Updated: Tulsi Big Donor Gains--Now at 128,410!!!
UPDATED: Well, Tulsi for the past couple months had been averaging around 500 new unique donors per day. Early in the day before her 2nd debate performance, her campaign announced she had reached 110,000 unique donors. In 2 days, she gained more than 18,000 more.
During the first debate, in the week after the debate Tulsi gained 8,500 donors above her usual donor gains. Tulsi managed to do 17,000 more than average in 2 days this time around.
She needed a debate boost from the second debate of 8,000 donors above her typical daily donor gain to be ensured to reach the 130,000 unique donor minimum. She has so extensively surpassed that gain, it is totally unexpected.
She will reach her unique donor goal for the 3rd and 4th debates tomorrow.
But, the polling requirements still need to be met . . .
Tulsi is going on an annual 2-week National Guard training pretty much now. She will not be able to personally campaign during this time. That's one reason this debate was so crucial. Let's see if it can elevate her in the coming polls.
A national Economist/YouGov poll had her at 2% through July 30. That one is not qualifying, but it's a good trend.
I have *heard* (but not confirmed) that only one qualifying poll from each of the first 4 states are allowed for qualifying (but all qualifying national polls count). Tulsi has 1 qualifying poll from New Hampshire. If what I heard above is true, this means no other polls from New Hampshire count towards the debate requirements. They must be qualifying polls from Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, or national polls from here on out.
Comments
I posted this comment
on Snoopydawg's thread about Tulsi confronting Kamala, but I'd like to repost it here. I think the American people are responding not just to what Tulsi is saying, but how she is presenting herself.
Tulsi is a warrior. That's one of the main things she's accomplishing here: letting the voters see that about her.
She's directly confronting and exposing the old guard and their heirs presumptive. She's taking on the "powers that be", right to their faces, with strength and confidence.
And she's demonstrating to the American people that she is fully willing and capable of doing so.
"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
The enemy of my enemies...
She is definitely well spoken and seems ti have done her homework. She also seems sincere but so did Obama and many others. But at the moment she's on the right side I'm glad of her campaign.
I don't know about "sincerity",
but if you want to know where she stands, look at her votes, as well as at bills she has written. The only sour notes I've found were her recent vote on BDS, and her votes for the NDAA in 2015. (I don't consider her vote for the recent "Bipartisan Budget" to be significant, as it doesn't actually allocate funds).
If book covers told the story...
Having been burned by the Bern, my first political love, I have moped (or crawled) around devoid of hope. Whimper, sob. But then my come to Jesus moment came to me, a devout Pastafarian. And, thank you Lord Dog, for showing me the light...There, in the East, or was it the West, the Vision of Tulsi came to me. Hallelujah!
Problem is, I'm only half kidding. Tulsi has undeniable charisma. Call it "bearing" or composure if you will, but she commonly strike those who speak about Tulsi to comment on her calm, well prepared delivery. "No 'ums'".
I see videos of MSM mentions of Tulsi as being straightforward, even though they strongly disagree with Tulsi's politics. Fool me once, shame on you, fooled me twice, shame on me. In other words, only time will show if my hopeful belief is well-founded.
I think it what is called is ‘poise’
And it comes from a position of strength based on integrity and honor.
People will and do get that.
It’s been a long time since someone not only asked but displayed
“ Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country”.
As a candidate, Tulsi epitomizes this.
Service before self
I get the sense
that she means and believes what she says, not just focusgrouped mumbo jumbo.
[Edit] Thank you for this update, apenultimate. Thought
Gabbard did very well last evening.
The only criticism (that I've had) was her referring to MA as a company. Probably not critical, though, since a lot of people--especially, younger ones who aren't familiar with Medicare--probably didn't catch it.
For certain, I was happy to see her criticize Harris' proposal, which is not much more than a Medicare Advantage Program 2.0. The more discussions we have on the topic of toxic Medicare proposals--meaning, those which would transition OM/TM to a managed care system--the better.
[Edited: 'of' not 'the'; added 's' to discussion; added 'meaning, those']
IMO, TG exudes a dignity that most of the other candidates totally lack. Sure hope Guard Duty doesn't become a big setback for her. What lousy timing!
(sounds like my kinda luck
)
Again, appreciate the update.
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Tulsi on Guard duty
It would be great if she could go ahead and do some interviews while on Guard duty. I seem to recall her doing that before - one of the interviews she did with Tucker Carlson, maybe?
Hopefully she's got things lined up to keep herself in the public eye while she can't campaign in person.
"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
It would be nice if she could campaign, but,
I wondered if she 'might not' be allowed to do so, due to military regulation.
After a quick search, this turned up. (Can't vouch for its authenticity, of course.)
Sure that Tulsi will cover herself, and has checked-out the regs, so that she's protected.
Now, if this reg should apply to TG, perhaps her surrogates, campaign manager(s), etc., can carry on, on her behalf. (at least, in a limited fashion)
Hope so.
(All the more important that she had such a strong debate performance last night.)
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I think I must be the warrior naysayer.
My Dad, a WWII D Day Vet told me soldiers are trained to defer to their officers. That they say "Yes, Sir". Because, training and indoctrination.
Dad said never, ever vote for a soldier, no matter their rank. To any power above, given the order, they would say "yes".
He fought under Eisenhower, but could not vote for him because he believed the president would cave to the PTB.
And say "yes".
And Eisenhower did.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Something to think about
Thanks for the story
That is what worries me the most
That is what worries me the most about her. That's usually all I have to know about a candidate before I write them off. The only reason I listened to her in the first place is because so many people here like her and y'all are the smartest people I know. She says almost all the right things, but I just can't get rid of that little worm of doubt that comes from her being a soldier. It's like seeing the Mona Lisa in camouflage or seeing an oil spill in a clear river. Something beautiful marred by just one thing.
But I also know that a lot of people see her being a soldier as a good thing. I also wonder if she would be so outspoken about regime change wars if she had not personally seen the horrors of these wars. I don't think she would be.
Well every once
in a while someone from the military comes along who's deeply skeptical of the military. Gen Smedley Butler frinstance.
JFK -- and early on, while serving in the S. Pacific during WW2, only in his 20s. The skepticism can be seen clearly in his letters home. Then years later in the WH, when he would sit and listen to the crazy Joint Chiefs give their off-the-wall recommendations, often involving bombing and nuking the Russkies unilaterally. He would make comments to his non-military aides after a bs military briefing to the effect of, "Can you believe that? Thank goodness I am not impressed by all the fruit salad on their chests."
Tulsi is showing some promising signs in her late 30s of being in this JFK tradition. And I've noticed she's been citing some positive JFK examples lately, such as his not being reluctant to negotiate with his counterpart in the Kremlin. That's how the CMCrisis was resolved, and how the Test Ban Treaty was achieved, despite fierce opposition from our Pentagon goons. He was working on a joint US-USSR mission to the Moon at the time of Dallas, which would have been a major step towards ending the Cold War in the mid-60s.
So strong caution against reflexively stereotyping everyone who's put on the uniform. And not all pols are sellouts and corporate tools.
Good points, all, wokkamile.
What I would love to see is another November Surprise with the American people writing in Tulsi Gabbards name come 2020.
I couldn't stop belly laughing when Trump pulled that off in 2016.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
I sympathize with your perspective.
On the other hand, Charles Schulz served in France in WWII, and seemed to return with his humanity intact.
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.
People loved seeing Tulsi destroy Kamala
They crave someone who will call out the bullshit for what it is.
On the right track
AND they will vote for them.
Yes, people might vote for them,
if they can somehow avoid being erased/disappeared/unpersoned by the media. I guess that that's where we come in...
We may not get there with them
Sometimes it seems we're against insurmountable odds, and perhaps nothing we do matters. It does matter, though. It's a battle of morality and ideas. We're on the front lines; sometimes behind the lines, with our thoughts on the goals.
Today my wife's old teaching assistant came by the house to visit. She's a teacher herself now, putting herself through school while a single mom with two children. Her daughter is about to head to college in a couple of weeks - premed studies. Her little boy (who I still remember when only a few days old) is about to start first grade. As they left, I thought to myself, "This is why we do it." And it's why we have to do it.
Yep, and Kamala
was overdue for someone bringing her down a notch or two. Hopefully all the way down.
We still need more of this, not just the occasional calling out. So much has been left unsaid for so long by all the pols.
I liked the way Bernie called out CNN during the M4A discussion to note that the network was going to run anti-M4A ads during the debate funded by the medical insur/Big Pharma industry. Finally a candidate called out the media for their pro-status quo bias. I believe he also called out one of the moderators for repeating RW talking points. Bravo.
Maybe one of the candidates could be inspired to also call out the restricted nature of how issues are presented in these debates, and suggest to viewers that the networks should only be allowed to present the debates on their platforms, but leave the questioning to an independent panel of journalists drawn from the old print and electronic media as well as the new online media. (h/t Kim Iversen). Presenting the debates as a public service, the networks would then give free access to use the videos unrestrictedly to all the public.
@Battle of Blair Mountain
I was one of those new donors after watching that takedown of Harris. It was only a couple of days of lunch, but I thought it was great that someone finally was warrior on that stage.
Tulsi's vote about BDS still baffles me though. And she had a chance to take Biden down on Iraq.
One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--Tennyson
I think the Iraq thing is a bit iffy.
Biden might not have ever apologized, but then, has Biden ever apologized for anything? He seems actually incapable of producing a legitimate apology.
There's a former Republican congressman, forget his name, but amongst other things nowadays he appears as a political commentator on various radio stations across the country (not canned commentary, one-on-one discussion with local hosts). He admits that voting for the war was the worst mistake of his political career, but he also says, "If you had seen the intelligence they showed us, you'd have voted for the war too." These guys were snowed by the intelligence agencies and the executive branch. Ultimately, their big mistake was not understanding that the intelligence guys have their own agenda, and have no qualms about lying straight up to the politicians whom they are supposed to be providing with good information.
Mind you, I'm not saying anything about what Biden did or didn't know, or should have known, or whatever -- I'm just saying that if he's put on the defensive about it, he can point to others who voted the same way and now regret it; and in that case, TG ends up looking like a bit of an idiot, making hay out of an issue where she can't possibly be criticized.
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.