[erimir]

Originally Posted by But

She's taking a public position against foreign intervention and regime change wars as she's running for office. That looks pretty good to me.

And she also took a public position that Obama wasn't bombing Syria enough or demonizing Islam enough (she criticized Obama for not saying "radical Islamic terrorism"). Like I said, I wonder what it is that makes those statements forgivable so you'll describe her as a "real" anti-war candidate. I don't see those kind of past statements by other candidates handwaved as irrelevant. Why don't you see her current position as just dishonest pandering? It's curious.

Hmm, poll numbers.. is it going to be Uncle Joe? I can't wait to see the media playing endless loops of him groping little girls with his loving tenderness.

Biden will probably not be the nominee (<50% chance), but he is the most likely nominee based on the polls. It's early, so things can change a lot between now and the actual voting. But you'd much rather be Biden than Gabbard, and people with polls like Gabbard's almost never become the candidate (given that she has by far the lowest favorability rating of any major Democratic candidate, the closest analogue would be Trump at the start of his campaign).

I'm not sure what this snarky tone is supposed to mean. Am I supposed to dismiss the polls as meaningless because I don't like the fact that Biden is in the lead and Warren is not?

Overall, it looks like one Trump victory has had a very positive effect on the Democratic Party. Maybe you need another one.

That's right. All the people Trump is harming are just tools for teaching the Democratic Party a lesson.