I actually hope Gabbards runs 3rd-party

[scheming daemons]

A recent poll showed that she has the support of 2% of Democrats, 7% of Independents, and 27% of Republicans.


The 2% of Democrats who support her were *NEVER* going to vote for the Democratic nominee. The same for the 7% of Independents.


And if she pulls away even a small percentage of Republicans from Trump, she *HELPS* the Democratic nominee.


She is to Trump what Jill Stein was to Hillary.


Splitting the nutjob vote between Trump and Gabbard is a good thing.

[LaurenOlimina]

1. Yup.

[TheBlackAdder]

32. Folks fail to remember: Jill Stein got 1.4M votes, while Gary Johnson took 4.4 Million from Trump.

.

If neither of these two ran, Trump could have possibly received an extra 3 million votes.

Tulsi seems to attract right-leaning independents who would probably never vote for Biden.



The Democratic Primary winner cannot make the same mistake of 2016. They must learn from 1980 and 2016.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan & GHWB hated each other. I mean they fucking hated each other to the point where the Republican party was more fractured than the Democratic groups of 2016. Yet, Reagan chose GHWB as the VP pick which coalesced the party. The 2020 Democratic Presidential nominee MUST pick a leading contender as their VP pick to rejoin the fissures of the primary run. This way, they would be able to overcome any GOP and Russian fuckery.

Note: This is not rehashing 2016. This is applied Poli-Sci strategy from University Honors courses.

.

[W_HAMILTON]

2. Do you want Democrats to lose again?

Because when the time comes, Republicans will vote for Republicans. Republicans only support Gabbard now because she is trashing Democrats and the Democratic Party. She's only a favorite of theirs when she can be used to defeat Democrats -- not Republicans.

Do you really want another so-called left-wing progressive tag teaming up on the Democratic nominee along with Trump AGAIN?

Trump cannot get 50% of the vote. His only chance to win is for third party spoilers to run again and bring down the Democratic nominee's percentage to somewhere around ~45% where he can potentially eke out another win in the electoral college, and yet you think it would be a good idea for a third party -- a so-called Democrat, at that -- to run and help him accomplish just that?

Think.

[scheming daemons]

4. How would her running hurt Democrats?

There isn't a single person in this country who would vote for Gabbard who would've otherwise voted Democrat if she weren't running.


Her supporters are all the RW crazies, the alt-right, the incels. These people were never going to vote Dem... but they might vote Gabbard.


Whatever percentage the Dem nominee would get in a two way race with Trump... they'd get the same in a three-way.

Gabbard steals *ZERO* votes from the Dem nominee... but she might steal some from Trump.

[Nitram]

7. Not true. If Warren is nominated, for example, some Democrats will vote for someone who looks more

middle-of-the-road. A split ticket is always bad.

[scheming daemons]

20. Gabbard isn't "middle of the road"... and will get no votes that would've gone Dem

[thesquanderer]

39. Gabbard is running against the establishment "Clinton wing" of the party, not the left.

Overall, she is more different from establishment-leaning Biden than left-leaning Warren.

I think Gabbard has almost no appeal to Dems if our candidate is Warren. She may have some appeal to disaffected Warren/Sanders voters if our candidate is Biden.

But I agree with the OP that, as a third candidate, she probably steals more from Trump than from any Dem. Thought it's not necessarily as simple as that, since the question isn't merely one of who she steals more votes from, but also who she steals in which states, since of course it all comes down to the electoral college.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. I literally just laid out an entire post explaining it.

[scheming daemons]

21. And what you laid out is false

Gabbard steals votes from the RIGHT, not from the left.


Her presence in the race hurts Trump more than it hurts the Dem nominee.


Gabbard splits off some of the nutjob vote from Trump.... and NONE of the vote from the Dem nominee.

[W_HAMILTON]

43. That's your (completely incorrect) opinion.

Are you delusional enough to believe that Trump voters will vote for Gabbard over Trump when the time comes? If so, LOL!

Trump and Gabbard will spend most of the election attacking the Democrat (just like Trump and Stein did in 2016), Trump voters will vote for Trump, Gabbard will get a few votes (possibly enough to sway the election) from delusional liberals, and who knows how many jaded voters that would otherwise vote for the Democrat will end up sitting out based on the lies told by Trump and Gabbard.

Let's make this even simpler: do you think Trump can win in a two-person race? Because I sure as hell don't. Most the country hates him. Given the choice between two candidates, Trump will lose, therefore, why try to muck it up with third party candidates, which will only serve to help him? It's idiotic.

[SterlingPound]

52. As a long time independent/third party voter

I agree with you 100%

It is certian trump is gone in a two person race

So i hope we can manage that for once

[hlthe2b]

35. She has some Democratic support here, so I would not be so sure.

[JonLP24]

3. Trashing thread

If she does I'll make sure to tell them her policies.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/tulsi-gabbard/

[scheming daemons]

5. So you actually like Gabbard?

[radical noodle]

6. Many Bernie supporters

have had a love affair with Tulsi for a long time.

[Nitram]

8. If Bernie supporters like Tulsi they are severely deluded. She is way to the right of Sanders.

[JonLP24]

11. Yes I'm deluded

You can blame that on the Iraq war.

I don't hate Tulsi Gabbard.

[Nitram]

13. I'd be sincerely interested to know how the Iraq War has influenced your decision, Jon.

I don't hate Gabbard, but I feel she's walking a very vague line between being a hawk and insisting military force should only be used to fight terrorism. No Democrat I know thinks we should have invaded Iraq. Gabbard's alleged support from some right wingers, white supremacists, and other makes me nervous. I wonder if she's being set up to be a Jill Stein to siphon off votes from the Democratic nominee.

[JonLP24]

16. A lot of the right wing support outside of libertarians with similar FP views

Are often males. I would post a conservative explaining it but I don't want to get the post deleted for posting right wing sources. Search "The Odd Conservative Love Affair With Tulsi Gabbard" (Townhall)

David Duke is anti-interventionalist but he also is against Israel for anti-semitic reasons.

David Duke praises Rep. Ilhan Omar

Rep. Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Democrat, has an ally of a new stripe in the furor over her use of anti-Semitic tropes regarding Israel and its American supporters David Duke.

In a Thursday podcast at his site, the former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard spoke out strongly in favor of the Muslim Congresswoman who has accused Jewish lawmakers of dual loyalty, attributed support for Israel to foreign money, and said Israel has “hypnotized” the world.

“By defiance to Z.O.G. Ilhan Omar is NOW the most important Member of the US Congress!” Mr. Duke wrote on hissite, using the acronym for “Zionist Occupation Government,” a term anti-Semites use to refer to the U.S. government as secretly controlled by Jews.

Mr. Duke and co-podcaster Eric Striker, according to the site, “heaped praise on Ilhan Omar (D-New Somalia) for being the one person in Congress willing to notice AIPAC and the “dual” loyalty of many (((members of Congresss))).”

https://apnews.com/a97b8b2d48c163c5965c2574ccbbe3d3

I think left wing supporters need to take control & become the voice of the campaign but I don't think you can control why someone supports you for some crazy reason.

[radical noodle]

14. You hate most Democrats?

Wow.

[JonLP24]

17. No I didn't say I hate any Democrats

I don't hate Tulsi Gabbard.

[NNadir]

18. Nevertheless, you spoke of Democrats as separate entities from yourself.

Personally I don't really appreciate Bernie Sanders types defining Democrats, since it's very clear to me as a Democrat that Bernie Sanders regards himself as a cut above Democrats, which given his rather weak ideology, is somewhat laughable.

[JonLP24]

23. I voted for Democrats my entire life over voting age and I am a registered Democrat

I consider myself a progressive. I plan on voting for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary.

I'm not 100% articulate so I'll edit my comment.

[NNadir]

24. Well, I always vote for Democrats.

I wouldn't dream of voting for Bernie Sanders, both because I'm a Democrat, and because, as a scientist, I find, among other things, his misrepresentation that he knows even a shred of reality about climate change to be beneath contempt.

I note that his state was once the only state in the Union to generate all of its electricity in state without dumping dangerous fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere, a situation no longer true because of policies Sanders proudly endorses to this day.

Since I regard the climate as the most important issue of our times, I have zero use for this "I'm superior to Democrats" non-Democrat.

For me, being a "progressive" means caring about future generations, and repeating tiresome rhetoric that was fashionable in 1969 is simply showing contempt for future generations in my opinion.

You may be a Democrat, but I vote for Democrats consistently and always, unlike other "Democrats."

[JonLP24]

25. So do I. I don't know how many times I have to state I voted for Democrats

I was too young in in 2004. I was in the Army for almost 4 years supported Obama in the primary & the general election unlike PUMAs. I voted for him again in 2012. Sanders in 2016 and Clinton in the general election. I also voted for Democrats in my state including Sinema who voted to confirm Barr who is now running an "origins" investigation.

I believe he supports The Green New Deal which is endorsed by Bill Nye.

I think we can learn a lot from policies from the New Deal to 1969. I remember things like the Great Recession -- we were foreclosed on in the aftermath of it.

[NNadir]

41. Supporting the "New Green Deal" is not...

...the equivalent of having a practical and workable climate policy. The reason is that its elements haven't worked, aren't working and won't work.

I say this because I have profound insight, built over thirty years of fairly intense study of the issue.

My party is not immune from embracing certain dogmas, of which the so called
New Green Deal is an example.

I am supporting Ms. Warren because she has a demonstrated record of changing her mind based on facts.

[JonLP24]

42. Bill Nye is known for science as well and he endorses the green new deal

I think there are more pros than cons when it comes to Bernie Sanders.

[NNadir]

46. Bill Nye is a celebrity and not a primary research scientist.

I get my opinions from some place other than television.

My journal in this space consists largely of commentary on the primary scientific literature.

One logical fallacy that is well known is "The Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

One can Google it to understand why this "Bill Nye says" argument means essentially nothing to me.

The science of climate change is extremely challenging, and the associated engineering requirements are on a scale that most people cannot even remotely grasp.

The "Green New Deal" is like a bad cartoon designed around wishful thinking designed to generate complacency.

[JonLP24]

48. I don't watch him on TV

I'm not a scientist so I listen to what scientists say like Nye who talks about climate change all the time. I don't have the expertise so I listen to people that know. Just like I listen to former coaches that analyze football so I point out this person mentions this analysis and I think he is right. Not appealing to authority just listening to people that know more than me.

I'm worried about climate change which is why politicians shouldn't take Corporate PAC money from the fossil fuel industry & enact policies that benefit them. Climate change is not an issue I worry about when it comes to Bernie Sanders. I'm sure he would sign climate change legislation.

[NNadir]

50. Well I am a scientist. As such...

...and being familiar with Sanders' rote rhetoric I can assure you that any "climate" bill he will sign will not work to address climate change.

A conservative is a person who asserts that theory trump's experiment. Bernie Sanders has not changed his thinking on energy in decades.

He has no knowledge of what is happening, no background in science or engineering nor clearly anyone who could advise him.

To address climate change, more than chanting and slogans is needed.

If you have confidence in what Sanders says, in my opinion you are unaware of the magnitude of the problem.

It is not necessary for a President to be a scientist, of course, but a President should do as Obama did and engage scientists.

Sanders clearly lacks the intellectual gravitas to do so.

[JonLP24]

53. I have no reason to think he won't seek out advice from experts

I'm supporting more than chants & slogans. I fell for Hope & Change once before.

[NNadir]

56. I do. He's an old man who has NEVER spoken to a scientific expert. It's a clear as day.

He has NO record of ever changing his mind about a damned thing in his life.

[thesquanderer]

36. Your climate change beef with Sanders is because he is against nuclear power.

I understand that, and it is a reasonable position... closing nuclear power plants leads to burning more fossil fuels (at least currently).

Is Sanders the only candidate who is against nuclear?

[NNadir]

55. Yes, both statements are true.

And no, Sanders is not the only candidate who is against nuclear power.

Opposing nuclear power is our equivalent of creationism.

The difference between Sanders and other candidates is, 1) Sanders worked to and succeeded at making his state dependent on dangerous fossil fuels.

Secondly, Sanders has not expressed a new idea on energy in half a century and shows no flexibility of thought.

Opposing nuclear energy kills people.
Nuclear power saves lives.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895
_
Vermont Leads the US in Wood Stove Emissions

While Sanders has carried on for decades about how dangerous (?) nuclear power is, seven million people die each year from air pollution, slightly less than half of which involves burning biomass, something that kills people in Vermont.

There has been a worldwide effort to phase out nuclear power, because of the extremely ignorant belief that nuclear power is "dangerous" lead by people with thinking as poor as that of Sanders with his active participation in this stupidity.

A nuclear plant in his state operated for decades. How dangerous was it? How many people were killed by its operations?

I follow the carbon dioxide concentrations measured at Mauna Loa weekly, and have done so for years.

For the first time in recorded history, we have reached an annual increase rate of 2.4 ppm/year of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Here is the data from the 2018 IEA World Energy Outlook (the 2019 version will be published on November 13 of this year):

In this century, world energy demand grew by 164.83 exajoules to 584.95 exajoules.

In this century, world gas demand grew by 43.38 exajoules to 130.08 exajoules.

In this century, the use of petroleum grew by 32.03 exajoules to 185.68 exajoules.

In this century, the use of coal grew by 60.25 exajoules to 157.01 exajoules.

In this century, the solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal energy on which people so cheerfully have bet the entire planetary atmosphere, stealing the future from all future generations, grew by 8.12 exajoules to 10.63 exajoules.

10.63 exajoules is under 2% of the world energy demand.

2018 Edition of the World Energy Outlook Table 1.1 Page 38 (I have converted MTOE in the original table to the SI unit exajoules in this text.)

Bernie Sanders will not be moved by these facts, although facts matter.

My candidate nominally opposes nuclear power, but she has a demonstrated history of being moved by facts.

The fact is that rote opposition to nuclear power is a crime against humanity, a crime against all future generations.

Listen: In 1970 both Bernie Sanders and I opposed nuclear power. We both thought ourselves, I suppose, "Campus radicals." The difference between us is that I devoted my life to the study of energy, and he devoted his life to repeating the same bullshit slogans.

I have no use for him whatsoever. People will die in Vermont in the next few weeks from air pollution; how many I can't say, but worldwide 19,000 will die today from it, half from burning "renewable" biomass. That's 130 in the next ten minutes.

Nothing about these facts will move Bernie Sanders. He will still continuously issue the absurd and unsupportable argument that nuclear power is "dangerous." Compared to what?

I hope I make myself perfectly clear.

[radical noodle]

19. Ah, I misunderstood your comment

So sorry. After rereading it, I saw what you meant.

[thesquanderer]

38. She is close to Sanders on most issues. In 2016, she even resigned her DNC position...

...in order to support Sanders. (Perhaps the source of the bad blood between her and Hillary, but that could also be a chicken-and-egg argument.)

[JonLP24]

10. I don't want to get into a flame war over this

I'm a veteran of the Iraq war with a disability and I don't want more people to end up like me or worse and I think she has some common sense policies like ending regime change wars & also she would stand up to Saudi Arabia the exporter of Wahabbi-salafi ideology. Also from reading her domestic policies most of them are good.

[roody]

9. I wish she would too.

But she said she wouldn't, and she is honest.

[scheming daemons]

22. She is lots of things.

Honest isn't one of them.

[BootinUp]

27. Muffled laugh. Nt

[LovingA2andMI]

31. Double Muffed Laugh

Honest...

[Cha]

15. Gabbard could get stein voters that helped get trump rigged in..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[CaptainTruth]

26. I guess she could run 3rd party in some states, but not all.

I guess she could run as a write-in candidate.

Sore-Loser Laws

In United States politics, a sore-loser law is a law which states that the loser in a primary election cannot then run as an independent or represent another political party in the general election

In most states, these laws do not apply to presidential candidates. Many states accomplish the same requirement by having simultaneous registration dates for the primary and the general election. Only the states of Connecticut, Iowa, New York, and Vermont have neither a sore-loser law nor simultaneous registration deadlines.

[link:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sore-loser_law|]

[Mike Nelson]

29. Tulsi is not...

...among my top picks. In fact, she's among the bottom... I assumed, though, that Tulsi's 2% would vote for her, if she became the nominee... and would mostly vote for the actual nominee. I did not calculate her support from Republicans... I prefer Weld or someone like him as their third party alternative.

[BootinUp]

30. I recced because it's an interesting thought, but

I would rather not give a Putin lover a chance to screw things up.

[redqueen]

33. I'm so sick of hearing about this person.

If not for that stunt, she'd be old news. No one would be paying any attention to her.

[Devil Child]

34. "The 2% of Democrats who support her were *NEVER* going to vote for the Democratic nominee"

What a garbage and baseless assertion. Into the trash this goes but enjoy the free bump with my reply.

[thesquanderer]

37. re: "A recent poll showed that she has the support of ...27% of Republicans."

That was only a poll of New Hampshire voters, and not something you could apply nationally.

That same poll has Sanders leading with 21% of the primary vote vs. 15% for Biden (Warren in between at 18%). New Hampshire doesn't look a lot like the rest of America at the moment.

[Stuy]

40. She won't run third-party if the polls show her hurting Trump

She will first analyze whom her candidacy would hurt the most, before jumping in. Hurting Trump is not part of the plan.

[robbedvoter]

45. And by she, you mean Putin

[Stuy]

47. Well

Yes.

[robbedvoter]

44. 3rd party have a long history of enabling 🐀🔩ing

Nader never had 100,000.00 in Florida in 2000. Stein pulled more than the margin in all the suspicious states. At least records show. And that was before this

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-cybersecurity/russia-says-it-is-starting-to-resume-u-s-cyber-cooperation-tass-idUSKBN1WW1TL So, no celebrations.

[Blue_Tires]

49. Repubs aren't voting for her ass in a million years....

They just like her as long as she's useful, i.e., sabotaging the Dem primary.

[mahina]

51. Don't underestimate her capacity to create mayhem on purpose.

She’s a reptile.

And my rep but not for long, small mercies.

[Aaron Pereira]

54. Totally on board with Tulsi running 3rd party.

I have yet to meet a voting Democrat in person who supports Gabbard but I have spoken with Republicans who would. She's going to end up taking Republican votes and she's only causing division here.

Let her go and forget it.