Tulsi Gabbard will win the Democratic nomination in 2020.

[Confused Democrat]

I've been thinking quite a lot about who the Democrats are going to nominate in 2020, and I've finally come to the conclusion that it's most likely going to be Tulsi Gabbard (if she decides to run).

NOTE: I don't think Bernie, Biden, or Warren are going to run, so this whole post is written assuming they won't.

Whenever I read about her on this forum, users seem to scoff at her chances and I can't seem to figure out why. If Tulsi decides to throw her hat in the ring, I think it's pretty safe to say that she'll have the Sanders wing of the party almost entirely behind her.

Why do I say this? It's because in the eyes of most Sanders supporters she's the brave representative from Hawaii who stood up to Clinton and resigned her post from the "corrupt DNC" in order to endorse Bernie Sanders. She took a political gamble, and it ended up paying off in the end. There's now a growing archive of youtube videos about her, and they're no doubt going to be used to fire up the "Sanders coalition" come 2020.

I don't fear Clintons

Standing up to Schultz and the DNC after being disinvited from a debate

The list goes on and on, and you may be thinking to yourself "lol youtube videos? Seriously?" Yes, I'm dead serious. Just take a look at Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. You couldn't go anywhere on the internet without finding some "inspiring" or "badass" video about them. No other potential Democratic candidate has this growing library of viral video potential besides Tulsi, and she keeps on adding to it.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Calls For Immediate Halt to Dakota Access Pipeline

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Says The U.S. Government Is Directly Funding ISIS And Al Qaeda!

Having the "Sanders coalition" behind her and whatever additional support she can garner outside of Sanders' base will bode really well for her in New Hampshire and to a lesser extent Iowa. I could see her placing placing second or third in Iowa and then pulling off a big win in New Hampshire. She might even win Iowa, who knows. The early map looks quite favorable for Tulsi until she gets to the deep south. This where I think her main challenger will start giving her a run for her money, but the momentum from her pervious wins will allow her to hold her own in the South.

All in all, I think Tulsi will pull it off in the end since the Democratic field is bound to be much larger come 2020 resulting in a wider distribution of delegates early on. I think Tulsi will win big in the west/midwest, and I think she'll manage to hold her own and not be completely decimated in the South. She'll pull off a couple decisive wins in the Northeast and she'll manage to string together enough delegates to put her over the top in the end.

Also, she'll have some killer ads.

[Confused Democrat]

Won't it be difficult for her to explain her homophobic father and her past anti-gay views before "evolving" to Democratic primary voters? She may look good on paper, but that tends to get candidates from both parties in trouble.

It would be pretty cruel to hold her accountable for her fathers opinions. As for her past anti-gay views; I don't think it's going to be as big of a deal as a lot of people on this forum are trying to make it out to be.

She was raised in a homophobic household and "evolved" on the issue after her tour of duty in the Middle East . Not an uncommon thing in this country. What's the big deal? She's been a pretty strong advocate for LGBT rights ever since.

[Confused Democrat]

Some of the comments are a bit harsh

That's an understatement lol.

I don't get all of the hate for her coming from Democrats.

[Confused Democrat]

She's hit or miss. I do think she will run, but I don't think she'd win the nomination.

I think that if she ran, she'd have a good chance if Trump is popular.

If Trump is popular, most of the A-listers will pass.

I don't think this really passes the smell test. 1992 taught politicians of both parties to always run, in case fortunes shift: George Sr. was very popular in 1991, the Democratic A-listers bowed out, and then a B-lister won a landslide victory when the winds shifted and the President became unpopular. No matter how popular Trump is, Democratic A-listers will all run.

I kinda doubt Gabbard would run against Sanders, who I still expect to take a second crack, but I doubted Paul and Johnson would run against each other in 2012, and I doubted Jeb and Rubio would run against each other in 2016. So maybe. But I suspect she would do very poorly if Sanders was in the field.

Why do you expect Sanders to take a second crack?

[Confused Democrat]

I will leave the party if she's the nominee. She's a disgusting person.

This. I never thought I'd see the day when I of all people was called a DINO and a conservative Democrat because I wouldn't get on board with the Tumblrina pipe-dream chasing suicide march.

How is Tulsi part of a "Tumblrina pipe-dream chasing suicide march?" lol

[Confused Democrat]

I will leave the party if she's the nominee. She's a disgusting person.

This. I never thought I'd see the day when I of all people was called a DINO and a conservative Democrat because I wouldn't get on board with the Tumblrina pipe-dream chasing suicide march.

How is Tulsi part of a "Tumblrina pipe-dream chasing suicide march?" lol

Because she supports universal healthcare, is anti-TPP, doesn't support endless wars of regime change and wants to toughen up on Wall Street. At the same time, she's not afraid to call out radical Islamic extremism, can draw on her experience as a veteran and more.

Nominating a pro-free trade candidate would be a surefire way for the Democrats to lose in 2020. Also, being tough on Wall Street and supporting universal healthcare is hardly a "Tumblrina pipe-dream chasing suicide march."

I can sympathize with Democrats who think enacting universal healthcare seems near impossible at this point, but it seems to be our parties end goal. Obama pushed for it, so whats wrong with campaigning on it?

[Confused Democrat]

The fact that so many of you, the people who are supposed to be the most ardent opponents of bigotry, are willing or are even enthusiastic to support an Islamophobe to head the Democratic ticket is appalling. There's photographic evidence of her open affiliation with the ruling Hindu nationalist party that's being internationally condemned for their violation of human rights and systemic discrimination against the Indian Muslim community. I guess it's ok when a Democrat is a bigot, so long as they have a D next to their name and support some progressive causes.

OH NO! Tulsi took a photo with an activist belonging to India's ruling party. She's also taken photos with members of India's Congress party.





It's almost like her "interest is in helping cultivate a closer relationship between the US and India, not just between the US and one political party of India."

That's a quote from her. Here's another:

"Both in India and here in the US, I have held meetings with members of both the BJP and the Congress party. I am known in America for being nonpartisan — I successfully work with Democrats and Republicans alike to get things done for the people."

Tell me again why you think she's an Islamophobe? Because that "photographic evidence" (lol) isn't convincing.

Here's a picture of Hillary embracing Robert Byrd:



Hillary must be affiliated with the KKK!

[Confused Democrat]

The fact that so many of you, the people who are supposed to be the most ardent opponents of bigotry, are willing or are even enthusiastic to support an Islamophobe to head the Democratic ticket is appalling. There's photographic evidence of her open affiliation with the ruling Hindu nationalist party that's being internationally condemned for their violation of human rights and systemic discrimination against the Indian Muslim community. I guess it's ok when a Democrat is a bigot, so long as they have a D next to their name and support some progressive causes.

OH NO! Tulsi took a photo with an activist belonging to India's ruling party. She's also taken photos with members of India's Congress party.





It's almost like her "interest is in helping cultivate a closer relationship between the US and India, not just between the US and one political party of India."

That's a quote from her. Here's another:

"Both in India and here in the US, I have held meetings with members of both the BJP and the Congress party. I am known in America for being nonpartisan — I successfully work with Democrats and Republicans alike to get things done for the people."

Tell me again why you think she's an Islamophobe? Because that "photographic evidence" (lol) isn't convincing.

Here's a picture of Hillary embracing Robert Byrd:



Hillary must be affiliated with the KKK!

If it was merely photographic evidence of her friendliness with the Hindu nationalist party, then yes, that could be dismissed (although it'd still raise valid concerns). Rather, it's that, plus her eccentric and essentially right-wing views concerning terrorism and Islam. She has adopted the rhetoric of the right-wing on the issue. That is simply undeniable.

You can try to dismiss her bigotry for whatever reason you want, but it exists and should disqualify her as a candidate in the eyes of anyone who opposes Islamophobia and bigotry.

Again, what bigotry? Show me where Tulsi has shown herself to be an Islamophobic bigot. Having "right-wing" views concerning "radical Islamic terrorism" doesn't make a person a bigot.

I actually find her views concerning Islamism, Islam, and terrorism quite nuanced and level-headed. Her reputation as a Democrat who is "tough on terror" will probably help her during a general anyways.

[Confused Democrat]

I wouldn't vote for Gabbard if she won, I can never vote for a supporter of BJP or Modi, as would be the case of Nepali-Americans, or in my case Nepali-Australian then american then again Australian, who can only vote in america-n. Not that it matters, but I also doubt, Pakistani and Bangladeshi-americans, can vote for such a person.

[Confused Democrat]

David Duke says Gabbard for Secretary of State!

You're crazy if you think I'm reading anything written by David Duke lol.

[Confused Democrat]

I get really confused by some people on this message board. I'm a registered Independent but I'll be supporting the nominee with the best chance to defeat Donald Trump,

It doesn't really count as defeating Donald Trump unless the candidate who beats him is actually different from him.

You're out of your mind if you think Trump and Tulsi are the same.

[Confused Democrat]

When did Syria and Russia become the single most important issue for red avatars on this board? I'm not saying it isn't important, because it is, but why are so many of you all of the sudden single issue voters when it comes to this?

All this fear mongering about Tulsi putting Muslims in interment camps and being best friends with Putin and Assad is hilarious.

What is so hard for Democrats to understand about her views on the Middle East and terrorism? You may not agree with them, but they are perfectly rational.

She believes that the fight against terrorism must be both military and ideological. Sounds reasonable to me. What ideology are we fighting against? The ideology shared by ISIS, Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations known as ‘Islamism.’

Islamism is defined as "Islamic militancy or fundamentalism."

That doesn't sound like something we should be supportive of.

Now you may disagree with her labeling of these terrorists as "Islamic" or "Islamist," but when have you ever agreed with a candidate 100%? You may think it's akin to a dog whistle, but she doesn't see it that way, and it's not hard to understand her point of view.

Calling these terrorists "Islamic" or "Islamist" shouldn't be a deal breaker.

She also doesn't believe overthrowing Assad is a good idea, and it's kind of had to knock her for this view after Iraq and Libya. Here's a quote from her:

"People said the very same thing about Saddam Hussein, the very same thing about Moammar Gadhafi, the results of those two failed efforts of regime change and the following nation-building have been absolute, not only have they been failures, but they've actually worked to strengthen our enemy,"

Not an unreasonable statement.  

She's spoken out against Trumps rhetoric towards Muslims.

She rejected Dr. Ben Carson’s statement that no Muslim should be president of the United States of America.

She condemned violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States by cosponsoring H.Res.569

She spoke at the Reason Rally regarding promoting religious freedom and pluralism.

She’s spoken multiple times including, on the House floor, in favor of vetted refugees from Muslim-majority Iraq and Afganistan.

So this isn't as black and white as a lot of the users in this thread would like you to believe. This is a complicated topic, and Tulsi's views on the matter are quite nuanced.

You're allowed to disagree with her on this front, but it hardly disqualifies her from the winning the Democratic Nomination.



 

 

[Confused Democrat]

Ds should not follow Hillary's lead on FP views, I think if you polled most Dems they'd agree with Tulsi/Bernie view regarding the ME.

I'm not siding with the Clinton foreign policy in regards to the Middle East. But I'm also not adopting the RT perspective that Assad is the best of a bad situation or that Russia and Iran's intervention hasn't led to mass slaughter resulting from the total disregard all three of these regimes (plus the rebels and militants) have demonstrated towards basic human rights. Russia, Syria, Iran, the rebels, and the militants all deserve to be internationally condemned for their actions in this bloodbath. None of them are in the right.

By Gabbard being one of only 4 Congress people to vote against a resolution condemning Russia is abhorrent. Do I believe we, as a nation, have the obligation to play a central role in world affairs, in collaboration with our NATO partners and the UN, to uphold human rights and democracy around the world? Absolutely. Isolationism and Putin friendly nonsense have become disturbingly common in our country.

You either overthrow Assad or you don't.

Which is it?

[Confused Democrat]

Needless to say if she were to be nominated I would fly to America and actively campaign for President Trump's re-election on the grounds that Trump is merely influenced by the far-right while Gabbard is of the far-right.

How in the heck is Gabbard "of the far-right?"

She's just more isolationist when it comes to foreign policy. That hardly makes her "of the far right."

[Confused Democrat]

Ds should not follow Hillary's lead on FP views, I think if you polled most Dems they'd agree with Tulsi/Bernie view regarding the ME.

I'm not siding with the Clinton foreign policy in regards to the Middle East. But I'm also not adopting the RT perspective that Assad is the best of a bad situation or that Russia and Iran's intervention hasn't led to mass slaughter resulting from the total disregard all three of these regimes (plus the rebels and militants) have demonstrated towards basic human rights. Russia, Syria, Iran, the rebels, and the militants all deserve to be internationally condemned for their actions in this bloodbath. None of them are in the right.

By Gabbard being one of only 4 Congress people to vote against a resolution condemning Russia is abhorrent. Do I believe we, as a nation, have the obligation to play a central role in world affairs, in collaboration with our NATO partners and the UN, to uphold human rights and democracy around the world? Absolutely. Isolationism and Putin friendly nonsense have become disturbingly common in our country.

You either overthrow Assad or you don't.

Which is it?

We don't need to be picking sides in a war where all sides are guilty of atrocities. If any of them gain power (which, at this point, it's hard to see how al-Assad loses), the others will suffer immensely as the winner will assume they can do whatever they want. There's no winning in this war. The best we can do is pressure all sides act in accordance with international law and punish them when they violate that. It's not much, but it's really all that can be done.

The question I posed to you wasn't a question dealing with "picking sides." The argument a lot of you here appear to be making is that taking the position of "do not overthrow Assad" means you are somehow sympathetic to the Assad regime and his human rights violations.

Tulsi believes that Assad is morally reprehensible and often refers to him as a brutal dictator, but she also believes that overthrowing Assad would create more devastation, human suffering, and refugees while strengthening terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. Keeping Assad in power is, in her eyes, the best option out of a slew of terrible options for now.

How exactly do you suggest we punish Assad?

[Confused Democrat]

How someone who takes money from Sheldon Adelson gets more love from online liberals than Boomer amazes me

As far as I can tell, you're just straight up lying. Show me where Adelson has donated money to Tulsi.

[Confused Democrat]

Giving talking head interviews on Fox News is a pretty solid dis-qualifier IMO.

Fox News is the most popular 24 hour news network, whether we like it or not.

And yet Democrats do a pretty good job of staying off it! Except Tulsi and wash-ups like Kucinich.

Obama did an interview with Bill O'Reilly. Does that make him a wash-up?

[Confused Democrat]

Guys, Shadows is a Trump supporter who trolls by posting various pro-Sanders and related posts. Why are you even responding to him?

Because he makes some valid points.

I've seen the rumor that Tulsi takes money from Sheldon Adelson thrown around this thread as if it's fact, and it's a flat out lie.

[Confused Democrat]

Giving talking head interviews on Fox News is a pretty solid dis-qualifier IMO.

Fox News is the most popular 24 hour news network, whether we like it or not.

And yet Democrats do a pretty good job of staying off it! Except Tulsi and wash-ups like Kucinich.

Obama did an interview with Bill O'Reilly. Does that make him a wash-up?

There's a difference between a sit-down interview and being a talking head. Tulsi went on Fox to be the token Democrat and lend credence to hawkish foreign policy. People calling her the new Bernie are massively misguided.

Tulsi is the opposite of a hawk. Her foreign policy is more in line with Ron Paul.

[Confused Democrat]

I don't see Tulsi even having a chance at the nomination.  Just on sheer optics- she's a snooze fest... I would not be good at all for motivating voters to turnout etc.  Unless you have a wealth of experience... the you need charisma & a bit of the X Factor... neither of which she has.

She has most of the Sanders wing locked up if Warren decides not to run, and has the potential to be extremely formidable.

[Confused Democrat]

And she'll lose badly.

Just like Trump right?

[Confused Democrat]

I don't see Tulsi even having a chance at the nomination.  Just on sheer optics- she's a snooze fest... I would not be good at all for motivating voters to turnout etc.  Unless you have a wealth of experience... the you need charisma & a bit of the X Factor... neither of which she has.

She has most of the Sanders wing locked up if Warren decides not to run, and has the potential to be extremely formidable.

How does she have the Sanders wing "locked up"?

I think my main post sums up why pretty well.

[Confused Democrat]

I don't see Tulsi even having a chance at the nomination.  Just on sheer optics- she's a snooze fest... I would not be good at all for motivating voters to turnout etc.  Unless you have a wealth of experience... the you need charisma & a bit of the X Factor... neither of which she has.

She has most of the Sanders wing locked up if Warren decides not to run, and has the potential to be extremely formidable.

How does she have the Sanders wing "locked up"?

I think my main post sums up why pretty well.

I don't know how many people actually fit that description.

I was a very active Sanders volunteer in Florida, and pretty much every person I worked with had good things to say about Tulsi whenever her name came up.

I was also a very active user on /r/sandersforpresident and they all treated her like a progressive goddess.

All anecdotal, I know, but I haven't seen anything that convinces me otherwise.

[Confused Democrat]

Related to Gabbard's comments on Islam and terrorism, hasn't she tended to side with the Republicans on issues like Syrian refugees and the like?  E.g., she talked about suspending the visa waiver program with European countries:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218501-bill-would-suspend-visa-waiver-program-for-countries-with-citizens

And she voted for the Republican bill on screening refugees, which was opposed by the majority of Dems in the House:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h643

1/4 of Dems still voted for it, so I don't see the problem. Do you really think the bill would have made our screening process more inefficient?

[Confused Democrat]

Though I like her, it's undeniable that Tulsi Gabbard would lose to President Trump in a spectacular fashion, rivalling only the loss Mondale suffered to Reagan.

How is it undeniable? Trump hasn't even taken the oath of office yet.