Crossover appeal - a meandering pro-Gabbard post

Politics & Elections
1

What forms of crossover appeal are acceptable to the Democrats?

There are broadly speaking two camps in the Dem party. They both agree Trump must be defeated. Some believe a pure progressive would stand a better chance or that since his defeat is almost inevitable, they should use the chance to install a good one. That’s fine.

Some believe a more moderate person should be nominated. Besides those whose positions and preferences line up with someone like Biden or Harris, there are some in this camp that are true progressives but are willing to compromise on some issues to help soothe the moderate Republicans, neoconservatives, neoliberals, and others who dislike Trump but might balk at a Warren or a Sanders.

To me, it seems like the issues they are willing to use to appeal to the other side varies by candidate. Some don’t want to scare off people with Medicare for all. Some don’t want to give too much away to immigrants. Some don’t want to talk about how much their policies will cost. Let’s call them the palatable candidates.

Since the issues of imprisonment, war and the military is foremost in my mind in every national election, I can’t help but notice two common themes. All of the palatable candidates are hawks. Biden is a hawk across the board. Harris is a hawk across the board. Going back, Obama was a hawk across the board. Clinton…

The other common theme is tough-on-crime. Biden is a tough guy. Harris is a tough guy. Obama was a tough guy (especially in regards to war on drugs and immigration). Clinton…

So to this observer, the acceptable ways for a Democrat to garner crossover support are to be hawkish and tough on crime.

Then I look at someone like Tulsi Gabbard. She is targeted by centrists for her crossover appeal. The things she is targeted for:

  • Refuses to say Assad used chemical weapons without further proof.
  • Conducted diplomacy with Assad.
  • Said we should move on to other issues after Mueller.
  • LGBTQ… stuff.
  • Believes there exists such a phenomenon as “Islamic terrorism”.
  • Calls herself a hawk on wars against terrorism.

Gabbard has won the Drudge poll two times. Pat Buchanan said to dump Bolton for Gabbard. She is popular with libertarians who hate Trump like myself, and even those who are ok with him. She was liked by Bannon. Big time crossover appeal. How does the Dem observer explain her support on the right. I explain it simply and I am familiar with the right. It’s about her opposition to the wars and willingness to conduct diplomacy.

She also doesnt want to impeach Trump, doesn’t want to give illegals(!) free education. But I don’t think that explains her support from the right. She hasn’t been targeted from the pure antiwar left as far as I see it either. The anti-Gabbard posters here tend to be centrist Dems, or at least hawkish Dems.

I guess I’m just at a loss to explain these seemingly related phenomena in the Dem party. The House has been decent as of late on war related issues, but they did give the pentagon every penny they asked for.

To me, the presidency is about being commander in chief first and foremost, appointments are a close second. Everything else is a mess of politics and who knows the outcome. Here is a candidate in Gabbard that has some form of support across a very wide spectrum of voters. An impossibility in our times. Name one other active politician who can be heralded in some way by Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Nancy Pelosi, and Bernie Sanders. It can’t be done. Hell, you probably couldn’t get them to agree on a brand of toothpaste.

2

I’d pick Gabbard over Trump, and probably over Biden, but that’s about it – I think she’s said very bigoted things, both about LGBTQ people and Muslims, and advocated for bigoted policies. She’s walked back a bit of that, but not nearly enough, IMO. She opposed the Iran nuclear deal, at least until recently, AFAICT. She appears to be a Netanyahu disciple on Middle-Eastern issues – IIRC, she was the only or one of the only Democrats to attend Bibi’s bullshit charade in DC a few years back. I certainly don’t trust anyone a hateful troglodyte like Bannon (or adjacent-to-white-supremacists like Buchanan and Paul) is comfortable with. With all this in mind, I don’t think she’s honest and therefore I don’t trust her sometimes dove-ish rhetoric.

So that’s why she’s low on my list.

3

Her “sometimes dove-ish rhetoric” beats Biden and Harris’ always hawkish rhetoric for me, but she does have some problems.

So you don’t care why right wingers might like her? Seems like Dems very much care to appeal to the Zionists (Bill Kristols and David Brooks’) of the world, but don’t like icky non-interventionists like Paul and Buchanan. So if Netanyahu is your problem maybe you should re-evaluate this huge contradiction. Your claim of her being a Netanyahu disciple, in juxtaposition with Harris for example, is laughable.

4

She’s Will Farnaby’s favorite Democrat. We’ll take that into consideration.

5

I certainly don’t care about appealing to assholes like Kristol or Brooks, and the only way they’re better than Buchanan and Paul is that they don’t have a history of spouting and/or tolerating hateful rhetoric (and don’t support Trump, at least in Buchanan’s case). So I see no contradiction.

6

You see no contradiction in dismissing a candidate as a Netanyahu disciple applauded by Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan?

7

In any case does anyone care to answer the question? What is acceptable crossover appeal? Being liked by Kristol and Brooks for you foreign policy positions or being liked by Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan for your foreign policy positions? Neither?

8

I certainly don’t. Maybe those assholes (Paul and Buchanan) are contradicting themselves, but I’m not. I think Netanyahu sucks. I also think Paul and Buchanan suck. If all three like Gabbard, then that’s 3 marks against her, by my judgment.

9

The contest is still early on. There is much more for all of us to learn.

10

I would consider both to be marks against a candidate, at least on the issues. At present, I consider Democrats based on two criteria – issues and chances of beating Trump. On chances of beating Trump, being praised by such folks could well be helpful. I’ll certainly admit that I think Gabbard would have a good chance to beat Trump (not sure how much better or worse than various other Democrats). I just think that she’s so odious on issues and rhetoric (relatively speaking) that she’s near the bottom of my list.

11

Chief concern with Gabbard seems to be the Assad stuff. Definitely being criticized for being too dovish by most Dem detractors.

12

Coziness with Assad is not necessarily dovishness.

13

Yes, she’ll appeal to authoritarians, but the pro-authoritarian faction is already pretty well locked up by Trump. I don’t think there are very many people out there saying “I want an authoritarian, but one a little less extreme than Trump”. Well, other than WillFarnaby.

I suppose that she might manage to pull in some of the pro-war crowd, though, since she’s more pro-war than Trump is.

14

Dovishness is not necessarily coziness with Assad.

15

Being against US military involvement in Syria is dovishness. This is some of the strongest plea coppage and spin I’ve seen going on here.

16

Authoritarians criticize drug warriors, indentured servitude, and crooked cops in your world?

Gabbard is against the current wars Trump supports in Afghanistan and Yemen. Where does she seek war where he doesn’t?

17

Plenty of Democrats are against military involvement in Syria – but they haven’t gone out of their way to cozy up to Assad. So they don’t get the intra-party heat that Gabbard does. Thus demonstrating that it’s not about opposition to military action in Syria – it’s about the specific things Gabbard has said and done that are generally unique within the party.

18

They haven’t gone out of their way to do anything to end involvement. Those Dems that talk about Syria all want or wanted more involvement. A few are better than Gabbard on this particular issue, but none among them are running for president. The preferred crossover candidates are much worse than Gabbard on Syria as was Obama and Clinton.

19

AFAICT, Sanders and Warren are consistently anti-war, on Syria and elsewhere.

20

People who want a Democrat that most Democratic and progressive voters don’t like are going to like someone like Gabbard… but that’s not an electorate that’s going to get someone nominated by the Democratic party.