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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say meeting with war criminals at the behest of an unknown benefactor, without telling anyone you're doing so, is a definite "minus" going into 2020

The US government has been just as big a war criminal as Assad.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say meeting with war criminals at the behest of an unknown benefactor, without telling anyone you're doing so, is a definite "minus" going into 2020

The US government has been just as big a war criminal as Assad.

No. It's really not.

As someone who spend a good year or so on the whole 'US Empire' bend I know it's factually untrue to claim that the US is a war criminal on Assads leave. The US hasn't used chemical weapons on it's own people multiple times, or caused half the country to flee, or bomb hospitals and schools with barrel bombs

The jihadists we've armed have done plenty of bad things in Syria.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Obviously he did poorly in the south, but outside of the south the worst he did any any open primary or caucus was a 2 point loss in Illinois. Ohio was the only state that he had a double digit loss in that wasn't at least one of closed or in the south.