Nah. You?
I’m not familiar with Drudge or the Washington Examiner. I will assume that they are open minded and rational, and that a poll of their peers is worth noticing. Thanks for the cite. (That Drudge webpage looks like it was designed by a distracted 10 year old.)
It’s a damn shame that Steve Bullock could not make it yet people like Bill DeBlasio (not too popular in his city), Eric Swalwell (who?), Marianne Williamson (who?) and Michael Bennet (awesome take down of Ted Cruz a few months back but that’s it) have.
A Governor (executive experience) re-elected in a state Trump won (can reach out to his voters, the rust-belt), who has expanded Medicaid despite 60% of his legislature being republican (bipartisanship) and pushes for action on climate change, women’s rights and making education accessible for all (investment + freezing costs, progressive moves) is on paper the ideal candidate. All he needs is to introduce himself, but I fear in a cycle which is getting dominated by Twitter takes and who can out woke each other that a sensible candidacy like him rather than an ego/protest candidacy is futile.
Not pointless. Points out that Republicans are feeling the antiwar Gabbard despite harsh rhetoric against the Trump regime.
I think it’s much more likely they like Gabbard because she’s been much less critical of Trump than the others. She’s long been Breitbart and Fox’s favorite Democrat for that reason.
But there’s no way to know, and no point in making any conclusions about a meaningless online “poll”.
Yes I see they sandwich quasi-fascist Harris in your rankings.
Bernie had antiwar protestors arrested. Neither Sanders or Warren seem to care about war. Perhaps you can point to a speech or two from them?
If I thought there was any possibility of reasonable discussion with you, perhaps I’d go to this effort. But since you’ve made it clear that you hate progressives and progressiveness with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, I’ll pass.
You must have a better understanding of Drudge readers than I, a Drudge reader.
Cool. Thanks for your input.
No. You just can’t do it because they don’t talk about foreign policy. This is known. Harris made a big foreign policy speech but it was kind of scary.
Let’s simplify this. We don’t want a nominee who is antiwar in the manner WF pines for. Certainly I don’t. Therefore the proof you are demanding is a non sequitur.
So anyway, back to sane talk. How 'bout that debate last night? Looks like Gabbard is toast, eh?
“We”?
You pine for an antiwar position that is kept hidden? Interesting tactic.
When did I say that, or that I pined for any particularly antiwar position? 
Let’s make this simple for you.
Do you support any type of antiwar position? If so who best represents it?
If not, bye bye.
Buh-bye now!
If she really is the Republicans’ favorite candidate, that should enter our considerations.
But I thought the opposite, having known essentially nothing about her before. She showed presence, articulateness, depth and honesty - in short, leadership. I could see any of the candidates as a good president, but I think she helped herself greatly among those who watched. I’d make the same comments about Castro, Klobuchar, and Inslee, too - they’ll be around longer than most would have predicted. Warren is a known quantity and exhibited it, but may not be able to catch on to more support than she already has, at least not at this stage. Booker said all the right things and we know he’s solid, but that manic, non-blinking intensity is a problem (yes, that’s shallow). O’Rourke showed nothing - he, Delaney, Ryan, DeBlasio need to make other plans.
Nm
Articulateness?? 
It’s a paradox!