Election 2020

Tulsi Gabbard Rising in New Hampshire Polls, Thanks to Republican Support

People who voted for Donald Trump have far more favorable views of Gabbard than those who voted for Hillary Clinton. And because the state has an open primary, that could be significant.

|

Maybe the Russians have infiltrated New Hampshire.

A new CNN poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire and released this week shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) with 5 percent support from likely voters in the state, which is scheduled to hold the nation's first Democratic primary on February 11. That level of support is good enough to put Gabbard in fifth place, trailing only Sen. Bernie Sanders (21 percent) of Vermont, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (18 percent) of Massachusetts, former vice president Joe Biden (15 percent) and Pete Buttigieg (10 percent), the mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Tied with Gabbard at 5 percent are Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.

The CNN poll is perhaps the best signal yet that Gabbard—whom Hillary Clinton nonsensically smeared as a "Russian asset" two weeks ago—is experiencing a bit of a polling bounce, especially in New Hampshire. She's risen by 4 percentage points since the same pollsters' July survey while Biden has fallen by 6 points and Sen. Kamala Harris of California has fallen by 9 points. Nationally, Gabbard has experienced a small but noticeable bump in her poll numbers in recent weeks too, though she continues to sit in the third tier of Democratic hopefuls.

Importantly, the CNN poll moves Gabbard one step closer to qualifying for the November 20 debate. She needs two more polls showing support above 3 percent in order to make the stage (nine others have already qualified).

But the most interesting thing about the new CNN poll in New Hampshire is not so much the level of Gabbard's support, but rather who is supporting her.

No, it's not the Russians—it's actually mostly Republicans.

When you dig into the crosstabs of the poll, it shows that 59 percent of New Hampshire Republicans have a favorable view of Gabbard, while only 23 percent of the state's Democrats do. The Hawaiian congresswoman is far more likely to attract support from someone who voted for President Donald Trump in 2016 (55 percent of whom view her favorably) than from someone who backed Clinton (20 percent).

Gabbard's unorthodox constituency is a significant impediment to her campaign gaining traction in the Democratic field. It's difficult to become your party's pick when the other party's voters like you more.

But in New Hampshire, Gabbard's crossover appeal could be a boon. The state has open primaries that allow independent and unaffiliated voters* to participate in either the Republican event or the Democratic one (and the GOP primary is probably not going to be very interesting).

Unlike some other states, New Hampshire has not canceled its Republican primary to protect Trump from potential embarrassment, but there is little doubt he will win the contest easily. In the new poll, Trump's three primary opponents—former Reps. Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Joe Walsh of Illinois, along with former governor Bill Weld—get a mere 7 percent of the vote, combined.

That means plenty of independent voters in New Hampshire who might otherwise vote in the GOP primary could see that contest as a waste of time and decide to vote in the Democratic primary instead.* Gabbard is a likely beneficiary if that happens.

But why, you might be wondering, should voters from a different party get to play a role in determining who Democrats nominate for president? That might seem unfair, and the Democratic Party certainly would be right to exclude whomever they want from the party's private business. But primaries aren't private affairs; they are paid for by taxpayers and run by state-level election officials. By allowing everyone to participate, New Hampshire is actually doing the right thing—and all those other states with closed primaries should change their rules, or stop asking non-party members to foot the bill.

Politically, too, an open primary seems like the better way to choose a candidate. After all, the winner of the Democratic primary will have to face all voters—even Republicans—in November 2020. Given that reality, open primaries can act as a check on runaway extremism within one political party.

Democrats should think twice before smearing Gabbard as a Republican mole. Trump's victory in 2016 was largely the result of voters who refused to abide by tribal lines. If the key to a Democratic victory in 2020 is re-swinging the Obama/Trump voters towards Team Blue, nominating a candidate who appeals to some Republicans seems fundamental.

That being said, Gabbard is almost certainly not going to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2020. But, as I've written before, that's not really her goal. She's trying to resurrect whatever is left of the anti-war left, and to carve out space for an alternative to the bipartisan, largely neoconservative consensus on foreign policy. That is a worthwhile project. The longer Gabbard can stay in the race, the more time she'll have to make that case. And the better she does in New Hampshire, the longer she'll stay in the race.

How long until Gabbard has to deal with being labeled a Republican asset? That probably depends on whether she keeps rising in the polls—and whether mainstream Democrats like Clinton are foolish enough to ignore her crossover appeal.

*CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Republican and Democratic voters could vote in either of the state's primary elections. Only independent and unaffiliated voters are allowed to do that. As a result of those rules, New Hampshire has a huge number of independent voters—40 percent of the state's electorate are not registered with either party.

Advertisement

NEXT: Is Juul Evil Now? Lawsuit Says Company Knowingly Sold Contaminated Pods

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Election of T T ies

    Trump
    Tulsi

    1. Not Trump Tulsi, But Biden-Tulsi, or Bernie-Tulsi. If she ever ends up President. her litmus test for Supreme Court will be Civil Liberties. Justin Amash for Supreme Court.

      Sadly it will be likely too late before Democrats learn they need a balanced ticket, so the new dart ages is approaching.

      1. I left out.and the Democratic Delegates choose the VP; Shout “NO” when the chair asks for acclimatization.

  2. Boehm… markets IMPLODING!

  3. Politically, too, an open primary seems like the better way to choose a candidate. After all, the winner of the Democratic primary will have to face all voters—even Republicans—in November 2020.

    Well, sheesh, eliminate primaries and just have the main election!

    1. Most primaries (and general elections) have devolved into virtual beauty contests and cage fights. Why not switch to actual beauty contests and cage fights?

      1. No way Bernie could survive hell in a cell. I’d bet on Booker (is he still running?) in that case, but Trump would just wait till the ref wasn’t looking and use the chair.

        1. “but Trump would just wait till the ref wasn’t looking and use the chair.”

          And drop the chair at his opponents feet, so if the opponent tries to pick up the chair to retaliate, they get caught with the chair when the ref looks back.

          1. Would anyone be surprised if Bannon adapted his political tactics from WWE?

      2. Can we ask the contestants a simple policy question at the end? You know, to keep it civilized?

    2. NeverTrumpers might want to consider this reality also.

    3. California went to “top 2”, which was really stupid.

  4. What does Gabbard have in common with Drumpf? She, too, is a Russian stooge.

    #GabbardRussia

    1. You are not funny. You’re not even semi-intelligent. You used to be pretty on point parodying the insane morons out there but now all you do is spam the same anti-Tulsi propaganda lies on every article.

      1. He’s still parodying the lefties pretty accurately.

    2. You just won’t shut up, will you Hillary/Rachel/Neera ……conspiracy theory nut jobs, the lot of you!!

  5. A socialist that believes in a less interventionist foreign policy. Yawn.

    1. A reminder that many republicans, especially of the Northeastern variety, are just fine with an expansive and intrusive nanny state.

    2. That species of democrat went extinct around 1992

    3. Yeah, except she is hot as hell &, though I would never vote for her, she is actually principled, full of integrity & tough!

    4. I think the Reason staff would probably be a lot more concerned about her other politics if there was a chance she’d actually win the nomination. Take for example the numerous and intense focus on Warren’s many terrible plans. As it is now, they (and I) think it’s nice to have someone in a blue jersey saying that dropping bombs on countries until they’re liberal democracies doesn’t work and was a stupid idea to begin with.

    5. She seems to be a person of high integrity first with going to war after 9/11. second with seeing and reporting on what was actually happening with our government working with our enemies. third with calling out and quiting the DNC for the mistreatment of Bernie. We should not be killing our young people to make a few people rich. I support her views and think she is the best candidate running. working with each other is a good idea there are many serious problems to solve in the next decade we will need someone who can work with both sides with integrity to solve those problems. She has my support and my vote

  6. By allowing everyone to participate, New Hampshire is actually doing the right thing—and all those other states with closed primaries should change their rules, or stop asking non-party members to foot the bill.

    Agree 100%. The options here should really be between no primaries at all and closed caucuses.

    There should be no reason whatsoever why the state election apparatus is swung into motion for the exclusive benefit of political party business. And primaries have no function other than internal party business

    1. Yes, and anything to encourage more than two entrenched parties.

      1. How would you propose running an end-around on the cathedral and the outer party to get to the inner party?

  7. “Maybe the Russians have infiltrated New Hampshire.”

    We laugh but Suderman still thinks that Russia hacked the election

    1. We laugh but Suderman still thinks that Russia hacked the election

      And that, absent verified vote rigging, they’re still the biggest threat to our democracy. Maybe number 2 behind Trump.

    2. “We laugh but Suderman still thinks that Russia hacked the election”

      Russians obtained Facebook data and used it in a campaign to suppress American voter turnout and erode confidence in the elections. Is that hacking?

      1. Russians posted some laughable memes on Facebook that didn’t impact the election at all.

        1. The gullible tend to believe that others are equally gullible.

          Hence Facebook memes = Hacked election

        2. It’s true, man. I was door knocking for the Hildebeast herself just days prior to the election and out of nowhere I see this add on facebook and you know the rest

            1. Gee, I never could’ve spotted that typo after posting. Thanks, prick.

        3. “Russians posted some laughable memes on Facebook that didn’t impact the election at all.”

          They posted all sorts of memes. And their American stooges helped spread them over the internet. How did you conclude there was no impact?

          1. It’s ridiculous to conclude that memes move people . Do they move us? How many people have you moved when you replied directly to someone on social media with information ?
            Secondly ,the amount of info that “Russians ” disseminated was relatively infinitesimal compared to say Cambridge Analytica, Israel,FOX ,Disney,CNN,Newsweek etc etc etc
            This whole Russia Kremlin ,Moscow ,Putin fairy tale is a political ruse

            1. “This whole Russia Kremlin ,Moscow ,Putin fairy tale is a political ruse”

              Why is it so incredible that Russians might try to influence an American election? Is it equally incredible that non-Russians might try to influence a non-Russian election?

              “It’s ridiculous to conclude that memes move people .”

              Does propaganda ever move people?

          2. So what? Freedom of speech and freedom of the press apply to everyone.

            1. The Russians want to use American freedoms to hurt American interests. And their American stooges will also be of use.

              1. All the while Hillary and the DNC spent 1.2 billion, and Trump and the GOP spent .6 billion on their own advertising and turnout efforts.

                If the Russians are that effective spending a couple of hundred thousand bucks, well then maybe they should be running things.

      2. How many votes were suppressed, what was the exact mechanism for the vote suppression, for whom, to what effect and what direct effect did any perceived lack of confidence in the election have on said election?

        Show your work.

        1. “How many votes were suppressed”

          Don’t know. I don’t even know if it was enough to make any impact on the results.

          “what was the exact mechanism for the vote suppression,”

          Russians used Facebook data and used Facebook groups.

          ” for whom”

          For Russia.

          “to what effect and what direct effect did any perceived lack of confidence in the election have on said election”

          Someone from the GRU might be able to help you better than I can with these questions.

          “Show your work.”

          It’s the work of GRU, Russian military intelligence. They try to work in secret so showing their work is not something they readily do.

          1. “what was the exact mechanism for the vote suppression,”

            Russians used Facebook data and used Facebook groups.

            That’s a tautology. “Using Facebook Data and Groups” to suppress voter suppression is not evidence of voter suppression. You’ve merely repeated your assertion. Was there a specific ad, can you name it, can you trace that or those ads to a specific set of votes or voters who were suppressed?

            For Russia.

            I meant which candidate specifically benefited from your asserted suppresion.

            Someone from the GRU might be able to help you better than I can with these questions.

            Ok Alex Jones… I think we’ve heard enough.

            1. “That’s a tautology”

              Facebook groups and the user data the Russians obtained are different things. Anyone can create or join a Facebook group at no cost. The data had to be bought.

              “I meant which candidate specifically benefited from your asserted suppresion.”

              I don’t think Russia cares about any particular candidate, who come and go with the season. They want to weaken America, undermine American faith in democracy and other institutions. Foster internal dissent etc. They have bigger fish to fry than helping any candidate who will only disappoint in the end.

              “Ok Alex Jones… ”

              It’s you who were asking me about the effectiveness of the GRU operation. I’m not able to help you. Broaden the scope of your reading is all I can say. Have you read Christopher Wylie’s book?

              1. Meh, moderation hell because I posted too many links and proof to my argument. Anyhoo, come back in three days when it’s moderated to know that Carol Davidsen more than likely worked with Christopher Wylie.

                1. I didn’t know you had an argument. You confused Facebook data with Facebook groups, and expressed skepticism that intelligence agencies engage in election tampering. If you have an actual argument against Russian meddling, I’d like to hear it.

                  1. You’re asking him to prove a negative, you dimwit.

                    1. I haven’t asked him to prove anything. He claimed to make an argument. I still haven’t seen it.

      3. “Russians obtained Facebook data and used it in a campaign to suppress American voter turnout and erode confidence in the elections.”

        Pretty sure trueman is not familiar with the phrase “non-sequitur”.

        1. “Pretty sure trueman is not familiar with the phrase “non-sequitur”.

          Enough about Russia. Time to talk about me.

      4. “Russians obtained Facebook data and used it in a campaign to suppress American voter turnout and erode confidence in the elections. Is that hacking?”

        They have claimed that the loser in the GA governor’s race didn’t really lose? Or that the loser in the Presidential race didn’t really lose?

        1. “They have claimed… ”

          Any claims by any intelligence agencies should be taken with skepticism.

          1. We should blindly assume the CIA is correct in their assessments?

            THAT is preferable?

            They have a bit of a track record of being fucking wrong on most anything they’ve opined on.

            Again…they thought the USSR was just fine and in no risk of collapse — MONTHS BEFORE IT FUCKING COLLAPSED.

            1. “We should blindly assume the CIA is correct in their assessments?”

              No, but we can blindly assume that Russian intelligence mounts operations against the US. To assume otherwise is willfully naive.

      5. No, that’s called “politics”.

        1. “No, that’s called “politics”.

          When politicians do it. When spies do it, it’s called spying.

      6. Given that after intense and exhaustive analysis nobody anywhere has managed to produce even a vague statistical correlation suggesting that the (definitely very real) Russian attempts to influence the election actually did anything, I think you’re gonna have to admit that if any effect exists it was tiny. Particularly compared to say, coverage of Clinton’s email server, or Comey’s letter.

        1. “Russian attempts to influence the election actually did anything,”

          I think it’s a mistake to assume that the Russians were trying to throw the election one way or another. They want to suppress the vote and weaken American confidence in their institutions. A statistical analysis isn’t going to show their success or failure. Look at the career of the GRU spook in charge of the operation. Has it gone up or down since 2016? That might give us the best indication of how the Russians view the affair.

  8. I wonder if Misestarians will claim her as True Libertarian in the same way they declared Trump to be True Libertarian. They have a single issue, anti-war. That’s a good issue, but we can do better than an outright socialist holding our banner. There’s more than one issue on the table.

    Then again, cross voting for her in an open primary is a good way to kink the Dumbocrats.

    1. Name one person associated with the Mises Institute who specifically stated that Trump was a “True Libertarian”

  9. The Hawaiian congresswoman is far more likely to attract support from someone who voted for President Donald Trump in 2016 (55 percent of whom view her favorably) than from someone who backed Clinton (20 percent).

    I’m beginning to suspect that the pussy hat brigade doesn’t actually care about getting *a* woman elected as much as an approved woman elected.

    1. I’m beginning to suspect that Reason is a lot like the Pussy Hat Brigade.

        1. signaling over substance?

    2. Meanwhile, Hillary 2016 campaign staffers still insist misogyny was to blame (paragraph 6), presumably in addition to Russia and white people.

      1. Relax, Hillary. No one thinks of you as a woman.

    3. Yep! its not about the “waymens”, its about identity politics, thats why Tulsi is now a “Russian asset” It is crazy that only 20% of Clinton supporter like Tulsi, goes to show how divided the Dems are.

      1. “It is crazy that only 20% of Clinton supporter like Tulsi”

        You call it crazy. GRU calls it an opportunity.

  10. “nominating a candidate who appeals to some Republicans seems fundamental”

    Would running as an independent hurt Republicans more than Democrats?

  11. Perhaps Representative Gabbard’s increased support is due in part to her rather vocal non-interventionist foreign policy views. It seems to me that numerous citizens, including members of the military (and their families), have grown weary of constant warfare.

    1. I should have included this link.

      1. .”… the structural racism borne of our nation’s “original sin.”

        Fuck off progressive slavers.

        1. Are you claiming that the slave owners of the colonies and early United States were progressives?

          On a serious note: Do you think that a platform of non-intervention will be attractive and/or welcome to many voters?

          1. Are you claiming that the slave owners of the colonies and early United States were progressives?

            That’s nothing like what he said.

            1. Nuance and sarcasm.

              Seriously: What are your thoughts regarding the likelihood of a non-intervenionist foreign policy appealing to a significant number of voters?

              1. “Nuance and sarcasm.”

                LOL.

                Deflection and avoidance.

                1. Thank you Bob, for an honest answer to my question. I recall that Reptesentative Paul had the support that you mention.

              2. In 2012, Ron Paul had more cash contributions from active military personnel than all other candidates combined. Non-interventionism tends to appeal to those saddled with the task of intervening.

          2. See what the Potato said.

            Do you honestly not see the collectivism inherent in the concept of a national ‘original sin.’ Because it is both there, and glaringly obvious to anyone not a Marxist.

            1. Beyond that it’s hard to take you seriously.

              1. ThomasD,

                I was being snide.

                In truth, I am opposed to slavery and collectivism. Both violate the Non-Aggression Axiom.

                Now, what is your opinion regarding my serious question about voters being open to a non-intervensionit foreign policy?

                1. “I was being snide.”

                  I don’t believe you. Neither about being snide nor about opposing slavery. If you did then you would recognize that national original sin – by imposing accountability upon persons by reason of their birth and nothing else – is just another form of slavery.

                  You posted the link to the self confessed collectivists ramblings, not me.

                2. a lot of voters want the wars to end

        2. Yeah, he’s bought in wholesale to the race grifters’ propaganda war. Progressivism as a religious cult gets more obvious every day. The whole “original sin” just replaces Jesus with slaves, and God with the grievance pimps. Meet the new religious oligarchy.

          1. Is there anything less libertarian than assigning guilt and responsibility to individual over acts committed 150 years prior to their birth? People whose ancestors may not have even been present in the territory 150 years ago.

            It really is religion for these people.

            1. It is possible to observe that problems we have now are in part a result of historical injustices without assigning blame to people alive now who had nothing to do with the injustices.
              I do agree that “original sin” is a terrible way to put it as it does imply that the whole nation still carries that sin, which is not helpful. People are responsible only for their own actions.

              1. “People are responsible only for their own actions.”

                When you say it I’m inclined to believe you. People who freely use, or link to people using terms like “national original sin” not so much.

                I think they mean what they say.

        3. There is “structural racism” but not the kind that leftists prattle about.

          Minimum wage laws, affirmative action, the war on drugs, public education and zoning laws are all part of keeping “those” people at bay. It doesn’t matter who “they” are.

          1. I’d agree that those are a form of structural oppression – just like any affront to our liberty is. But to the extent that they are not race specific in application they are not structural racism.

            The whole ‘net effect’ analysis itself being a form of collectivism.

  12. Amazing to me that the democratic party cannot see that Gabbard is their best candidate, she gets independents and republicans and would get the democrats if she is the candidate. They should stop parading around like idiots with investigations and impeachments and nominate Tulsi if they want to get rid of Trump.

    1. The Democrat rejection of Tulsi is quite similar to the Republican rejection of Trump – it’s the entrenched establishment types that despise both as unaccountable usurpers. Since his victory some of the (R)s have made peace with Trump as POTUS (if not necessarily being at peace with him as Trump).

      Trump had a realistic path to winning the (R) nomination, Tulsi, due to the nature of the (D) party does not enjoy the same prospects.

      1. The Dems rig their primaries, Tulsi doesn’t have a snowball chance.

        1. Rig is such a harsh word. Stoutly weight is more polite.

          1. Stoutly Weight was my nickname at Fat Camp.

    2. Tulsi wasn’t woke enough soon enough. Progs will never support her.

  13. Wouldn’t it be more productive for Republicans in NH to back one of the more likely Dem nominees that would be most repulsive to the nation’s voters? Giving Gabbard a temporary boost in NH is a ridiculous strategy.

    1. I’m a little surprised that that doesn’t happen more.

      But they’d really feel like asses if the awful candidate they supported ended up winning.

      1. In the primaries for the 2016 election, NH voted for Trump and Sanders. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

    2. Keeping the clown show going for as long as possible is a reasonable strategy. If candidates like Gabbard and Klobuchar are still feeling somewhat good about their chances after New Hampshire Trump is in good shape. Gabbard has the added bonus of being willing to call out obvious hypocrisy from her fellow Democrats.

    3. strategic voting is stupid. voting is a total waste of time, except as a means to signal who your preferred candidate is. if you don’t do that, why bother?

  14. By allowing everyone to participate, New Hampshire is actually doing the right thing—and all those other states with closed primaries should change their rules, or stop asking non-party members to foot the bill.

    Government running it helps ensure proper vote counting, which benefits all, since all must live under the eventual winner. And party members no doubt pay most of the taxes, which should cover it.

    Most importantly, you argue government, by providing services, should insinuate itself non-trivially into the private decision making of The People as they select their candidates, warping their party choice, if not outright overturning it.

    After all, open primaries “are supposed to be used by Democrats in blue states to queer Republican selections. How dare they weaponize yet another tactic against us!”

    1. government running it helps ensure accuracy? okay then…

  15. Don’t be fooled by her. She supported Bernie Sanders in 2016. He is a devout socialist and he has wacky ideas.

  16. Gabbard penned an opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal responding to Hillary Clinton, especially.

    “Hillary Clinton emerged recently to claim, with no basis in fact, that I am being “groomed” by the Russian government to undermine America. As a major in the National Guard who served in Iraq—one of the many disastrous regime-change wars Mrs. Clinton championed over her career—I swore an oath to only one authority: the U.S. Constitution.

    I’m running for president to undo Mrs. Clinton’s failed legacy. From Iraq to Libya to Syria, her record is replete with foreign-policy catastrophes.

    —-Tulsi Gabbard

    October 29, 2019

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-can-defeat-trump-and-the-clinton-doctrine-11572389508?

    “I Can Defeat Trump and the Clinton Doctrine”

    “The U.S. will stop trying to overthrow governments and police the world.”

    No sane candidate who says these things about Hillary Clinton is trying to win the Democratic nomination in 2020. She’d do better if she were running as a Republican. In fact, the Democrat base is more neocon than the Republicans anymore. If she can change to being a Republican she should, but she can’t–not if she’s from Hawaii. She’s won with almost 80% of the vote in every election–because she’s a Democrat. If she changed her party, she’d lose her seat. Meanwhile, the ability to carry Hawaii isn’t anything the nominee will be looking for in a Vice-President.

    She’s isn’t even a flash in the pan, and that isn’t the worst thing about wasting time on her. The worst part is that her foreign policy is virtually indistinguishable from President Trump’s. Why is it better coming from a snowball’s chance in hell than it is coming from President Trump? Does your foreign policy stance change because you don’t like Trump’s haircut or something? Is it because she’s a woman? Do you not like Trump’s foreign policy stance because of his stances on unrelated issues?

    1. How is Trump’s foreign policy of ramping up of civilian deaths in the Middle East–beyond even the Bush-Cheney standard, not neocon? Because he says so? How stupid are you, exactly? Very stupid?

      1. “How is Trump’s foreign policy of ramping up of civilian deaths in the Middle East–beyond even the Bush-Cheney standard, not neocon?”

        Quiz time for everybody!

        Question: What’s the worst?

        A) Tony thinks killing civilians in the Middle East is the definition of a neoconservative foreign policy.
        B) Tony doesn’t know that Hillary Clinton is a neocon.
        C) Tony doesn’t know that Donald Trump is not a neocon.
        D) Tony may suspect that Hillary Clinton is right about Tulsi Gabbard being a Russian asset.
        E) All of the above.

        1. I don’t think the Democratic base is more “neocon” than the Republican base. I don’t hear too many progressives calling for unilateral pre-emptive war and nation-building abroad. It’s more that they hate Trump and don’t believe anything he says.

          Heck even Progressives like Warren seem to still agree with pulling troops out of the Middle East but are just disagreeing with “how Trump’s doing it.”

          But I do agree that’s Tulsi’s strategy doesn’t make sense. And that’s because clearly the Democratic base cares more about identity politics, climate change, free shit, and hating Trump. Being “anti-war” just doesn’t matter to them right now.

          1. “I don’t hear too many progressives calling for unilateral pre-emptive war and nation-building abroad. It’s more that they hate Trump and don’t believe anything he says.”

            The prudish unwillingness to work with nasty people like Putin, even when it’s in our best interests to do so, is heavily favored by the Democrat’s base–and that’s a hallmark of the neconservatism.

            I was closer to your estimation on this before I saw so many Democrats condemn Trump for withdrawing from Syria. Trump is presently negotiating with the Taliban to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, and if and when he does that, I expect they’ll sound like George W. Bush circa October of 2001.

            I appreciate that “neocon” as a brand name is tarnished in Democrat circles, but if they’d invade and occupy Syria rather than work with Putin, and if they’re not willing to do anything that might be in America’s best interests–so long as it involves coordinating with someone who isn’t pure of heart (like Putin), then they may not like the term “neocon”–but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

        2. The correct answer was E) All of the above.

        3. Neoconservatism is a specific thing, largely relegated to the ash-heap of history thank goodness, except for that weird little episode when Trump hired one of its preeminent dinosaurs as national security adviser. And that guy, warmonger though he may be, is at least patriot enough to be aghast at Trump’s actions.

          You’d sell your tits as long as the buyer had an (R) next to his name.

      2. beyond even the Bush-Cheney standard

        really?

        1. It is below the Obama standard, fortunately.

          Cute that Tony thinks deaths stopped for eight years…

    2. “Do you not like Trump’s foreign policy stance because of his stances on unrelated issues?”

      The fucker can stick his stance up his orange ass. What’s relevant are his actions. Obama’s stance got him a Nobel Peace Prize, for all the good it did, and Trump’s record at sending troops overseas is even worse than Obama’s.

    3. Ken….May I suggest another way of looking at Rep. Gabbard? Sort of a cross between ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ and Angelina Jolie. Don’t laugh. 🙂

      Rep. Gabbard absolutely destroyed Heels Up & Horizontal Harris. And she just bitch-slapped Crooked Hillary. She has backhanded VP Biden, and it is only a matter of time before she takes on America’s Mother-in-Law (Warren). I like her non-interventionalist views, and I like even more that she zapped Heels Up Harris. Her domestic policy is a dog’s breakfast.

      Nothing would please me more than to see Rep. Gabbard stay in this race, and ensure that no Team D politician can get a majority of the delegates in the primaries. If I cannot have Marianne (God she would have been hilarious), then I want Tulsi, the Team D Destroyer to stay in this race and puncture the front runners.

  17. I’m more put-off by the fact that the government conducts primary elections. Primaries are meant to decide who each party will put-up as their candidate in the actual election. Why should taxpayers shoulder the self-induced burdens of party politics?

    I’d say that 75% of becoming president involves looking and acting “presidential”. It’s not a policy or beauty contest, so much as a holistic sense of how you want the country represented. It results in a lot of bad choices, and it’s completely subjective, but that’s how it is.

    Trump vs Gabbard would make for an interesting election season, since both of their bases are essentially sick of “business as usual”. But really, they should just run together.

    1. >>they should just run together.

      T should recruit her before she’s the opponent.

    2. ” Why should taxpayers shoulder the self-induced burdens of party politics?”

      I think the answer is the Constitutional mandate that each state must provide it’s citizens with a republican form of government – inevitably meaning parties or factions.

      My question is: Why is the bar set so high for additional parties or factions to qualify for such taxpayer support?

      1. A republican form of government may require elections, but it doesn’t require political parties.

    3. I’m more put-off by the fact that the government conducts primary elections.

      I’m not a fan of elections and voting in the first place. With that said, it seems better to have a general primary to decide the top two candidates and then have a final vote between those two.

      1. The argument against that seems to be that in areas dominated by one party, the other party won’t always appear in the general election. But I don’t really think that’s right. All that happens in places like that is that the primary becomes the de-facto real election and party operatives have even more control.
        If Gabbard gets 80% of the vote in HI because she’s a democrat, seems like it would be more democratic, in the sense of people having an actual choice, to have 2 Democrats running in the general. Same thing in places where Republicans always win. Let people choose among the candidates people are acutally interested in.

      2. California went the top 2 route. It’s ridiculous.

    4. the winning candidates usually have the best hair.

  18. first line is better w/o the “Maybe” … sell it.

  19. She’s a socialist with a good foreign policy.

  20. Republicans shouldn’t be fooled by Gabbard. Yes, she’s good on foreign affairs, shunning interventionism and all that… but that’s all she’s good on! She’s terrible on economics and all the rest. So what kind of Republican would go for that? Probably right-leaning independents then Republicans outright.

    1. ” So what kind of Republican would go for that? ”

      Many, the same sorts who are ‘hands of my Social Security/Medicare.’

  21. If Republicans like Russia so much why don’t they fucking move there. The most libertarian country on earth, no doubt.

    1. You can tell by our cheekbones how Russian we are.

    2. Tony, in case you forgot, McCarthy is not usually held up as somebody to emulate one’s life after.

  22. I feel like this article is built on spurious information. Who you support in a primary doesn’t reflect how you’ll vote in a general. Without an R primary, these Rs are free to vote in the other party’s primary.

    It doesn’t really reflect how much they like her other than they they think she’s the least bad out there.

    Given NH has a strong libertarian underpinning in the right-leaning population there, it shouldn’t be surprising the non-interventionist socialist is preferred to the other socialists on the Dem ticket.

    If the election is between Trump and Tulsi, is it less bad than between Trump and Warren?

  23. Ahh yes- let’s have someone who competes for Republican votes. I see that you totally support that with Trump huh who has made ZERO effort to meet the other side anywhere near, just the same as his Republican buddies.

    To all you, I say get bent. Hillary got more votes and was just missing a few from key states. A Democrat has far better avenues to take than appealing to any Republicans to win.

    1. “…I see that you totally support that with Trump huh who has made ZERO effort to meet the other side anywhere near,…”

      Are you always being unfairly treated by the world? Always called on your bullshit by those smarter than you? Losing no matter how hard you try?
      Well, get used to it. As a fucking lefty ignoramus, that’s going to be your entire life.

  24. If it wasn’t for the Hillary Machine,the DNC and their collusive MSM media hammering her with false attacks than Tulsi Gabbard would be popular with Democrats .
    On policy ,Tulsi Gabbard is a liberal ,progressive populist. Liberals should love her.
    Non Democrats like her because they haven’t been polluted by the MSM media see her authenticity ,knowledge ,gravitas and non divisive commitment to public service

    1. On this I disagree, much more than you typical Republican, Democrat party voters tend to recognize the benefit of supporting the machine. Largely because they are at least somewhat dependent upon that machine for employment or other enrichment.

      No college professor without tenure would risk putting a Tulsi sticker on his/her/xer Prius.

    2. That’s not why they won’t support her. Tulsi was disqualified early by the progressive vetting machine because she used to have more conservative views on a few social issues.

  25. Gabbard, like all other Democrats, would vastly increase the power of the federal government over us. Anti-interventionism isn’t nearly enough. With the exception of Warren, every Democrat has one or two positions that aren’t overtly horrible, whether it’s criminal justice reform, school choice or lowering trade barriers. Warren, on the other hand, is perfectly awful, leaving no area of human action untouched by the federal government.

    Stop looking for a less statist candidate than Trump among the Democrats. At least Trump is so despised by both Democrats and Republicans that his ability to implement vast federal programs to reduce liberty is somewhat limited. Also, he’s an idiot whose sheer randomness will cause him to occasionally do something that isn’t perfectly awful. Tax cuts, some deregulation and non-progressive judges have helped. No other candidate would have put Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.

    1. An anti-interventionist president would save hundreds of billions annually in wasted spending. The other multi-trillion dollar program proposals will never pass anyway, because they cost too much.

  26. I get that the author, and some of the commenters here, are trying to posit some sort of new axis/shift in the alignment of the political landscape by drawing attention to the overlap between Trump and Gabbard regarding foreign intervention.

    And Gabbard’s apparent willingness to buck the DC foreign policy establishment does make her somewhat different than the rest of the Democrat field.

    Personally I think she’s a tad bit more sincere about it than Obama was, but if push ever came to shove I think she’d fall in line just like Obama did.

    1. Seems likely.
      As I see it, her greatest appeal is in that she is the only one of the Dems who even talks as if there is any limit to what government can or should do. Her limits are way beyond what any libertarian wants, but at least she doesn’t seem to believe that government is just a big wish fulfillment machine like the others.

      1. My hope is that any sort of prominence on her part invites more diverging voices to participate in the Democratic party. In the long run the current self reinforcing echo chamber is not doing anyone any favors.

  27. If you click the “tweet” link, it starts as:
    “Is Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset or a Republican mole?…”

    Reason is such a sewer.

  28. As in Tammany days, the Dems are about jobs for the boys, pelf, boodle and graft. Gore’s ecological national socialism isn’t cutting it. Without electrical generating stations there’s no way to charge cellphones, and the only thing the Gee-Oh-Pee doesn’t want to ban is electricity. Tulsi is the ticket back to beer for the boys, pelf, boodle and graft, and all she has to do is shitcan those econazi planks. I hope she stomps their faces–nothing against The Don–but it’s the only way parties learn.

  29. She is about the only democrat politician that I actually believe doesn’t hate america or just see it as a piggybank to be looted.

  30. I live in New Hampshire. It’s clear to me that whatever support Gabbard has is the direct result of Clinton’s hating her, and it won’t last long. Her poll numbers won’t translate into Republican votes for her. Except for a few issues, she’s a standard Democratic statist.

Please to post comments