Tulsi in Iowa, impresses many.

[Mr. Morden]

That being said, her chances at the nomination are pretty minuscule, no matter how many people were "impressed" by her in IA.  She simply does not have enough appeal among the demographic groups required to win the nomination.  There is a narrow band of support in the party that does like her a heck of a lot, but I have yet to see any evidence that this faction has any wider influence in the party.

I don't think she's going to win, but I do think a Ron Paul-esque ~4th place or so with a cult following is very possible.  I do think there's a minority of the primary electorate who would be drawn to a candidate on the basis of them being maximally "anti-establishment", and if Sanders isn't running, then I'm not sure Warren would be seen as sufficiently "anti-establishment" for some of these folks.

[henster]

That being said, her chances at the nomination are pretty minuscule, no matter how many people were "impressed" by her in IA.  She simply does not have enough appeal among the demographic groups required to win the nomination.  There is a narrow band of support in the party that does like her a heck of a lot, but I have yet to see any evidence that this faction has any wider influence in the party.

I don't think she's going to win, but I do think a Ron Paul-esque ~4th place or so with a cult following is very possible.  I do think there's a minority of the primary electorate who would be drawn to a candidate on the basis of them being maximally "anti-establishment", and if Sanders isn't running, then I'm not sure Warren would be seen as sufficiently "anti-establishment" for some of these folks.

She is a women and POC those are huge voting blocks in Democratic primary, she is on the same level of Kamala Harris in terms of 'history' she would make. She would also likely be the first millennial Presidential candidate ever.

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

She's 3/4 white and the 1/4 is Samoan, not a huge demographic group or voting bloc.

There's a ton of women being talked about as candidates. If she runs she probably won't be the only one, assuming that she'd get any votes based solely on bring the only woman candidate which I doubt.

[AN63093]

That being said, her chances at the nomination are pretty minuscule, no matter how many people were "impressed" by her in IA.  She simply does not have enough appeal among the demographic groups required to win the nomination.  There is a narrow band of support in the party that does like her a heck of a lot, but I have yet to see any evidence that this faction has any wider influence in the party.

I don't think she's going to win, but I do think a Ron Paul-esque ~4th place or so with a cult following is very possible.  I do think there's a minority of the primary electorate who would be drawn to a candidate on the basis of them being maximally "anti-establishment", and if Sanders isn't running, then I'm not sure Warren would be seen as sufficiently "anti-establishment" for some of these folks.

That's possible.  While I called her band of support "narrow," I also think it's potentially deep (or perhaps, "strong" or "enthusiastic" is a better way to put it).

I could definitely see this scenario happening Morden.

[OSR stands with Israel]

the more I read about Tulsi, the more I like her.

How can anyone Democrat get mad at Bush over Iraq then be against Assad?

Many Democrats got mad at Bush over Iraq, because they need some excuse to justify their hatred of Bush.


I mean Syria and Libya were Obama's Iraq and we didnt see them get mad over that.

[Doimper]

The fact that jfern is a Tulsi booster is probably the least surprising thing I've learned all month

For people who aren't really familiar with Tulsi or why she's so uniquely terrible, here's a scathing rebuke from the leftiest source I could find.

[Lechasseur]

the more I read about Tulsi, the more I like her.

How can anyone Democrat get mad at Bush over Iraq then be against Assad?

Many Democrats got mad at Bush over Iraq, because they need some excuse to justify their hatred of Bush.


I mean Syria and Libya were Obama's Iraq and we didnt see them get mad over that.

This

[heatcharger]

I mean Syria and Libya were Obama's Iraq and we didnt see them get mad over that.

No this is not right you seriously believe this . We were in iraq for 8 years and only in libya for 7 months . far less casualties too so it isnt comparable

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

I mean Syria and Libya were Obama's Iraq and we didnt see them get mad over that.

No this is not right you seriously believe this . We were in iraq for 8 years and only in libya for 7 months . far less casualties too so it isnt comparable

If Bush went to Libya for 7 months it'd be comparable.

[Adam Griffin]

How stupid are the people of Iowa?

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

I mean Syria and Libya were Obama's Iraq and we didnt see them get mad over that.

No this is not right you seriously believe this . We were in iraq for 8 years and only in libya for 7 months . far less casualties too so it isnt comparable

If Bush went to Libya for 7 months it'd be comparable.

I count well over 300 casualties in the first 7 months. No the US did not have over 300 Americans die in Libya. In the actual campaign it had...zero. The only NATO casualty at all in fact was a British pilot, and he was killed in accident in Italy, not in combat.

If you want to count the Benghazi attack despite being almost a year later that's four dead. So 4 vs. >300. No, not comparable.