“The Democrats are denying a voice to their strongest candidate, Tulsi Gabbard” Mulshine


" Don’t tell the Democrats, but they are ignoring their best candidate for president.
That candidate is Tulsi Gabbard. She is the congresswoman from Hawaii who would have the best chance of picking up the votes of independents and even some Republicans in November. But at the moment she is being ostracized by party leaders."  Mulshine


Yes.  pl  


This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to “The Democrats are denying a voice to their strongest candidate, Tulsi Gabbard” Mulshine

  1. Alex stumm says:

    Agreed. But she’s anti-war, so no chance of being supported by “party leaders” ( those “leaders” is a bit of a misnomer)

  2. Tulsi bet all her chips on New Hampshire just like Mayor Pete did in Iowa. I was up in the Conway region last August and saw billboards for Tulsi all over the place. There was nothing for other candidates. She held well over a hundred town halls in the state. I’m hoping this strategy works for her. I like EVERYTHING about her including her antiwar foreign policy stance and her genuinely progressive domestic policy.
    I just received this message from her campaign:
    “Tulsi is on the rise in New Hampshire and we need to be doing all we can right now to keep this upward momentum going!”
    “First: Local paper The Caledonian Record yesterday released an online poll showing a whopping 67.3% of voters chose Tulsi as the candidate they would “like to see win the Primary.””
    “Then: CNN/UNH polling released today shows Tulsi moving into 5th, within striking distance of Elizabeth Warren, with HALF of voters still uncommitted and up for grabs.”
    “It’s the height of irony that CNN’s OWN most recent polling shows Tulsi ahead of Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer and Deval Patrick — all of whom were given nationally televised CNN town halls worth millions just this week, while the establishment network refused to let Tulsi speak. This blatant censorship denied New Hampshire voters (half undecided) the opportunity to hear from all the candidates, and then make an informed opinion about who to support.”
    I hope she does well in New Hampshire. It will be much harder for for the press to ignore her if she does.

  3. Alves says:

    I am not from or in the USA, nor a voter, but I am a big fan of her. This election in the USA kind of reminds me of the last one we had in Brazil, where we ended up with less than optimal choices in the runoff election. Anyway, I wish you people the best of luck.

  4. JamesT says:

    Bernie needs to pick a woman as his VP, and Warren thankfully took herself out of the running when she stabbed him in the back a couple of weeks ago. Identity politics are a big deal to the democratic base, and the number one smear against Bernie is that all of his supporters are “Bernie bros”. Moreover, Tulsi is the best VP choice to beat Trump because she has great bipartisan appeal. If Bernie doesn’t get assassinated I think Tulsi will be VP and will be well positioned to become president in 2024.

  5. ISL says:

    So far, Tulsi has acted highly effectively against Bernie’s major competition (though Warren shot herself in her 1/10000th native American foot), particularly Hillary – her “take out” of Kamala Harris with a few sentences was brilliant and effective.
    According to:
    Tulsi is a member of the Sanders Institute, and she has supported Bernie even back during 2016 against the Dem establishment at great political cost.
    If Trump goes after Tulsi the way he went after Jeb Bush, I expect it will backfire. Godspeed Tulsi!

  6. exiled off mainstreet says:

    She is undoubtedly the best candidate for the reasons stated but is therefore too good to get the nomination because of the level of corruption in the US political power structure.

  7. Ken Roberts says:

    She is quite impressive and I wish her well. The video clip linked from the article illustrates her qualifications well.
    One great strength of the US primary process is that it helps sift away the party apparatchiks who have been able to enter their names because of committee work and connections but cannot lead nor be responsible. PB seems to me to be one of those. By not (Iowa) allowing the primary process to work undistorted, the loss is not just to the Democratic party, but to the nation.

  8. anon says:

    She would make the ideal candidate but who would have the gnashers to reset china.No no no way must china be allowed to steal the middle class and lower class aspirations of western countries through cheap labour.Simple put if the elites cannot protect there own countrymen then force them to.Protecting blue collar workers and farmers must come first.
    Besides looks like you have a weakness for pretty woman in uniform.

  9. Fred says:

    Money doesn’t vote, as Bloomberg will soon find out. Jeb! and his lesson being lost on the establishment. Money can’t even rig a democratic election, as the Iowa caucuses show.

  10. Rick James Merlotti says:

    I’ve given lots of $ to Tulsi. I believe she’s the best candidate for POTUS in a generation. Do I believe it will do any good? Look at Iowa. The elites of the Duopoly are cheating in plain sight. They are desperate to maintain control the narrative, and he who controls the narrative controls…blah, blah, blaah. Hope to hell I’m wrong, but I expect TG will get 5% or less after all the vote doctoring is complete in NH.
    Who knows, the Shadow do.

  11. turcopolier says:

    Yes. Is that a problem?

  12. Harry says:

    She is an awkward candidate for the progressive wing of the party because of the perception of homophobia. Plus her views on FP have been vilified and ridiculed (despite being perfectly sensible as far as I can tell). So the mainstream has kicked her out and the progressive left doesnt want to offend the identity politics crowd.
    She is all in in NH. I see adverts for her meetings all over Southern NH.
    My full 2cents.

  13. Bubba Schwartz says:

    DNC will not forgive Tulsi for taking out Kamala

  14. Jim says:

    Recent NBC/Marist NH poll: Gabbard choice of 15 percent of male independent voters, 10 percent male/female; UNH/CNN poll released this afternoon shows Gabbard leading among Conservatives with 25 percent
    Tulsi Gabbard is not only the most electable; she possess most interesting base of support.
    Said another way: the most diverse.
    Failure to evaluate this, at least for New Hampshire primary, could result in surprise on Tuesday; that few are even discussing.
    In other words, bias may be at play – but the voters will decide on Feb. 11.
    The fact that NYTimes does not even consider Gabbard a candidate, perhaps most extreme example of ubiquitous bias.
    Independent men likely to vote Tuesday from late January NBC/Marist poll showed this:
    Sanders 28 percent
    Gabbard 15
    Buttigieg 14
    Biden 12
    Warren 8
    Kloboucher 7
    Yang 5
    Steyer 3
    Deval Patrick 2
    Bennet 1
    Looking at this 48 percent of identified independents [697 total, thus 0.48*697 = 335 of total], NH poll results showed:
    Sanders 25 percent [84 votes]
    Buttigieg 18 percent [60 votes]
    Biden 12 percent[40 votes]
    Gabbard 10 percent [34 votes]
    Kloboucher 8 percent[27 votes]
    Warren 8 percent [27 votes]
    Yang 5 percent [17 votes]
    others 4 percent and less
    Also, recent SuffolkUniv/BostonGlobe poll indicated the 24 percent undecided – was the “winner” as it were in that poll.
    Undecided 24 percent
    Sanders 16.4 percent
    Biden 14.8
    Buttigieg 12.2
    Warren 9.8
    Yang 5.6
    Gabbard 5.4
    Klobouchar 4.6
    Steyer 2.6
    Bennet 1.4
    Patrick 0.6
    One thing I’ve paid close attention to for years [epitomized/expressed by pollsters viz. Trump 2016 election in particular] is anomalies, things that are missed that the pollsters actually collect, but for whatever reason, ignore, fail to take into account: in other word, the big no-no, the B word, BIAS.
    Not the poll and its methodology, per se [though that is a factor] — rather/also, BIAS of the pollsters themselves, the wonks who can’t or won’t report what is in the data they’ve collected. From their polling samples.
    Two aspects from 2016 demonstrating this was
    1] polls actually showed Clinton winning – the popular vote – and the mistake was assuming this meant she’d win election via electoral college.
    2] pollsters knew that a chunk of Trump voters recognized pollsters were not on the up and up, and so either refused to participate, or gave pollsters intentionally a different response from what their actual preference was. This can be called “Trump-Derangement-Bias,” TDB, on the part of the pollsters.
    I don’t know if none, or some, or a lot of TDB might or might not be at play in the polling.
    I do know interesting aspects are being ignored by an uncurious, or more likely, intentionally biased political and media class.
    Pollsters are not reporting all of what their own data says.
    Gabbard is most likely to surprise the “experts” at least in NH primary.
    [It’s also worth mentioning that 53 percent of white women voted Trump in 2016 – which “experts” saw that coming?]
    [NOTE: The Marist/NBC poll data says in NH says 47 percent are registered independents, 27 percent Republican, 26 percent Democrat. The poll gave the same weight to Democrats as to Independents, and ignored potential Republican “crossovers”. This fact, should Gabbard end up doing well on Tuesday, might be among the key mistakes pollsters are making in NH. Independents carry twice as much weight as Democrat voters in NH. Republicans, will they really carry “no weight” in Tuesday’s primary?]
    Full results at:
    Meanwhile, a University of NH/CNN poll published this afternoon says 50 percent were undecided last month and 30 percent remain so.
    Interestingly, the UNH/CNN poll narrative also says this: “Fifty-three percent of likely Democratic primary voters say they have definitely decided whom they will support in the upcoming New Hampshire presidential primary, largely unchanged compared to the period from February 4-7”
    That means 47 have not “definitely” decided.
    These results included a breakdown of three categories, what pollsters deemed “Liberal” “Moderate” “Conservative” for their “Preferred Democratic 2020 Presidential Nomination Candidate”
    The results for those who identify as Conservative
    Gabbard 25 percent
    Sanders 17 percent
    Yang 14 percent
    Biden 13 percent
    Undecided 11 percent
    Buttigieg 11 percent
    Other 5 percent
    Kloboucher 4 percent
    Warren 0
    Steyer 0
    Bloomberg 0
    The full results at

  15. Vegetius says:

    The homosexual wing of the uniparty hates Tulsi Gabbard as much as the ZioCons fear her.
    If you are part of the rump white working class that remains Democrat and still not see who owns your party you are not paying attention.
    Gabbard’s stated positions on border security and immigration are unacceptable but she has shown remarkable judgement (re: DNC, Russiagate, Impeachment) as well as a little luck (largely bypassing Iowa).
    In short, she gets It.
    Which renders her unfit for office under the current globalist oligarchy that rules 21st Century America.

  16. D says:

    What is Gabbard’s large government, large business operational skills experience. Heading the executive branch is primarily an executive function; not a modeling assignment. She needs to run for Senate, build up more policy making experience and develop a consistent and proven track record.
    Love him or hate him, Trump did run a multi-billion dollar global business network. And was rarely out of the public eye for most of his adult life He has proven he can multi-task, take calculated risks, make deals and keep moving towards specific goals. His major drawback has come primarily from lack of actual in-house government experience,
    Trump had not yet learned from his closely-held family corporation business experience that you can never trust anyone in government, nor can you easily fire them like he had gotten used to doing to his private industry life and TV show. It was his turn to be “the apprentice” and flirt with the possibility he was going to hear those fatal words “You’re Fired”.
    What exactly do people really look for when they state their presidential preferences. Grit under pressure is one of them; but a party membership that carries as much baggage as the Democrat label does today is not one of them.

  17. Jose says:

    Folks she is a sane person in insane party.
    Absolutely no chance of winning despite what the polling says!
    Sadly, that is what the Democractic Party has become…
    Bloomberg will buy the nomination…

  18. rst says:

    I recently had the pleasure and honor of meeting this gallant lady. My very firm impression is that sooner or later, she will be a serious candidate for president, with a good shot at winning. Whether or not this will happen in 2020 I don’t know – but it will happen.

  19. Fred says:

    Are you talking about your fellow Canadian, Justin and SNC Lavalin?

  20. D says:

    Gabbard needs to get an MPA and/or demonstrate she has keen financial literacy in order to go any further in this game. And switch parties.

Comments are closed.