Then it seems to me that Sanders and Warren do in fact have some crossover appeal, unless you think you are unique.
I’m puzzled by this argument that “crossover appeal” means “getting lip-service support from the fringes of two political wings, but zero support from the middle.” It’s also hard to apply the term “appeal” to someone who is polling at 1% of Democrats.
But let’s just call this thread what it is: a new take on the occasional SDMB series of, “Wouldn’t Party X, whom I vehemently oppose, do better if they remade themselves in the image of me?” The standard incarnation is more like, “Republicans should embrace national health care, gun control, and abortion,” or “Dems should embrace nativism, arming teachers like Green Berets, and making coal mandatory for every household.” It’s refreshing to see a new twist, I guess.
More succinctly… appeal is a necessary component of crossover appeal.
Which people “near DC” are “slandering” her? What exactly are they saying?
I’m familiar with people who’ve been saying nasty (though not necessarily slanderous) things about other candidates, perhaps most notably Biden and Warren. Gabbard…mostly being ignored, ISTM.
I don’t think they do. Perhaps if they talked about foreign policy more, right wingers may become more comfortable with them. As it is, Gabbard promotes all of the same economic silliness they do, but they get no right wing support. Hell, they get no support from the hawkish centrists in the Dem party.
It’s a different type of crossover appeal than appealing to the hawkish centrists in both parties, but is crossover appeal nonetheless.
No this is a thread about replacing Donald Trump with an antiwar president. Thanks for your participation.
That can come with time. It is hard to stand out in a crowded field where there are so many progressives. At a certain point you become correct though.
The mainstream pundits working out of DC, and of course NY and LA are engaging in grotesque displays. Look up the hitjob on the View for example. The neoconservative Post is in a continual state of apoplexy about her campaign.
In this thread, we have some very anti Gabbard residents of the imperial city and its suburbs.
I think your willingness to support them over Trump is about as strong evidence of crossover appeal as anything, short of targeted comprehensive polling. If there are a few hundred thousand WillF’s scattered through the swing states, then that would probably be enough to guarantee victory for Warren or Sanders.
Is any and all criticism “slandering” to you? If not, then what specifically have I said that “slandered” Gabbard?
So you think there are a majority of Americans not in the center who would vote for Gabbard? Do you have any kind of support for this idea, other than saying pointing to people like Steve Bannon and David Duke on the right, and Pelosi (?) on the left, and saying, “Seeeee!?!?!” In other words, show me the math of how 1% of Democrats and 0% of Republicans adds up to someone defeating Trump.
By the way, I’m pretty sure Steven Bannon and Nancy Pelosi don’t actually support Gabbard’s run for the presidency.
BTW, judging by the polls, opposition or disinterest in Gabbard is one of the things that brings together Americans from every corner of this land.
Trump has expressed opposition to the ongoing counter-terror campaigns in most countries of North and Central Africa.* He directed drawdowns. AFRICOM did draw down those missions some. They managed to get an indefinite delay on some of the cuts he initially ordered.
So if she is generally a hawk (in that simplistic binary label) we should generally expect a commitment of more resources to Africa in general. It’s a bit like whack a mole as terror groups gain and lose strength in various countries. SOCOM in recent years has been operating in about 130-140 countries annually with about 80 having a presence at any given time. Counter-terror has been one of the major pieces driving that operations tempo. We should probably expect the commitment of US special operations to a couple dozen countries for counter-terror during a 4 year Gabbard term.
We finally pulled out of Libya earlier this year. It was only a couple months before the five year anniversary of committing troops. Of course that was mostly because of the attack by Hifter and the Libyan Nation Army on the UN recognized government. AFRICOM at the time said it would be quick to reinsert forces when that operation stabilizes. We should probably assume, if Trump doesn’t before then, that Gabbard will also lean towards reintroducing special operations forces into Libya based on her statements. I’m going to guess that she doesn’t mention that specifically on the campaign trail. “I want to send ground troops to Libya” probably won’t sell even if Obama did it first.
I’ve wondered, in another thread, why Gabbard seems to generate online support disproportionate to her real world support. Membership in, or sympathy from, a cult of some sort might well explain it.
Her list of potential friends isn’t typically called a cult(cite)
That was in Feb. I haven’t seen and can’t find any update on Russia links. When the clearly Russia linked media seemed to like her we can’t completely discount the possibility that there’s a Russia connection in the more covert channels.
Okay, still no actual cites or examples…just loaded words like “grotesque.” What specifically did they say on the View? What blatant and over-the-top lies does the Post tell about her? I’m not seeing much if indeed anything in this thread that would approach “slanderous.” I’m thinking that iiandyiiii is correct and you’re just mad that some people are criticizing her. Which is understandable, but hardly rises to the level of “slander.”