Gabbard's recent Syria trip/ meeting w/ Assad... Help or hurt her in 2020?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Gabbard would seriously be one of the worst candidates the Democrats have ever had. She has no commitment to progressive principles, is influenced by Breitbart benefactors, and has little to no experience governing. Aside from all of this, she's associated with right wing groups in various foreign countries.

I wouldn't be surprised if she lost 40 states to Trump. This Democrat Party is a mess.

-Nonsense. Gabbard would have been a much stronger candidate than HRC, and would almost certainly have become the first woman president had she been the nominee in 2016.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I mean she never had 2020 prayer anyway. Backbench unknown congressman without a fundraising apparatus don't win the presidency

I wouldn't count Gabbard out at all. She is a populist who is young and styled almost like Bernie Sanders in some respects. All she needs is that one spark to ignite that campaign and it shouldn't be difficult at all.

People are too willing to dismiss a candidate's flaws just because they fit a certain mold. It's like when the press kept asserting Rubio was going to be the winner because HE'S REPUBLICAN OBAMA.

-Rubio was obviously the Republican Romney, but more boyish and less functional.

In a sense, he was also the Republican Obama, because he did very well among college-educated elitist hacks in the primary and lost the White vote in the primary overwhelmingly to a well-known individual perceived as a champion of the working class.

And the press is the entity hating on Gabbard, not promoting her.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Gabbard would seriously be one of the worst candidates the Democrats have ever had. She has no commitment to progressive principles, is influenced by Breitbart benefactors, and has little to no experience governing. Aside from all of this, she's associated with right wing groups in various foreign countries.

I wouldn't be surprised if she lost 40 states to Trump. This Democrat Party is a mess.

Tulsi Gabbard is actually the type of Democrat that appeals to real-life people.  The Atlas demographic is irrelevant.

The best response I can give is that most of the people on this forum who support Tulsi Gabbard are Republicans. That alone should make you curious about her prospects in a Democratic primary, and her actual political views. I never heard Republicans talking up Obama, and yet he was extremely good at appealing to "real-life people" (as opposed to the fake people who use the Internet, which is in 95% of homes in this country).

-It's called the median voter theorem. Gabbard is to the right of the average Democrat; ergo, she would get more crossover votes than Crooked Hillary did. Of course, Gabbard is not a serious presidential contender.

I don't "support Tulsi Gabbard", but she is better than the standard-issue Democrat.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Gabbard would seriously be one of the worst candidates the Democrats have ever had. She has no commitment to progressive principles, is influenced by Breitbart benefactors, and has little to no experience governing. Aside from all of this, she's associated with right wing groups in various foreign countries.

I wouldn't be surprised if she lost 40 states to Trump. This Democrat Party is a mess.

Tulsi Gabbard is actually the type of Democrat that appeals to real-life people.  The Atlas demographic is irrelevant.

The best response I can give is that most of the people on this forum who support Tulsi Gabbard are Republicans. That alone should make you curious about her prospects in a Democratic primary, and her actual political views. I never heard Republicans talking up Obama, and yet he was extremely good at appealing to "real-life people" (as opposed to the fake people who use the Internet, which is in 95% of homes in this country).

-It's called the median voter theorem. Gabbard is to the right of the average Republican; ergo, she would get more crossover votes than Crooked Hillary did. Of course, Gabbard is not a serious presidential contender.

I don't "support Tulsi Gabbard", but she is better than the standard-issue Democrat.

Yes, I know.

-I meant Democrat, clearly. She's a tad to the Left of Kaine.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Gabbard would seriously be one of the worst candidates the Democrats have ever had. She has no commitment to progressive principles, is influenced by Breitbart benefactors, and has little to no experience governing. Aside from all of this, she's associated with right wing groups in various foreign countries.

I wouldn't be surprised if she lost 40 states to Trump. This Democrat Party is a mess.

Tulsi Gabbard is actually the type of Democrat that appeals to real-life people.  The Atlas demographic is irrelevant.

The best response I can give is that most of the people on this forum who support Tulsi Gabbard are Republicans. That alone should make you curious about her prospects in a Democratic primary, and her actual political views. I never heard Republicans talking up Obama, and yet he was extremely good at appealing to "real-life people" (as opposed to the fake people who use the Internet, which is in 95% of homes in this country).

-It's called the median voter theorem. Gabbard is to the right of the average Democrat; ergo, she would get more crossover votes than Crooked Hillary did. Of course, Gabbard is not a serious presidential contender.

I don't "support Tulsi Gabbard", but she is better than the standard-issue Democrat.

So Bernie must have been a pretty conservative Democrat to do so much better with non Democrats than Hillary?

-It depends. In highly Cruzlim Republican places like Ottawa County, MI and Utah County, Utah, Bernie performed really well. But in Trump Republican bastions like rural White Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, Bernie performed rather poorly. Both of these matter.

Overall, Bernie did better with non-Democrats than Hillary because Hillary was seen as uniquely crooked. So Bernie would have won Wisconsin, MI, and PA (Lancaster). But he was almost certainly too far Left for much of the South (especially Greater Appalachia). He would have exacerbated the great North-South divide had he been the nominee.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Should help, will hurt.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I'm sure visiting a brutal dictator responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of his own people will certainly help.... /s

-Abraham Lincoln, anyone?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

America will not elect a 39-year-old Hindu woman in 2020. She's less appealing than Hillary to the Obama voters who either switched to Trump or seriously considered it.

Could America elect a 59-year-old Hindu woman in 2040? Maybe, but let's table this Gabbard talk for at least a decade.

-No; she may well be more appealing than Obama. Romney wasn't a Christian, and still won 90% of Trump voters.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

America will not elect a 39-year-old Hindu woman in 2020. She's less appealing than Hillary to the Obama voters who either switched to Trump or seriously considered it.

Could America elect a 59-year-old Hindu woman in 2040? Maybe, but let's table this Gabbard talk for at least a decade.

-No; she may well be more appealing than Obama. Romney wasn't a Christian, and still won 90% of Trump voters.

Mormons are Christians, unless you're a moron

-Tell any Christian the doctrines of Joseph Smith, and they will find them as foreign as the doctrines of Muhammad. Mormons are definitely not Christians, they just find political coalition with them.