Take the bait. It's what they want.

Fun thread. Does not disappoint.

I doubt you'll see her run, but I'd bet you'll see her stump for the republican presidential candidate. I'd even bet that if that person is elected, Gabbard ends up with a cabinet spot.

It's a weird world where Bill Maher is a moderate liberal.

I have always viewed her as a conservative and was puzzled as to why she was a Democrat in the first place, until considering she is from a heavily Democrat state. But it appears there is no room for conservatives or moderates in the Democrat party. I hope she leads a stampede. At any rate I think she has a future on the national stage.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
When I go to vote I list my preferences in order:

1. Gabbard
2. Republican
3. Libertarian
4. Democrat

One too many entries. And it's not the first three.

The problems with 'ranked choice' boil down to two -
1) people don't understand it, and
2) because of 1), it can be gamed.

RE: Gabbard. There are worse people out there, no question. TBH I doubt that any of those will be running as Republicans.

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:
You don't get the point. If her motive appears to be purely profit based, voters can make that connection and it doesn't impact the midterms at all... independents and educated Dems are less likely to care, seeing her $ grab.

I'm intentionally ignoring stupid Libtards b/c their vote is a foregone conclusion.

I disagree. Maybe about eight months ago I saw Tulsi suddenly popping up on all the social media platforms trashing Democrats. I even posted a question on one asking what her endgame was. Is she planning on being a running mate for a Republican? Or is she just planning her future in the private sector.

In any case I don’t see how this hurts us in the midterms. Educated democrats and independents are not necessarily the libtards. Many of them can be swayed. Many of them already know how crazy the left has gotten and they just need someone to help push them. It doesn’t matter what her endgame is. It won’t hurt us and may help us.

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
I have always viewed her as a conservative and was puzzled as to why she was a Democrat in the first place, until considering she is from a heavily Democrat state. But it appears there is no room for conservatives or moderates in the Democrat party. I hope she leads a stampede. At any rate I think she has a future on the national stage.

I hope our 'big tent party' is better with the welcome mats. Some of the posts in this thread show there is no room for anyone who is not part of the far right of the party, and moderate or liberal leaning Republicans are not welcome in the tent.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
The problems with 'ranked choice' boil down to two -
1) people don't understand it, and
2) because of 1), it can be gamed.

RCV is no more gameable than Winner Take All, which is what we have.

Indeed: I'd argue it's less gameable because, as I wrote, it removes the "If you vote for <that> person, you're taking away a vote for <this> person, and that may mean <this other> person wins" argument.

People don't understand it? They use it all the time. It's no different than a menu at a restaurant. Most people find two, three, or more things that look good and choose the one that looks best from their short list. If that turns out to be unavailable they select their next most desirable candidate.

It's that easy.

Imagine going to a restaurant and being told "Our specials today are liver and onions or haggis." You're not fond of liver and onions, but find haggis utterly gross. There are other things on the menu, but, the server goes on to tell you, "You can select anything else on the menu, but, if we're out of it or the kitchen doesn't feel like making it, you'll get whichever special the kitchen chooses." So you reluctantly choose liver and onions out of fear you might otherwise get haggis.

That is WTA voting.

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
Some of the posts in this thread show there is no room for anyone who is not part of the far right of the party, and moderate or liberal leaning Republicans are not welcome in the tent.

Those very same people don't see the irony in slamming The Other Side for the exact same behavior.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
The problems with 'ranked choice' boil down to two -
1) people don't understand it, and
2) because of 1), it can be gamed.

RCV is no more gameable than Winner Take All, which is what we have.

Indeed: I'd argue it's less gameable because, as I wrote, it removes the "If you vote for <that> person, you're taking away a vote for <this> person, and that may mean <this other> person wins" argument.

People don't understand it? They use it all the time. It's no different than a menu at a restaurant. Most people find two, three, or more things that look good and choose the one that looks best from their short list. If that turns out to be unavailable they select their next most desirable candidate.

It's that easy.

Not quite. As pointed-out, ranked choice voting can be game'd. You flood a ballot with enough ideologically aligned candidates where their differences are marginal, then the outcome can be predicted. If you've got one or two reasonable candidates, a small handful of used-to-be reasonable but changed candidates, and a large number of fringe outliers, its quite possible to have a fringe candidate be elected.

The candidates who don't get majority votes the first go around but enough to make it to the second round, will receive the votes from those candidates who failed to make the initial cut, this will continue until the final round. Ultimately, a fringe candidate can win by accumulating enough of the loosing candidates votes to beat out the initial leading contender. The City of Oakland had a mayor elected that was out of the blue because of RCV, predictably her tenure was less-than-stellar.

For perspective, consider what it would take for you to leave your political party especially given the opposition is so destructive on your priority issues like abortion, gun control, taxes, spending and cultural decay. Think about what it would take. That’s where Tulsi is. That’s how far the Democrat party has drifted into lunacy.

quote:

Not quite. As pointed-out, ranked choice voting can be game'd. You flood a ballot with enough ideologically aligned candidates where their differences are marginal,..

I agree; I'm not a fan of ranked choice voting. It's always resulted in Republican elimination. In Alaska, 60% voted Republican but you ended up with a win for the Democrats.

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
I hope our 'big tent party' is better with the welcome mats. Some of the posts in this thread show there is no room for anyone who is not part of the far right of the party, and moderate or liberal leaning Republicans are not welcome in the tent.

I agree. I’m happy to welcome some of the left-leaning centrists and lukewarm democrats who aren’t psycho progressives. There was a time when compromise could be had with these people, and I think still can. The progressives are the ones who’ve so drastically changed things, and they don’t represent the center-left. My wife could be adequately described as center-left, but she voted from Trump twice (the first time reluctantly and the second time enthusiastically), precisely because the Democrats had gotten so unhinged and out there. They didn’t represent her values anymore. These people are good people who can be great allies and we screw ourselves by playing “all of nothing” with our ideological qualifiers. The 2A stuff I won’t budge on, smaller government would be great but never happen at this point, and the rest of it? I’m willing to be flexible on, as long as we get the economy in order and the borders secure. I think there’s a lot of people in the center left who could absolutely get on board with that, especially considering that was the platform Bill Clinton ran on in the 90’s.

Honestly, the Republican Party should own all of the Latino vote, all of the black vote this isn’t part of the free shit crowd, and the gay (not BTGXZAI++, just gay) vote since they just want freedom and to be left alone.

If you have followed Tulsi’s statements and stances on issues closely it really isn’t shocking to see her abandon that party. It’s sad that one of the few decent candidates in that party has been pushed away by the hardliners and morons.

Tulsi is far from a conservative but she at least is willing to push back, speak out against, and eventually abandon a party that is losing its collective mind.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
Not quite. As pointed-out, ranked choice voting can be game'd. You flood a ballot with enough ideologically aligned candidates ...

I don't know about your or any other states, but, in Michigan that would be a tricky proposition. We have ballot access requirements designed to subvert such stunts.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
In Alaska, 60% voted Republican but you ended up with a win for the Democrats.

Since, in RCV, a candidate receiving 51% of the vote, or better, is declared the winner, how did the Republican candidate receiving 60% of the vote fail to win?

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
In Alaska, 60% voted Republican but you ended up with a win for the Democrats.

Since, in RCV, a candidate receiving 51% of the vote, or better, is declared the winner, how did the Republican candidate receiving 60% of the vote fail to win?

He's probably talking about the combined votes for the 2 GOP candidates Palin and Begich (59%) vs the 1 Dem (40%) in the special election in August to fill the remainder of the late Don Young's seat. Dem won here, because after RCV kicked in, with Begich kicked out due to his 3rd place finish, the Dem was pushed over the top to win. If it was run the old way, the assumption was that, all or most GOP voters would continue to vote GOP in the runoff between Palin and the Dem, and that means Palin would have won.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
In Alaska, 60% voted Republican but you ended up with a win for the Democrats.

Since, in RCV, a candidate receiving 51% of the vote, or better, is declared the winner, how did the Republican candidate receiving 60% of the vote fail to win?

One recent trojan horse of national conversation is ranked-choice voting. Ranked-choice voting is a system whereby voters rank candidates in order of preference. Rounds of voting proceed, and the bottom vote-getter is eliminated until at least one candidate has reached greater than fifty percent of the votes, thus giving them a majority. In this system, candidates with less support often surpass candidates with more support, as was the case in Alaska’s recent congressional special election.

In Alaska’s recent special election to replace long-time Republican representative Don Young, dozens of candidates vied for the seat. After the first rounds, three candidates remained, with a Republican garnering two of three slots. The third slot went to Democrat Mary Peltola. Because the Republicans in the first two slots essentially diluted their share of the vote, that left Democrat Peltola as the winner.

https://www.americanthinker.co...d_choice_voting.html

That 60% of the state could vote for a Republican, yet the seat should nevertheless go to a Democrat, is bitter news indeed for the Republicans. Ranked-choice voting, which in Alaska was introduced in this election, where the voters whose candidate is eliminated get to vote a second time, through their second choices, pretty well left enough holes for the Democrats to walk away with the seat.

In Palin's case, some voters didn't add a second choice to their ballot, and others voted for the Democrat as a second choice. Enough voters didn't check Palin to make the slate victorious for the Republicans, which is where the problem came in for Palin.

https://www.americanthinker.co...ah_palin_defeat.html

I remain confused by the reasoning. If the voting had been WTA, and the Dem garnered more votes than either of the Repubs, the Dem would've won, anyway, no?

The Babylon Bee today cracked me up. With Gabbard out of the party they have declared the title of Hottest Democrat goes back to Nancy Pelosi.

I wonder how many hear actually listened to all of Tulsi's podcast?
She attacked CRT and anti-racism; sexualizing children; censorship in the media; and Biden's loose-lips statements that might get us into nuclear war.

When it came to the Second Amendment, she said it was to defend ourselves and protect us against tyranny; she cited the Bruen decision.
It was all well done and very articulate.

I have heard no better summary of what horrors the Democrats are foisting on us.

Did she flip-flop on past statements? Of course! She just burned her bridges with the Left.

Clearly, Tulsi is transitioning. Some people need more time and experience than others. Dave Rubin did it in a couple of years. Tulsi needs to accept and assimilate more information and principles to fully move into the light. This first step is a big one. If she is supported by conservatives with convincing respectful discussion, she could become an ardent ally for righteousness.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
This is a good thing, it forces moderate Dems who are privately wondering 'WTF is going on' to take a look at their position within the party. I doubt she'll be able to run for any executive office other than being a running mate. It'd be refreshing if she could run for Governor in Hawaii but, that'd be a long-shot, as politics are like California's, one-party dominance.

She was recently on with Rogan

I’ve listened to over an hour of this podcast with Rogan. When the two of them start outlining all the insanity that led to her decision to leave the Dems (woke culture in corporate American, the transgender craziness, rolling right into mainstreaming every imaginable form of deviancy, to give a couple examples), it’s hard to understand why there isn’t a mass exodus from that political party.