Still no answer to the question. Some Dems want crossover appeal. What form should that crossover appeal take?
Sanders and Warren have no crossover appeal. Read the OP. They are the progressives in this race.
I don’t care who Buchanan likes, and I really don’t care what Bannon thinks about anything.
But I could live with her, sure, and probably vote for her over Trump. I don’t know much about her except for the obvious Harris attack, the Assad thing, and she’s Miss Photogenic this cycle.
Right. People want an antiwar Democrat. Being antiwar disqualifies you in the Dem primary.
I get that she might have some crossover appeal but aside from that, what other kinds of appeal does she have? She’s a 38 year old representative with absolutely no executive experience that I can see in her resume. While her military service is admirable it was in the medical corps of the army national guard. What evidence do we have that she’s qualified to run the largest organization in the world? Every argument against Obama for being inexperienced or “just a community organizer” can also levied against Gabbard, except even he had a much stronger CV regarding his law background and a senate seat vs a house seat. She also lacks a lot of Obama’s other qualities.
Compared to someone like Jay Inslee, who might not have crossover appeal but has a ton of executive experience, why would I vote for Gabbard? Because Inslee might be slightly more hawkish?
I’d love a Democrat who appealed to every voter. I’d also like a pony made of gold and covered in chocolate.
Realistically, I’d like a candidate who appeals to and excites most Democrats and progressives, as well as a big chunk of independents – probably middle and lower income folks who are disgruntled with both parties and angry at the wealthy and big corporations. I think Sanders and Warren have a chance to do that, and possibly others.
Is defeating Trump a top concern for you?
Do you believe a candidate with crossover appeal would be best equipped to defeat Trump?
If yes to both of these, why don’t you care for whom your fellow countrymen might ditch Trump?
Ok. That’s a fair point. I don’t think executive experience is as important as war, but I can see why some might. I bet Harris or Inslee could manage the hell out of a war compared to Gabbard, but that’s not the point for me.
No it doesn’t – see Sanders and Warren, and possibly others, depending on your definition of “antiwar”.
Ok then you are going for purity over crossover appeal, gotcha. In the OP, I say that I understand the position. I don’t understand the support of the crossover candidates like Biden or Harris, besides as the other poster said, they may be better experienced as managers.
You’re still not reading my actual words – one of the things I like about Warren and Sanders, in addition to their general opposition to the forever war, is their “crossover appeal” – appealing to moderates and independents. Maybe you don’t see it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. I could be wrong, too. But WillF is not the arbiter of “crossover appeal” for everyone.
I guess we will see who wins. The warmongers like Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Harris, or someone else.
Oh you are one of those under the delusion that Warren and Sanders have crossover appeal. Gotcha.
So you’re more interested in taking shots at Democrats than in actually discussing political appeal. Gotcha! Thanks for making this clear.
Ha! If the last post didn’t make it clear enough that this is about taking shots at Democrats, then thanks for making it even more crystal clear.
I wonder who WillF would prefer – a thoroughly anti-war progressive like Warren or Sanders, or the incompetent, erratic, alternately pro-and-anti-war president we currently have? If a diehard libertarian would prefer the anti-war progressives, then that’s pretty solid evidence that Warren and Sanders actually have some “crossover appeal”. If this diehard libertarian would not prefer them, then that’s pretty solid evidence that opposing wars is not the most important issue to WillF.
Which is it?
No I’m interested in seeing an antiwar president. Can’t have one if they aren’t nominated.
See above.
So join me in supporting Sanders and Warren. Doesn’t mean you can’t also support Gabbard… but when she inevitably drops out, pick one of the other two and vote for them.
I choose to support the active candidate that makes the most consistent, forceful and forthright case against war and militarism. Especially in regards to reinitiating Obama’s early attempts at rapprochement with Russia and withdrawing troops rapidly from the Middle East.
Right now nobody is close to Gabbard, and you’d have to be kidding yourself to deny this. The most consistent right wing voices against war and militarism and the most consistent leftist voices against war and militarism are singing the same tune about the Gabbard campaign. Criticism of her campaign is coming from corporate media shills financed by the war state, and people that have been duped by lying warmongers again and again.
So, you’re not interested in a Democratic candidate that the Republicans can beat?
When did you switch parties?