2020 Democratic Primary: Booker v. Gabbard

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Seeing polls showing Her losing to Tulsi Gabbard, HRC drops out in June 2019. Cory Booker enters the race, turning the 2020 Dem primary into a Booker-Tulsi race. Booker points to his far more left-wing (as of 2016, according to most models) voting record as an asset to help him win New Hampshire. However, he is viewed with horror by many Sanders supporters due to his funding sources and inane tweets. Gabbard's foreign policy stances are seen as an asset by most Sanders supporters, however, the MSM widely castigates her for them.

I vote Gabbard.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Almost any Democrat and many Republicans >>>>>> Gabbard

[Confused Democrat]

I hate Booker more than Gabbard.

[Maxwell]

(throws up in mouth)

booker

[MAINEiac4434]

Booker by a mile.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Booker by a mile.

-For how long have you been at war with Eurasia?

[LLR]

Anybody who votes for Gabbard doesn't deserve to be a citizen of this country.

[Intell]

Abstain.

[Santander]

Booker, obviously.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Booker, obviously.

-Why so?

[7,052,770]

The one who can win a general election (Booker), which is all that matters in primaries.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The one who can win a general election (Booker), which is all that matters in primaries.

-The only reason to believe Booker is more electable than Gabbard is the Black turnout issue. But that is a powerful reason, indeed.

[7,052,770]

The one who can win a general election (Booker), which is all that matters in primaries.

-The only reason to believe Booker is more electable than Gabbard is the Black turnout issue. But that is a powerful reason, indeed.

That, plus the fact that Gabbard isn't Christian and won't be 40 yet in 2020.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The one who can win a general election (Booker), which is all that matters in primaries.

-The only reason to believe Booker is more electable than Gabbard is the Black turnout issue. But that is a powerful reason, indeed.

That, plus the fact that Gabbard isn't Christian and won't be 40 yet in 2020.

-Those are assets for a Democratic nominee, not liabilities.

[MAINEiac4434]

Booker by a mile.

-For how long have you been at war with Eurasia?

Gay dude vs homophobe? Gay dude every time.

[DavidB.]

I used to be pretty open to Gabbard, but the Assad visit... yeah, no. Booker. Though I'll probably support Trump over both.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Gabbard is the more electable anyway, Republicans who hate Trump would be open to supporting her.

[Confused Democrat]

The one who can win a general election (Booker), which is all that matters in primaries.

LOL, it's like we've learned nothing from 2016. A candidate being "more electable" is an invalid argument as far as I'm concerned. All I heard throughout the 2016 Democratic Primaries was "we have to pick Hillary because she's the more electable candidate."

Guess what...

She lost to Donald f-ing Trump, who was perhaps one of the most "unelectable" candidates imaginable. 

[heatcharger]

Booker, no question. I don't want to have to pick between Republican and Republican-lite.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Booker by a mile.

-For how long have you been at war with Eurasia?

Gay dude vs homophobe? Gay dude every time.

Tulsi Gabbard has supported SSM  longer than the 2016 Democratic nominee.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I used to be pretty open to Gabbard, but the Assad visit... yeah, no. Booker. Though I'll probably support Trump over both.

-What's wrong with Assad?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I used to be pretty open to Gabbard, but the Assad visit... yeah, no. Booker. Though I'll probably support Trump over both.

-What's wrong with Assad?

Let's have some nuance here. Assad is a sh**tty dictator, but of course he's better than ISIS and Al Qaeda.

[SATW]

I used to really like both, but both have been consistent let downs. Booker, however, does not hang out with Assad. so him, very reluctantly.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I used to be pretty open to Gabbard, but the Assad visit... yeah, no. Booker. Though I'll probably support Trump over both.

-What's wrong with Assad?

Let's have some nuance here. Assad is a sh**tty dictator, but of course he's better than ISIS and Al Qaeda.

-The whole Syrian government is pretty sh**tty (it can't even win the war), but Assad is hardly an especially bad element in it. By "what's wrong with Assad" I meant in the context of meeting with him in current circumstances. His government isn't invading another country like the Saudi one is.

[Confused Democrat]

I used to really like both, but both have been consistent let downs. Booker, however, does not hang out with Assad. so him, very reluctantly.

I like how Tulsi having a meeting with Assad is characterized as them "hanging out." Like they played golf or something.

Tulsi has a deep interest in resolving the conflict in Syria, and I tend to agree with her when she says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How radical. /s