Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-25-2019, 01:36 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,728

Tulsi Gabbard is not running for reelection to Congress: what does this mean?


Tulsi Gabbard dropped a bombshell on Twitter tonight, she is not running for reelection to the House of Representatives.

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/sta...630623745?s=21

She also skipped an event in Iowa tonight and appeared on the Sean Hannity show on Fox News.

To me, this sounds like she’s planning a 3rd party run and wants to rat fuck the Democrats and be Jill Stein 2.0 or Nader 3.0
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #2  
Old 10-25-2019, 01:48 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,663
If only someone didn't already point out this was likely...
  #3  
Old 10-25-2019, 01:54 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,699
I mean, yeah. That's exactly what Clinton predicted would happen, and DID NOT say that she was a Russian asset--just that Russians favor her.

That said, she's not really a Jill Stein, since she's not on the left but more in the center. And the more centrist Democrats tend to be better at being practical and choosing the nominee, while the progressive side of the party is more idealistic. So I'd actually expect that she'd pull more from the Republican side--those who are conservative but can't bring themselves to vote for Trump.

At least, that's my impression as someone who hasn't really followed Gabbard's campaign, and is just going on the few bits I have heard where she seems to push a more central position.
  #4  
Old 10-25-2019, 01:56 AM
galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,758
Probably running third party. As far as messing over the Democrats, well...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Silver
I'm honestly not sure whether a Tulsi 3rd party run would help or hurt Trump. Her supporters mostly seem to be defined by the fact that they're contrarian trolls more than that they're anti-establishment liberals, and I think the contrarian troll vote is Trump-leaning?
From this twitter post.
Dunno, myself. The hardcore MAGAts will vote Trump; the ones who voted for him last time because he was the "most interesting novelty" candidate may go to Gabbard, if they've soured on Trump in the meantime. ETA: Or those who voted for Trump because he'd "shake up the system" but have since soured, as well.

Last edited by galen ubal; 10-25-2019 at 01:58 AM.
  #5  
Old 10-25-2019, 11:42 AM
dontbesojumpy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,248
She might be jockying for a Fox news gig.
  #6  
Old 10-25-2019, 11:49 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
I mean, yeah. That's exactly what Clinton predicted would happen, and DID NOT say that she was a Russian asset--just that Russians favor her.
Waitaminute, if Clinton is obviously referring to Gabbard as the third party spoiler, and explictly says that Jill Stein is "Also a Russian asset", how can we reasonably conclude that she does not think that Gabbard is a Russian asset? I mean, if you can pinpoint who that "also" is, and it isn't Tulsi Gabbard, I'm open to that.

Quote:
"That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. I mean -- totally."

Last edited by Ashtura; 10-25-2019 at 11:50 AM.
  #7  
Old 10-25-2019, 12:25 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
Also, if she doesn't think Gabbard is a Russian asset, then why did her top aide say this?

Quote:
"If the nesting doll fits," Merrill told a CNN reporter. "This is not some outlandish claim. This is reality. If the Russian propaganda machine, both their state media and their bot and troll operations, is backing a candidate aligned with their interests, that is just a reality, it is not speculation."
I think this "Oh I meant the republicans" is disingenuous backtracking on Clinton's part.
  #8  
Old 10-25-2019, 01:29 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,885
At worst, she'll pull some of those Dems who voted for Trump over to her. But the idea that this will hurt the Dems is kind of preposterous.
  #9  
Old 10-25-2019, 01:35 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Also, if she doesn't think Gabbard is a Russian asset, then why did her top aide say this?



I think this "Oh I meant the republicans" is disingenuous backtracking on Clinton's part.
If Russian media is pushing her, she doesn't have to be in on it to be considered an asset.
  #10  
Old 10-25-2019, 01:59 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
At worst, she'll pull some of those Dems who voted for Trump over to her. But the idea that this will hurt the Dems is kind of preposterous.
I think it depends on the nominee.

She is in the "the system has been and is broken" space and she could pull off some marginal portion of that support, disillusioned with Trump, from Warren, while Biden won't get it in any case.
  #11  
Old 10-25-2019, 02:22 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,321
Nate Silver Tweet...

Quote:
I'm honestly not sure whether a Tulsi 3rd party run would help or hurt Trump. Her supporters mostly seem to be defined by the fact that they're contrarian trolls more than that they're anti-establishment liberals, and I think the contrarian troll vote is Trump-leaning?
  #12  
Old 10-25-2019, 02:34 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I think Gabbard is the person many republicans would vote for if they had to vote for a democrat. They don't have to vote for a democrat obviously.
  #13  
Old 10-25-2019, 03:05 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,050
A Gabbard third party run is a bit of a wildcard. It might hurt the Dem nominee in some places, and possibly have little or no effect at all in others.
  #14  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:16 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,728
It would be nice, but improbable, if Sanders wouldn’t use the ‘Rigged!’ excuse every time he loses a primary this around. That could push some voters over to Tulsi so they can think that they’re showing up the DNC. Naturally, Tulsi is already pushing the rigged gimmick.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #15  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:48 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
I think Gabbard is the person many republicans would vote for if they had to vote for a democrat. They don't have to vote for a democrat obviously.
Which brings up the question, why is she a Democrat? Could she be a Republican posing as a Democrat all along? By running as a Democrat in a blue district, she gets votes just because there is a D next to her name.
__________________
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
- C. Darwin
  #16  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:48 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I think it depends on the nominee.
She is in the "the system has been and is broken" space and she could pull off some marginal portion of that support, disillusioned with Trump, from Warren, while Biden won't get it in any case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
It would be nice, but improbable, if Sanders wouldn’t use the ‘Rigged!’ excuse every time he loses a primary this around. That could push some voters over to Tulsi so they can think that they’re showing up the DNC. Naturally, Tulsi is already pushing the rigged gimmick.
I agree with these two observations.

Gabbard's (presumed) 3rd-party run will help Trump most in the scenario 'Sanders is vocal about a 'rigged system' when he loses the nomination, so his voters go for Gabbard to spite the Democrats.'

Trump would also be helped by a Gabbard run if a centrist (Biden or another centrist) is overly focused in messaging on 'let's get things back to the way they were in the good old days.' There would be change-hungry voters who don't like Trump, but would be revolted by an official Democratic message that 'everything will be great if we just get rid of Trump and go back to the old ways.'

(And as mentioned in another thread, I'm another who believes that Gabbard's ultimate goal is to land a nice lucrative job with FoxNews, after November 2020.)
  #17  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:49 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
She might be jockying for a Fox news gig.
Not unlikely. Follow the money again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
It would be nice, but improbable, if Sanders wouldn’t use the ‘Rigged!’ excuse every time he loses a primary this around.
Bernie was never a Dem until seven months ago. Running in Dem primaries against Dems who'd worked in the party for years, you expect the party to do him any favors? He lost primaries to HRC in 2018 because more Dems voted for her. Duh.

Will Gabbard stage a presidential run now, either as a Dem or an indy? Could happen. We still don't know who'll be running next year. The murky is so thick.
  #18  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:49 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
Which brings up the question, why is she a Democrat? Could she be a Republican posing as a Democrat all along? By running as a Democrat in a blue district, she gets votes just because there is a D next to her name.
She's a Democrat because in Hawaii you have no chance of being elected to Congress if you're a Republican.
  #19  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:14 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Nate Silver Tweet...
Quote:
I'm honestly not sure whether a Tulsi 3rd party run would help or hurt Trump. Her supporters mostly seem to be defined by the fact that they're contrarian trolls more than that they're anti-establishment liberals, and I think the contrarian troll vote is Trump-leaning?
And the only reason we would not say the contrarian troll vote is 100%"safe Trump" is that what with so many of the likes of McConnell and Graham and so on having bent the knee to His Orangeness, many true contrarian trolls are likely to say, "wait a minute, aren't the incumbents the Establishment anyway?"
  #20  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:27 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
And the only reason we would not say the contrarian troll vote is 100%"safe Trump" is that what with so many of the likes of McConnell and Graham and so on having bent the knee to His Orangeness, many true contrarian trolls are likely to say, "wait a minute, aren't the incumbents the Establishment anyway?"
You'd think so. But for some of these people "the Establishment" is ever and always the people who are 'looking down on them' and/or failing to accord them the deference to which they feel entitled.

It doesn't matter which party is in power---the rule of law people who look down on our Contrarians, or the bully-boy tribal 'winning is the only thing' folks, with whom the Contrarians identify. The Establishment is the people they hate---not necessarily the people in power.
  #21  
Old 10-27-2019, 04:59 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 16,144
A relative of mine worked for Gabbard a couple of years ago. He speculates that she is concentrating on a US Senate run in 2022.
  #22  
Old 10-27-2019, 08:57 PM
divemaster's Avatar
divemaster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Gainesville, VA
Posts: 3,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
Which brings up the question, why is she a Democrat? Could she be a Republican posing as a Democrat all along?
Whatever you may think of her, she's certainly no Republican. I'm assuming Unreconstrcted Man's homework is accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Gabbard:

Opposes the Citizens United ruling.
Opposes private prisons
Opposes mandatory minimums
Supports Federal decriminalisation of weed
Supports restoring Glass-Steagall
Opposed TPP
Supports M4A
Opposed the CHOICE act
Supports free college for all
Opposes fracking
Literally protested at Standing Rock
Supports banning assault weapons and has an F rating from the NRA
Pro-Choice (100% rating from Planned Parenthood)
Pro LGBT rights (it may surprise some to learn that Gabbard has a 100% rating in Congress for pro-LGBT legislation).
  #23  
Old 10-28-2019, 04:26 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,504
Don't have a cite for this, but someone on FB says that a State Senator has raised more money for his primary challenge for her House seat next year than she has raised for her Presidential run. Let that sink in.
  #24  
Old 10-29-2019, 06:19 AM
chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario View Post
He speculates that she is concentrating on a US Senate run in 2022.
Why would she have to resign from the House now to run for the senate in 2 years?

Wouldn't she have a stronger position saying "I've served so well in the House that now I want to move up to the Senate--vote for me" . By not running, her opponent will be able to say "hey, she's a dropout, couldn't even handle being in the House-don't vote for her."



(disclaimer: I know nothing about Gabbard or the state politics in Hawaii.)

Last edited by chappachula; 10-29-2019 at 06:21 AM.
  #25  
Old 10-30-2019, 07:36 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Don't have a cite for this, but someone on FB says that a State Senator has raised more money for his primary challenge for her House seat next year than she has raised for her Presidential run. Let that sink in.
That doesn't sound right. Here's what I found on a quick search. Tulsi's challenger raised more money *in Hawaii* for his House race than Tulsi raised *in Hawaii* for her Presidential run.

Quote:
Hawaii state Sen. Kai Kahele, a Democrat, has raised $345,616 from Hawaii donors in his bid to unseat Gabbard. That’s more than Gabbard’s presidential campaign has raised from donors in the Aloha State — $221,501 — over the same time period through September.

Congressional candidates typically attract significantly more in-state cash than presidential contenders, particularly those from small states like Hawaii. Gabbard’s top state so far, like most presidential hopefuls, is California, which provided her with nearly $1.2 million.
. . .
Gabbard has $2.1 million left in her presidential campaign, and if she decides to abandon her low-polling White House bid to keep her seat in Congress, she could transfer that cash back to her House campaign.
Hawaii is a very provincial place. They don't care that much about national politics. I can see why they wouldn't donate that much to a Presidential campaign as versus a campaign for a seat that affects them directly.

The ability to transfer the cash from her House run to her Presidential campaign might also be a reason that she's choosing to let go of the House run. I think (but am not sure) that the transfers run both ways. I know that Elizabeth Warren transferred $10M from her state run to her Presidential campaign, so I think it's possible.

In other news, Tulsi just polled at 5% in a New Hampshire poll and 4% in a Suffolk poll, giving her 2 polls out of 4 to qualify for the December debate. She still has to meet the donor requirement with 2 more qualifying polls to get to the December debate, but she's a lot closer than many.
  #26  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:53 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
That doesn't sound right. Here's what I found on a quick search. Tulsi's challenger raised more money *in Hawaii* for his House race than Tulsi raised *in Hawaii* for her Presidential run.







Hawaii is a very provincial place. They don't care that much about national politics. I can see why they wouldn't donate that much to a Presidential campaign as versus a campaign for a seat that affects them directly.



The ability to transfer the cash from her House run to her Presidential campaign might also be a reason that she's choosing to let go of the House run. I think (but am not sure) that the transfers run both ways. I know that Elizabeth Warren transferred $10M from her state run to her Presidential campaign, so I think it's possible.



In other news, Tulsi just polled at 5% in a New Hampshire poll and 4% in a Suffolk poll, giving her 2 polls out of 4 to qualify for the December debate. She still has to meet the donor requirement with 2 more qualifying polls to get to the December debate, but she's a lot closer than many.


And, unfortunately, meeting the donor requirement becomes easier with the help of Republican ratfuckers. Some of them may genuinely like Tulsi, but I can also see Republicans tossing $5 her way just to keep her around as a pain in the ass for Democrats during the debates. I think most Democrats really want to cull the herd and having zero chance Tulsi up there just clutters up the debates.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #27  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:17 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
Which brings up the question, why is she a Democrat? Could she be a Republican posing as a Democrat all along? By running as a Democrat in a blue district, she gets votes just because there is a D next to her name.
Just a few years ago Gabbard would have been considered a 'far left' Democrat. Now you wonder if she's a Republican because the other candidates are so much farther to the left than she is.

The Democratic party has become a far left party. In a few months we'll get to see if the rest of the country has followed them. My guess is not.


If she does run as an independent.... Romney/Gabbard 2020. That would be an interesting ticket. Grab all the moderate Republicans who hate Trump, and all the moderate Democrats who hate what their party has become.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 10-31-2019 at 01:19 PM.
  #28  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:25 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Just a few years ago Gabbard would have been considered a 'far left' Democrat. Now you wonder if she's a Republican because the other candidates are so much farther to the left than she is.
Gabbard's never been "far left" -- she's just been weird. Weirdly insisting the Democrats should be shittier to Muslims, both in action and rhetoric; weirdly praising dictators like in Syria; weirdly being opposed to decency towards refugees; weirdly being hostile to LGBTQ rights; and more.

Quote:
The Democratic party has become a far left party. In a few months we'll get to see if the rest of the country has followed them. My guess is not.
The GOP loves to spread this meme (and has been doing so for decades), but it's mostly bullshit. The Democratic party hasn't changed much in terms of issues, and in 2018 ran a similar race, on the issues, to 2006. And the party won both of those midterms. We didn't do that well in 2016, but that wasn't a particularly far-left candidate with far-left policies. Hillary was to the right of Obama on some issues -- particularly foreign policy.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-31-2019 at 01:29 PM.
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 05:35 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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017