• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you agree with Tulsi Gabbard's claim that the DNC is rigging the primary again?

Do you agree with Tulsi Gabbard's claim that the DNC is rigging the primary again?

  • Total voters
    45
No. She's not only completely wrong, but seems to be playing the pity card in order to help her out of a gigantic campaign hole.

Hilary Clinton won the Democratic primary. She won the popular vote. She won the most contests. She won the most delegates, even if you factor out the super delegates. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Clinton fan. I didn't vote for her in 2016 and think she's worse than Trump. But it's a real stretch to argue that the DNC rigged it against St. Bernard.

As for 2020 election, the DNC/Tom Perez have every right in the world to formulate their own rules. It's their debates. They get to determine who they want to take and who they want to exclude. Perez made the rules very transparent and gave the candidates more options, more opportunities to get onto the debate stage. In fact, under traditional debate rules/qualifications, Gabbard would have never qualified for the June and July debates period. She would have been a maybe for the September debate. The reason is simple: she's a 1% or below candidate. You average together the major national polls, you will see she received anywhere between .5%-1% of the vote.

I believe Perez had the right idea: Set the bar extremely low in the beginning, and then gradually raise it.

Of course, the question becomes, how should candidates qualify for the debates? The DNC is not running a charity. They want people to hear from candidates, people actually want to hear talking. If you cannot make any type of dent in the polls, I am not sure why you should be on the debate stage.
 
BrotherFease said:
No. She's not only completely wrong, but seems to be playing the pity card in order to help her out of a gigantic campaign hole.

Hilary Clinton won the Democratic primary. She won the popular vote. She won the most contests. She won the most delegates, even if you factor out the super delegates. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Clinton fan. I didn't vote for her in 2016 and think she's worse than Trump. But it's a real stretch to argue that the DNC rigged it against St. Bernard.

As for 2020 election, the DNC/Tom Perez have every right in the world to formulate their own rules. It's their debates. They get to determine who they want to take and who they want to exclude. Perez made the rules very transparent and gave the candidates more options, more opportunities to get onto the debate stage. In fact, under traditional debate rules/qualifications, Gabbard would have never qualified for the June and July debates period. She would have been a maybe for the September debate. The reason is simple: she's a 1% or below candidate. You average together the major national polls, you will see she received anywhere between .5%-1% of the vote.

I believe Perez had the right idea: Set the bar extremely low in the beginning, and then gradually raise it.

Of course, the question becomes, how should candidates qualify for the debates? The DNC is not running a charity. They want people to hear from candidates, people actually want to hear talking. If you cannot make any type of dent in the polls, I am not sure why you should be on the debate stage.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. Every word of it. :thumbs:
 
Phys251 said:
Excellent post. Every word of it. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thank you. It's pretty hard for me to understand the legit complaint here.

June & July debates - at least 65k individual donors OR at least three 1% polling between January 1st and two weeks before the debate. Oh by the way, you can use polls out of Iowa, NH, NV, SC and nationally. The DNC allowed up to 20 candidates to participate.

September & October debates - at least 130k individual donors AND at least four 2% polling between June 28th and two weeks before the debate. You can use polling out of Iowa, NH, NV, SC and nationally. For September you had 15 opportunities (and 21 polls) to squeeze out four 2% polling. For October, you had 22 opportunities to get at least 2%.

The unfairness seems missing to me. I would be fine with you have to get at least 1% in the national polls, and the cutoff is at ten.
 
I don't know and I don't care....it doesn't matter since I not one of the kooks running on the Democratic side is anyone I'd ever vote for........
 
truthatallcost said:
Some European nations require that each candidate be given equal airtime, even if a candidate lacks the big funds or corporate support that Joe Biden enjoys as a former VP. Why isn't this feasible in the USA, considering most Americans would probably support such an idea? Much is said about American democracy being an ideal we must bestow upon the rest of the world, maybe it's time we live up to it with equal airtime.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I agree. The US certainly can do that, but giving equal time to candidates that are so low seems like it is advantaging them more than it should.
 
mrjurrs said:
I don't know that I agree. The US certainly can do that, but giving equal time to candidates that are so low seems like it is advantaging them more than it should.
Click to expand...

Which is the point- we shouldn't allow our political election process to be ruled by the mighty $. Allowing money to rule supreme is how we got here in the first place, which everyone gripes about. Well, lets fix it.
 
truthatallcost said:
Which is the point- we shouldn't allow our political election process to be ruled by the mighty $. Allowing money to rule supreme is how we got here in the first place, which everyone gripes about. Well, lets fix it.
Click to expand...

The DNC debate rules surround the concepts of poll numbers and individual donors, not the almighty dollar.

Gabbard isn't getting much respect, because she's not polling well. It's as simple as that. Now we're seeing her blaming the DNC for her own problems.
 
BrotherFease said:
The DNC debate rules surround the concepts of poll numbers and individual donors, not the almighty dollar.

Gabbard isn't getting much respect, because she's not polling well. It's as simple as that. Now we're seeing her blaming the DNC for her own problems.
Click to expand...

Change the rules then.

Gee, wouldn't you complain too if the DNC spent an entire year manipulating their sock puppets in the media to report that you have a mysterious connection to thugs and dictators, in an attempt to ruin your credibility with the country you're currently serving, as both a member of congress and an active duty service member? I should imagine so.
 
truthatallcost said:
Change the rules then.

Gee, wouldn't you complain too if the DNC spent an entire year manipulating their sock puppets in the media to report that you have a mysterious connection to thugs and dictators, in an attempt to ruin your credibility with the country you're currently serving, as both a member of congress and an active duty service member? I should imagine so.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're talking about here. You seem to be engaging in Alex Jones territory.

The rules for the June and July debates were released in February of 2019. The September and October were released in May 2019.

The rules have been consistent and clearly laid out.

The DNC put a lot of emphasis on individual donors rather than amount of money collected.

Gabbard is only complaining because she cannot met the extremely low qualifications.

But this is never enough for whiners and complainers. Even when the DNC was ultra-generous, they still complained.
 
truthatallcost said:
Despite the fall out which followed Hillary Clinton's involvement in financially taking control of the DNC in order to cheat Bernie Sanders out of a fair primary election, they seem content to once again punish members of their own party for having a platform which doesn't completely mirror establishment Democratic talking points.



Gabbard's poll numbers are quite low currently, which is likely a result of the constant negative and dishonest press coverage she's received. The NYT reported last year on a dirty scheme perpetrated by the DNC, which paid an analytics company to create fake Russian accounts on social media, and then use those accounts to post favorable content about Gabbard to create another phony Russian collusion fairy tale. Lap dogs at NBC then reported that Russian operatives were supporting Gabbard online.
Click to expand...

Hillary has come out condemning Gabbard as a Russian spy. Why? Because democrats fear worse than death another 3rd party candidate entering the race and splitting the democrat vote the way Ross Perot entered the race twice in the two races involving Bill Clinton, splitting the republican vote and giving Clinton the White House without a majority vote.

If a third party candidate offers an alternative to the chosen democrat candidat for democrats the democrats will definitely lose the election and they know that. Democrats rush to promote lying claims that Russia is seeking to harm the 'good, kind, gentle, loving, wise, benevolent, strong, innocent' democrat by wickedly corrupting the election on behalf of the 'evil, greedy, narcissistic, lying, hateful, traitorous, despicable, Putin-loving' republican in the race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom