Tulsi Has First Qualifying Poll for Third Debate
A CBS News/YouGov poll of New Hampshire came out today with Tulsi in 6th place with 2%. My understanding is that this *is* a qualifying poll, so she just needs 3 more such polls by Aug. 28 to make the polling requirements.
Biden 27%
Sanders 20%
Warren 18%
Harris 12%
Buttigieg 7%
Gabbard 2%
O'Rourke 2%
Everyone else 1% or below
There are multiple states in this poll. Combining all five states together gave Tulsi a 1% overall rating (which is listed in the first pages of this poll--the state results are shown in the bottom half of the pages). Tulsi rated the following percentages in other states:
California 1%
Texas 1%
Iowa 0%
South Carolina 0%
So, she might have a chance for the 3rd and 4th debates. That'd be fantastic! Hopefully, her 2nd debate performance will continue to gain her some supporters.
Comments
The magic name summons me
Go Tulsi!
I don't believe in polls. But I do believe in money. For instance, not only how much money is being spent in favor of her candidacy but also how much money is being spent against her candidacy? Like they say at the circumcision, it's the difference that counts.
Great news! :-D Thanks for the update, apenultimate.
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Glad to hear it...
I recruited four new donors today. Hope they will follow through. Ask your buddies to send her a dollar...they can just buy a button or a sticker to count.
https://www.tulsi2020.com/
or checks to:
Tulsi 2020
PO Box 75255
Kapolei, HI 96707
Thanks for the update.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
I'll bet
her campaign will get another bump after the second debate this week.
This thing is so corrupt and rotten to the core, it's a wonder everyone in the debate venue doesn't pass out from the fumes.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
there are so many red flags here
on torture:
her support of Modi, her preference for the phrase "Islamic terrorism", her less than perfect gun stances...
She's got a lot of good points, too, just saying that, to me, she seems like more of the same, somewhere between Bernie and Warren. At this point I see no reason to prefer her over Bernie. I'm happy to learn more, though. The disclaimer is the usual one, she's a Democrat.
Perhaps she understands, as I do, that the
hypothetical is ludicrous, so the response is moot.
It falls into that category of questions that posit an irresolvable moral dilemma, and then demand that the interrogee resolve it. "Would you torture someone if the alternative was the complete annihilation of the human race, but in a slow horrifying fashion that would submit every single person to three weeks of hellish suffering?"
There is, BTW, an Ursula K LeGuin story that has at its core a somewhat more resolvable moral dilemma -- but a bit of a dilemma nonetheless.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
BTW, my own "resolution" of the ludicrous
dilemma I just posed would be along the lines of, "No, I'd shoot my children and then shoot myself."
But of course, the interrogator then says, "But that won't save humanity from the suffering! You're still choosing to cause the all those humans to suffer and then die!"
But so what? It's a preposterous hypothetical.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Ursula K LeGuin story
is, IIRC, Those Who Walk Away From Omelas. Worth reading and re-reading.
Your problem is that she's honest?
Holy Fuck! What a high bar you have! I suppose you'd morally pontificate from your Ivory Tower the finer points of what to do when you have an hour before a nuke goes off and you have a guy who can tell you where it is.
Me. I'm skinning that guys dick off slowly until he talks.
Red flags my ass! wtf? What the actual Fuck?
Yeah. "Islamic Terrorism" is real.
That was 9-11 Any candidate that says it wasn't will beat Alf Landon's record.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Of course the question was about torture
And I believe she is the one who then proposed the ludicrous scenario.
I'm reluctant to go very far down the path of defending
something somebody else said, especially when it becomes a matter of speculation about what their motives might or might not have been.
That said: The ludicrous scenario is a well-established meme; it is proposed by default, lurking in the shadows whenever the question of torture is raised. She chose to preemptively address it. That is a dangerous rhetorical technique. (Lakoff, who isn't all that he's cracked up to be, would denounce it as invariably and inevitably self-defeating.)
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
It is wise to be skeptical
Have you been to her position page?
https://www.tulsigabbard.org/
From that page are her comments about Islam...
https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-islamfighting-islamophobia
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Tulsi's campaign
maintains a very well thought-out website. The page on Islam is worth spending some time on.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
One thing I admire about Tulsi... well actually two things...
She gave a great intro speech for Bernie in Gettysburg PA in 2016. It may still be on You Tube.
She is correct about calling the terrorism that visited 911 on us "Islamic". The terrorists make it perfectly clear that their religion is the source of their political philosophies and actions. We just get too balled up in trying to be 'respectful to all religions' in this country. Now we have to be just as open in calling out Israel for their religious actions against the Palestinians. It too is religion based... the belief that a god gave the Jews certain real estate no matter who has been living on it for hundreds of years.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Wasn't it the UN that gave them that land?
In the late 1940's ?
it wasn't god that said they sould have it, it was Britsh minister Lord balfour.
Unless you consider the British Crown to be God.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Well, yes, it was humans who gave them the land,
however, the argument for that action came from the Old Testament and is still being used today to justify the taking of even more land. I saw a video of a Jewish settler telling his Arab farm neighbor that the Arab would eventually have to hand over his land because God granted it to the Jews.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
From the Israel Forever Foundation...
"This is the true Jewish perspective of why Israel belongs to the Jews. We don’t require legal arguments or scientific proof to justify our claim to Israel.
To us, Israel and the Jew belong to each other because it is inherent in our heritage. It is enshrined in the Bible, where it wasn’t only promised us, but given to us."
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
If the Israelis would . . .
be satisfied with the land the UN assigned to them, there would be a real chance for peace. They are making the West Bank unlivable for Palestinians. If you search a bit you can find maps that show "greater Israel" as containing all of Lebanon, most of Syria, most of Jordan,the Sinai Peninsula, and a tiny piece of Turkey.
God wills it!
Spoils of war
Maybe you recommend giving California, Texas and the Southwest back to Mexico. I don't. Or even giving the entire continent back. I don't, although the idea of moving to Europe is appealing. But would they have us?
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
you say "spoils of war" as if that's legitimate
it seems to me that it's nasty and unforgiving and leads to more hatred, more digging in, less chance of peace. Or is peace not the goal? Is it antiquated?
A fair question.
My answer - In my experience Life is unfair and only the strong survive. Strong and nasty is a winning combination. I was born in a changing neighborhood in Chicago and experienced violence based on my color as a toddler. The family then moved too a suburb, Elmwood Park, to escape the violence. Elmwood Park happened to be the home of lower echelon mafiosi. I used to trick-or-treat at the home of a notorious contract killer. He always had a big handout of candy and no one played Halloween tricks on him. This was walking distance from river forest, home of the Mafia elite. Sam Giancana lived in oak park, but across the street from River forest.
Your life experiences may have been better. For your sake, I hope so.
My grandkids are too trusting. Millenials have been raised coddled and protected, not running the streets as I did. I wonder what they will do when I am dead and can no longer protect them?
It's not right, but that's the way it is. Human society is a jungle.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Tulsi - Basic marketing, draw contrasts
Paint your positions as better founded and then draw contrasts to all of the rest of the candidates. Tulsi is too kind. I had a friend in marketing many years ago and he stressed that the fundamental tool that they have to work with is uniqueness. Draw a contrast and then convince the viewer that your product is better. You don't need to be aggressive or hostile, just determined - "gravitas" a natural for Tulsi. My friend went on to say that in most cases the Marketing guru makes up features that create the aura of uniqueness. The easiest job that he gets is when the uniqueness is genuine. I think that describes Tulsi. She is the only candidate with a genuine peace platform. I would go after Biden, hard. Hammer him with his AUMF vote on Iraq. Tar him with the militaristic record of the Obama-Biden administration. He is stuck between using his association with Obama and distancing himself. He loses either way, make it obvious. Emphasize diplomacy and negotiation, a drastic departure from the current thinking in Washington. That draws contrasts with all of the candidates, and turns a criticism, that Tulsi talked to Assad, into a strength.
My dream ticket would be Tulsi-Jill Stein. They are both very serious, smart women who are strong on all of the issues. That would be a transformational ticket for the country and the world.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
What page?
I scrolled through all 141 pages of that document and I didn't see your percentages anywhere.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Well the pages aren't numbered!!!
But, the second half of the document is divided into states--California, Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.
It's page 3 of the New Hampshire pages. There are 12 pages for each state.
It's there all right!
Got it, thanks!
I didn’t mean to imply it want there - I was just expecting it to be on page 1 as a summary statistic. Then I went through the rest and couldn’t see it.
(Also, iBooks gives page numbers to PDFs and it is page 108 if anyone else wants to look.)
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg