Fuck that.



Isnt she threatening to go 3rd party now?


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-wont-seek-reelection-congress-presidential_n_5db2e467e4b0b9ba5c4a2991


Wont run for reelection, for obvious reasons.

I'll give her that.

next November, no matter what she does.

from our candidate the way Stein did.

... she seems pretty chummy with the folks over there, and I'm sure they'd be happy to enable her bashing the Democratic party.

just might do thst.

I remember Jill Stein. She's no Jill Stein.

small number of votes in key states.

Jill Stein never got to participate in any major primary debates. Jill Stein was never openly defended by any major Dem candidates. Jill Stein was never a major Dem candidate herself. The argument that she doesn't matter enough to do any damage as a third party is false because it doesn't really take a whole lot to do damage in our presidential electoral system. Gabbard is far more dangerous than Stein.

...the electorate is too polarized with too much at stake in the 2020 election for one to squander their vote on 3rd party run by Tulsi…it would be a luxury you couldn't afford...

...unless one of the top three run 3rd party, I don't see any 3rd party threat...

...

this time it is Tulsi.

The same group will vote for her, the ones who viciously hate Hillary so they must also hate Joe,etc., they dont know WHY they hate these people but boy do they hate them.

She would siphon more votes from 45.

Mostly all Dems will vote for the Democratic nominee. There are more Dems than Repugs.

Most rethugs (70-80%) will vote for rump, BUT there are some who will vote for the libertarian, or write in one of his primary challengers, or vote for Tulsi if she's on the ballot, or just not vote.

Independent voters are the key, and more are democratic leaning. Many more will vote for the Dem nominee because they realize how important defeating the current administration is in this election. Some will vote for 45, and yes, some would vote for tulsi, but I think those independent votes would be taking away from rump more than from the Dem candidate. I've heard often enough there are rupugs and repug leaning voters who like Tulsi and would consider voting for her. I've even met a few.

The vote tampering is more of a concern to me than if tulsi runs as an independent.

So this is my bright side scenario, what I think will happen in the minds of some (20-30%) repug and most repug leaning independent voters:

"I voted for 45 in the last election. He is corrupt, ignorant, traitorous, doesn't have the best interests of the country at heart, made the USA look and behave badly in the eyes of our citizens and the world, made a mockery of the presidency, our government, and the justice system, and has ruined the party. I can't bring myself to vote for him (or his replacement) in the upcoming election. I can't bring myself to vote for the Dem candidate (although some might vote for Biden none would for Warren). But that Tulsi, I like her! By voting for her I'm asserting that I'm fair enough to vote for a woman, and that I don't want to see a continuation of the current regime (not putting party over country)."

Whoever is on the green ticket will not take votes from the rupugs, but will from Dems, just hopefully not enough to make a difference. Tulsi would take more votes from from "their side" in my hopeful scenario.

And in my opinion, any green party candidate (ie Jill Stein type) will take more potential democratic votes away from the Democratic nominee than Tulsi will.

As I write this I'm thinking Dems should maybe try to form a coalition or deal with the Green party to make sure that doesn't happen, get them to nominate the Democratic nominee on their ticket, or not run a candidate for this election. Doubtful that will happen, but I'm just saying one can't compare gabbard to stein. The Greens are more of a threat. Tulsi may end up on the libertarian ticket. Or do you think she will be the green party candidate? Absolutely not, in my opinion.

Just a gut feeling.

it's intelligence gathering.
exchanging warning, esp about things not obvious on the surface.

iow, we do it because it is smart, and hard wired in this social animal.

Never mind, forget I brought her up. Please.

Seems to me it was somebody else that chose to put her in the spotlight.

I still don’t get that.

Everyone, including Gabbard, assumed it meant her.

As I said, she made that one comment, and boom, it’s been nonstop here.

Who else could it have been - Warren? Harris? Klobuchar?

Hillary knew what she was saying, and she knew the conclusions people would draw.

Again, I don’t get that.

I'm just not sure why she did it.

They said something about "If the nesting doll fits", when asked if Hillary was talking about Gabbard. That was what all the major news organizations went by.

If we had taken this approach to them last cycle, Hillary would be president right now.

Disruptors will NOT be getting a free pass this go around.

Jill Stein's 1% of the vote in three states were responsible to a large degree for Donald J. Trump being in the White House. Many people here and elsewhere were quick to point out the threat she posed to a Clinton victory in 2016. I was one of those people. For my trouble, I was accused of being a "conservative" by people who mostly can no longer post here. I had my posts sent to juries, and acquired a few of my very, very few hidden posts, out of 124,000+ posts. All for pointing out the danger Jill Stein posed.

So, you see, I'd rather see Tulsi Gabbard have her notoriety taken away from her by ignoring her altogether. That didn't happen with Jill Stein. In fact, even here on DU, there were those who attacked anyone who dared to point out who Stein was and what she was up to.

So, I thought, perhaps, that ignoring this Tulsi Gabbard person as a third party threat might work better.

Either way, I end up being the target of criticism. Thanks a bunch!

Honestly, don't give this crackpot any oxygen.

The young lady is a mole brought up in a politically-ambitious cult in a state that seems too far away and exotic for most people to pay attention to. (I'll share my file of bookmarked links if you somehow missed them.)

Aside from that, I'd like to know where she gets all her money from and where it is going.

I'm not so much enraptured as very wary. She's ambitious all right, but for what?

She, like Edward Snowden, joined the military after 9/11 out of patriotism but became disillusioned. Yet instead of blaming the Republicans who are obviously to blame for policies destroying the American economy and culture and starting wars of choice according to their Project for the New American Century, they focus their hate on the Democratic Party. The party whose base is PoC, the working/middle class and women.

Both sides. Russia good, America bad. Because American history is crowded with bad things, suddenly Russia, its history also crowded with bad things, is good? Why? It's interesting.