Tulsi Gabbard will win the Democratic nomination in 2020.

[GoTfan]

This theory of dismissing her is a very bad idea for those who want Cory Booker or Hillary Clinton lite (Kirsten Gilibrand).

Remember, Bernie was dismissed as a fringe candidate, and he ended up giving Hillary one hell of a fight. Trump was dismissed as not a real candidate and now he's President-Elect.

The point is, if people keep dismissing her as not a real candidate, then it will only enhance the image of outsider vs. establishment.

What can she do well?

1) She can play the outsider card. By 2019, she'll have been a seven year Congresswoman from an island state who resigned from the DNC.

2) She can cast herself as Bernie's successor.

3) She can leverage her military experience. Much was made of it this year, and she could challenge Booker or Gilibrand on the 'supporting the veterans front'

4) She can cast the race as 'the people's candidate vs the establishment' with a chance to right what went wrong four years prior

5) As I stated before, she has the Sanders wing essentially locked up

What would she need to explain?

1) Her 'evolution' on gay rights. I feel this could be explained away though.

2) Her willingness to acknowledge radical Islam as a problem. I say this isn't much of a problem, as we already know it is a problem, but it might not play well with some crowds

3) Her hawkish stance on foreign policy.

Moreover, if she were to run and neither Warren or Sherrod Brown did, she'd have an endorsement from one of the Democratic Party's kingmakers: Bernie Sanders.

All in all, if you don't want her to mount a significant challenge or even win the nomination, then stop dismissing her; stop saying that you'll leave the party if she's nominated, and start treating her like a serious contender. Remember what was said about Trump?

"He'll never run"

"He'll never debate"

"He'll never win a debate"

"He'll never win a state"

"He'll never win multiple states"

"He'll never win the nomination"

"He'll never win the election"

[GoTfan]

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?

Because he'd be the instant frontrunner if he ran. He'd be in a great position to unify the left once more and if he were to win the nomination this time, he'd have no shortage of VPs to pick from.

[GoTfan]

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.

It's just being called a sore loser because Booker or Clinton lite (Gilibrand) or some other Wall Street shill got the nod.

At least the Bernie people had something to complain about after the Wikileaks dump on day 1 of the DNC which showed that debate questions had been leaked to Hillary.

The top donors to Booker and Gilibrand are the same as Hillary Clinton: Goldman-Sachs, Time Warner and so on. The Democratic Party needs to move away from being a Wall Street party. Booker and Clinton lite don't want that.

[GoTfan]

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.

[GoTfan]

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?

Precisely the point I'm making. Nominate a left-wing progressive, perhaps with an economically populist Blue Dog on the bottom of the ticket (or even the other way round), and you can give Trump a run for his money.

Nominate a pro-free trade candidate like Booker, and you end up with a similar result to this year.

[GoTfan]

What policy positions does Tulsi have which would make Democrats unable to support her?

Incredible war hawk.

Supports universal healthcare, is anti-TPP, wants to toughen up on Wall Street and so on.

In other words, she's the antithesis of everything the Booker crowd wants.

Sure, there are areas to disagree with her on, but at least make it genuine. She's not an over-the-top war hawk. Heck, Obama's got what, 7 wars going on now? Plus, she's said herself she wants to put an end to wars of regime change, something Hillary has voted for in the past.

At least make your disagreements with her genuine instead of lining up fake attacks.