Tulsi gets Republican/Libertarian Ron Paul's endorsement

Very big for Tulsi. Ron Paul is one of the biggest pragmatists in politics. For him to endorse a progressive dem means her message is getting out there to established political forces.

While not too helpful in the primaries- it will be very helpful in swing states. Libertarians are about 10% of the republican base. If she can siphon 1/2 of them that would be huge in 2020.

 

A mixed bag, unless you're a fan of Ron Paul. I admired his integrity and he did make some good predictions, but essentially his plans when he was running for president could be summed up by saying "Lets live like we did in 1850". He was not a forward thinker by any means.

 

I don't think endorsement mean much. Although it's better to have them than not. Ron Paul has slide off the view screen since the 2012 GOP primaries. Very few Libertarians will ever vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is. If they don't vote Republican, they'll vote for their own party's candidate which is usually on the ballot of all 50 states.

Since no exit polls from 2016 ever broke down how Libertarians voted, it's just an educated guess how many voted for the Republican candidate and how many voted for their own party's candidate or someone else. If I were a Democrat I wouldn't worry about how Libertarians vote, they don't make up that much of the electorate. I'd be trying to find a candidate that can attract the independent voter. Libertarians might make up 2% or there about of the total electorate. Independents make up 44%.

Hillary wasn't attractive to independents, she lost their vote to Trump which put Trump into the White House. Hillary and the Democratic Party basically ignored independents in 2016. I wouldn't make that same mistake in 2020. But I'm not all that hopeful that the democrats learned anything from 2016 at all. I figure they'll make the same mistake again letting Trump back into the game.

2020 is an election for the Democrats to lose. They can only lose it by nominating the wrong candidate that independents dislike more than Trump. Of course this held true for 2016, that election was for the democrats to lose also. The democrats did nominate a candidate then really, really disliked by them more than Trump. Trump wasn't liked by independents, 57% of all independents had an unfavorable view of him, but 70% viewed Hillary unfavorable. Will the Democrats repeat history failing to learn from their own mistake? Only time will tell.

 

Libertarians don't want to spend 6 trill more in the mideast over the next years fighting a war in Iran, that Bolton/Pompeo/Trump is trying to gear us up for. Libertarians want recreational drugs legalized. Libertarians don't want 2% of our population in prisons at a cost of billions of dollars. Libertarians don't want us involved in Venezuela. Libertarians don't want the government passing laws regarding gays or trans serving in the military.

Now some libertarians want small government more than any other program. but some libertarians find the points that I laid out important.

Tulsi wants a secure border, just as much as trump does. Unlike Trump she is not a draft dodger and served in a war zone. She has said that the dems should quit the impeachment talk. She did not sign the green new deal because it did not address nuclear fully. These are all issues that people who voted for Trump may vote for her. Like I said not a great number but I think she can siphon of 5% of those and get back more than 1/2 of the I rather have Trump because I hate Hillary vote.

 

Yeah, he doesn't worship at the altar of authority, enough. He would prefer that people be free to do, think, and act for themselves rather than do what they are told by leading political authorities and be their uncomplaining, unquestioning tax cattle. How backward of him!

 

Yep, because that's how you live when you live by yourself, on your own, with nobody else around you....like most people lived in 1850.

That's not how you live in a society that you share with others.

 

I would vote for Tulsi long before any Republican candidate. In a battle between authoritarian vs. authoritarian, I'll take the one who is actually anti-war. It's a good start.

The Dems won't nominate here. They'll pick someone like Biden who is middle of the road, is a war hawk, and doesn't push too much change too fast. And then they'll lose again because they have no idea why people actually voted for Trump over Hillary.

 

People didn't live in cities in 1850? I guess ignorance of history is another reason to vote for more government. Those politicians are happy to do your thinking for you.

 

Of course people lived in cities, I didn't say everyone lived in the wildness.

But those who lived in cities did so living under the rules of the government of those cities. Just like today.

 

The democratic primaries are a battle of leftist ideologies. I don't think Biden will be their nominee, pretty much too moderate for them, plus being an old white male. Although Biden is very attractive to independent voters which Hillary wasn't.

Hillary did better among Democrats than Trump did among Republicans. It was the independent voter who gave Trump his win. 65% of independent voters don't have the faintest idea who Tulsi is, so there is no way to know if she could attract independents or not. On the other hand, at this juncture Biden is viewed positively by independents. Whether that will last is anybody's guess.

I've always said, 2020 rests on whom the Democrats nominate. If they nominate someone who appeals to independents, they're home free. Probably in a landslide. If the Democrats nominate another candidate as disliked or more than Trump is/was by independents. A repeat of 2016 is very possible.

Which candidates fall into the appeal category to independents and which one's don't, that's for the Democrats to figure out. If they even care? They didn't in 2016.

 

There are Paulist out there.
More Ron than Rand.

Ich bin ein Paulist!

 

Biden is just as republican as any northeast republican. To call him a leftist is quite a stretch. He is another draft dodging neo-com that want to send other peoples kids off to war, while he considered it beneath him. He thought Obama care was wonderful- all it did was put more money in the drug and insurance industry.

 

Only 15% of the nation lived in cities greater than 7000 people. and 1/2 the people in cities under 10,000 were still farming.

 

So, people did live in cities. And, somehow they did with less government to monitor their every behavior, direct their every thought, and guide their every value, as you would have done today.

 

i would have? why do you say that? I am against the patriot act, thought Snowden did a service to liberty from government spying, I never would want anyone to tell you how you should feel about something.

As a progressive I think government has a role to play in establishing a economic safety net- but I never want the government to tell you how you should feel. If you don't want medicare for all and want to burn coal and burn rubber on your tires- shout it from the rooftops, convince as many people to feel the same way you do. That is how this country is supposed to work.

 

I do not call what he said his endorsement.

This is what he really said.

"If we had to pick one of them to be our president, I think she would be giving us the best chance for bringing about peace."

 

With apologies, you seem to have interceded in the conversation. I was using the same sort of hyperbole used by the person that I originally responded to.

 

He said let's live like we did in 1850? Really? I would LOVE to see where he said that.

 

As i back graciously away.

 

By saying she was " by far the very very best " is not an endorsement? No one said that he would campaign for her or raise money for her. But I can't see how calling someone the very very best and the smartest isn't an endorsement of her candidacy.

 

I think if you look again, I said Biden was a moderate vying for the nomination in the leftist ideology Democratic primaries and as thus, probably won't win.

At this juncture, which is way too far out to make predictions or forecasts, Biden is currently the most attractive Democrat to the independent voter. A lot of that is name recognition. Currently a lot more attractive to independents than Trump. The numbers show this, whether or not you like Biden is irrelevant. Based on the numbers, data to date, today, Biden showing among the independent voter is better than any other democratic announced candidates to include Trump.

Why is finding a candidate or nominee who can attract independents? Independents currently make up 40% plus of the total electorate and is increasing. The two major parties are shrinking. Which really doesn't matter as our two major parties have a monopoly on our two party system. They write our election laws and do so as a mutual protection act. If there is one thing our two major parties agree on, it's that no viable third party will ever arise. Thus expect more bum and unwanted candidates by most Americans like Trump and Clinton in the future.

 

I don't agree with your statement that independent voters would favor Biden. No more than independents would have wanted Bush more than Reagan. People want a change, they proved it with Trump and they will prove it again with the dem nominee.

The only people I know that think biden are the ones that only know him, Sanders and Warren, the type that don't even know Moulton (being from Mass)

Trump is running on the economy and prays that it maintains headway. The dems will run on Orange man bad. and healthcare, except for tulsi who is running on a peace dividend and healthcare.

 

I do agree that Biden, Sanders and Warren are about the only announced candidates that a majority of independents knew who they are. 65% or more of independents have never heard of the rest.

On the economy Independents give Trump a 45% approval, 32% disapproval Question 46D. But his job performance overall is 35% approval, 46% disapproval among independents. Question 45. You can scroll down through the different issues to see how he stands on them with independents questions 46A-46Q.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/g7xsqei38g/econTabReport.pdf

There's no doubt Trump is very vulnerable. That he should be beaten. But he also should have been beat in 2016. How voters, independents especially will view the candidates come the general election is unknown today except we have a real good guess about Trump. It's his opponent that we don't know. I think around December or January of next year, we will have a pretty good idea which Democratic candidate would fair best against Trump and which ones the worst. The question is will the Democrats acknowledge this in their primaries or not. Will the democrats try to nominate the candidate that can do the best against Trump with independents or go by purely ideological reasons which could turn off some independents? My guess at this juncture is the latter. Their choice, not mine.

There was a poll that came out in February of 2016 which showed 56% of all Americans wanted the democrats to nominate someone else other than Hillary Clinton. The Democrats ignored that warning and did so anyway. Their prerogative, their choice, only Democrats choose their nominee. But all Americans, America as a whole choose who will win in the general.

 

Yeah, as long as Biden is not the nominee, there is not a candidate with a failed record like Clinton. Fox is praying that it is Beto or Biden.

 

I didn't say it was a direct quote, I said his plans could be summed up that way. Read my post.