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

[SCNCmod]

Gabbard's recent Syria trip/ meeting w/ Assad/ not notifying Pelosi of the Trip or any info/ etc...

Will this  help or hurt her in 2020?  And does it make her looking a bit self-indulgent?

[publicunofficial]

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

[andrew_c]

It's going to hurt her, and possibly kill her presidential ambitions.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Blair]

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

[Sir Mohamed]

It's going to hurt her, and possibly kill her presidential ambitions.

This. But I have doubts that she is actually going to run.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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

[Rjjr77]

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

[Stranger in a strange land]

Considering the anti-Russian frenzy the Democratic primary electorate is going to be in in 2020, this will hurt her, possibly fatally.

[publicunofficial]

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.

[(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.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[(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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

These sort of things never help a candidate.  They are seen as undermining foreign policy, even now.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

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).

Everyone uses the internet.  But most people don't go onto political forums to talk about how X candidate underperformed in Y county.  For most people, politics on the internet is limited to reading articles and occasionally arguing on Facebook.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Sena

This sounds EXACTLY like the sort of group that Democratic primary voters are going to love. They'll definitely get behind a candidate with ties to them!

[○∙◄☻¥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?

[(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.

[GoTfan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Sena

This sounds EXACTLY like the sort of group that Democratic primary voters are going to love. They'll definitely get behind a candidate with ties to them!

Well they got behind one who was friends with Saudi oil barons

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Should help, will hurt.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Sena

This sounds EXACTLY like the sort of group that Democratic primary voters are going to love. They'll definitely get behind a candidate with ties to them!

Well they got behind one who was friends with Saudi oil barons

Hillary was a Wahabiist Muslim?

Seriously the way you Tulsibots handwave EVERYTHING on a candidate with more baggage than a cargo plane is pretty amazing. Isn't it just possible the Democrats might just nominate someone else other than a backbencher Congresswoman not even from the continental US who has no fundraising apparatus, refused to initially endorse her party's nominee at first, has a ton of dodgy and hasn't even expressed interest in running anyway?