Democrats 2020

[poster]

Not much chance that Tulsi is going to be a factor...
She IS unique. The left doesn't like her hawkishness,

What? She against the wars.

I don't necessarily have much of a problem with her changing her position on gay rights. Lots of us have done that in the last few decades. I do find her past behavior with regards to the Palestinian issue disturbing. She appears to shift her views often enough for it to be a concern.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I don't know why people are painting her as a hawk, but I do know her position on the wars is a very needed discussion.

In fact, just her presence in the primaries, even if she loses, will force a conversation the Democrats don't actually want to have. It may even prevent the Democrats from making the same mistake yet again.

 

[Elixir]

I don't know why people are painting her as a hawk, but I do know her position on the wars is a very needed discussion.

Yeah - I should have spent a moment and come up with a better word.

In fact, just her presence in the primaries, even if she loses, will force a conversation the Democrats don't actually want to have. It may even prevent the Democrats from making the same mistake yet again.

That's my hope.

 

[Derec]

What? She against the wars.

And a bit too cozy with dictators like Assad, who is actually a vassal of the weird beards in Tehran.

I do find her past behavior with regards to the Palestinian issue disturbing.

I find her recent statements criticizing Israel defending itself from violent attacks from Gaza rather disturbing.
It's like she is moving her position to be more palatable to the Democratic Left.


What I find disturbing about her is her being against the Dakota Access Pipeline, to the extent that she attended the protests there.
Gabbard Faced Tough Questions In Dakota About Hawaiian Issues

The Hawaii congresswoman arrived Saturday as part of a contingent of military veterans who vowed to act as human shields for protesters fighting the Dakota Access Pipeline because it threatened the reservation’s water supply [it does not, by the way. Editor's note] Her timing was immaculate because on Sunday the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced it would halt the project while alternative routes are considered.

Even more disturbing is her anti-science, pro-superstition stance on the Thirty Meter Telescope. She even calls building telescopes "desecration".

“I am personally opposed to building yet another telescope on Mauna Kea, but the question of whether we support or oppose TMT is too simplistic,” Gabbard said in the statement. “It’s a much bigger and more complex question — what lessons must be learned from the past in Mauna Kea’s desecration, and what is the pono path forward?”

TMT is a very important project that is supported by a significant majority of people in Hawaii. Yet, Gabbard is siding with the loud minority of radicals who are opposing the project on religious grounds.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Anyone who doesn't agree with throwing troops all over the world willy-nilly without forethought or afterthought is always accused of being soft and cozy with dictators.

 

[poster]

And a bit too cozy with dictators like Assad, who is actually a vassal of the weird beards in Tehran.


I find her recent statements criticizing Israel defending itself from violent attacks from Gaza rather disturbing.
It's like she is moving her position to be more palatable to the Democratic Left.


What I find disturbing about her is her being against the Dakota Access Pipeline, to the extent that she attended the protests there.
Gabbard Faced Tough Questions In Dakota About Hawaiian Issues

The Hawaii congresswoman arrived Saturday as part of a contingent of military veterans who vowed to act as human shields for protesters fighting the Dakota Access Pipeline because it threatened the reservation’s water supply [it does not, by the way. Editor's note] Her timing was immaculate because on Sunday the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced it would halt the project while alternative routes are considered.

Even more disturbing is her anti-science, pro-superstition stance on the Thirty Meter Telescope. She even calls building telescopes "desecration".

“I am personally opposed to building yet another telescope on Mauna Kea, but the question of whether we support or oppose TMT is too simplistic,” Gabbard said in the statement. “It’s a much bigger and more complex question — what lessons must be learned from the past in Mauna Kea’s desecration, and what is the pono path forward?”

TMT is a very important project that is supported by a significant majority of people in Hawaii. Yet, Gabbard is siding with the loud minority of radicals who are opposing the project on religious grounds.

Not that this should or does matter to you, Derec, but you are rapidly losing credibility with me. I don't know if the way you twist shit is intentional or just how your brain works, but it doesn't work in your favor.

 

[Derec]

Not that this should or does matter to you, Derec, but you are rapidly losing credibility with me. I don't know if the way you twist shit is intentional or just how your brain works, but it doesn't work in your favor.

What exactly do you have a problem with, poster? You quoted my entire post, and I made a number of different points. So do be more specific.

 

[poster]

Not that this should or does matter to you, Derec, but you are rapidly losing credibility with me. I don't know if the way you twist shit is intentional or just how your brain works, but it doesn't work in your favor.

What exactly do you have a problem with, poster? You quoted my entire post, and I made a number of different points. So to be more specific.

I'm not going to bother wasting my time.

 

[Elixir]

Anyone who doesn't agree with throwing troops all over the world willy-nilly without forethought or afterthought is always accused of being soft and cozy with dictators.

Hopefully this whole "Trump-Russia Thing" will make us smarter.
Russia has almost completed the dismantling of the European Union, weakened NATO and destroyed the international standing and credibility of the United States, undermined its government and sowed public doubt about its legal and intelligence institutions without deploying a single troop.

If they can do that to us, we should be able to handle a few shithole countries like Syria, Yemen and Iran in a similar manner, right?

 

[untermensche]

Her opposition to gay marriage is the position of many Democrats not very long ago and something apparently she has changed.

Hmm, I heard she changed her position on gay marriage in 2010, three years before Hillary.

ETA: Sorry, Unter. Misread that as not changed.

It is still a salient point.

 

[Derec]

I'm not going to bother wasting my time.

Uh-huh.

 

[lpetrich]

I find her recent statements criticizing Israel defending itself from violent attacks from Gaza rather disturbing.
It's like she is moving her position to be more palatable to the Democratic Left.

Except that it's a lot more than defense.

What I find disturbing about her is her being against the Dakota Access Pipeline, to the extent that she attended the protests there.
Gabbard Faced Tough Questions In Dakota About Hawaiian Issues

Derec, would you defend that pipeline if it was to go through a neighborhood of upper-middle-class Republicans? Or if it was to go through the offices of some pro-fossil-fuel lobbyists?

The Hawaii congresswoman arrived Saturday as part of a contingent of military veterans who vowed to act as human shields for protesters fighting the Dakota Access Pipeline because it threatened the reservation’s water supply [it does not, by the way. Editor's note] Her timing was immaculate because on Sunday the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced it would halt the project while alternative routes are considered.

Even more disturbing is her anti-science, pro-superstition stance on the Thirty Meter Telescope. She even calls building telescopes "desecration".

“I am personally opposed to building yet another telescope on Mauna Kea, but the question of whether we support or oppose TMT is too simplistic,” Gabbard said in the statement. “It’s a much bigger and more complex question — what lessons must be learned from the past in Mauna Kea’s desecration, and what is the pono path forward?”

TMT is a very important project that is supported by a significant majority of people in Hawaii. Yet, Gabbard is siding with the loud minority of radicals who are opposing the project on religious grounds.

So you think that there is a silent majority that is on your side? I wouldn't bet on that.

I think that their opposition is childish, but I don't think that its opponents are as worthy of a hate-on as (say) creationists. The top of Mauna Kea is a very good place to build telescopes, and a telescope as large as the Thirty Meter Telescope will be very good for studying planets of other stars. Wouldn't they want any of the glory of research into exoplanets? I'm sure that they might be able to find some theological dispensation that might allow this.

TMT International Observatory, Embattled Thirty Meter Telescope scores big win in Hawaii’s highest court,  Thirty Meter Telescope

 

[Harry Bosch]

Not much chance that Tulsi is going to be a factor...
She IS unique. The left doesn't like her hawkishness,

What? She against the wars.

I don't necessarily have much of a problem with her changing her position on gay rights. Lots of us have done that in the last few decades. I do find her past behavior with regards to the Palestinian issue disturbing. She appears to shift her views often enough for it to be a concern.

I've read that she hates Israel. This is one of her problems, she blabs so much on everything that her stances on everything is confusing. But I agree that changing her mind on gay rights is a strength. I wouldn't vote for someone who isn't willing to change over time.

 

[PyramidHead]

Tulsi Gabbard is the Michele Bachman of the Democratic party, I have no clue why anybody likes her unless they hate gays and Palestinians

I can see why. Look at the positions she's taken:
She said the 2016 primaries didn't have enough debate
She criticized Obama for intervening in Syria

Only a complete idiot would take those positions.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71RsIycMD8U[/youtube]

She's not all bad, but she routinely rubs shoulders with war-mongers and nationalists. Trump and Bannon love her to death. She doesn't oppose American imperialism on the grounds that it is harmful to the places they invade, she tends to oppose it solely because it hurts American soldiers. She's very much in favor of Obama's drone strike program and calls herself a hawk when it comes to fighting terrorism (which she interprets through the simplistic lens of Islamic extremism). This extends to her glowing praise by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a Zionist who will excuse any behavior by any person with a gun, a grenade, or a dropship if they are allied with Israel. She may wear a "progressive" face, but she is a neoconservative where it counts, and you of all people should be very suspicious of her on those grounds.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So she's not as anti-war as I thought. Okay, I can admit error.

 

[PyramidHead]

For those who can stomach the tankies at Jacobin (which I usually can't, but this is a good article):

Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend

But Gabbard’s almost singular focus on the damage these wars inflict domestically, and her comparative lack of focus on the carnage they wreak in the countries under attack, is troubling. It is nationalism in antiwar garb, reinforcing instead of undercutting the toxic rhetoric that treats foreigners as less deserving of dignity than Americans. (Gabbard’s brand of anti-interventionism has even received praise from former KKK grand wizard David Duke, who called for her to be named secretary of state.)

[...]

And it still produces its fair share of bloodshed. Like campaign-era Trump, Gabbard may be against miring the United States in blunderous, short-sighted conflicts that backfire, but she’s more than willing to use America’s military might to go after suspected terrorists around the world (and inevitably kill and maim civilians in the process). In the same Truthout interview, responding to a question about drones, Gabbard said that “there is a place for the use of this technology, as well as smaller, quick-strike special force teams versus tens, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying space within a country.”

It’s a point she’s repeated again and again. Responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, Gabbard said that “the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones — the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.” She told Fox in 2014 that she would direct “the great military that we have” to conduct “unconventional strategic precise operations to take out these terrorists wherever they are.” The same year, she told Civil Beat that military strategy must “put the safety of Americans above all else” and “utilize our highly skilled special operations forces, work with and support trusted foreign partners to seek and destroy this threat.”

“In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk,” she told the Hawaii Tribune-Herald last year. “When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”

In other words, Gabbard would continue the Obama administration’s foreign policy, which itself was a continuation (and in some ways ramping up) of George W. Bush’s foreign policy. She would keep up the drone bombing of seven Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa — perhaps even expand it — while also relying more on special operations forces, which are already raiding, assassinating, and gathering intelligence in 70 percent of the world’s countries.

[...]

Not surprisingly, Gabbard has received plaudits from conservatives for her foreign policy stances. The National Review published a glowing profile of the congresswoman in April 2015, complete with a quote from American Enterprise Institute (AEI) president Arthur Brooks saying that he “like her thinking a lot.”

 

[Derec]

Except that it's a lot more than defense.

Is it? Tulsi doesn't want Israel to use live fire and describes what is going on as "peaceful protest" when that description could not be further from the truth.
- Since March, there have been violent riots at Gaza border, with biggest clashes occurring every Friday, after people have been fired up from listening to sermons in jihadist mosques.
- the rioters engage in tire burning, and hurling of mostly rocks but also improvised grenades via slings (rocks from slings can be fatal btw. and have been used as weapons in antiquity - the story of David and Goliath, while not historical, has nevertheless a certain degree of verisimilitude)
- there are frequent incursions into Israel territory from Gaza. Several such incursions occurred today!
- significant fraction of those killed have been admitted by Hamas to be their members. Many others are members of other terror groups like PIJ, Al Aqsa, PFLP ...
- A group calling itself "Sons of Zahwari" have been sending kites and balloons with incendiary or explosive devices into Israeli territory causing significant economic and ecological damage to the communities of the Gaza envelope.

So Tulsi Gabbard is very much wrong on this issue!

Derec, would you defend that pipeline if it was to go through a neighborhood of upper-middle-class Republicans? Or if it was to go through the offices of some pro-fossil-fuel lobbyists?

We have discussed the Dakota Access Pipeline extensively in 2016 and 2017. The claims of the anti crowd have been revealed as spurious. That canard of running a pipeline through neighborhoods and office buildings is getting old by the way. \
The fact is that it is both cheaper and safer to not run a pipeline through built-up areas as much as possible. In the area of the protests, the land is just empty grasslands. The pipeline does not run through the reservation, and the North Dakota part of the reservation, closest to the pipeline, is also very sparsely populated.

That said, there is not only a huge pipeline, but an access point/storage depot about 2-3 miles away from my home. It is the product pipeline that serves the Eastern seaboard called Colonial pipeline.

So you think that there is a silent majority that is on your side? I wouldn't bet on that.

I do. Three-fourths of Hawaiians support TMT, according to a recent poll.
Support grows for Thirty Meter Telescope project, according to poll
The antis (including Tulsi Gabbard and Kahl Drogo actor) are a radical fringe.

I think that their opposition is childish, but I don't think that its opponents are as worthy of a hate-on as (say) creationists.

At least you admit they are childish. But they are also basically non-Abrahamic creationists.

The top of Mauna Kea is a very good place to build telescopes, and a telescope as large as the Thirty Meter Telescope will be very good for studying planets of other stars. Wouldn't they want any of the glory of research into exoplanets? I'm sure that they might be able to find some theological dispensation that might allow this.

It's like with Christians. Most are fine with a 4.5 billion year old Earth, but there is a radical fringe of YECers. What's the difference?

 

[lpetrich]

How 17 Long-Shot Presidential Contenders Could Build A Winning Coalition | FiveThirtyEight
More candidates, all rated by their appeal to Millennials, The Left, Party Loyalists, Hispanic/Asian, Black:

• Jay Inslee: 3.5, 3.5, 3, 2, 2
• Steve Bullock: 3, 2.5, 3, 2, 2
• John Hickenlooper: 3.5, 2, 3.5, 2.5, 2
• Mitch Landrieu: 2, 1.5, 3, 2, 3.5
• Michael Bloomberg: 2.5, 1, 3, 2.5, 2.5
• Pete Buttigieg: 3.5, 2.5, 2.5, 2, 2
• Bill de Blasio: 2.5, 4.5, 2, 3.5, 3.5
• Eric Garcetti: 3, 2.5, 3, 4, 2.5
• Andrew Gillum: 3, 4.5, 1.5, 2.5, 5
• Stacey Abrams: 4, 4.5, 2, 2.5, 5
• Terry McAuliffe: 2, 1, 3.5, 3, 3.5
• Andrew Cuomo: 2, 1.5, 4, 3.5, 3.5
• Howard Schultz: 2, 1.5, 2.5, 2, 2
• Oprah Winfrey: 4, 2.5, 2.5, 3, 5
• Tulsi Gabbard: 3, 3.5, 1, 3.5, 2.5
• Richard Ojeda: 2.5, 4, 2.5, 2, 2
• John Delaney: 2, 2, 2.5, 2, 2.5

• The Great Western Hope: Jay Inslee, Steve Bullock, John Hickenlooper
• The Mayors Who Might Run: Mitch Landrieu, Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Bill de Blasio, Eric Garcetti
• The Media-Savvy Nonwhite Progressives: Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams
• The Alpha Male, Moderate Governors: Terry McAuliffe, Andrew Cuomo
• The Super-Duper Rich Entrepreneurs: Howard Schultz, Oprah Winfrey
• The Oddballs: Tulsi Gabbard, Richard Ojeda, John Delaney

The previous installments:
The 5 Corners Of The 2020 Democratic Primary | FiveThirtyEight
Why Harris And O’Rourke May Have More Upside Than Sanders And Biden | FiveThirtyEight
Discussing in detail the prospects of the first installment's candidates.

 

[lpetrich]

I did a principal component analysis, and the principal components' lengths were {1.37581, 1.10899, 0.783725, 0.725771, 0.580629}. The top one was The Left and Party Loyalists in opposite directions, with millennials and blacks somewhat siding with The Left, and with Hispanics neutral. The second one was Hispanics somewhat siding with blacks, and with millennials, The Left, and Party Loyalists being approximately neutral.

Kirsten Gillibrand was still closest to the center, while Bernie Sanders was still farthest.

Bernie Sanders, Stacey Abrams, and Andre Gillum had the most appeal to The Left, though BS had much less appeal to black voters than SA or AG.

On the party-loyalist side was Amy Klobuchar, Terry McAuliffe, and Andrew Cuomo, though AK had less appeal to black voters than TMA or AC.

On the black-voter side was Kamala Harris, with Oprah Winfrey and Cory Booker not far behind. They were in the middle between The Left and Party Loyalists, though OW is more on The Left and CB more on the Party Loyalists side.

The best coalition-builders were Stacey Abrams, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Andrew Gillum, Oprah Winfrey, and Cory Booker.


So at this point, I'd say that Kamala Harris has the best chance for being nominated, with Cory Booker not far behind.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I did a principal component analysis, and the principal components' lengths were {1.37581, 1.10899, 0.783725, 0.725771, 0.580629}. The top one was The Left and Party Loyalists in opposite directions, with millennials and blacks somewhat siding with The Left, and with Hispanics neutral. The second one was Hispanics somewhat siding with blacks, and with millennials, The Left, and Party Loyalists being approximately neutral.

Kirsten Gillibrand was still closest to the center, while Bernie Sanders was still farthest.

Bernie Sanders, Stacey Abrams, and Andre Gillum had the most appeal to The Left, though BS had much less appeal to black voters than SA or AG.

On the party-loyalist side was Amy Klobuchar, Terry McAuliffe, and Andrew Cuomo, though AK had less appeal to black voters than TMA or AC.

On the black-voter side was Kamala Harris, with Oprah Winfrey and Cory Booker not far behind. They were in the middle between The Left and Party Loyalists, though OW is more on The Left and CB more on the Party Loyalists side.

The best coalition-builders were Stacey Abrams, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Andrew Gillum, Oprah Winfrey, and Cory Booker.


So at this point, I'd say that Kamala Harris has the best chance for being nominated, with Cory Booker not far behind.

I've listened to two Booker speeches: they put me to sleep. He's just not dynamic. I'm a moderate, so I like Gillibrand. But I recognize that the party is moving left, Beto and Harris are the best bets right now. What makes you think that Sanders will run? He seems too old to me. But we'll see...