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

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.

WASHINGTON – Rep. Tulsi Gabbard announced Thursday that she is considering boycotting next week's Democratic primary debate, claiming without proof that the Democratic National Committee and the press are trying to rig the election.

Gabbard: "This time it's against the American people in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," she said. "They are attempting to replace the roles of voters in the early states using polling and other arbitrary methods which are not transparent or democratic, and they're holding so-called debates which really are not debates at all but rather commercialized reality television, meant to entertain rather than to inform or enlighten."

Tulsi Gabbard considering boycotting October Democratic debate

Click to expand...

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.

No poll:doh but yes...the democrats are good at rigging the elections in favor of those they deem to be entitled.

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...

Gabbards numbers have been low since she entered the race. The inability to grow her support is based on her, not the DNC.

mrjurrs said:

Gabbards numbers have been low since she entered the race. The inability to grow her support is based on her, not the DNC.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that is accurate, considering the glut of negative news created about Gabbard. Or consider the way that Biden is consistently given twice as much time to speak at the debates than candidates like Gabbard and Yang.

Which Candidates Got the Most Speaking Time in the Democratic Debate - The New York Times

The media has enormous influence when it comes to shaping public opinion. Trump wasn't supported by the RNC initially, but the media covered him 24/7, resulting in a Trump presidency.

It would seem the right wingers are so afraid of the likely dem nominees they are trying to pretend to care about the dem nomination process.

Makes me wonder, were you this pissed when Trump never shut up and had more air time and coverage then others? I doubt it. I think this is about fear. You know Warren/Biden are going to kick Trumps ass, so you are looking for any way you can to get someone with less support to pick up the nomination.

truthatallcost said:

I don't believe that is accurate, considering the glut of negative news created about Gabbard. Or consider the way that Biden is consistently given twice as much time to speak at the debates than candidates like Gabbard and Yang.

Which Candidates Got the Most Speaking Time in the Democratic Debate - The New York Times

The media has enormous influence when it comes to shaping public opinion. Trump wasn't supported by the RNC initially, but the media covered him 24/7, resulting in a Trump presidency.

Click to expand...

Biden entered the race at about 40%. Debates are not about equal time, debates are about hearing positions to enforce or change opinions. More people are interested in hearing from the frontrunners than the group that only their followers are aware of.

mrjurrs said:

Gabbards numbers have been low since she entered the race. The inability to grow her support is based on her, not the DNC.

Click to expand...

Indeed. The fact that a candidate with such paltry poll numbers is allowed in the debate to begin with seems to contradict her contention.

antiquity said:

No poll:doh but yes...the democrats are good at rigging the elections in favor of those they deem to be entitled.

Click to expand...

So true. I hear the GOP is really working hard to assure a process that allows the Republican challengers to Trump a full and equal opportunity to debate him and challenge him in primary system. Hats off to the GOP!

truthatallcost said:

I don't believe that is accurate, considering the glut of negative news created about Gabbard. Or consider the way that Biden is consistently given twice as much time to speak at the debates than candidates like Gabbard and Yang.

Which Candidates Got the Most Speaking Time in the Democratic Debate - The New York Times

The media has enormous influence when it comes to shaping public opinion. Trump wasn't supported by the RNC initially, but the media covered him 24/7, resulting in a Trump presidency.

Click to expand...

Is the election of a corrupt, racist demagogue a desirable outcome?

I doubt Gabbard can generate the type of Third Reich rallies Trump did to get herself the same wall-to-wall coverage he generated and got himself noticed and captivated the GOP.

Whatever problems the DNC has, it has no bearing on her viability as a candidate. She basically only appeals to people who somehow overlap ideologically between Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon. IOW, people who are genuinely confused.

j brown's body said:

So true. I hear the GOP is really working hard to assure a process that allows the Republican challengers to Trump a full and equal opportunity to debate him and challenge him in primary system. Hats off to the GOP!

Click to expand...

Maybe that's true, but many state R parties are changing rules to prevent Trump opponents the opportunity to compete in the primaries or the convention.

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...

The bolded is only half true. Her poll numbers are low now and have always been low - barely registering in most polls and never even being able to SEE double digit support (i.e. 10%) somewhere off in the horizon much less get there. From what I can see, she topped out at a whopping.....3%.

But by all means, blame the DNC for her failures. It's always a good strategy - "IT IS NOT MY FAULT!!!" Newsflash for that idiot Gabbard - when you run for the Democratic party nomination, support from people IN THE PARTY, voters and leadership, is kind of important. If you tell the party to go to hell, trash the party, trash the process because you are FAILING, then don't be surprised when you don't get party support.

And I'm sure the 99.4% of Democrats who do NOT support her for the nomination will really miss her presence at the debates she threatens to "boycott."

mrjurrs said:

Biden entered the race at about 40%. Debates are not about equal time, debates are about hearing positions to enforce or change opinions. More people are interested in hearing from the frontrunners than the group that only their followers are aware of.

Click to expand...

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.

j brown's body said:

Is the election of a corrupt, racist demagogue a desirable outcome?

I doubt Gabbard can generate the type of Third Reich rallies Trump did to get herself the same wall-to-wall coverage he generated and got himself noticed and captivated the GOP.

Click to expand...

The left's current obsession with identity politics traces its roots back at least 50 years, and now they have a smart, strong woman of color as a candidate, and they're treating her like she's Rosa Parks who needs to sit at the back of the DNC's bus so that privileged white man Biden gets the nice comfy front seat that he is entitled to. What gives?

I voted 'Yes'.

The whole point of the Impeachment Epic Fail is to expose Joe Biden. And that aspect has been successful

-VySky

JasperL said:

The bolded is only half true. Her poll numbers are low now and have always been low - barely registering in most polls and never even being able to SEE double digit support (i.e. 10%) somewhere off in the horizon much less get there. From what I can see, she topped out at a whopping.....3%.

Click to expand...

But by all means, blame the DNC for her failures. It's always a good strategy - "IT IS NOT MY FAULT!!!" Newsflash for that idiot Gabbard - when you run for the Democratic party nomination, support from people IN THE PARTY, voters and leadership, is kind of important. If you tell the party to go to hell, trash the party, trash the process because you are FAILING, then don't be surprised when you don't get party support.

Click to expand...

Come on Jasper, The Squad has done virtually the exact same thing, the difference being that many in MSM portrayed The Squad as a heroic new movement consisting of women of color. Tulsi doesn't get the same support that The Squad does for one simple reason- she's running for President and would actually be capable of ending wars for profit if she won.

And I'm sure the 99.4% of Democrats who do NOT support her for the nomination will really miss her presence at the debates she threatens to "boycott."

Click to expand...

I'll certainly miss her presence. She is the only bright light on that stage, and easy on the eyes too.

I think a lot of Democratic voters will be sorely disappointed again if they vote for who they think can win, rather than who is offering a new and improved direction for the DNC, ala those who bit the bullet and voted Clinton in '16.

Gabbard should have been excluded after the first mass debate. Consistently at the bottom of the polls.

It's rather odd that a Trump supporter is so inquisitive and concerned about Dem candidates.

Actually he's not. This is a Russia social-media tactic.

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...

It certainly is feasible, but elections are political animals. How much time do we give people that have no chance at winning? More at the beginning, but at a certain point we need to focus on the candidates that have an actual chance at winning. I love Yang's willingness to talk about systemic change to economy, but I admit that his low poll numbers and radical (to much of the country) ideas would prevent him from much chance of success.

I think you're Russian to judgment.

Rogue Valley said:

Gabbard should have been excluded after the first mass debate. Consistently at the bottom of the polls.

It's rather odd that a Trump supporter is so inquisitive and concerned about Dem candidates.

Actually he's not. This is a Russia social-media tactic.

Click to expand...

What cares which clown wins the bumper car contest?

truthatallcost said:

Come on Jasper, The Squad has done virtually the exact same thing, the difference being that many in MSM portrayed The Squad as a heroic new movement consisting of women of color. Tulsi doesn't get the same support that The Squad does for one simple reason- she's running for President and would actually be capable of ending wars for profit if she won.

Click to expand...

All I know is she's never polled higher than about 3%. She just didn't catch on for whatever reason. Could be that she's tied pretty closely to Bernie who she supported in 2016 but is running AGAINST in 2020. Bernie is not a fan of the MIC either. Could be she's too young - 38 - and doesn't have a natural constituency that sees something in her they can't find with one of the others who have polled far better than she has from the outset. What we know is she has always had a roughly 0% chance of winning the nomination.

I'll certainly miss her presence. She is the only bright light on that stage, and easy on the eyes too.

I think a lot of Democratic voters will be sorely disappointed again if they vote for who they think can win, rather than who is offering a new and improved direction for the DNC, ala those who bit the bullet and voted Clinton in '16.

Click to expand...

That's fine that you'll miss her, but 99.4% of Democrats won't based on the latest polling.

I do agree 100% about voting in the primaries. I've always believed - vote your conscience in the primaries, and vote strategically in the general. For example, IMO, voting 3rd party in the general is pointless, because the candidate will lose. In 2020 I can't really get my head around being indifferent to Trump versus whoever the Democrats put up. There will be VAST differences between them on domestic policy, judges, likely foreign policy, and so IMO vote for one of those who WILL BE our next President. Seems to make sense to me, but others disagree which is their prerogative of course.

FWIW, I voted for Bernie in the primary, knowing he'd lose, and Hillary in the general because....Trump. I haven't supported Biden, and won't vote for him in the primary, but if he's the nominee will happily vote for him, and there is a 100% chance if alive I will vote, for the same reason...

truthatallcost said:

The left's current obsession with identity politics traces its roots back at least 50 years, and now they have a smart, strong woman of color as a candidate, and they're treating her like she's Rosa Parks who needs to sit at the back of the DNC's bus so that privileged white man Biden gets the nice comfy front seat that he is entitled to. What gives?

Click to expand...

At last check, Biden is NOT the choice of about 73% of Democratic primary voters. It's not fair to demonize the 3/4ths of the party not doing what you're alleging.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination

What has happened in 50 years, ever since the super delegates were established and as a result these whack job Leftists became the norm not just on a national level but also on a local and state level:

-Detroit, once one of the most prosperous and inspirational cities not only in the US but the world, is in ruins and run down. Poverty and rolling black outs through out the city, all due to Democrat policies and regulations

-New York City has been tearing down law enforcement with crimes on the rise, limiting freedom of speech (can't call illegal aliens 'illegal aliens' or you'll get in trouble), limiting businesses on what they can have in order to be successful, and taxes have raised substantially over the years. There was a break when Rudy Giuliani was mayor and the very few other non-Democrat mayors, but as soon as Giuliani was gone, it's been spiraling out of control.

-Chicago and their high gang on gang, which can also be interpreted as black on black violence, had skyrocketed over the years due to their insane gun control laws. Thousands of people have been shot every year, while hundreds have died since these laws were implemented and there is end in sight to end these laws and ultimately solve the gang violence issue.

-San Francisco has been littered with human poop and used syringes due to the high homeless population. High taxes and massive "environmental" regulations has ruined people financially, and the high cost of living in such a place has created the homeless population. So far, there hasn't been any plans to help with the homeless situation.

-Los Angeles has had a similar homeless population and similar policies that created it, except they have had problems with disease spreading throughout their streets (typhus is one of them). In addition, their homeless population is growing, and instead of resolving the problem, they put up more tents on the streets, which will only result in more disease.

-Baltimore has had problems with rats inside people's homes and on the streets. Trash is not being thrown away, property is being destroyed, disease has been spreading, all due to the high rat infestation since the 1930s, and the city has not taken any steps to address this problem. They say improve residential living conditions, but since they stopped using rat poison and stopped trying to get rid of the rats in these areas of town, things have only gotten worse.

-These towns' respective states and states that have not been mentioned, which are all ran by Democrats, had spikes in state taxes, spikes in crime due to illegal aliens, massive gun control laws, and financial killing "environmental" regulations, leaving residents of these states to leave and letting these states become more poor and desolate.

-On a national level, we have tax payer funded abortions through Planned Parenthood, multi million dollar (off the tax payers' dime) funded investigations into political figures, tax payer funded national teacher unions and other national unions, and the half a century old super delegate system that denies the voice of the Democrats in name only crowd in favor of the totalitarian Leftist nut jobs, Leftist donors, and Leftist organizations.

Tulsi Gabbard is right to say the DNC is rigging the system because what ends up happening is NONE of these government officials, nor candidates who never held a government position before but have been extremely active politically, actually do (nor want to do) the will of the people, regardless of political affiliation. They get rich and gain more power as a result. I'm not saying she doesn't have the same interests as these people that are running, but she, at least, was truthful in saying (and admitting) the DNC and the Democrat party as a whole is rigging primary elections.

Rogue Valley said:

Gabbard should have been excluded after the first mass debate. Consistently at the bottom of the polls.

It's rather odd that a Trump supporter is so inquisitive and concerned about Dem candidates.

Actually he's not. This is a Russia social-media tactic.

Click to expand...

So I guess you were not here for the thousands of candidate Trump threads that were created by the left back prior to him winning.

Was that a Russian social media tactic as well.

JasperL said:

At last check, Biden is NOT the choice of about 73% of Democratic primary voters. It's not fair to demonize the 3/4ths of the party not doing what you're alleging.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Click to expand...

I was mainly referring to those in charge at the DNC when I wrote that. However, the two most popular candidates (Biden/Warren) are both white, and together hold about 50% of Democratic voter support. Warren's history of creating a ficticious racial background to suit her former career goals, and the fiasco that was the big DNA test reveal, is further proof imo that a lot of Dems just aren't really that concerned about setting a good example when it comes to racial issues where it counts.