A creepy cult? I read about the sect of Hinduism that she follows, which is called Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and did not find anything that seemed either creepy or like a cult. Different from most Americans’ religion, yes, but not in a way that rates anything more than “exotic.”
Of the female candidates I think Gabbard has the best chance. Progressives complain about her but, if the other choice is Trump, they’re not going to stay home. They’ll vote for her in droves.
As far as I can tell, progressive distaste for Gabbard is based on two things: Gay rights and Syria. Gabbard has repeatedly walked back her prior opposition to gay marriage. Officially, she’s been pro-gay marriage since 2012, same as Hillary Clinton. As for Syria, my understanding of Gabbard’s position is that, while Assad may be evil, the Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels are even worse, and if the Russians want that shithole then they’re welcome to it. I’ve heard people on the progressive left characterise this as “cozying up to dictators”, but I can’t figure out why, if Gabbard’s opposition to ousting Assad is “cozying up to dictators”, opposition to the Iraq war wasn’t.
The progressive left’s opposition to Gabbard’s stance on Syria makes little sense to me. Based on what I’ve read, Gabbard’s position on Syria is one which a lot of people in the centre and on the right agree with. And given that progressives will vote for her anyway if it comes down to it, I think her stance on Syria is a net positive.
Plus, much, much more importantly, she’s charismatic and comes off better on camera than Donald Trump.
The only other female candidate who could beat Trump is Harris. I’m basing this purely on how well she comes across on screen. However, IMO, Gabbard comes across better so I’m voting for her.
I would say running an avowed non-Christian is a bad idea. Trump isn’t actually a Christian, of course, but he paid lip service, and that combined with Pence was enough for many evangelicals. Sure, most of them voted on abortion, but I genuinely think that pointing out that they could at least vote for a Christian this time would be helpful.
(Then again, I tried pointing out that Clinton had taught a Sunday School class, and that didn’t help.)
I think there are more Gabbard supporters on this board than there are in real life.
I do want to say that a comparison of Gabbard to Hillary Clinton on LGTBQ issues is really not valid. While it’s certainly true that Clinton, like the great bulk of other prominent Democrats, did not support marriage equality until relatively recently, there’s a big difference between “not in favor of marriage equality” and Gabbard’s history of homophobia, which includes support of conversion therapy, complaints about gay people “forcing their agenda down our throats in schools,” and sounding the alarm about “homosexual extremists.” All of which are part of Gabbard’s record within the last two decades, in some cases considerably more recent, and do set her apart from the bulk of other prominent Democratic politicos. I’ve never seen these perspectives from Clinton, or Obama, or most other Democratic leaders who came relatively late to the marriage-equality party. (But if you have a quote from HRC that denigrates gay people, Gabbard-style, I’d be interested in seeing it.) Yes, Gabbard says she’s changed on these issues, and I give her credit for that. But I’d rather have a candidate who didn’t need to pivot from such intense hostility, thanks.
And I know I’ve said this before…but to my eyes and ears Tulsi Gabbard is not at all charismatic. I don’t know, maybe I have her mixed up with somebody else :). Or maybe there’s some website out there encouraging readers to go onto message boards and talk up her supposed charisma. One of those, because I sure ain;t seeing it!
It has to be either Harris or Warren. Klobuchar and Gillibrand just aren’t getting much attention at all, and Gabbard is getting plenty of attention, but most of it is of the “Hell no” variety.
And of those two, I think that Harris is doing the better job of preventing the Republicans from defining her, which is going to be key. So I picked Harris.
Since only Harris and Warren are generating any kind of buzz at all, and since Trump has already branded Warren, at this point I’d say Harris.
Ask me again tomorrow.
For those saying Gabbard has the best shot, I have a question: where are you getting your drugs and can I have some?
What people tend to overlook about Harris is that she is obviously really, really good at competing in political campaigns. She has won statewide races in California; other female candidates have not. It’s also quite clear that she has run a disciplined and methodical presidential campaign - arguably the most impressive so far of any candidate, moving from fourth or fifth place in the polls to a virtual tie with a formidable front runner.