Tulsi Gabbard is no more a serious candidate than Dennis Kucinich in 04/08

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I have yet to see any rebuttal to this that doesn't just boil down to "But Trump" or "But Bernie Bros"

[Hoosier_Nick]

I feel like if Brown, Sanders and Warren don't run, Gabbard is no joke. She could definitely field the majority of the Sanders wing of the party against the likely divided establishment among Booker, Gillibrand, Cuomo, etc.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I feel like if Brown, Sanders and Warren don't run, Gabbard is no joke. She could definitely field the majority of the Sanders wing of the party against the likely divided establishment among Booker, Gillibrand, Cuomo, etc.

[Trapsy]

Tulsi Gabbard  is a stronger candidate if 2020 election is about national security.

[Vega]

This isn't 2004 or 2008.

[publicunofficial]

Feel like a lot of Gabbard supporters would reply with "Dennis Kucinich? I love that guy!"

[Santander]

Your obsession with "Tulsibots" is almost as disturbing as your unrepentant bullying of a teenager online.

[Vosem]

Tulsi Gabbard's a lot better known than Kucinich, actually but her biggest weakness is her vulnerability in her own home district, which is not generally a fan of her wing of the party. She is vulnerable to the HI Dems rejecting her in 2018 and relegating her to irrelevance.

[Hydera]

Most of the arguments for Gabbard seem to be based on her endorsing Bernie during the primary and assuming that the people who voted for Bernie will support Gabbard in 2020 just because she endorsed him during the primary. And that only assumes people are static and don't change. Hillary won white working class voters in 2008 and lost them to Bernie in 2016. Any democrat is better than Trump. But don't be surprised when she drops out early in 2020 when people don't care that she endorsed Bernie back in 2016.

[Famous Mortimer]

Tulsi Gabbard's a lot better known than Kucinich, actually but her biggest weakness is her vulnerability in her own home district, which is not generally a fan of her wing of the party. She is vulnerable to the HI Dems rejecting her in 2018 and relegating her to irrelevance.

Lol. Both Tusli and Kucinich have 0% name recognition with the general public.

[Anna Komnene]

Tulsi Gabbard's a lot better known than Kucinich, actually but her biggest weakness is her vulnerability in her own home district, which is not generally a fan of her wing of the party. She is vulnerable to the HI Dems rejecting her in 2018 and relegating her to irrelevance.

Last year, her approval rating was 75% and she got 85% of the vote in her primary.  She isn't vulnerable at all.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Tulsi Gabbard's a lot better known than Kucinich, actually but her biggest weakness is her vulnerability in her own home district, which is not generally a fan of her wing of the party. She is vulnerable to the HI Dems rejecting her in 2018 and relegating her to irrelevance.

Last year, her approval rating was 75% and she got 85% of the vote in her primary.  She isn't vulnerable at all.

-This. Also, Honolulu island nearly went for Bush in 2004 (confirming it can be conservative on occasion, similar to Tulsi), and went overwhelmingly for Tulsi-endorsed Sanders (by 20+ points) in the caucuses. Tulsi really is not vulnerable at all to any primary challenge. Feel free to repost this when such a primary challenge happens and she fends it off like Amash did.

As for the seriousness of Tulsi as a candidate, she's a tad more serious than Kucinich, but she probably won't run, and if she will, she will thrive only in a weak field. I do not expect her to be the nominee.

[Vosem]

Tulsi Gabbard's a lot better known than Kucinich, actually but her biggest weakness is her vulnerability in her own home district, which is not generally a fan of her wing of the party. She is vulnerable to the HI Dems rejecting her in 2018 and relegating her to irrelevance.

Last year, her approval rating was 75% and she got 85% of the vote in her primary.  She isn't vulnerable at all.

I don't know about approval rating, but primary performances against no-names aren't indicative of how primary performances against serious candidates would go. Hawaii has long supported establishment Democrats for Congress, and it's also a place where Barack Obama is very personally popular and has a great deal of influence in nomination contests. Gabbard is very vulnerable to an Obama-backed challenger.

Tulsi Gabbard's a lot better known than Kucinich, actually but her biggest weakness is her vulnerability in her own home district, which is not generally a fan of her wing of the party. She is vulnerable to the HI Dems rejecting her in 2018 and relegating her to irrelevance.

Last year, her approval rating was 75% and she got 85% of the vote in her primary.  She isn't vulnerable at all.

-This. Also, Honolulu island nearly went for Bush in 2004 (confirming it can be conservative on occasion, similar to Tulsi), and went overwhelmingly for Tulsi-endorsed Sanders (by 20+ points) in the caucuses. Tulsi really is not vulnerable at all to any primary challenge.

Bush and Tulsi are two very different kinds of conservative, and Hawaii tends to approve of, and trend towards, incumbent Presidents. It did go overwhelmingly for Sanders, but it also went overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008, and polling has shown that Hawaii is, by far, the state where Obama is most popular. On the congressional and gubernatorial level, "establishment" Democrats have almost always beaten off progressive insurgents, and sometimes incumbents. Though, on the other hand, "establishment" Democrats in Hawaii are much more left-wing than elsewhere, which is why the rhetoric of someone like Sanders resonates.

Feel free to repost this when such a primary challenge happens and she fends it off like Amash did.

I suppose we'll see. Even if such a primary challenge forces her to spend her election funds and to look after her own seat instead of traveling to Syria, it'd be a victory of sorts. I'd also note that 57-43, like Amash won in 2014, isn't really a very strong primary victory: in Oklahoma, a congressman was recently outspent by a challenger in 2016 and still crossed 80%.

На другой ноте, тебе легче отвечать по английский или по русский? Мне это не имеет особого значения.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This isn't 2004 or 2008.

Correct. There's no Iraq War going on driving up a core of hardcore anti-war support that is basically all Kucinich had.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Most of the arguments for Gabbard seem to be based on her endorsing Bernie during the primary and assuming that the people who voted for Bernie will support Gabbard in 2020 just because she endorsed him during the primary. And that only assumes people are static and don't change. Hillary won white working class voters in 2008 and lost them to Bernie in 2016. Any democrat is better than Trump. But don't be surprised when she drops out early in 2020 when people don't care that she endorsed Bernie back in 2016.

Yeah I've pointed this out many times.

Forget the Sanders endorsement. Why would anyone consider her a top tier candidate then?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Vosem, same; either English or Russian would do. Are you yet another Jew of Ukrainian origin with standard-issue neocon beliefs on this forum? Very high concentration here. Sometimes, I think I'm the only Russian-born gentile here.

Barack Obama is popular in Hawaii. I do not expect him to be backing primary challengers to generally loyal Democrats. Tulsi basically is establishment in a sense.

"Bush and Tulsi are two very different kinds of conservative"

-How so?

The credibility of a primary challenger is not equivalent to his/her campaign spending.

[Xing]

I doubt that Gabbard will be a serious contender for the nomination, but it's not impossible. It's all about how she's seen by the party. Image and perception mean more than reality these days.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Most of the arguments for Gabbard seem to be based on her endorsing Bernie during the primary and assuming that the people who voted for Bernie will support Gabbard in 2020 just because she endorsed him during the primary. And that only assumes people are static and don't change. Hillary won white working class voters in 2008 and lost them to Bernie in 2016. Any democrat is better than Trump. But don't be surprised when she drops out early in 2020 when people don't care that she endorsed Bernie back in 2016.

Yeah I've pointed this out many times.

Forget the Sanders endorsement. Why would anyone consider her a top tier candidate then?

I can't help but to think that some of it may be sex appeal among those pushing the #Tulsi2020 speculation.

[publicunofficial]

Tulsi Gabbard's a lot better known than Kucinich, actually but her biggest weakness is her vulnerability in her own home district, which is not generally a fan of her wing of the party. She is vulnerable to the HI Dems rejecting her in 2018 and relegating her to irrelevance.

Last year, her approval rating was 75% and she got 85% of the vote in her primary.  She isn't vulnerable at all.

I mean, that was before she flew overseas to shake hands with dictators, refused to tell who paid for it, and when she did give an answer for who paid for it named a political organization that has been defunct for years.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Most of the arguments for Gabbard seem to be based on her endorsing Bernie during the primary and assuming that the people who voted for Bernie will support Gabbard in 2020 just because she endorsed him during the primary. And that only assumes people are static and don't change. Hillary won white working class voters in 2008 and lost them to Bernie in 2016. Any democrat is better than Trump. But don't be surprised when she drops out early in 2020 when people don't care that she endorsed Bernie back in 2016.

Yeah I've pointed this out many times.

Forget the Sanders endorsement. Why would anyone consider her a top tier candidate then?

I can't help but to think that some of it may be sex appeal among those pushing the #Tulsi2020 speculation.

-Has everyone already forgotten "I'm with Her" and "first woman President"?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't really care if she gets primaried or not and I'll admit it might not be easy with how difficult primarying incumbents are in the past, I just find it absurd that a Congresswoman with that much baggage, and low experience and no leadership roles is being promoted as a possible PRESIDENTIAL candidate. Incidentially the only reason why I bash "Tulsibots" so much here is that this is basically the only place where they exist, the only other place on the Internet I've found people thinking she's a serious and top tier candidate, or even likely to run is her cult-like subreddit. Go see how popular she's on DailyKos (which remind you was an overwhelmingly pro-Sanders site)

Most of the arguments for Gabbard seem to be based on her endorsing Bernie during the primary and assuming that the people who voted for Bernie will support Gabbard in 2020 just because she endorsed him during the primary. And that only assumes people are static and don't change. Hillary won white working class voters in 2008 and lost them to Bernie in 2016. Any democrat is better than Trump. But don't be surprised when she drops out early in 2020 when people don't care that she endorsed Bernie back in 2016.

Yeah I've pointed this out many times.

Forget the Sanders endorsement. Why would anyone consider her a top tier candidate then?

I can't help but to think that some of it may be sex appeal among those pushing the #Tulsi2020 speculation.

This actually reminds me a response someone made to the very true point that Jeff Merkley would be a better Sanders-endorsing candidate, "The Bernie Bros don't want to f[inks] Jeff Merkley."

[Mr. Morden]

Incidentially the only reason why I bash "Tulsibots" so much here is that this is basically the only place where they exist, the only other place on the Internet I've found people thinking she's a serious and top tier candidate, or even likely to run is her cult-like subreddit.

Hey, she also has a (remarkably active) cult-like Facebook group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1273065276040925/

And then there's this:

https://www.facebook.com/TulsiGabbard2020/

[Thunderbird is the word]

I could see her being analogous to Trump in that she'd alienate both the grassroots movement wing of the party and the establishment yet still pose a serious threat.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I don't really care if she gets primaried or not and I'll admit it might not be easy with how difficult primarying incumbents are in the past, I just find it absurd that a Congresswoman with that much baggage, and low experience and no leadership roles is being promoted as a possible PRESIDENTIAL candidate. Incidentially the only reason why I bash "Tulsibots" so much here is that this is basically the only place where they exist, the only other place on the Internet I've found people thinking she's a serious and top tier candidate, or even likely to run is her cult-like subreddit. Go see how popular she's on DailyKos (which remind you was an overwhelmingly pro-Sanders site)

Most of the arguments for Gabbard seem to be based on her endorsing Bernie during the primary and assuming that the people who voted for Bernie will support Gabbard in 2020 just because she endorsed him during the primary. And that only assumes people are static and don't change. Hillary won white working class voters in 2008 and lost them to Bernie in 2016. Any democrat is better than Trump. But don't be surprised when she drops out early in 2020 when people don't care that she endorsed Bernie back in 2016.

Yeah I've pointed this out many times.

Forget the Sanders endorsement. Why would anyone consider her a top tier candidate then?

I can't help but to think that some of it may be sex appeal among those pushing the #Tulsi2020 speculation.

This actually reminds me a response someone made to the very true point that Jeff Merkley would be a better Sanders-endorsing candidate, "The Bernie Bros don't want to f[inks] Jeff Merkley."

-The reason they don't want to f[inks] Jeff Merkley is because of his signing of two Russophobic letters, not because of his demonstrable lack of sex appeal, which Bernie also never had any of.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well the pro-Russia wing of the Democratic Party is thankfully quite small.