View Poll Results: If the primary were today with only these options, who do you vote for?
Beto O’Rourke 55 77.46%
Tulsi Gabbard 15 21.13%
Abstain 1 1.41%
Voters: 71. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-30-2019, 10:18 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,152

Beto O’Rourke vs Tulsi Gabbard: Democratic Primary World Cup, First Round


This is a group stage match up for our Democratic Primary World Cup. Everyone is invited to vote in the poll. Feel free to add comments about why you chose one of these candidates over the other one.
  #2  
Old 05-30-2019, 01:44 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
#NeverTulsi
  #3  
Old 05-30-2019, 02:18 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,240
Yup. Easy choice.
  #4  
Old 05-30-2019, 03:52 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,752
Beto seems like a nice guy, but I think he should be running for Senate.

Tulsi.
  #5  
Old 05-30-2019, 04:09 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,346
Tulsi. Let's get rid of the Beto distraction.
  #6  
Old 05-30-2019, 04:50 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,240
Sure, but not until we've gotten rid of the Gabbard distraction. She's running in the wrong primary.
  #7  
Old 05-30-2019, 07:01 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Pretty much anyone besides Tulsi. Hope she gets primaried for her House seat next year.
  #8  
Old 05-30-2019, 07:21 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Beto seems like a nice guy, but I think he should be running for Senate.
I agree, but since Tulsi's
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
running in the wrong primary
, first we knock Tulsi out, then we send Beto back to Texas to run against Cornyn, if he hasn't damaged his rep too much for even that.
  #9  
Old 05-30-2019, 09:15 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,376
O'Rourke is not high on my list, but he's still head and shoulders above Gabbard. A no-brainer.
  #10  
Old 05-31-2019, 12:31 AM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 188
I believe people can change their minds on many issues, but connections to conversion therapy -- particularly given that she's of my youngish generation -- is absolutely disqualifying. I don't like Beto, but Tulsi can kick rocks.
  #11  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:21 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 149
Tulsi Gabbard could beat Trump. Beto O’Rourke couldn’t.
  #12  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:27 AM
Ulf the Unwashed is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Tulsi Gabbard could beat Trump. Beto O’Rourke couldn’t.
I don't know about your second sentence, but I completely disagree with your first. We would be looking at a disaster beyond Dukakian proportions, possibly even approaching McGovernan levels, if Gabbard were to run against Trump.
  #13  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:41 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
I don't know about your second sentence, but I completely disagree with your first. We would be looking at a disaster beyond Dukakian proportions, possibly even approaching McGovernan levels, if Gabbard were to run against Trump.
How so?
  #14  
Old 05-31-2019, 12:11 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,131
Beto easily. Although I agree his 15 minutes are up and he has no business running for President. He should drop out and run for Senate.

Gabbard probably won’t make it even to Iowa. But I’m positive there would a Bloomberg or other 3rd party challenge that would allow Trump to win in a landslide should Gabbard be the nominee.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #15  
Old 05-31-2019, 02:04 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
How so?
There's a thread on Gabbard here in this forum--not sure if you have read it or participated, but if you haven't:

a) it lists a number of policy positions that don't really match the perspectives of many Democrats, among them concerns that she does not support gay rights, that she's entirely too approving of dictators...a number of other positions, too, that suggest she'll have a very difficult time getting lots of Dems to vote for her;
b) it has a lot of people expressing deep concerns about the candidate's positions, suggesting that a lot of liberals and perhaps even moderates are in fact going to have a great deal of difficulty voting for her.

But do read the thread. "In it are the answers to many questions."
  #16  
Old 05-31-2019, 02:09 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
There was also a heavy emphasis on Gabbard’s religion disqualifying her in many eyes.
  #17  
Old 05-31-2019, 02:11 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Keep in mind Gabbard was beloved in the party before she expressed concern about Obama’s support of jihadist groups in Syria and Yemen. Then the knives came out.
  #18  
Old 05-31-2019, 03:48 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,240
"Beloved" in the sense that nobody had ever heard of her?
  #19  
Old 05-31-2019, 03:54 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
There was also a heavy emphasis on Gabbard’s religion disqualifying her in many eyes.
Is she Muslim?
  #20  
Old 05-31-2019, 05:57 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,752
She's Hindu.
  #21  
Old 05-31-2019, 06:52 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
"Beloved" in the sense that nobody had ever heard of her?
Mother Jones disagrees:

“An Iraq War veteran, Gabbard quickly became a rising progressive star after her election to Congress in 2012. She was named vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, only to resign in 2016 when she endorsed Bernie Sanders for president, boosting her popularity among his supporters. This past November, she had the support of Democratic-allied groups, from the AFL-CIO to Planned Parenthood, in her reelection campaign. She was also supported by Our Revolution, a group started by Sanders’ supporters after the 2016 elections, and easily won her contest.”

Lol

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 05-31-2019 at 06:53 PM.
  #22  
Old 06-01-2019, 09:55 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,240
So your proof that she's "beloved by the left" is that Democratic groups endorsed her in her race against a Republican?

Just out of curiosity, I ran a search for "Gabbard" in the Elections forum, from a year ago and older (so as to exclude all of the talk about her current Presidential run. The first hit was from 2012, about her being the first Hindu to be elected to Congress, and had almost nothing about her personally, being more a discussion about religious diversity in general. The next mention of her isn't until February of 2016, and is quickly dismissed because people had never heard of her. After that, we have one from March 2016, where she again comes up in connection with her endorsement of Sanders, and again is quickly dismissed. Shortly after that, she gets a link-drop with no further explanation as a suggestion for a running mate for Sanders, which is followed by one person saying they'd rather have a governor, and another saying that she seems like a good candidate, again with no elaboration.

Skimming through a few of the other mentions (there are only 16 of them), it looks like nobody's actually saying anything substantive about her. The only person she seems to be "beloved" by is WillFarnaby.
  #23  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:12 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
So your proof that she's "beloved by the left" is that Democratic groups endorsed her in her race against a Republican?

Just out of curiosity, I ran a search for "Gabbard" in the Elections forum, from a year ago and older (so as to exclude all of the talk about her current Presidential run. The first hit was from 2012, about her being the first Hindu to be elected to Congress, and had almost nothing about her personally, being more a discussion about religious diversity in general. The next mention of her isn't until February of 2016, and is quickly dismissed because people had never heard of her. After that, we have one from March 2016, where she again comes up in connection with her endorsement of Sanders, and again is quickly dismissed. Shortly after that, she gets a link-drop with no further explanation as a suggestion for a running mate for Sanders, which is followed by one person saying they'd rather have a governor, and another saying that she seems like a good candidate, again with no elaboration.

Skimming through a few of the other mentions (there are only 16 of them), it looks like nobody's actually saying anything substantive about her. The only person she seems to be "beloved" by is WillFarnaby.
So the Boomers of SDMB hadn’t heard of her while Mother Jones recognized her as a rising star and she was selected as Vice Chair of the DNC. Yeah ok. I guess if you live in this bubble you may have missed her.

In all seriousness it could have been that she was beloved by pro-diversity antiwar Dems and unnoticed by old-guard pro-war Dems.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 06-01-2019 at 10:15 AM.
  #24  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:45 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
There's a thread on Gabbard here in this forum--not sure if you have read it or participated, but if you haven't:

a) it lists a number of policy positions that don't really match the perspectives of many Democrats, among them concerns that she does not support gay rights, that she's entirely too approving of dictators...a number of other positions, too, that suggest she'll have a very difficult time getting lots of Dems to vote for her;
b) it has a lot of people expressing deep concerns about the candidate's positions, suggesting that a lot of liberals and perhaps even moderates are in fact going to have a great deal of difficulty voting for her.

But do read the thread. "In it are the answers to many questions."
All valid points, and I’ll check out the thread you recommended. However, my perspective is a little different. I think that US elections are basically popularity contests and the only variable that matters is charisma. I mean that quite literally. Nothing, not facts, not experience, not even basic competence is even the tiniest bit important. People might say they’re important. They might even believe it. But, generally speaking (because there are always exceptions to every rule), most people vote based on how the candidate makes them feel and then they come up with reasons to justify that decision after the fact. That’s how an idiot racist buffoon beat perhaps the most experienced candidate to ever run for office. He had nothing, absolutely nothing, except a professional showman’s charisma, and that was enough. Because she had everything but charisma.

Frankly, the only thing I care about is getting Trump out of office. I disagree with Gabbard on gay rights and other things but I feel she has enough charisma to beat him. Check out her appearance on Joe Rogan’s Podcast. On a gut level, I feel she comes off as authentic, and a natural leader. IMO, Beto simply doesn’t.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 06-01-2019 at 10:48 AM.
  #25  
Old 06-01-2019, 01:13 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
All valid points, and I’ll check out the thread you recommended. However, my perspective is a little different. I think that US elections are basically popularity contests and the only variable that matters is charisma. I mean that quite literally. Nothing, not facts, not experience, not even basic competence is even the tiniest bit important. People might say they’re important. They might even believe it. But, generally speaking (because there are always exceptions to every rule), most people vote based on how the candidate makes them feel and then they come up with reasons to justify that decision after the fact. That’s how an idiot racist buffoon beat perhaps the most experienced candidate to ever run for office. He had nothing, absolutely nothing, except a professional showman’s charisma, and that was enough. Because she had everything but charisma.

Frankly, the only thing I care about is getting Trump out of office. I disagree with Gabbard on gay rights and other things but I feel she has enough charisma to beat him. Check out her appearance on Joe Rogan’s Podcast. On a gut level, I feel she comes off as authentic, and a natural leader. IMO, Beto simply doesn’t.
Well, I disagree that charisma is the only thing (or even necessarily the most important thing), and I also don't think of Gabbard as charismatic in the least. Funny how impressions can differ, but the interviews I've seen with her make her seem quite milquetoast. --I've heard three of the contenders speak in person thus far, and where charisma/authenticity/leader-ness is concerned I'd rank 'em Buttigieg first, Klobuchar a close second, Gillibrand a more distant third. Based on what I've seen from Gabbard she's somewhere behind Gillibrand. Obviously your mileage varies considerably.
  #26  
Old 06-01-2019, 01:25 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Mother Jones disagrees:

“An Iraq War veteran, Gabbard quickly became a rising progressive star after her election to Congress in 2012. She was named vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, only to resign in 2016 when she endorsed Bernie Sanders for president, boosting her popularity among his supporters. This past November, she had the support of Democratic-allied groups, from the AFL-CIO to Planned Parenthood, in her reelection campaign. She was also supported by Our Revolution, a group started by Sanders’ supporters after the 2016 elections, and easily won her contest.”

Lol
I'm not really sure what point(s) you're trying to make, other than "I'm smarter than all these dumb Dopers," but none of this actually supports your argument.

--"A rising progressive star" is not at all the same thing as "beloved in the party."

--More specifically, Mother Jones is a highly political and ultimately very wonky publication which expresses a particular political stance and is WAY more focused on politics--and on politicians of a certain stripe--than is the average Democrat, even the average informed Democrat. That MJ speaks highly of her, or anyone, says little or nothing about the way she is perceived--if she is perceived at all--by the rank and file.

--The fact that she had support from "Democratic-allied groups" in her 2018 campaign seems to contradict your idea that "the knives came out" after she spoke out against Obama.

Anyway: Whether rising star or not, it's clear from polling that progressives are supporting Sanders or Warren, or maybe Biden or Harris, and not Gabbard. Well, everybody is supporting someone other than Gabbard. Maybe prospective voters "should" be focusing more on her foreign policy and less on her rather dismal record on gay rights, though I'm not sure that would help her very much. But in any case, I ain't waiting up nights .

Last edited by Ulf the Unwashed; 06-01-2019 at 01:26 PM.
  #27  
Old 06-01-2019, 09:42 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,240
Not that her foreign policy is much less dismal than her gay rights record. She's by far the most hawkish Democrat, and the most supportive of authoritarianism. So of course WillFarnaby supports her.
  #28  
Old 06-02-2019, 01:39 AM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
I don't know about your second sentence, but I completely disagree with your first. We would be looking at a disaster beyond Dukakian proportions, possibly even approaching McGovernan levels, if Gabbard were to run against Trump.
I agree. I don't know who Gabbard is appealing to. Many of her positions are too progressive for the centrist Democrats. She's pissed off the establishment Democrats by breaking with Obama on foreign policy. Many progressives are upset at her support of Modi, her support of drone warfare, her previous anti-LGBT stances, etc. Climate realists don't want her because she's anti-nuclear. The only people who seem to genuinely support her are the Bernie supporters who prioritize leftist economic policy here in the US to such an extent that all social issues are mere identity politics.

I'm a leftist, and I'm very cold on most of the candidates, but Gabbard is at the bottom -- both because of her political stances and the fact that I don't see how she can beat Trump.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017