The most charitable way of making sense of it is she has certain principles that she believes in and she is running her campaign on, and she will not deviate from them for partisan reasons. Advocating for transparency on impeachment hearings, even if the rules technically don’t require it, would be one of those things.
Thats a charitable thing her campaign would say publicly about her turn on impeachment, but I’m talking about her overall campaign strategy in general. Going on FoxNews consistently, never attacking Trump, picking a food fight with Hillary, etc. They said they don’t think she’s being pro Trump, and I wanted to clarify that it’s not the right way of looking at what she’s likely doing or trying to do... which is court Trump voters. The online Troll guys who hate DC. Tap into that base who she thinks can pull a political miracle out of the hat for her too.
OK. And if she is trying to “court Trump voters” by focusing on views that she shares with them, I see nothing wrong with that. Alienating Trump voters would be a big mistake by any Democrat who becomes the eventual nominee.
I agree , but i think it matters how you do it I like Yang because he courts Trump voters by directly addressing the some of the job loss that got Trump elected. Tulsi definitely took advantage of the Hillary situation. ( which i think was entirely HIllary's fault along with the media for jumping on the story) But, she did so in a way that was just riling those people up. at least, in my opinion
She isn't courting Trump voters to help her win, she isn't a legitimate candidate. Maybe Joe Walsh is courting Biden voters to set him up to win the general!
The amount of insane theories about Tulsi are interesting. So she deviates from war but she literally supports every other progressive far left policy, and she is considered haram by the social justice purists of the left. Or no, she is outcasted by the establishment left because they are sell out war hawks. That.. That sounds about right. Oh also she refuses to parade around and run on her identity and she was a veteran. This is honestly scaring away the weak left weirdo vote who needs to make this about oppression.
I tend to agree with that statement. I personally am not afraid to speak truth to Trump supporters but if Tulsi is akin to their thinking or wants to win them over by codling their thin skinned emotions, then so be it. Might be needed to win by gaining their voter support. note: there are many many more voters in the traditional Dem base. This voter block is important to Trump and now Gabbard, but still a minority voting block who probably aren’t even traditional voters regardless. So not sure it’s a winning strategy to placate to this base that much if it costs you any risk to the traditional Dem voter base although yeah... it’s a strategy or again an akin ideology of socio political thinking to court their vote.
Stein barely got a million votes. I think Gabbard basically takes away 3/4 of the Libertarian vote that went to Johnson (much of which was a protest against the Clinton/Trump choice--I know that's how I voted) and then some. I actually think she's got a chance to go beyond Johnson's total, which was what? 3-ish percent and maybe even get close to Ross Perot territory. THAT'S why Democrats are so nervous about her. It would basically guarantee the Orange One's re-election
Everything will eventually be transparent and the reason she does not know what is going on in the chamber is because she is not on any of those committees. She could also probably you know ask another democrat who is on the committee in the chamber. it's very disingenuous of her because she knows the rules and she knows democrats are following them, so why act like they are doing something nefarious.
So you think Gabbard can get almost 20% of the vote? When she can't get above 10% in her own party? With this line of logic she would be getting most of her votes from Republicans which should scare them.
You guys aren't dealing in reality. Tulsi has repeatedly stated that she will NOT run 3rd party; further, she wouldn't receive much of the libertarian vote as claimed as she is fairly aligned with the big government policies of Sanders and Warren.
I'm not as bullish on her appeal. As far as third party threats go, Bloomberg is more likely than her to find any traction.
again, I'm not necessarily for it--I just think that IF she were to run, she would outdo Gary Johnston's performance pretty easily. When I referred to Perot's total I had in mind a 5-ish percent total, jiggy rightly obverved Perot got 18% the first time around. No way she gets that. But 5% could very well throw the election towards Trump
Actually, I think a 3rd party candidate needs to only pull 2 or 3% to sink a dem candidate. (Either candidate, really, but we're unlikely to get a center-right candidate.) Nader in 2000 for example. Jill Stein pulled less than 1% and I believe some analysts said that was enough to tip the scales in MI WI PA in 2016. Any slightly legitimate 3rd party center-left candidate will terrify us dems and rightfully so.
