Tulsi's Secret Surge

[BotanyBoy]

Until next year's overwhelming defeat makes them finally reassess. If they can relearn the basics of meeting, hearing, and working with and for a wider range of citizens, including the deplorables, that puts them a step ahead of anyone who refuses to work with librul commies.

They didn't get it in 2016, they are 100% all in and committed to "Fuck white people!!" and "Fuck every bit of individual freedom the USA stands for." they aren't ever going to understand how that's not much of a winning formula.

Do you see them as liberals or commies.....those two ideologies are directly opposed to one another.

They can be one, they can be the other, can't be both.

 

[LupusDei]

She probably should do as "advised" and drop out after (not) passing December debate to run as third party. It was commented somewhere that getting any third party on ballot in every state would be lot of hard work she's probably not up to, but let's say hypothetically there's Warren vs Gabbard vs Trump ticket. Who would suffer more from her presence? If LitE flora is any indication, I would hazard a guess that Tulsi could steal more reluctant Trump voters than reluctant Warren voters. So it would be something like Warren 44%, Trump 42% and Gabbard 12% of popular vote, but since Tulsi probably couldn't carry any one state, Trump still could have chance to grab a narrow elector college victory.

By the way, hypothetical question: suppose a third candidate wins a state or two, and the leading two divide the rest equally enough so that nobody has 270 votes; what happens then?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

She probably should do as "advised" and drop out after (not) passing December debate to run as third party. It was commented somewhere that getting any third party on ballot in every state would be lot of hard work she's probably not up to, but let's say hypothetically there's Warren vs Gabbard vs Trump ticket. Who would suffer more from her presence? If LitE flora is any indication, I would hazard a guess that Tulsi could steal more reluctant Trump voters than reluctant Warren voters. So it would be something like Warren 44%, Trump 42% and Gabbard 12% of popular vote, but since Tulsi probably couldn't carry any one state, Trump still could have chance to grab a narrow elector college victory.

By the way, hypothetical question: suppose a third candidate wins a state or two, and the leading two divide the rest equally enough so that nobody has 270 votes; what happens then?

She's made it clear that she's not running third-party, but if she did, hypothetically, she'd run afoul of "sore loser laws" in states like Michigan. Even so, even if not on the ballot in Michigan and a number of other states, she would basically be a Ross Perot-like candidate and get in the teens easily. No electoral votes, but basically burying all other third-party candidates to win the bulk of swing votes and make it come down to turnout.

But I don't think that she will. I'm betting that Jesse Ventura will be the third-party guy, and if Warren or Biden or Mayor Pete are nominated, Ventura will do better than any third-party candidate since TR. He might even win. He won't do as well if Tulsi or Bernie are the nominee.

Also, with 5% nationally in some recent polls and 3-5% in some early state polls, debate or no debate, Tulsi's probably gonna be able to hold out to the convention, possibly break through into the top tier. Don't be shocked if she wins a primary or caucus, either.

 

[jaF0]

By the way, hypothetical question: suppose a third candidate wins a state or two, and the leading two divide the rest equally enough so that nobody has 270 votes; what happens then?

The time to test that was the last, 2016. If a third party candidate didn't make a mark then, when the two majors were the very worst of the worst, they never will. What's worse is they turned out to be spoilers, taking just enough votes to lead to this mess.

Clit'n would have been absolutely terrible in every sense, but not outright criminal like this asshole.

There is a trail of bodies connected to the Clit'ns, but no proof.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The time to test that was the last, 2016. If a third party candidate didn't make a mark then, when the two majors were the very worst of the worst, they never will. What's worse is they turned out to be spoilers, taking just enough votes to lead to this mess.

Clit'n would have been absolutely terrible in every sense, but not outright criminal like this asshole.

There is a trail of bodies connected to the Clit'ns, but no proof.

Trump's a crook, a con man, a racist, and a rapist. Hillary's a war criminal. One's cancer, the other one AIDS. Either way, you end up dead. Pick your poison. I fucked up by voting for Hillary. I really did.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Any comment on Tulsi Gabbard reaching 5th place in New Hampshire, 6%, her third qualifying poll for December?

I feel very vindicated right now.

 

[JackLuis]

If Tulsi get some prime time exposure to talk about HER plans, then things will get interesting, but as long as the talking heads keep her on the fluff issues, she'll never get heard.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Tough spot when the moderate liberal who can win the general can't win the primary because the radicalized faction is running the show.

 

[Ziggins]

One-party governments get rapidly fucked up, like the USSR and California. If the Dems are permanently lost, then we need a new second party or the end of all parties to keep a balanced and functional democracy.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Ranked Choice Voting is gonna be the death knell of the two-party system. It cannot happen soon enough for me.

 

[JackLuis]

So is Tulsi Gabbard really a ‘Russian asset? How would we know for sure?

Is it valid to accuse Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii and a current presidential candidate, of being a “Russian asset”?
This article first appeared in Salon.It’s a strange question, and one that normally wouldn’t need to be answered. Gabbard has never polled above the low single digits and has no realistic chance of being the 2020 Democratic nominee. Surrounded by controversy and facing a primary challenge from a more conventional Democrat, she has already announced she won’t run for re-election to Congress either.

Article just promotes more innuendo about Tulsi but has no proof or evidence other that she isn't a goose stepping establishment Demonrat! And she called Hillary, “queen of the warmongers” and an “embodiment of corruption” and, later, demanding an apology. SO she isn't Hillz favourite person.

The rethug's are pushing her just for her anti-Hillaryness.

They have nothing but unfounded rumour and bullshit, so common a Deamonrat position.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LupusDei View Post
By the way, hypothetical question: suppose a third candidate wins a state or two, and the leading two divide the rest equally enough so that nobody has 270 votes; what happens then?

The time to test that was the last, 2016. If a third party candidate didn't make a mark then, when the two majors were the very worst of the worst, they never will. What's worse is they turned out to be spoilers, taking just enough votes to lead to this mess.

Clit'n would have been absolutely terrible in every sense, but not outright criminal like this asshole.

There is a trail of bodies connected to the Clit'ns, but no proof.

The Constitution spells that out in some detail, but it has rarely happened. A third party carried some states in 1948, 1960 and 1968, but not enough to keep a major party candidate from getting enough electoral votes to win. I disagree with what you say about spoilers in 2016. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, got a fair number of votes, but not enough to affect the final total.

 

[YDB95]

By the way, hypothetical question: suppose a third candidate wins a state or two, and the leading two divide the rest equally enough so that nobody has 270 votes; what happens then?

The House of Representatives chooses between the top two candidates, with each state getting one vote. The members of each state's delegation can decide amongst themselves how to cast that vote, but each state only gets one whether its delegation consists of one member (the seven smallest states) or over 50 like California has. The framers expected most elections to be decided this way, but it hasn't happened since 1824.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The rethug's are pushing her just for her anti-Hillaryness.

And her lack of hatred for the USA and everything the USA has ever stood for makes her the more appealing (D) outside of the "progressive" bubble of hatred for everything American.

I know that doesn't bother you in the slightest and would LOVE to see the USA go the way of N. Korea, but most of us don't hate the USA as much as you and the other "progressive" folks do.

Also she's not openly racist against white people.

That's why Tulsi polls better among the non-USA loathing folks and white people.

It's also why "progressives" fucking hate her and think she's alt-right adjacent white nationalist putin puppet.

 

[Tabithablack]

There is a great hour long interview with her on youtube. Tulsi is an excellent candidate and if you look in the comments on the video a lot of conservatives say they would vote for her.

Which is why the Democrats are trying to blackball her because God forbid we get someone who could get bi-partisan support for their ideas be able to heal the divide.

That IMO is why Hillary took cheap unsubstantiated shots at her. How dare a democrat have the respect of conservatives?

But as usual Hillary misfired because her comments martyr Gabbard, as did the stunts google pulled on her, and being left off one of the debates. Its getting people to pay attention to her and she is getting a bigger and now 'outraged' base because by making no effort on her part, Gabbard is showing the corruption of the party and its collusion.

Can she win? Not a shot, but like Mayor Pete(another who despite his 'gayness' is well thought of by conservatives because he's not a alt left nutjob) this is for 2024.

But now what Gabbard can do, well not her, but her base is become the 2020 Bernie Bros and stay home and not vote or write her in.

I don't suffer from TDS nor am I ignorant to the good things that have happened under Trump, but there's things I don't like and fear about him and keep telling myself I am going to vote blue

But damn they make it hard and I'm sure I'm not alone and some will go the other way or just stay home.

I smell another loss coming and like in 2016 it will be their fault. There was no collusion just ignorance and incompetence.

 

[YDB95]

Which is why the Democrats are trying to blackball her because God forbid we get someone who could get bi-partisan support for their ideas be able to heal the divide.

No, it's because of her history of right wing positions on gay rights and international affairs. Besides, anyone who believes any candidate can "heal the divide" is hopelessly naive. Right-of-center voters don't want to heal the divide; they want everything their way, period.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

No, it's because of her history of right wing positions on gay rights and international affairs. Besides, anyone who believes any candidate can "heal the divide" is hopelessly naive. Right-of-center voters don't want to heal the divide; they want everything their way, period.

She apologized sincerely for the anti-gay stuff, and trust me, as an LGBTQ person, I then look at her record: 100% from the Human Rights Campaign. Very telling. As for international policy, her positions are classic McGovernite liberalism. Since when is it "right-wing" to favor peace and diplomacy and see force as last-resort only?

 

[JackLuis]

Tulsi's problems come from being a "Furriener"from almost "not a state", a non-corporatist background who is not a Chicken hawk, or a Wall Street Bank supporter.

But the absolute worst is she doesn't suffer fools and isn't afraid to say so!

 

[JackLuis]

https://scontent.fsac1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/93183195_2847827755335889_3453242130770690048_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=ca434c&_nc_ohc=9laPX-BeYLgAX_uBhV6&_nc_ht=scontent.fsac1-2.fna&oh=7d57a48b7e69be4dfb5b4cd9135bdd88&oe=5EC51E8B