Correct. While we are at it; the Right has disdain for science, education and poor people. The right also hates blacks, gays, Mexicans and women. I’m glad we got that out of the way. Ohh and cripples and sick people too, Republicans hate them as well but have an odd fetish for ignorant authoritarian rulers.
HRC is still both A) very bitter about 2016 and B) concerned it’s going to happen again. Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election wasn’t just limited to hacking the DNC. Among other things, there was a precise coordinated effort to prop up Jill Stein in key swing states. In particular, with African American voters. All with the intent of harming Hillary and helping Trump. Was Stein aware of this or cooperating? Probably not. Likely just a useful idiot. But it’s not unreasonable to assume Hillary is onto something here and it could happen again. Both Stein and Gabbard are relatively popular in Russia and both stoke that anti-establishment vibe that provokes so much disgust among low information voters. Couple that with Gabbard being such an overall terrible politician and candidate; she might not win re-election in her own district. Running as an independent could be a very clear alternative for someone like her that’s going to try to stay relevant.
In that case why would HRC go out of her way to hit tulsi with this ? Tulsi has said she’s not gonna run 3rd party ... she might not even make the next debate. This Gave her way more attention , and I think tulsi comes out looking ok
Maybe because of instead of supporting the DNC she’s going the route of bashing the DNC and going the anti establishment route because she has low polling numbers and is a wet blanket personality wise. To be clear, Hillary would do well just to step aside and stop talking. Tulsi just needs to step to the side but instead she’s building the brand like any politician.
Agree. Hillary needs to realize that she is done with politics. She's going to turn the DNC into a media circus if she continuous to get involved and believes she can just magically step into the race as if 2016 never happened. Tulsi can mature from this and continue being a US Representative for her district.
I’m just trying to figure out what her end game is here. At this point if she runs as an independent aka Jill Stein, she’s so pro Trump that she actually hurts Trump. But staying in the party does what exactly? She doesn’t have the ability to do what Trump did to the Republicans in 2016 which is destroy it and claim it. Although maybe that’s what the goal is here even though she’s obviously failing at it. Trump in 2016 had fans in the party. His die hard supporters were Republicans who thought the Mitt Romney types were too timid for too long, and the party needed a strongman autocrat. Tulsi’s fans are not Democrat voters. I doubt they are even independents who would even consider a Democrat. She’s straight up targeting base Trump voters like Dagger, Dasch, Mick, etc. So I guess we should all be happy she’s doing what she’s doing then. She’s basically a primary challenge to Trump unless something changes.
Those 40,000 twitter followers Tulsi picked up yesterday ... those are TRUMP SUPPORTERS. nobody should be foolish enough to believe she’s earning more primary support. People who vote in the Dem primaries are not Hillary obsessed not jobs who eat up Russian propaganda.
I dont believe she is running 3rd party. If she does, her career as a politician is done. If she is foolish enough to do it, she never had a chance as a career politician on the national level. There are many one and done elected to Congress. At this point, this is nothing more than Russia sourced meddling. Im not sure why its acceptable now but not acceptable in 2016. She is staying in the race for the same reason anyone not named Biden, Warren and Sanders. Why campaign and raise money only in your offices election year when you can run for a new office every election cycle to raise money and name brand awareness. DC inevitably turns most good intentioned politicians into self serving sociopaths.
I don’t believe she’s running 3rd party either at this point. As you alluded to, there are obvious self promotion tactics at play, and that would destroy her politically. She’s even highly likely at this point to get primaried regardless so she’s already taking a risk at losing her seat now. But there certainly is a tactic on display and it’s hard to put your finger on. It’s not just self promotion, and it’s not just playing Dem spoiler. At this point the best explanation is that she saw what Trump did in 2016 as a tactic to run as a Republican and win by running to burn the whole place down. I just don’t see it as being effective as a Democrat since most Democrats actually believe in the shared principles across the party. Obama has a 95% approval rating and the party as a whole is either where he is or slightly more populist liberal. Nobody really gives a crap about Hillary obsession outside of hard core Trumpers who are mostly radicalized right wingers who watch way too much FoxNews. What does Tulsi gain by winning their support? Is she going to primary Trump as a Republican? So my best guess is she really thinks this is a Trump 2016 tactic that will be successful for her to win the primary. Which I think is dumb but it makes the most sense unless she really is just a straight up Russian asset who is only there to recite Sputnik talking points.
it's pretty chicken Bleep of Hillary. if only she had spent as much time campaigning in Iowa, WI, Mi and Pa, she'd have defeated Trump. Hillary had more evidence of Trump being Putin's useful idiot than this convenient claim on this Congresswoman
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hillary-clinton/id1479487160?i=1000453830324 somewhere from the 30min mark to the 40min mark. It was a podcast and the host talked about Trump with 46% but winning with their strategy. Clinton respond with two things basically - the strategy (of the Russian) will be two parts - don't vote for the other guy (bad bad bad person) and 3rd party candidate. Jill Stein may still play that part and it also may be someone else (never said her name, but everyone can narrow it down to Gabbard given what the Russian are currently doing). I don't think there is any foresight or any motive. She is just having a conversation with a host stating her opinion and boom - a part of it gets eaten up by the internet and spread like wildfire. The divisiveness is what make all this exploded.
That is all part of a deliberate smear campaign that everyone seems to be falling for. The media continues to recycle rumors that the DNC and the media itself created. https://theintercept.com/2019/02/03...icating-russia-data-for-the-democratic-party/ Take a look at this hit job from the New York Times two days before the debate. It highly unethical to run a smear piece days before an event they co-sponsor. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard.html And then Clinton comes out and says she is being groomed by the Russians. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html And of course now she will be labeled a conspiracy theorists when all the conspiracy BS is coming from her opponents and she is just calling them out on it. She should probably just ignore them, but I think the constant lies are getting to her. Why are NBC, CNN, NYT, etc all running the same fabricated smear pieces on a fringe candidate? I have my theory, but it also sounds like a conspiracy.
I don't trust CNN at all, but multiple outlets had their own reporting on some of Tulsi's odd support, and the analytics really supported those stories when they broke. What I don't buy about a "liberal media" conspiracy against her is this: she's just not that big a threat as a serious candidate. She's too young and relatively fringe to get nominated. HRC going after her, however, shows once again that HRC has the political instincts of your average garden slug. That was great attention that Tulsi couldn't buy if she wanted to. I personally really wish HRC would take political retirement super, super seriously. Overall, agree with those saying right-leaning people are a ton more interested in Tulsi than left-leaning people. Just another reason she's not a serious topic for the democratic nomination.
I think HRC is just not a very politically smart person. Or, not nearly as politically smart as she thinks she is.
Do you have any sources on those analytics? It seems to be circular reporting and citogenesis with the one source discredited. Why is the media going to all this effort to smear a fringe candidate?
