Why Tulsi Gabbard will win the nomination in 2020

[Beet]

Now that Confused Democrat has said he regrets making his excellent thread, as the only person out of 93 people to vote for Tulsi in the March poll, I will carry on the banner of the Tulsi faithful. Although I strongly dislike Tulsi, and would not support her, she will nonetheless win the Democratic nomination. Below I will lay out my argument so you can judge it for yourself.

1. The reasons Confused Democrat gives still applies. As he said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing has changed. I have long been a proponent of using social media enthusiasm as a gauge for political prediction. The strength of his predictor has only grown steadily since the days when liberals used to make fun of Ron Paul cultists in their mom's basements (or before that, when Howard Dean's Meet-Up driven campaign fell flat in the Iowa caucus). My predictive philosophy was best articulated in this post where I correctly predicted Christine Quinn's loss in the 2013 NYC mayoral primary, based on nothing but the comments section of the New York Daily News website. I again applied my methodology in March 2015, when I first used the Washington Post website's comments section to accurately forecast that Hillary Clinton would lose the 2016 election. It was more accurate than Nate Silver. I again used online comments, this time from reddit, in early May 2015 to correctly predict that Bernie Sanders had big momentum.

2. Now, some people used to criticize me for making a few wrong predictions in the past. One user, Joe Republic, predicted that I was like a "weather vane" who always pointed in the wrong direction; he hasn't been around much lately, has he? Another user, BRTD, continues to insist that Tulsi will not be the nominee solely because I predicted it. I get crap about posting about Ebola and Fukushima. But a closer look at my prediction record shows it's actually very good. There have been many times over the years when I have been right about major events, and the majority of forum users have been wrong. Furthermore, one of my few wrong predictions, that Donald Trump would not win the GOP nomination, was when I went against my own methodology of using online enthusiasm.

3. Tulsi does things that are popular.

This is what really gets me. We live in a country where democratic elections play a big role in a politician's success, yet for some reason, other than Tulsi and maybe Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, there aren't actually any politicians in the country who take popular positions. Tulsi does. For this reason alone, she is set to win the nomination.

A preview of the huge, Bernie Sanders style rallies that are coming for Tulsi occurred last week in Kona, where 500 people showed up to give her a standing ovation. If she runs, it'll be just like 2015 all over again. Huge rallies to thousands of people, especially young people, all over the country.

4. Nothing good has happened in this country since the 2000 election.

Tulsi's nomination, and the massive support behind her, would just be another manifestation of the popular insanity that has gripped the country since 2000. First, the neocon enthusiasm that got us into Iraq; then, the housing bubble mania that nearly destroyed the economy; then, the anti-bailout mania that spawned the tea party; then, the Obama mania where he would magically fix partisanship and change everything; then, the Bernie and Trump mania. Each and every mania has turned out to be a complete bust, yet they just keep coming. The instincts of the American people are consistently terrible. A Tulsi mania would just continue on the trend. Therefore, everything in recent history indicates it will occur.

In conclusion, this is why Tulsi will likely win the 2020 Democratic nomination.

[Fusionmunster]

Then I guess i'm voting 3rd party.

[Sbane]

If Syria escalates there is a chance she will be the nominee. Otherwise I don't see it.

[Confused Democrat]

FYI: I still think Tulsi has the potential to be a formidable opponent in 2020, and I still think most red avatars on this forum hate on her way too much.

[Beet]

FYI: I still think Tulsi has the potential to be a formidable opponent in 2020, and I still think most red avatars on this forum hate on her way too much.

If she comes out against a preemptive strike in North Korea I'll support her.

[Stranger in a strange land]

okay, answer me this: who is Tulsi's base in the Democratic Primary? I know the standard response to this is that she'll inherit all of Bernie's supporters because she endorsed him in 2016, but I don't see working class whites in places like McDowell County, WV or Ingham County, MI voting for a 39 year old Hindu Woman, and I certainly don't see College Kids or Affluent White Liberals voting for someone who's so favorable towards Putin, Assad, and Modi, especially when there are likely to be many other options on the table. Cornering the "anti-war vote" won't do it either: otherwise, Howard Dean would have been the nominee in 2004, and while this certainly helped Obama in 2008, it was just one factor in his appeal among many.

[Confused Democrat]

okay, answer me this: who is Tulsi's base in the Democratic Primary? I know the standard response to this is that she'll inherit all of Bernie's supporters because she endorsed him in 2016, but I don't see working class whites in places like McDowell County, WV or Ingham County, MI voting for a 39 year old Hindu Woman, and I certainly don't see College Kids or Affluent White Liberals voting for someone who's so favorable towards Putin, Assad, and Modi. Cornering the "anti-war vote" won't do it either: otherwise, Howard Dean would have been the nominee in 2004, and while this certainly helped Obama in 2008, it was just one factor in his appeal among many.

Barack Obama kind of invalidates the first part of your argument. Who cares if she's a Hindu woman?

Also most Americans don't even know who Modi is, and I don't see how she's favorable towards Putin and Assad. She's just more skeptical and less hostile in general when it comes to dealing with them. It's just the war hawks in this party who want to paint her as an ally of Putin and Assad.

Her base would be a combination of women, minorities, anti-war voters, and Bernie supporters.

[Vosem]

Tulsi Gabbard will find it difficult to win the 2020 nomination after she is primaried from her House seat in 2018.

[LLR]

She's a 40-year-old U.S. Representative with some abhorrent views, no national profile, and is an enigma to most. I don't see it happening. And if it does, it will spell the end of the Democratic Party.

[Confused Democrat]

Tulsi Gabbard will find it difficult to win the 2020 nomination after she is primaried from her House seat in 2018.

She would absolutely crush any primary challenger who tries to unseat her in 2018.

If anything, a primary challenger bolsters her "outsider" credentials and galvanizes support for her among Bernie supporters.

[Confused Democrat]

She's a 40-year-old U.S. Representative with some abhorrent views, no national profile, and is an enigma to most. I don't see it happening. And if it does, it will spell the end of the Democratic Party.

And who exactly was Bernie Sanders when he decided to run? I find the "no national profile" argument unconvincing.

[publicunofficial]

She's a 40-year-old U.S. Representative with some abhorrent views, no national profile, and is an enigma to most. I don't see it happening. And if it does, it will spell the end of the Democratic Party.

And who exactly was Bernie Sanders when he decided to run? I find the "no national profile" argument unconvincing.

Saying Bernie Sanders was a complete unknown before he ran for President is some revisionist history.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

okay, answer me this: who is Tulsi's base in the Democratic Primary? I know the standard response to this is that she'll inherit all of Bernie's supporters because she endorsed him in 2016, but I don't see working class whites in places like McDowell County, WV or Ingham County, MI voting for a 39 year old Hindu Woman, and I certainly don't see College Kids or Affluent White Liberals voting for someone who's so favorable towards Putin, Assad, and Modi. Cornering the "anti-war vote" won't do it either: otherwise, Howard Dean would have been the nominee in 2004, and while this certainly helped Obama in 2008, it was just one factor in his appeal among many.

Barack Obama kind of invalidates the first part of your argument. Who cares if she's a Hindu woman?

Howso? Barack Obama lost every county in West Virginia in the primary. As for who cares, the same WWC Democrats everyone worries about now after Trump.

Also most Americans don't even know who Modi is, and I don't see how she's favorable towards Putin and Assad. She's just more skeptical and less hostile in general when it comes to dealing with them. It's just the war hawks in this party who want to paint her as an ally of Putin and Assad.

Please explain, if having an Assad-allied fascist group fund a trip to Syria for someone who personally meets Assad and spouts his propaganda afterwards isn't something that qualifies as "friendly to Assad", what does?

[SoLongAtlas]

All this drumming up of Tulsa to win is overrated. Most Americans would say, "Tulsi who?" No name recognition, little to no accomplishments and she's from Hawaii. Bonus for military service.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Imagine if in 2002 a Democratic politician planning on running in 2004 personally went to Iraq and had a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein. They'd be crucified by the rest of the party, including the most anti-war Democrats, and would be seen as DOA come 2004, and rightfully so.

[Intell]

Then I guess i'm voting 3rd party.

I hope she's destroyed, and no I'm not a war hawk. Hillary is 100x preferable to her. Neoliberalism beats fascism, I think.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also Beet should go see what DU and DailyKos about her in regards to his highly scientific internet comments method.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Do we really have to do this again?

[Famous Mortimer]

Then I guess i'm voting 3rd party.

I hope she's destroyed, and no I'm not a war hawk. Hillary is 100x preferable to her. Neoliberalism beats fascism, I think.

What does she advocate that's fascist?

[MAINEiac4434]

Then I guess i'm voting 3rd party.

[Horus]

Libertarian nominee here I come.

[Confused Democrat]

She's a 40-year-old U.S. Representative with some abhorrent views, no national profile, and is an enigma to most. I don't see it happening. And if it does, it will spell the end of the Democratic Party.

And who exactly was Bernie Sanders when he decided to run? I find the "no national profile" argument unconvincing.

Saying Bernie Sanders was a complete unknown before he ran for President is some revisionist history.

What?

Bernie had no national profile when he decided to run and had little to no name recognition among the Democratic Primary electorate. He was only well known in his home state of Vermont and it's neighboring state New Hampshire.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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. But anyway based on the logic that all Bernie supporters will flock to her, that also means that all of these green counties are going to be pretty ripe to be voting for a 39-year old Hindu woman from Hawaii:



*Can I point out that Cory Booker has an over 96% rating?