Tulsi Likely to Pick Up More Delegates (My Estimation)

Should Tulsi remain in the presidential race, I'm fairly certain that she will be picking up additional delegates from at least 3 other locales: Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and Hawaii.

Tulsi was expected to gain zero delegates from American Samoa, yet she garnered 30% of the vote there, and 2 of the 6 pledged delegates, against a Bloomberg media onslaught. This totally defied any predictions--FiveThirtyEight had two delegates going to Bernie, and two to Biden, with the other two being undetermined (but where Tulsi was listed with 0 delegates in the "Other" category).

I can very easily see those 3 other locales trending the same way--perhaps even dramatically so.

Northern Mariana Islands also has 6 pledged delegates and is fairly close to American Samoa. Without Bloomberg's ad buys, if Tulsi spends any amount of time campaigning there (like she did in American Samoa--remotely), she could win 2 or even all 6 of the delegates there. This primary happens on March 14.

Hawaii would be next on April 4. With 24 pledged delegates at stake, and high popularity in her home state, she might not outright win it, but I'd be shocked if she didn't get 15% of the vote there. Biden will be campaigning for Louisiana and possibly Wyoming leading up to that day, and I doubt he will spend much time in Alaska or Hawaii, which are more Sanders states. That might leave Hawaii to Sanders and Tulsi. I can foresee Tulsi taking anywhere from 4 to 10 delegates from that state.

Guam, which votes on May 2, is in a similar situation as American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands. It has 7 delegates at stake, but as a fellow Pacific Islander and with no Bloomberg ad buys, Tulsi may end up with anywhere from 2 to 7 delegates there.

From these locations alone, Tulsi--provided she remains as a candidate through the entire thing--may end up with anywhere from 10 to 25 delegates heading into the convention. I have zero doubt that she would ask all of these to switch to Bernie at the convention itself.

It would be interesting.

Share
up
16 users have voted.

Comments

TheOtherMaven's picture

it won't be enough to get her into any more debates. TPTB have fixed that and will continue to fix it - they're terrified of her razor-sharp mind (especially considering Biden's wet and crumbling sponge of a mind...).

up
17 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

… it seems that the DNC is comfortable losing with Biden rather than taking a chance on winning with Sanders. After all, if Sanders wins, he'd likely do some housecleaning and a lot of people at the DNC would be in line to lose their positions of power (which should have happened had they done the right thing and gone with Ellison instead of Perez as DNC Chairman).

Not sure I put much faith in 538s delegate forecasts -- he has Biden winning Mich when recent polls put Bernie ahead, he had nothing for Tulsi in Samoa and still has nothing in Hawaii where I'd be shocked she doesn't hit 15% assuming she stays in the race.

As for the assumption Tulsi would endorse Bernie over Biden, I wouldn't be so sure. Bernie hasn't backed her up recently on challenging these DNC debate rule changes (none of which have hurt his campaign, of course), plus I believe there's a personal relationship with Biden (particularly relating to his son who died of cancer), so the personal animosity you see between her and HRC isn't there with respect to Biden, despite the obvious policy differences, and note she hasn't gone out of her way to attack Biden this campaign (and even defended him against the Kamala Harris attacks early on).

The media blackout is really hurting Tulsi right now, because with just three people left, the contrast could not be starker … only female, only veteran, only POC and, hey, if they had a max age of say 75 for President in addition to a minimum age of 35, she'd be the only eligible candidate left.

Hard to speculate on Tulsi's future, but I suspect she would be OK with a position in either a Biden or Sanders Administration. But I think those who think she would accept a spot in Trump's second term are blowing smoke. She's just too smart to get stuck in that kind of situation, and remember she's already called him "Saudi Arabia's bitch," so I can't see that happening.

up
9 users have voted.

@JCWeb

About the Biden or Bernie thing. She could (perhaps) use those delegates to get some leverage into a Biden administration. That'd piss a lot of her supporters off (including here), but if she came out with a statement that she would not be playing games with her position and would stick to her core values, and if she demonstrated that in a Biden administration, that could do her some long-term good.

Or maybe she wouldn't want that. (I'm sure the DNC wouldn't want that.)

I'm not so worried about the media. The media did absolutely nothing for American Samoa, and I foresee this will be similar for Guam and Northern Mariana Islands. Tulsi did one Skype-type town hall with the people in American Samoa and it paid off big for her, despite Bloomberg advertising everywhere on that island. I think she could do similarly--maybe step it up a bit--for the smaller islands and get a bigger result. Hawaii she should just spend a few weeks there prior to that primary/caucus.

We'll see. I do think if she walks into the convention holding 10 or 20 delegates, she'll at least get media coverage for anyone she endorses. She also probably will get a chance to speak at the convention (a YouTube opportunity at least).

The more people see her the better for future chances . . .

up
8 users have voted.
PriceRip's picture

          I really hate the idea of "business as usual" so as I have said many times I will be voting "Bernie Sanders" in the general election. A few people here have suggested that Tulsi Gabbard could reasonably actually team up with Bernie Sanders.

          We are so very overdue for a course correction, it isn't even funny anymore. We (the lowly masses) have got to not play by the rules, we must redefine those rules. If we don't, we are dead ← that's a big "full stop"

RIP

up
9 users have voted.

"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Robert J. McCloskey, U.S. State Department spokesman. From a press briefing during the Vietnam war.

@PriceRip

Bernie Sanders has been steadfastly silent throughout all the numerous attacks made against Tulsi Gabbard, and never once ever came to her defense .. or even acknowledged her presence in the race.

Tulsi was, of course, selectively filtered by Goggle/YouTube, repeatedly attacked as a "Russian agent" by the Media, attacked by DNC selective "polling" rules, attacked directly by Hillary Clinton as "working for Russia", and repeatedly excluded from the Debates by selective reasoning, etc.

While Andrew Yang, and a few others, publicly came to her defense, Bernie Sanders said absolutely nothing <....crickets....>.

Bernie Sanders has also already declared on TV (preemptively) that he will be happy to vote for Joe Biden in the fall. Sanders (also a "crooked" Hillary Clinton supporter), is clearly not a true revolutionary here.

He talks about breaking from The Establishment, but then always does the opposite when the lights get bright.

Maybe that is why he doesn't like Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard doesn't just talk - she has real courage and integrity, and she won't be voting for either Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden, or their ilk.

Political Change cannot happen without real action, and being true to the goal.

up
1 user has voted.

@FreeSociety … Bernie did come to her defense when HRC smeared her with the "Russian asset" comment last fall, although he was a bit slow in response -- took three days to respond when others (Yang, Williamson and Beto) responded right away. I also recall seeing one clip from sometime in the last month or so where he at least acknowledged she was still in the race. That being said, your general point is well-taken, given the fact Tulsi has spoken up for him on numerous occasions (most recently, vs. the Warren attacks around the Jan. debate).

As a side-comment, I was dismayed to see Tulsi's name excluded in a couple of recent polls -- one, a national CNN poll (not surprising since CNN has excluded her just about everywhere since last year) and a second, in the most recent poll in my home state of MD by some group I've never heard of called Gonzales Research, which has Bernie ahead but only with 25% (apparently before all the post-SC dropouts since Booty and Klobuchar are listed).

The way the DNC and MSM have locked her out in such an undemocratic way is ludicrous.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

How else do you explain them changing debate rules for Bloomberg.

But not so Tulsi can get on the stage? It wasn't S and M that caused Harris, Gillibrand, Amy and Warren to drop out. Their biggest problem was money and that makes a great case for getting it out of politics. How many billions are being spent just for this primary alone? How many more billions will be spent for the general?

But here is the best case for getting it out. Listen to Warren say what she was up against before she went dark side.

Best reason for her to support Bernie over ByeDone too. I posted a video of her slamming joe in a previous essay this week. She sure will look shallow if she does endorse Biden and not Bernie from these two speeches.

up
5 users have voted.

"It seems to me that the problem is that group party interests, in this case, are placed above the interests of the entire society and the interests of people,"

Alligator Ed's picture

@snoopydawg She is a lying [fill in the blank]/ Whatever vestiges of honest striving for the people (as opposed to striving for herself) she may have had, like campaigning against the bankruptcy ByeDone loved, has drained away from her now soul-less self. Viva la DNC!

Amongst the money-depleted loser dropouts listed, please don't overlook Spartacus Booker.

up
7 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@Alligator Ed

Even he thinks Joe is short a happy meal.

up
4 users have voted.

"It seems to me that the problem is that group party interests, in this case, are placed above the interests of the entire society and the interests of people,"

I'll be voting in the Washington primary on Tuesday. I have been a critic of strategic voting because it can go awry and end up being counterproductive. But, surprisingly, I find myself conflicted. I would like to cast a vote for ending the wars (Tulsi) but a vote to stop Biden (Bernie) seems existentially important.

up
6 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@artisan It was based on principle. I voted on principle for McGovern. I voted on principle for Jill Stein. Do I feel sad because they lost? No. I have a reasonable expectation of the way things work. With the DNC in particular, things never work the way "the people" wish.

No matter whom you support, please vote on principle. I do not regret voting Tulsi this year--and will write in her name in the General election. If one does not vote on principle, then one puts themselves in the same cluster as the DNC. VOTE ON PRINCIPLE--FUCK "ELECTABILITY".

up
7 users have voted.

@artisan

I think as long as you are relatively aligned with Sanders, it is okay to vote in a strategic way.

If you're voting for the lesser of two evils, then it's not really worth it. If Bernie is your second choice, and you think he is 80% (or more) of what Tulsi is, then I can understand doing that to help stop Biden.

If you don't like Bernie all that much, then I think I'd agree with Alligator Ed more.

Everyone has to make their own choice with something like this. If Bernie does get the nod somehow, I'm fairly confident Tulsi will be somewhere in his cabinet, and I can live with that.

(Note: I did vote Tulsi, myself.)

up
6 users have voted.
PriceRip's picture

          I am ready, and I already have a Sword of Roven. So, what say you all, shall we begin …

Vive La Révolution !

RIP

up
5 users have voted.

"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Robert J. McCloskey, U.S. State Department spokesman. From a press briefing during the Vietnam war.