Food for thought for anyone who thinks she can milk the Syria strike to win the nomination:
I don't think she's going to win the nomination, but I'm confused about what that poll is supposed to prove. I'm pretty sure Gabbard agrees that Trump lacks a clear plan for Syria, and the poll shows that a narrow plurality of Dems disapprove of the attack. So why would Gabbard being staunchly against the attack be a loser for her?
It means that she already has lost 45%. It takes less than 10% of the rest who are either unsure or disapprove of the attack (hmmm, how many people on here are staunchly anti-her and disapprove of the attack? At least 10%?) and then also consider how many of those 48% are black or other type of voters not very inclined to her...her ceiling is pretty low.
Are you dumb or just ignorant? As people learn about the strikes the poll numbers will drop like a rock, this is basically the ceiling for support. If we get into a war it will just be Iraq all over again. This will not hurt Tulsi, if anything it will backfire on the establishment.