You got me there. Bote isn’t even an asset for the Cubs.
Where in the world did you hear she was raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment? A big chunk of her “something is off here” reputation is that she was raised in some cult.
I apologize. But I will concur with your general point and say that if you have two woman candidates the one who is generally regarded as more attractive has a better chance, just as when you have two male candidates the tall of the two has an undefinable but no less real edge.
And the term “asset” is not to be confused, as does a YouTube video I saw last night, with “spy”. There is also a term called “useful idiot”. You can have a person who genuinely believes X, Y, or Z, but if those beliefs serve the perceived policy interests of another power, well, draw your own conclusions. This is, I think, the most charitable view of Ms. Gabbard possible. Then, of course, there is the question of what the person does when that power starts exercising influence on their behalf.
Ok, thanks. Would it be fair to say that if Tulsi endorsed the eventual Democrat candidate (let’s say Warren, just for argument’s sake) you’d no longer consider Tulsi a Russian asset?
Do you think the Russians would stop their pro-Gabbard propaganda if she endorsed Warren?
I would - provided that she doesn’t say and do other things that undermine said candidate.
FTR, I’m on the fence as to whether she actually is or isn’t an asset, but I would agree with others that she sometimes behaves like one. OTOH, I think she’s always been a fringe candidate, so it’s not like this is necessarily new behavior that was inspired by Putin. Rather, it could be that when Putin looks around for opportunities to exploit the political system, Gabbard fits the description of someone who suits his purposes: someone who makes a lot of noise, someone who tries to strike populist chords, someone who flirts with conspiracy theories, and someone who has made it clear that she doesn’t like the American foreign policy/national security establishment. These are qualities that have been ever-present in Gabbard for a long time, just as they have been in Jill Stein, and even Donald Trump.
Good question.
And another one is: would Tulsi Gabbard necessarily unite behind the team, or would she still take swipes at the Democratic party, tweet her grievances, and appear as a guest on Tucker Carlson’s show?
An endorsement wouldn’t necessarily buy her silence.
So what if Tulsi Gabbard takes swipes at the Democratic Party or does anything else? Who cares? Who is watching her or listening to what she has to say? She’s has even less influence than AOC, which isn’t a lot to begin with.
And just to take a step back - remember that the Russians are primarily interested in stirring shit up. Talking up a politician who cozies up to a war criminal like Assad, who is the last Dem to call for Trump’s impeachment because she saw nothing wrong with the quid pro quo phone call, who aligns with Hindu nationalist causes, who complains that America isn’t fair because she’s polling at <2%; it’s all gravy for Russia to like her regardless of anything else she does.
The strategy would be not for Gabbard to win, but to cause enough conflict and disillusionment among independents and Democrat-leaning voters that they either stay home or vote third-party.
It’s impossible to assign blame for 2016 to one specific factor, but remember that in Michigan and Wisconsin, the number of Jill Stein voters was slightly larger than Trump’s margin of victory.
Spoiler candidates can be highly consequential.
It seems to me that she can create conflict and disillusionment only if you listen to her. If you ignore her, she has no impact.
There is a persuadable sector of the left-wing electorate who is receptive to the message that Democrats are a rigged party, too cozy with Wall Street, too compromising, too willing to use military force, take your pick.
I can ignore Gabbard all I want, but I can’t visit all those people and stick cotton in their ears.
No question there will be a left wing spoiler candidate who will get 1-2% of the vote, because there always is. The question is whether someone will fill that role who might have enough credibility to get closer to 5%, which would be a real problem for the Dems. I am not seeing anything that makes me concerned that Gabbard might be that person. IOW, she’s no Ralph Nader.
With margins as tight as they are nowadays, it doesn’t need to be a Ralph Nader. As I mentioned upthread, Jill Stein arguably was part of the problem for the Dems in 2016.
I don’t think Gabbard (or her “friends”) have actually settled on the endgame, I think they’re just throwing stuff out there to see what sticks. Obviously it’s ideal for them if she actually gets the nomination, but if not, a contentious primary would be helpful, and if not that, a vote-siphoning third-party spoiler run. She might even pull a mindfuck like switching parties and being a Republican VP pick on a “unity and reconciliation” ticket. A spoiler candidate has many options and it’s unwise to commit to any of them this early in the game.
I could see several candidates trying third party runs.
I think it’s more likely she will take votes from previous Trump voters, at least the ones who are drawn to new and shiny oddball candidates.
Remember, folks who voted for Jill Stein in 2016 were largely influenced by the assumption Hillary was going to win. They, like the Nader voters of yore, didn’t really think their votes were consequential. This race is different; anyone voting 3rd party this go around is a different breed of voter.
Under what definition is Tulsi Gabbard left wing?
Every sane one. 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).
I could go on. You know, this is all easily googleable stuff. If you put one tenth of one percent as much effort into honestly finding out what she actually stands for as you’re putting into proving she’s a Russian stooge you wouldn’t need to ask such stupid questions :rolleyes:
I don’t think it matters. I think that whatever the Russians do, it’ll be spun by people who’ve already made their minds up as evidence that Gabbard was a Russian asset.
The charge is so vague and disconnected from her actions, and the bar for meeting it is set so low, that she just can’t win. So the question is irrelevant.
You fight pretty hard to raise a question that you don’t want to hear the answer to.