Was Stein a Russian plant when running for Mass Governor as early as 2002? She's just a lunatic.

I also dislike Gabbard, but I'm not sure she's hiding anything. She owns her extreme positions, and then she shows up on a debate stage and people go "oh look, a pretty lady" and assume she's normal & put her back in the conversation.

This article sums up the situation with Gabbard very well IMO

Tulsi Gabbard Is Being Used by the Russians, and to a Former US Double Agent, the Evidence Is Clear | Opinion

Newsweek? Seriously? And an opinion piece at that.

One of the best movies out there is The Manchurian Candidate (1962) which is much better than the 2004 version.

Some of you need to watch it. It may fuel your fire.

I may have missed something in the article but did not see any evidence in the article specific to Tulsi.

It talked about how Russia would do it etc. but here's what they/Tulsi did X, Y, Z doesn't appear anywhere (e.g. If borne out, may choose etc.).

Better titled "Here is how Russia will do X" vs. "Tulsi is being used by the Russians".

Yes, it's an opinion piece because we're talking about how Gabbard could be used by the Russian propaganda machine. It's not like anyone has access to definitive proof so we look at how and why Russia would do it without Gabbard necessarily knowing she's being used. I didn't post it as definitive proof of anything. Based on the ongoing conversation it was relevant. Maybe I should have opened up with the "I'm not a Trump fan" disclaimer?

I'll ask what about the content of the article would you disagree with?

I agree the title is poor considering the content of the article. Considering the support Gabbard has received from the Russian bot army I think it's clear what they're doing.

I've not read about that but I'll assume there is plenty of evidence the Russian bot army is supporting Tulsi.

So are you saying she is a "plant" ala manchurian candidate or her beliefs/policies so happen to align with what Russia wants therefore Russia is "supporting" her?

Tulsi Gabbard: White nationalists and Russian propaganda machine throw support behind 2020 candidate | The Independent

NYT also ran an article a couple of weeks ago about her Russian bot support


FWIW, I think she's someone willing to rock the boat in the democratic party so she aligns perfectly with Russia's interest in splitting the Dem vote. I don't think she's actively complicit, but she also doesn't seem to mind the help either.

By 2016 she either knew what she was involved in or accidentally ending up meeting with Putin, being supported by Putin bots, and running messages mirrored by Trump and the Kremlin. I think it's much more likely than not that she knew what her role was.

Maybe I'm completely off-base, but as an occasional third-party voter myself I don't believe practically anybody who votes third-party gives a crusty crap who the candidate is, they're looking at the platform. I couldn't tell you one thing about Jill Stein, to this day.

I agree here. Gary Johnson is pro-weed,and thats all I know. And thats who I voted for. 20 years from now, when weed is legal I will say what thesloppy just said.

She's from Lexington, which is next to Concord if you remember your history ;) ... I've heard a few secondhand stories.

Idk how she got a Harvard degree, but she's an anti-Vaxxer who propagates WiFi radiation conspiracy theories. I genuinely think she's just that much of a moonbat she doesn't understand what's going on, and she was running on the Green Party ticket at the state level before Twitter was a thing or Putin had his infrastructure in place.

I agree with thesloppy too, and I say that as one of the rare exceptions. I think the '16 election and how things went the last several weeks of it, the people who broke for Trump and why, proves it as much as anything ever could.

This confuses me, partly because it was followed by four specific proposals. The first three addressed themselves to increasing revenue. None had anything to do with reducing medical costs. The other part is the fact that we foot the bill (rightfully IMO) for a lot of research that benefits the entire world. Where does that fit into this equation?

I agree this is a better way for Hillary to have approached it.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/opini...vic/index.html

Of course it turns out Clinton never said the Russian government at all (instead said Republicans were grooming Tulsi to run third party). The New York Times just completely misquoted her:

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/new...mpression=true

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Went on NYT website just now and did not see a clarification. Definitely a big miss if true and why did it take so long for the correction?

Now granted, Russian news sources seem very pleased with Tulsi and she's got Putin's foreign policy goals to a tee. Unwitting accomplice at best.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So the strange part is if you actually read the transcript of the podcast, she's totally saying the Republicans are trying to groom Tulsi for a third party run. Not sure why the Times would mess that up.

She says later that Stein and Gabbard are "Russian asset"s which some are reading as they are Russian spies, but that seems a bit out there. You can be an asset to someone without intending to do so. Especially after noting that the aforementioned grooming was not by the Russians.

Well that's interesting:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/polit...ses/index.html


According to 538, the CNN/SSRS poll is an A- poll (so a very respectable one).

I still don't see a clarification in NYT (or at least not on the headlines since I don't have a subscription). I would like to read further, do you have a link on this clarification?

Yay go Biden, he's my first choice right now (assuming he'll pick a younger person as VP). Happy to hear but wonder why he's doing so well?

The link I submitted has changed the language. You can see from the screen shots where it used to say "Russian" it is now "Republican". It seems the NYT didn't issue an official correction, but just changed the article.

Just my opinion, I think its more that Trump/Republicans have been focusing on Biden more than the other candidates, and Dem voters feel like they need to "have his back".

Kind of weird how different the 2 polls are.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/war...-national-poll

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/polit...ign/index.html

Ryan was in my upper tier of candidates but he never got any traction with the masses.

Definitely possible that the CNN poll is an outlier. Guess we'll have to see how the rest of them line up.

One of the things the Quinnipiac poll did do was qualify Klobuchar for the November debate (she got her last needed 3% in it) making it 9 for those debates.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Tulsi Gabbard, the candidate for people that hate Democrats!

Yes, notably, her supporters generally seem to not like other Democrats very much. https://t.co/SLeRHBGVSD pic.twitter.com/iczxAQmS6B

— John Ray (@johnlray) October 25, 2019

The Dems are a more fractured coalition party than the GOP, so they are always going to be more vulnerable to third-party challengers.

The GOP has figured this out and (smartly) encourages such things (there was a decent amount of GOP money behind Jill Stein, for example).

The Dems need to figure out how to deal with this issue, because it is not going away. Obama was such a unifying candidate that he gave the party a temporary reprieve. But I think that the typical presidential race is going to have a Nader or a Gabbard in it more often than not.

What's the saying? Republican voters fall in line. Democrat voters have to fall in love.

I think the problem is that there is legitimate debate on the democratic side. You can have a more moderate Clinton/Biden get support, as well as a more liberal Sanders/Warren in a primary. On the republican side, you pretty much have to be a social and fiscal conservative to have a chance. IMO, it's a credit to the democratic party that you have such a wide scope of beliefs - but it's also why the losing side will be more apt to support a 3rd part person. If Biden gets the nomination, a lot of Sanders/Warren supports may not vote or go 3rd party. If Warren gets it, you could have some Biden people look more at a 3rd party as well.

I wish republicans would consider more socially moderate candidates as a party, but the money just doesn't seem to be there. I also think the Rush Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage/Ingraham crew instills so much fear in the republican base that they would never think to vote 3rd party because of the risk of a democrat being president (worst thing ever in their mind :D). The whole dynamic of how each party looks at this is very interesting to me.

The funny thing is, if you look at the 'Political Spectrum', Biden and Hillary, would be moderate conservative candidates. It's just the conservatives and GOP have gone so far to the right of that spectrum, any policy or candidate to the left of them will be too liberal in their eyes.

I think that's pretty simplistic, tbh. Hillary Clinton ran a far more left wing platform than Obama ever did. And Biden is for a number of things that no moderate conservative would ever vote for - and was a reliable moderate-left voter as a Senator.

This all screams for breaking the two party system - which I know will never happen. But wouldn't it be great if our choices weren't democrat or republican, but someone in the bernie/warren lane, someone like biden, actual fiscal conservatives which seem to not really exist in the current environment, some tea party person like Cruz, and ... whatever the heck trump is. Making a meaningful choice between them all would feel so much better than the shitshow we have now.

On the dem side I know that I personally have moved very far left over the last few years and feel extremely disconnected from those who are excited/enthusiastic for someone like Biden, we just don't belong in the same party (though of course I will show up for Biden if he does win), and we've seen a number of folks here express a similar disconnect from someone like Warren, some are thinking about electibility, while others are basically the opposite of me, more moderate dems who have serious concerns of their own about the policies of the further left candidates.

That we have to cram all this into two people in the end plus a spoiler or two who will never have a chance in the current system feels terrible

I agree with you in principal, but people are throwing a shit fit about the current president only getting 46.1% of the vote. I can't imagine things will be better if the winner is at 30%.

This would only really ever happen if there was Proportional Representation (or perhaps Single Transferrable Vote could help). A First Past The Post / Presidential system rewards varied interests joining together to create big coalitions.

Imagine if either major US party were to break up into moderate and progressive/conservative factions? They'd be killed by the other party that stayed together.

Yep, I agree. People in power would be risking their own power to implement this so it'll never happen. Its a nice thought though.

Looks like she is losing momentum.

Kamala Harris to slash staff, restructure campaign as she hemorrhages cash - POLITICO

Wonder where her voters will go.

Then there were 3

I mean there have either been 3 for months or more than 3 all along... either way Harris dropping doesn't change the calculus much. She had a quick bump that disappeared almost as quickly as it happened.

Probably a fairly even distribution among Biden, Warren, and Mayor Pete.

A good start for Warren in explaining her Medicare for All. There'll be a lot of pundits picking it apart etc. but good overall to generate & force the discussion. I would like to see a comparison between Sander's and Biden's alternatives.

My guess is this is a losing proposition for her as voters will be scared by the expansiveness of what she is proposing so she will be on the defensive. But kudos to her for laying it out there.

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/endin...s-bf8286b13086

Biden's support is basically entirely older voters. Among people over 65, he is still the frontrunner. He is supported by only 2 percent of voters under 45.

Interesting, but makes sense to me. I'm definitely under 65 and nothing about Biden really inspires me other than he's not trump and he's not a republican.

And now Beto O'Rourke is out.

Should help Buttigieg and Harris, I think.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/01/polit...out/index.html

I like her speechwriter. Think this will resonate with the Democratic base (e.g. won't against Trump as he can claim to do the same).

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/02/polit...ays/index.html

"Steven Basart, 28, is getting his Ph.D in computer science and describes himself as a Democrat. Yet he would consider voting for Mr. Trump, depending on the Democratic nominee."

What in the holy fuck?

And here's the rest of this idiots statement:
If it were Ms. Warren, he’d vote Republican, he said: “I think she’s going too far to the left, which would take our country in a bad direction.”

Mr. Basart is not a fan of Mr. Trump’s personality, but he says it’s overshadowing some of his accomplishments.

“There are plenty of things not to like about Trump, because he says things that are not nice and potentially racist,” said Mr. Basart, who is Latino. “I care somewhat about those things, but I mostly just care about policies, because at the end of the day, that’s what affects people.”

Mr. Basart, I have one question for you...what policies of trump's? He literally has none other than to enrich himself using the office of the president of the united states.

Dude, Ive been telling you guys this stuff for 2 years now. There is no rhyme or reason. You guys have been putting me down because I have been saying that people will vote for Trump.

Get used to the new reality.