The Tulsi Campaign Link Has Been Taken Down

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | Announcements | The Tulsi Campaign Link Has Been Taken Down

Viewing 25 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #240129
      So Far From Heaven
      Keymaster
      • Total Posts: 8,814

      This action was taken after Ms Gabbard placed ‘not voting’ on the two articles of impeachment.

      If you feel that it should remain after this action, please respond to this topic stating why you thin she should be given that status.

       

    • #240137
      elias39
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,325

      Shame.

      She stands on principles. Not a rubber-stamp. I’m disturbed that JPR would take this position.

      • #240431
        L0oniX
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 481

        Principles IMO is not going to defeat the repukes or Trump. Principles didn’t stop repuke obstruction under Obama …who threw progressives. liberals and lefties under the bus the day after he was elected. IMO repukes should be attacked …all the time …called out on every bullshit move they make …every bullshit thing they say …hang Trump around their necks for their next campaigns.

        If the American people gave a flying fuck about principles they wouldn’t be supporting Trump but rather be fighting to make sure he doesn’t get re-elected. In this fucked up country immoral but legal greed takes a priority over everything.

         

        Fuck the DNC and its heard of goats

        • #240518
          So Far From Heaven
          Keymaster
          • Total Posts: 8,814

          The damage of this vote is incalculable. The issue was either yes or no. No ambiguities. Her vote as ‘not voting’ is going to be used as a bomb against her and the progressive label by the enemy, not Trump and the repugnicans, but by the DNC third way asshats against anyone progressive. This may cripple the movement in a big hurry. This is going to be a talking point the third way brings up all the time soon. They gonna use guilt by association. She should have voted no and then tried to explain it away so it wouldn’t hurt the rest of us because it would be totally her decision.

          Forget the republican shitheads. It hurt the crap out of us getting the nomination.

          You think the lockstep DNC voting block isn’t going to wash some of this over Bernie? You won’t have long to see the results.

    • #240141
      MistaP
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,015

      no, if you feel that it should be taken down after this action, please respond to this topic stating why you think she should be given that demerit

      https://www.tulsi2020.com/

      had to send $19 myself, she and Sanders will get more after New Year’s

    • #240143
      Jan Boehmerman
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 4,313

      BECAUSE SHE HAD THE GUTS TO DO THE RIGHT THING!

       

    • #240144
      Joe Shlabotnik
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,057

      That’s not cool. She took a rare (in DC), and bold, principled stance. She showed courage, and independence. Kind of like a certain Senator I know who may have her in his cabinet one day.

      ~ All good things are Wild and Free ~

    • #240145
      NV Wino
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 7,652

      Tulsi has stated all along she was against impeachment. She stood by her convictions. If Bernie were not available, I would still vote for her.

      “As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore.” Barbara Lee
      “Politicians and pro athletes: The only people who still get paid when they lose.” William Rivers Pitt

      • #240522
        So Far From Heaven
        Keymaster
        • Total Posts: 8,814

        No she didn’t.

        If she was against impeachment she should have voted no. Twice, once for each Article of Impeachment. It’s literally that simple. Then given an explanation of why. And I would have taken her reasons into consideration.

        Not-voting is not taking a stand by definition.

    • #240150
      Black LeBaron
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 82

      Impeachment, like most everything else the ruling class feeds us, is meant to divide.  The British encouraged Hindu-Muslim animosity when they ruled India; the billionaires encourage left-right animosity as they rule us.

      Tulsi Gabbard sees through it.

      Great men are almost always bad men.
      --Lord Acton

    • #240153
      Babel 17
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,088

      Lives in the Middle East matter more than an irrelevant vote to pass a resolution guaranteed to pass in the House, and doomed to get a not guilty vote in the Senate. The impeachment was closely tied to Russia!, and was bullshyte. The Trump leaning voters in the swing states Bernie will have to win over to not repeat Clinton’s folly are, imo, likely unamused at seeing their votes so casually discounted.

      Bernie will now have to defend Russia!, and both Joe and Hunter Biden, as well as Hillary Clinton, once he’s the nominee. Joe is a dead candidate walking but the party will get behind his zombie ass if they can.

      And Bernie can thank the vast majority of Democrats in the House for the albatross that will be around his neck. The polling data of the last week is beyond ominous in regards impeachment.

      • #240533
        So Far From Heaven
        Keymaster
        • Total Posts: 8,814

        He will regardless of this vote.

        That’s how every political war is waged. Even back in the good old days.

        That is no reason to not make a commitment to yes or no on a vote this critical. These actions are not necessarily going to get him thrown out of office.

        However. Let this slide because you feel that the action is fruitless and you invite disaster going forward. In essence it states that if a vote this important is not going to win the battle, then you might as well not vote at all. So the implication is that unless you gonna win the day, you don’t feel the need to make a statement and vote. I fear the worst of this. How are the rank and file DNC going to use this to crush the progressive movement. You have to consider those implications when you decide not to vote on something this critical.

    • #240159
      leftcoast mountains
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,853

      I say put the link back up. Why? Because it really doesn’t matter. The whole impeachment process was BS. It’s just a media dog and pony show. It has no relevance to our lives. The damn Dems are giving Trump everything he wants. It’s a joke. They’re a joke.

      vote for nobody

      • #240538
        So Far From Heaven
        Keymaster
        • Total Posts: 8,814

        I wrote an explanation of why this was done in another  topic, and it isn’t that simple.

        The decision to take it down from the front page the first time is still just as valid today, if not more so, than it was then.

        there is an old adage: divide and rule.

        With percentage delegate allocation division means defeat. That is the ace in the sleeves of the thirdway DNC’s ‘spread the vote out’ ploy being used at this time.

    • #240160
      HassleCat
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 6,869

      I am not a Tulsi Gabbard fan, but this action seems somewhat arbitrary. How was it determined that the progressive vote was for impeachment?

      • #240163
        MistaP
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 3,015

        gratuitous, that’s the word: the shortest, most efficient way the site’s bosses could’ve gone out of their way to make an active move that’d piss off the largest possible share of the membership, to push those on the fence away from them

    • #240168
      jbnw
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,785

      Her link should go back up.  As I have stated before, impeachment for requesting investigation of the questionable actions of the vice-president of the United States who withheld a billion dollars in aid until changes were made to a foreign government do not reach the scope of high crimes and misdemeanors.  As a friend of mine asked today, what is this action hiding?  For me, it’s appears to be the opportunity to put the discussions that should be happening in the election cycle on the back burner for months, almost until the first votes for the primary are cast.

      I think that the impeachment process, without any bipartisan support, just divides the county.  I have been hearing “Impeach Trump!” for a very long time without any stated basis – and these articles of impeachment don’t reach the required standard of misconduct.  As Zelensky has said he didn’t feel pressured, there’s no basis.

      Bring her link back.  I would have been happy if she had voted “no” and spared us further division from a Senate trial.  I fear that this has given us four more years of Trump as it’s united the Republican party behind Trump, and lost the opportunity for the best candidates to become more visible to the American people.

      I don’t want four more years of Trump – I want a candidate I can vote FOR and I suspect I will not have that opportunity with a major party this time once again.

    • #240197
      Average Gazoo
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 534

      She is right — impeachment should not be a partyline vote.  And she took on the leadership of the Dem party again as we all should. The people that lost 1,000+ seats and lost to Trump were running this impeachment. Terrible strategy.

      And a Senate impeachment trial takes Bernie off the campaign trail at a key time.

       

      Be the Change

    • #240200
      Mr. Mickeys Mom
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 5,972

      I respect Tulsi’s vote, which is true with what she’s said all along. If the Democratic leadership was serious about impeachment, there would have been much better reasons to do so. I saw this decision as ludicrous, but let me tell you a little bit about what Ralph Nader said to Amy Goodman the other day…

      RALPH NADER: Far too narrow and perilous. If Nancy Pelosi wants to remove Donald Trump, she went on a very narrow base. She is clearly not supportive of impeachment generally. She took it off the table when it was proposed to her in 2007, the impeachment of the war criminals George Bush and Dick Cheney. And she’s come forward with a very narrow hand, a very narrow hand for the most impeachable president of all time, to go forward on the Ukraine, important as that is because it affects interference in the upcoming election by Trump, soliciting foreign aid into interference — not just the Ukraine effort, he’s actually said China, Russia, help him.

      But just think of all the other impeachable offenses, some of them, per se, that are “kitchen table” offenses. He has destroyed, shredded, disabled the lifesaving injury prevention and disease reduction programs of the federal government — Environment Protection Agency, the OSHA protecting worker safety, the Product Safety Commission. He’s basically closed down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, protection from Wall Street and other financial crimes against ordinary people, consumers, investors, small savers. That is a critical impeachable offense, according to the Framers of our Constitution, the defiant refusal to faithfully execute the laws. She didn’t go with that. The enrichment of his family, with foreign governments using his hotels — the so-called Emoluments Clause, slam dunk, per se, she didn’t go with that. The seizure of the power of the purse, the appropriations power of the Congress, exclusively reserved to the Congress by the Constitution, she didn’t go with that. He took $3.7 billion from the Defense Department to build the wall. That’s a clear impeachable offense.

      It even gets worse, Amy. A month ago or so, Speaker Pelosi came to a press conference and said decisively that he committed bribery, said “well documented.” And she dropped the bribery impeachable clause. The whole obstruction of Congress is restricted largely to the Ukraine investigation, when he has the broadest contempt of Congress of any president, including, by the way, armed force in nine countries overseas without any congressional declaration of war. And there’s more, as well…. (more)

      Hell, no... I'm not giving up...

      • #240551
        So Far From Heaven
        Keymaster
        • Total Posts: 8,814

        Then she should have voted no.

        If her position is that something is wrong with the Impeachment process, then the ONLY vote she should have made is ‘nay’. If I felt that something was wrong with the entire mess, my vote would have been ‘nay’. If my principles told me that it was wrong to Impeach, I would have voted ‘nay’.

        That is taking a stance on principles.

    • #240201
      Coyote
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 96

      Please put the link back up.

      If you don’t want to vote for her based on her not playing these reindeer games, fine.

      But the JPR I signed up for has room for people to have disagreements and encouraged people to make informed choices.

    • #240204
      ThouArtThat
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,544

      @sffh

      Hi sffh,

      Message from Tulsi’s campaign below.

      TAT
      __

      Tulsi Gabbard Releases Statement on Impeachment of President Trump

      Washington, DC — Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D, Hawaii) today released the following statement today on her vote regarding the impeachment of President Trump:

      Throughout my life, whether through serving in the military or in Congress, I’ve always worked to do what is in the best interests of our country. Not what’s best for me politically or what’s best for my political party. I have always put our country first. One may not always agree with my decision, but everyone should know that I will always do what I believe to be right for the country that I love.

      After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

      I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.

      I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country. When I cast my vote in support of the impeachment inquiry nearly three months ago, I said that in order to maintain the integrity of this solemn undertaking, it must not be a partisan endeavor. Tragically, that’s what it has been.

      On the one side — The president’s defenders insist that he has done nothing wrong. They agree with the absurd proclamation that his conduct was “perfect.” They have abdicated their responsibility to exercise legitimate oversight, and instead blindly do the bidding of their party’s leader.

      On the other side — The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

      The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

      Donald Trump has violated public trust. Congress must be unequivocal in denouncing the president’s misconduct and stand up for the American people and our democracy. To this end, I have introduced a censure resolution that will send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from office to the voters to decide.

      I am confident that the American people will decide to deliver a resounding rebuke of President Trump’s innumerable improprieties and abuses. And they will express that judgment at the ballot box. That is the way real and lasting change has always occurred in this great country: through the forcefully expressed will of the people.

      A house divided cannot stand. And today we are divided. Fragmentation and polarity are ripping our country apart.  This breaks my heart, and breaks the hearts of all patriotic Americans, whether we are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.

      So today, I come before you to make a stand for the center, to appeal to all of you to bridge our differences and stand up for the American people.

      My vote today is a vote for much needed reconciliation and hope that together we can heal our country. Let’s work side-by-side, seeking common ground, to usher in a bright future for the American people and our nation.

      “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
      - John F. Kennedy

      "The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
      - George Orwell

      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
      - Jiddu Krishnamurti

      "Sometimes a pessimist is only an optimist with extra information."
      - Idries Shah

      "A riot is the language of the unheard."
      - Martin Luther King

    • #240297
      3fingerbrown
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,602

      This is what I would expect at that other place, and to even think this is a good idea here is a major disappointment to me with JPR. This act needs to be rescinded ASAP. This kind of censorship is exactly how SV started going downhill.

      All governments lie to their citizen's, but only Americans believe theirs.

    • #240329
      tk2kewl
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,624

      Tulsi is right. Impeachment of Trump could have been a righteous stand for the rule of law. Instead it’s a show. A show to play to 2 dumded down audiences, while we all continue to suffer from Congressional action and inaction on every issue. A hollow partisan joke on America.

    • #240369
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 21,158

      I could understand taking Tulsi’s campaign link down after she refused to support Medicare-for-All and said she supported the War on Terror(though not regime change wars-she’s nuanced, this one), but that was not done at the time, which I also understand. A lot of people on JPR like and/or support her.

      I don’t agree with Tulsi on this abstention; I think she’s grandstanding, trying to be all things to all people, and succeeding in pissing off all but her most ardent supporters. She’s also acting like Barack Obama did in the Illinois and US Senates, who voted Present a lot. I don’t like that. It’s a cop-out.

      Impeachment’s like a grand jury; it’s the House’s job to determine if there is probable cause to try the President for high crimes and misdemeanors, and  there is plenty of direct evidence Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress. I think Tulsi got it flat wrong on the merits.

      All that said, I think her link should remain up for two reasons. First, IMO this whole impeachment process has been so botched by the worst Speaker of the House in living memory, and her corrupt cohorts, to the point that it has become nothing more than a worthless distraction; much sound and fury, accomplishing nothing except to keep Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail at a crucial time. This means that, to me, even though I don’t agree with Tulsi’s vote, it doesn’t rise to the level of removing her link from the JPR home page.

      Second, I think it unnecessarily alienates or angers a lot of JPR members. I think you should put the link back up. It’s not going to matter, anyway. Tulsi won’t get a single delegate to the convention, and I don’t see what harm it does to the site to leave it up.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

      • #240427
        L0oniX
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 481

        It would be cool to know who Bernie would pick as a running mate. IMO efforts might be better spent on who ever that might be.

        Fuck the DNC and its heard of goats

        • #240434
          Ohio Barbarian
          Moderator
          • Total Posts: 21,158

          Well, I’m pretty sure it ain’t gonna be Tulsi now. In any case, he’s gotta win the primary first. It’s too early for me to worry about VP picks, but since you brought it up, how about Rashida Tlaib or Ro Khanna?

          It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

          You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

    • #240404
      Tokenlib
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 332

      As much as I want to impeach the mf..er, they did it for the weakest reasons on the list in my view. Also a partisan impeachment is a mistake, even if the repukes are assholes. Our best choice has always been to beat him on the issues, unless you’re a bought and paid for Turd Way corporate Dem I suppose.

      In the end, I think,Tulsi  may be right on this, even if I don’t want to agree with her.

      The link should stay up. I’d like to think the best of her on this and not be like the place we all left. Tulsi deserves better.

       

      • #240425
        L0oniX
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 481

        Trump is taking all the credit for the jobs. Spineless Dems are not countering with the fact that jobs stats have been on the up since Obama took office. Trump is using jobs to troll voters.

        Fuck the DNC and its heard of goats

    • #240423
      L0oniX
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 481

      Agree totally with this …actually I had been wondering for quite a while why she was still on the front page since she had a 0 chance.

      Fuck the DNC and its heard of goats

      • #240435
        Ohio Barbarian
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 21,158

        @l0onix Then take down the link because she has no chance of receiving any delegates, not because of this silly impeachment vote.

        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

        You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

        • #240445
          L0oniX
          Moderator
          • Total Posts: 481

          While I like her very much since it was quite a while ago that it became IMO clear that she didn’t have a chance and the site promotion of her was unrealistic. Could be the impeachment vote was a tipping point for some but I had already made up my mind about her chances way before this.

          Fuck the DNC and its heard of goats

          • #240448
            Ohio Barbarian
            Moderator
            • Total Posts: 21,158

            She lost me weeks or months ago when she refused to support Medicare for All. She also lost any chance she had of winning the nomination, not that she ever really had a chance.

            It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

            You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

    • #240471
      game meat
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,496

      Yea, it’s not as if Tulsi has any support here, and her supporters definitely don’t overlap with Sanders’ supporters in any way. The presence of her campaign link on the homepage was clearly impugning the character of the board. Since being a voice in the impeachment chorus is the necessary line in the sand, how about an appropriate replacement to fill the current vacancy?

      Steyer’s Need to impeach or Steyer 2020 certainly pass this particular litmus test and may fit in better with the change of direction.

      Maybe a donate button for indivisible, if there’s room and we ask nicely?

    • #242088
      doh1304
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,620

      The Democrats are not defending the constitution or the rule of law or the American people, they are doing the exact opposite. They are attempting to turn America into one of those royal courts where petty greed and corruption and calculated scandal mongering rules. The only principled action was – is – to refuse to take part.

      Remove the Tulsi link because you believe that she does not have a serious chance to win and therefore will only split the vote and risk costing Bernie the nomination. That is a valid argument. Claiming to cancel her (I use that term intentionally if not temperately) out of a support of what is actually thinly disguised expediency and not an attempt to mete out justice is not only wrong, it is contemptible. There are movies I would like to say are worth referring to ( Z and V For Vendetta come to mind) but Dangerous Liaisons is not one of them.

    • #262226
      ProgRockinProg
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 49

      Just joined so forgive me for a late comment to this thread.  I will say that one of the only things that made me a bit leery about joining was that Tulsi pic and link (its still there) to her campaign.  I think you are alienating a lot of Sanders supporters who think Tulsi made a big mistake.  That or a calculated political move for a future run.  And I am saying this as a former Tulsi supporter.  I still agree with most of her stances, and I appreciate she is one of the very few candidates that dares to criticize the Democratic party on issues they need to be admonished on. But this decision reeks of opportunism for some future run. She may be smart in that regard.  Her base, or a big part at least, she shares with Sanders,  independents and left Democrats, and she is banking on that demographic rising, as more voters get turned off by the two major parties. It may be smart for some future personal political play, but NOW is not the time to play games like that.

      I just cannot accept her reasoning:

      Tulsi: “I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country. ”

      And how do Democrats, or anyone else, prevent Republicans, Fox News, RW radio, YouTube, etc….from making it partisan?  I have problems with the DNC and the establishment run Democrats, but for fucks sake, lets be real.   Democrats have truth on their side.  Respectable witnesses, documents, transcripts, EVIDENCE.  I would not call Schiff’s eloquent, deadly, and clearly spoken opening statements, or summary, as being over the top and partisan-flaming behaviour.  Democrats have been appealing, and rightly so, to Republicans to put country ahead of party.  Trump does deserve to be removed from office.  Especially given the fact that if he is “exonerated” he will feel like he can continue this kind of corruption of democracy.  R Senators have basically said its okay….as long as Trump believes his winning is in the national interest.

      I don’t know how Tulsi can reconcile that this is a two sided partisan process.  She sounds a lot like the MSM using false equivalency. Hell, Nancy had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the impeachment table. But I do agree that Democrats had no choice, and simply had to based on the fact that the American democracy was at stake, including this coming election. Even if they lose in November, history will show they did the right thing with impeachment.

      So I fail to see how sticking up for the Constitution, for the rule of law, for protecting the fairness in the democratic process, is a “partisan” exercise.  Other than what the MSM, and GOP and Trump make it out to be.

      Her claim for her reasoning is she wants to bring the country together, instead of divide. Sorry, but its basically only one side that is sowing division. I just cannot accept that simply standing up for the rule of law and election fairness, is “partisan”.  It is only partisan because Republicans made it partisan. And she is smart enough to know that. So I sense this is only positioning herself to remain popular with that growing segment who don’t like either party…(for good reason). But now is not the time for this kind of grandstanding. Facts are facts. Evidence is evidence. Criminals are criminals.

      You don’t call both sides in a court case equally partisan when their appointed  judge doesn’t allow the prosecution to call witnesses or evidence,  and majority of the jury are in fear of the defendant.

      Tulsi is toxic now to Sanders IMO. And she may even be happy if Democrats lose, even if Sanders is the nominee.  Because that seems to be how she is setting herself up for a run as an alternative “non-partisan” independent for 2024, if the democracy survives another Trump term that is.

       

       

    • #354794
      Babel 17
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,088

      Btw, do we get our “Donor” tag back after donating? I was wondering why they went away, and there was no announcement about that, or a fundraising thread. Though maybe I overlooked such.

      https://www.facebook.com/TGAlohaNation/posts/322563169088606

      Has a recent photo of Gabbard on a break while serving with her Guard unit in Alaska.

       

    • #354868
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 21,158

      @babel17 I know the Donor tag went away with that last big upgrade after the site was down for a day or two. They’ve been giving priority to trying to fix the reply tree and notification problems over that. I miss it, too.

      I just had a thought. Let Tulsi moderate the VP debate. It’ll never happen, of course, but it sure would be entertaining.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

    • #355079
      Babel 17
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,088

      @ohiobarbarian

      There are no clearly delineated lines, and nothing is set in stone, but 2024 could see a party where Biden (or at least his former Obama staffers), Harris (with her former Obama staffers), Pelosi, and Schumer, were dominating policy. Other possibilities include one where Biden has left the stage, Harris has become discounted to the point of irrelevancy, and Obama’s former staffers, and by extension the influence of Obama, have become somewhat discredited.

      The collateral damage to that happening, by way of Trump getting a second term, would include everyone who dropped out and endorsed Biden while Sanders was still competitive. The fortunes of Schumer and Pelosi would take a hit if Trump was re-elected, the popularity of Pelosi already declining due to her feud with AOC, and her tragic misjudgement in backing a Kennedy against the candidate that most progressives and Green New Dealers wanted. But if the Democrats still control the House, and she remains Speaker, she’ll retain a critical level of power. The process of her keeping her Speakership however could speak volumes for the future.

      The Senate is moribund, but if the Democrats can regain control then Schumer will become enormously powerful, assuming the Democrats have the House, and still very powerful if they don’t, even with Trump as President.

      If Trump is President, and the Republicans retain control of the Senate, little will change for Schumer as he is a conduit of funding from Wall Street types in NY to Democrats in other states. But if the House was lost, then that could mark the start of a process wherein party stalwarts like Schumer could face serious primary challenges. His vulnerability in a primary to a progressive who represents a coalition of voters who see themself as having been neglected is going to be explored, one way or the other, unless the Democratic party racks up a sweep of the House, Senate, and the Presidency.

      If Pelosi loses the House, and Harris gets tossed on the junk heap of epicly failed overly ambitious politicians, then someone like Gabbard will have an opening to regain influence in the party. As head of the DNC she could perform some amazing fundraising for progressive candidates, and establish the Democratic brand as being in opposition to the dangerous foreign policy adventurism of Trump, while having jettisoned the Democratic Party’s own discredited ambitions in regards foreign policy, trade, and globalism.

      If she accomplished two years of turning around what would be a party in dire straits if Trump wins, while Republicans retain the Senate, she could be in the cat bird seat for starting a campaign for the 2024 race for the Democratic Presidential primary.

      Having rebuilt the DNC would have showed her pragmatic side to good effect to the Democratic establishment. I can’t imagine Sanders running again, and Warren might fail to generate the critical mass needed for another run. All the early drop outs from 2020 who got behind Biden would face an uphill struggle if they ran again. Gabbard’s seriousness at the top of the ticket would be the perfect counter to Pence, if he became the Republican nominee in 2024. If Trump strongly endorsed him, and campaigned for him as President, Pence’s own popularity with traditional conservative and moderate Republicans should get him the nomination.

      Gabbard could steal whole swathes of Trump voters who are all about populism, are against globalism, and found Trump to be a bit too much with his rhetoric, and style of governance.

      If Trump wins in 2020 then those voters will be part of the key to winning 2024, as will be the disaffected Bernie supporters, and the newly energized African American voters. The Latin community that supported Trump will also have to be reached out to.

      Given what Covid-19 has starkly highlighted about our health care system, I can see Gabbard reiterating her Medicare for All policy in a contest against Pence and the Republicans. And having espoused it in 2020, and unlike Warren sticking to it, would help Gabbard if she ran again, and contrast her to all those 2020 candidates who didn’t stick up for Medicare for All.

      If Bernie and AOC endorsed her, and then Warren struck a deal with her, it could snowball into not just an amazing campaign, but an amazing movement. Lol, Berniecrats, but now with Aloha! 🙂

      Edit: Spelling, and now I feel like recommending the thread. 😉

Viewing 25 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.