Why Tulsi Gabbard will win the nomination in 2020

[Shadows]

Well Hillary Clinton was a total fraud & lier & the 2nd most hated candidate after Trump & she won the nomination. So who knows, but 2020 is way too early for Gabbard, she has to wait till atleast 2032 IMO, wait for Hirono to retire, serve 1 term atleast in the Senate & then contemplate a run.

And Gabbard till now has introduced a bill to decriminalize marijuana, re-instate Glass steagal, went to Standing Rock, previously supported strong environmental laws, has always opposed TPP,, is a co-sponsor for Medicare-for-all bill in the house. If that doesn't make you a progressive, then nothing will & probably no-one is.

I mean Hillary freaking Clinton was called a progressive. Anyways Gabbard is rightfully nowhere near Bernie & shouldn't even be compared !

She is a political no-body now ! Plz quit this threads & talk about this again in another 10 years!

[Ronnie]

God, Tulsi vs. Trump would be the weirdest election of all time, perhaps in any country, by a mile.  It would make 2016 seem outright normal.

That said, just like Trump, she is sui generis, and if she properly harnesses her strengths, she could carve out a niche in a field of a dozen or more candidates.  Of course, she has more obstacles to deal with, such as superdelegates and a Democratic electorate that might be more skeptical of insurgents than Republicans.  I would vote for her if she wins the primary, only because she's not Trump.  But based on what I know about her now, I would do so unenthusiastically.

[Famous Mortimer]

The general public generally isn't familiar with the nominees until after they've been nominated. Hillary and Trump being exceptions. You guys need to get out of the Atlas bubble.

No one knew who Barack Obama was in 2007. No one knew who Bill Clinton was in 1991. No one knew who Jimmy Carter was in 1975.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

You guys need to get out of the Atlas bubble.

[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.

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.

[Mr. Morden]

Bill Scher (sort of) hops on the Beet train:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/45784?in=26:46&out=28:20

[Beet]

Well Hillary Clinton was a total fraud & lier & the 2nd most hated candidate after Trump & she won the nomination. So who knows, but 2020 is way too early for Gabbard, she has to wait till atleast 2032 IMO, wait for Hirono to retire, serve 1 term atleast in the Senate & then contemplate a run.

And Gabbard till now has introduced a bill to decriminalize marijuana, re-instate Glass steagal, went to Standing Rock, previously supported strong environmental laws, has always opposed TPP,, is a co-sponsor for Medicare-for-all bill in the house. If that doesn't make you a progressive, then nothing will & probably no-one is.

I mean Hillary freaking Clinton was called a progressive. Anyways Gabbard is rightfully nowhere near Bernie & shouldn't even be compared !

She is a political no-body now ! Plz quit this threads & talk about this again in another 10 years!

She is exactly what you consider Hillary Clinton... a liar and a fraud. And your falling for it. Ok she introduced glass stegall. Good for her. How often do you hear her talking about it? Oh wait she never does. All she talks about is Syria Syria Syria, even before last week's strike. All she cares about is shilling for her favored FOREIGN interests. I swear when did American politics become the friggin United Nations. She will grandstand for progressive causes just like Anthony Weiner or Alan Grayson but she is even worse for progressivism than them & even less sincere. She was a blue dog before she found out how she could exploit acting progressive to raise her profile. Freud, fraud, fraud. If HI was a republican state shed jump over in the blink of an eye. I hate her.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

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

LOL keep dreaming buddy.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Gabbard refuses to denounce Bannon: https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/853968963931430912

[Sbane]

Gabbard refuses to denounce Bannon: https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/853968963931430912

If a Democrat is going to defeat Trump in 2020, it's not going to be by denouncing Bannon. I don't think Gabbard will be the nominee for a multitude of reasons, but at least she is talking about policy and what she wants to do for her constituency. If the Democrats choose a Clintonesque strategy of solely running against Trump, and not running for something, they will continue to lose.

[Confused Democrat]

Gabbard refuses to denounce Bannon: https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/853968963931430912

I watched the video, and everything she said was completely reasonable. What was wrong with what she said?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Gabbard refuses to denounce Bannon: https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/853968963931430912

If a Democrat is going to defeat Trump in 2020, it's not going to be by denouncing Bannon. I don't think Gabbard will be the nominee for a multitude of reasons, but at least she is talking about policy and what she wants to do for her constituency. If the Democrats choose a Clintonesque strategy of solely running against Trump, and not running for something, they will continue to lose.

False dichotomy.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Seems they are getting scared of how little time they will be in power before the progressive wave takes them.

[heatcharger]

Seems they are getting scared of how little time they will be in power before the progressive wave takes them.

Absolutely. It'll be a great day when a conservadem in deep blue Hawaii gets replaced with a true progressive.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The general public generally isn't familiar with the nominees until after they've been nominated. Hillary and Trump being exceptions. You guys need to get out of the Atlas bubble.

No one knew who Barack Obama was in 2007. No one knew who Bill Clinton was in 1991. No one knew who Jimmy Carter was in 1975.

1980,1984,1988,1996 ,2000 2004 2012 both nominees were well known

[Lourdes]

I'm seriously doubtful a woman who uses the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" will be able to get much support from the Democrats, no matter how progressive she is.

[they don't love you like i love you]

She's not even progressive. Progressive Punch rates her as the 136th most progressive member of the House. That puts her to the right of over 70% of Democrats.

[7,052,770]

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

Shhhhhh ... you're going to trigger the whiners.

[Sbane]

I'm seriously doubtful a woman who uses the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" will be able to get much support from the Democrats, no matter how progressive she is.

It actually is radical Islamic terrorism and Democrats would do better if they called a spade a spade while pursuing an isolationist foreign policy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm seriously doubtful a woman who uses the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" will be able to get much support from the Democrats, no matter how progressive she is.

It actually is radical Islamic terrorism and Democrats would do better if they called a spade a spade while pursuing an isolationist foreign policy.

Gabbard isn't an isolationist, but she doesn't support removing Assad , which would only benefit ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the other jihadists running around Syria. The establishment is mad that she's criticized Obama, Hillary, and now Trump there. It's sad that her Stop Arming Terrorists Act is controversial.

[Sbane]

I'm seriously doubtful a woman who uses the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" will be able to get much support from the Democrats, no matter how progressive she is.

It actually is radical Islamic terrorism and Democrats would do better if they called a spade a spade while pursuing an isolationist foreign policy.

Gabbard isn't an isolationist, but she doesn't support removing Assad , which would only benefit ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the other jihadists running around Syria. The establishment is mad that she's criticized Obama, Hillary, and now Trump there. It's sad that her Stop Arming Terrorists Act is controversial.

By isolationist I mean being against intervention in complex situations like Syria. Americans are ok with covert actions taking out terrorists but they are not interested in getting involved in another conflict.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Then why did you say you prefer George Wallace over Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan

[SCNCmod]

If we are going for younger candidates....

Juaquin or Julian Castro would get the nomination before Gabbard... as they have more experience, better education creds, more likable and are much better speakers with more charisma.  

Or for that matter, Bobby Kennedy's grandson... Rep Joseph P Kennedy...same age as gabbard, same amount of experience, better education creds, loved by Elizabeth Warren, better speaker, more charisma, etc

[MAINEiac4434]

Not to mention, ACTUALLY PROGRESSIVE

[publicunofficial]

Not to mention, ACTUALLY PROGRESSIVE

Joe Kennedy III is not a progressive.