak on another nation versus praising their foreign policy in an area where most Republicans and Democrats agree it's wrong.

Democrats & Republicans agreed on NAFTA

Dems & GOP agreed on Glass Steagal

Dems & GOP agreed to suck up to lobbyists & corporates & even sell votes if need be

Dems & GOP supported the war in IRAQ

Both of these parties have got a lot of stuff horribly wrong. If they both agree on something, it is more likely to be wrong than right - lol!

Tulsi seems to follow the alt right perspective that the current War On Terror is entirely due to theological disagreement. Any nuance or attempts to explain differences through economic reasoning is an attack on OMG COMMON SENSE!!!!

She is right on the broader sense that the war on terror is theological & ideological & not economics. It is being fought on those issues to establish a Sharia Radical extremist islam where you have a Sunni religious state with extreme Sharia law. However economics play a strong part on the lower level, it helps radical ideological extreme groups to recruit people - When people don't have food, they are more likely to take these extremist violent theological routes & wars!

[Mr. Morden]

Related to Gabbard's comments on Islam and terrorism, hasn't she tended to side with the Republicans on issues like Syrian refugees and the like?  E.g., she talked about suspending the visa waiver program with European countries:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218501-bill-would-suspend-visa-waiver-program-for-countries-with-citizens

And she voted for the Republican bill on screening refugees, which was opposed by the majority of Dems in the House:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h643

[Confused Democrat]

Related to Gabbard's comments on Islam and terrorism, hasn't she tended to side with the Republicans on issues like Syrian refugees and the like?  E.g., she talked about suspending the visa waiver program with European countries:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218501-bill-would-suspend-visa-waiver-program-for-countries-with-citizens

And she voted for the Republican bill on screening refugees, which was opposed by the majority of Dems in the House:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h643

1/4 of Dems still voted for it, so I don't see the problem. Do you really think the bill would have made our screening process more inefficient?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The idea that Tulsi Gabbard automatically inherits all Sanders supporters is absurd.

If you compare Hillary's 2008 to 2016 support, it's obvious she didn't inherit all her supporters (Hell just look at West Virginia) and per polls even Sanders himself doesn't automatically inherit all his supporters.

The idea that all of Sanders rural working class voters are going to get behind some Hindu congresswoman from Hawaii with Hindu nationalist ties is pretty silly.

[Ljube]

Though I like her, it's undeniable that Tulsi Gabbard would lose to President Trump in a spectacular fashion, rivalling only the loss Mondale suffered to Reagan.

[Confused Democrat]

Though I like her, it's undeniable that Tulsi Gabbard would lose to President Trump in a spectacular fashion, rivalling only the loss Mondale suffered to Reagan.

How is it undeniable? Trump hasn't even taken the oath of office yet.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Though I like her, it's undeniable that Tulsi Gabbard would lose to President Trump in a spectacular fashion, rivalling only the loss Mondale suffered to Reagan.

How is it undeniable? Trump hasn't even taken the oath of office yet.

Because it's Atlas, I know we predicted everything wrong about 2016, but this time it's different!

[Lief 🗽]

Though I like her, it's undeniable that Tulsi Gabbard would lose to President Trump in a spectacular fashion, rivalling only the loss Mondale suffered to Reagan.

How is it undeniable? Trump hasn't even taken the oath of office yet.

Because the only scenario where she is the nominee is one in which Trump supporters have infiltrated the party and put her up as a sacrificial lamb to give the 2020 election a veneer of legitimacy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In hindsight: LOL.

BTW she's getting absolutely thrashed on DailyKos which was a very pro-Sanders site. So much for the OP's premise.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In hindsight: LOL.

BTW she's getting absolutely thrashed on DailyKos which was a very pro-Sanders site. So much for the OP's premise.

DailyKos is most definitely now a 3rd way establishment hack site.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

In hindsight: LOL.

BTW she's getting absolutely thrashed on DailyKos which was a very pro-Sanders site. So much for the OP's premise.

DailyKos is most definitely now a 3rd way establishment hack site.

-True.