Kind of new to the site, and this represents my first effort at posting a diary entry, so I am expanding on a recent comment that kind of got buried in a long thread of comments to another diary. A couple of general takeaways from the reading the posts of others: (a) people have mentioned that they are interested in positive diaries about particular candidates and, probably even more importantly, (b) people are really, really interested in which candidate in the large Democratic field has the best chance of defeating Donald Trump in 2020. In this vein, as a retired attorney, I’m going to set forth, as forcefully as I can, the reasons why my preferred candidate, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, is the best candidate among this group of 25 declared candidates to defeat Trump in 2020.
I start with the following premise: compared to 2016, a winning Democratic Presidential candidate needs to win a few thousand more votes in some combination of a handful of the so-called “battleground” or “swing” states. These votes could come from any of four sources: (1) voters who voted for the Republican ticket in 2016; (2) voters who went for third party candidates like Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green party Jill Stein; (3) new voters (people not eligible to vote in 2016); and (4) voters who, otherwise eligible to vote, didn’t vote at all for President in 2016. Of these four categories, the most valuable would be those who voted from Trump, because winning them would, in essence, count double, one less vote in the “R” column and one more in the “D” column.
In this regard, I believe Tulsi Gabbard is well positioned to potentially pull in votes from disgruntled Rs as well as independents, and yes, some Ds who didn’t pull the lever for Hillary, should she manage to win the nomination. Consider the following points.
1. Well, let’s start with what should be a rather obvious area: Veterans. Exit polls from 2016 show that Trump received over 60% of the votes of veterans – but, in 2020, as a challenger who has not only championed the cause of veterans and, most significantly, who is one of them, Tulsi will likely do a lot better running against the draft-dodging Mr. Bone Spur Trump, particularly given the revelations earlier this year from Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, who in sworn testimony to Congress earlier this year detailed the efforts in the 2016 campaign to run damage control and essentially, cover up details about the medical deferments that kept Trump out of uniform and, specifically, out of Vietnam. Veterans generally don’t like draft-dodgers, particularly when the alternative is to vote for a candidate who served, served with distinction, and volunteered (in Tulsi’s case, surrendering a position of political power and influence as the youngest female state legislator in the country). Additionally, these days there are more female veterans than ever before, and as the first female veteran to run for President, Tulsi is uniquely positioned to garner votes from this group of voters.
2. In 2016, one of the foreign policy issues in which Trump tried to distinguish himself, borrowing a page from Bernie, was to paint HRC, the 2016 Dem nominee, as something of a “hawk” in particular, supporting military intervention in places like Iraq, Libya and Syria, all of those being situations which have not turned out that well. Tulsi, as an Iraq war veteran, is well positioned (as she did in the first Democratic debate last week) to point out this contradiction between Trump’s rhetoric in 2016 and Trump’s record — cozying up to, as Tulsi calls it, “chicken hawks” like Bolton and Pompeo who have been beating the war drums first in Venezuela, and, more recently, Iran. This is likely to pull in some votes from those who feel Trump has departed from these 2016 campaign positions. Speaking from a personal standpoint, the first Presidential candidate to draw me in to the political process was Eugene McCarthy, who historically challenged a President of his own party over the conduct of the war in Vietnam in 1968 (I was back in high school back then), and Tulsi is the strongest anti-war candidate I’ve seen in the half-century since. Thus, I can see her drawing votes from the anti-war crowd, whether they be new voters, people who stayed home in 2016, as well as those who supported Trump, Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
3. She also can appeal to the Libertarian wing of the R party as well as voters who went for Gary Johnson (2016 Libertarian party candidate) with her stance on issues such as decriminalization of marijuana and other civil liberties, such as support for whistleblowers and opposition to censorship in social media, plus the strong anti-war stance referenced in point #2 above. None other than Ron Paul, a former Libertarian and Republican candidate, came very close to endorsing her in some of his comments this spring (although at the same time he said he didn’t like her economic policies, i.e, more government than less to solve certain domestic issues, which of course, is more in accord with a Democratic philosophy of Government).
4. The fact that she's been willing to criticize leaders in her own party as well as the Rs and been highly critical of the gridlock and partisan tribalism in DC, is a theme that I believe will appeal to many voters in the middle who don't strongly identify with either of the two major parties. Frankly, I don’t see any of the front-runners in the current polls (Biden, Warren, Harris or Sanders) as having a similar appeal. Here’s a recent direct quote from her Twitter feed that underscores this very point:
“I look at each issue on its own merit. Partisan politics don't matter. It only matters whether something is good for the American people or not. That’s why many have a hard time figuring me out. I don’t play their games. I don’t fit in their boxes.”
5. She’s young, she's energetic, authentic, passionate about these issues, but remains calm and doesn’t get rattled or ultra-defensive under pressure (as you can tell in the various interviews when she’s come under attack during the campaign, and also the LGBTQ question directed at her at last week's first debate). My only concern is that some of the excellent but more subtle points she makes can’t easily be distilled into in a 45-sec. sound bite. (I.e., the fact that the US has reneged on many international agreements makes it hard for a guy like Kim in No. Korea or now even Iran to agree to de-nuclearize — you need to go through some history to hammer home this point.) Of course, if it’s one-on-one versus Trump or in a debate format with fewer candidates and/or more time to delve into substance, I believe that’s where she will shine, and you certainly saw an example of her debating skills last week in that tete-a-tete with Congressman Ryan on Afghanistan.
6. If elected, she would make history in several areas: (a.) first female President; (b.) youngest President ever; (c.) first non-Christian President; (d.) first President born outside the US; (e.) first President from a State outside continental US; and (f.) first President with military service in the 21st Century. A history-making candidate can drive turnout, much as what I witnessed standing in line (the longest ones ever) at the 2008 and 2012 general elections won by Obama, another history-making candidate, so I expect her unique background will appeal to new voters, whether or not they were among those who stayed home or simply under the age of 18 last time.
7. Another issue where she could improve on the 2016 showing is trade, given her opposition to TPP and trade deals like NAFTA that sent jobs overseas. This has the possibility of winning in some of those key swing states like OH, PA, MI and WI that Trump barely won in 2016. Bernie, of course, has similar views, but for Biden and others, those who supported those trade deals, this could be a liability. In other words, if people voted for Trump in those states but didn't see the jobs come back, that’s an opening for a Dem. challenger who has a consistent record of opposing those trade deals.
8. An important issue for me, along with issues of war and peace, is the environment, and here, again, Tulsi has a very strong record. She stood with veterans and Native Americans to oppose the Dakota pipeline, and she is the lead sponsor of one of the most far-reaching climate change pieces of legislation ever proposed, the OFF (Off Fossil Fuels) Act, which establishes a target of eliminating all fossil fuels by the year 2035. Unlike others, who are OK with just giving lip service to the buzzwords of the “Green New Deal,” she’s looked into the details and gone further, pointing out the lack of an action plan and the fact that it doesn’t address the danger of nuclear power as well as the pollution generating fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas.
9. I think Trump would have a lot of difficulty trying to discredit her credentials and, despite her relative youth, her experience in a debate or general election contest given that he himself considered her a significant enough player to -- three years ago, when she was 35 -- meet with her during the transition period when he was picking his Cabinet, plus, as mentioned above, contrast the two: she's a veteran and he's a draft dodger. In 2020, she will have had four times as many years of experience in Government than Trump (counting her time in the military plus three different levels of State, local and national government compared to Trump’s three years as President).
Having made all of these points, I will concede that the big challenge for her as the Dem. standard-bearer would likely be holding together the Democratic base while reaching out to these groups of voters referenced above. If you examine her record and stance on the issues for progressive Democrats, she checks off a lot of boxes: Medicare 4 all, immigration reform, strong positions on environmental issues and climate change, income inequality, campaign finance reform, etc., so that’s why I’m supporting her as the best candidate to take on Trump in 2020.
For those who want to learn more about her position on the issues, I recommend going to the following website where you can click on any one of 42 different topics and get lots of details, including specific legislative proposals (after all, she’s been elected to Congress four times) as well as links to articles, speeches and some direct quotes as well.
https://www.tulsigabbard.org
I should note that is not the same website as the one soliciting campaign donations and volunteers; the link to that one is:
https://www.tulsi2020.com
Finally, I should also add that I am a U. S. citizen, over 65, and registered to vote in the State of Maryland, plus a disclaimer that I am not a representative of Tulsi’s campaign; the views (except for the one direct quote from her website) expressed here are my own and, although it shouldn’t be necessary, I am not a Russian bot or Putin apologist.