I watched the Rox so missed most of the debate but did catch Tulsi’s shtick of trying to crap on Democrats, spout Kremliny propaganda, repeat her line over and over again about regime change wars, and appeal to Trump voters. It’s a shame because when she gets forced to talk about real issues that in no way allow her to pivot to “regime change wars” nonsense, she actually makes a ton of sense and sounds like a normal functional Democrat. Especially on climate. Her attack on mayor Pete was disingenuous and glad he called her out on it. Right now if she ran third party she would actually just pull Trump voters away from Trump. Her people know this and it’s why she’s not leaving the party. She is a sneaky long shot candidate imo to take over the VP spot if Trump decides to abandon Pence. Let’s be honest for a second.... you know when Trump and Putin are on calls together her name comes up. If Putin puts that idea in his head, it’s a real possibility.
It's not just a real possibility, for ****s sake there's emails of Don Jr. orgasming over Putin interfering in the 2016 election. I'm sure he's similarly under the radar on Tulsi. He's that smooth.
If people saw those Putin call transcripts it would make our heads explode. No way in hell there are NSC or state people allowed in the same wing of the White House when a Putin call is scheduled. I have no facts to support it, but I just know that it’s completely something that Putin is putting in his head. Oddly enough as vile as Pence is, he’s probably one of the reasons that under Trumps nose policies to curb Russian aggression have still found a way to get through, and Putin would likely prefer Pence and others like Pompeo to get ousted in preference for more isolationists.
Doing Yang so dirty Before this they “accidentally” left him off poll graphics . Honestly a disparity this bad might start a real narrative on other networks about him. At least fox will pick it up haha
Ann Althouse on the debate: What can I say? Not much happened, and maybe there's something wrong with the debate format, but there's probably something very wrong with repeated debates with a large number of candidates. I don't know if it's worse because we're stuck with debates from only one party or whether these people have an advantage because the other party has its candidate and he's a glaringly specific target. Maybe Joe Biden is gumming up the works. They don't know how to attack him, and he stands there, undying, grinning forever, secure in the doting expectation that the nomination will wander over and snuggle into his lap like a new grandchild. https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/11/ill-read-3-articles-about-debate-that.html
lol, you called it: (8) Tulsi Gabbard. The gig is up on Tulsi and she seems like she’s ready to embrace it. Gabbard has been positioning herself as the Ron Paul of the Democratic party without saying so out loud. Everyone else has figured this out now and she seems ready to drop the mask and make her heel turn by attacking everyone on stage, and talking about how the whole party is full of sellouts while she chants “regime-change wars” over and over, like a mantra. It’s going to be great when she gets her own show on Fox. But practically speaking, her career in Democratic politics is over. https://thebulwark.com/the-lost-debate/
From what I can tell reading the postmortem, the two big takeaways seem to be: 1. The debate pulled candidates more to the center; debates on hard-left issues were more limited. 2. Booker and Klobuchar did well, potentially muddying up the middle for Biden/Pete
These last several debates seem to follow a pattern for Biden - he starts out strong and people are impressed and then he flubs his way through the 2nd half with lots of stupid things. Maybe people have tuned it out by hour 2 or 3, so it doesn't affect him?
He's been posting false rumors in the Tulsi thread similar to what dobro1229 posted above. Many insinuations and "insight" without regard for the facts. There's also an issue with your post from the bulwark post. The Tulsi and RP similarities with regard to policy begin and end at no regime change wars. This is a position Bernie is now embracing by calling out the coup in Bolivia. As usual, but not surprising since it was MSNBC, strong foreign policy talk went unmentioned last night. Furthermore, Dr. Paul wasn't one to attack other candidates or support big government programs a la Bernie/Tulsi/etc.
as far as I can tell, Gabbard is the ONLY one talking about foreign policy, which is supposed to be the President's main job
She hasn't attacked Bernie, or Yang I think, due to them having similar foreign policy positions. She isn't just attacking everybody to attack everybody. Calling her Ron Paul isn't bad, of course, Gabbard isn't uber libertarian like Paul, but Ron Paul took a stand non-interventionism and decriminalizing drugs despite the rest of his party standing on the opposite side of those issues. Gabbard is doing the same thing now with promoting non-interventionism and peace. I respect when people take moral stands on things they believe in, regardless if it bucks the party norms.
Booker and Klobuchar have always been my two favorite candidates and I still can't fathom why they aren't frontrunners
Most interesting parts of that chart to me are Warren, Sanders, and Gabbard. When you're already on one extreme or another, it's harder to go further in that direction - but Warren/Sanders already had really high favorability and still managed to increase it. Gabbard was the opposite on both counts.
