"Tulsi Gabbard is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.
Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates -- especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang. But the Democratic National Committee has decreed that the polls constituting this average are not sufficiently “qualifying.”
What makes a poll “qualifying” in the eyes of the DNC? The answer is conspicuously inscrutable. Months ago, party chieftains issued a list of “approved sponsoring organizations/institutions” for polls that satisfy their criteria for debate admittance. Not appearing on that list is the Boston Globe, which sponsored a Suffolk University poll published Aug. 6 that placed Gabbard at 3%. The DNC had proclaimed that for admittance to the September and October debates, candidates must secure polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls -- but a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria. There has not been an officially qualifying poll in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month...."
I’ve been trying to figure out who, or how, they will screw Bernie again. The Left’s process is a train wreck. What and how are they going to run an “old white man” as their candidate after essentially calling all white men evil. Or as CNN’s Angela Rye said yesterday “white men are terrorists”
(08-21-2019 08:52 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve been trying to figure out who, or how, they will screw Bernie again. The Left’s process is a train wreck. What and how are they going to run an “old white man” as their candidate after essentially calling all white men evil. Or as CNN’s Angela Rye said yesterday “white men are terrorists”
I will repost this again from our local paper the other day. Angela was in town to stump for a mayoral candidate:
Quote:Angela Rye, the CNN commentator who clashed with Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland a year ago, called Strickland a racist and a “Dixiecrat” during a Thursday luncheon in support of Memphis mayoral candidate Tami Sawyer.
Rye said she didn’t know Strickland personally, but she didn’t like him and that when she thought of perpetrators of racism and bigotry, she thought of him. She offered few specifics of why she thought he was racist or why she had compared him to an offshoot of the Democratic Party that espoused white supremacy and seceded from the party during the 1948 presidential election.
zero evidence of racism. Just yell it really loud and a lot of folks will believe it.
(08-21-2019 08:52 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve been trying to figure out who, or how, they will screw Bernie again. The Left’s process is a train wreck. What and how are they going to run an “old white man” as their candidate after essentially calling all white men evil. Or as CNN’s Angela Rye said yesterday “white men are terrorists”
I will repost this again from our local paper the other day. Angela was in town to stump for a mayoral candidate:
Quote:Angela Rye, the CNN commentator who clashed with Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland a year ago, called Strickland a racist and a “Dixiecrat” during a Thursday luncheon in support of Memphis mayoral candidate Tami Sawyer.
Rye said she didn’t know Strickland personally, but she didn’t like him and that when she thought of perpetrators of racism and bigotry, she thought of him. She offered few specifics of why she thought he was racist or why she had compared him to an offshoot of the Democratic Party that espoused white supremacy and seceded from the party during the 1948 presidential election.
zero evidence of racism. Just yell it really loud and a lot of folks will believe it.
"Tulsi Gabbard is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.
Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates -- especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang. But the Democratic National Committee has decreed that the polls constituting this average are not sufficiently “qualifying.”
What makes a poll “qualifying” in the eyes of the DNC? The answer is conspicuously inscrutable. Months ago, party chieftains issued a list of “approved sponsoring organizations/institutions” for polls that satisfy their criteria for debate admittance. Not appearing on that list is the Boston Globe, which sponsored a Suffolk University poll published Aug. 6 that placed Gabbard at 3%. The DNC had proclaimed that for admittance to the September and October debates, candidates must secure polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls -- but a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria. There has not been an officially qualifying poll in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month...."
Whats a Democrat primary contest without some fixing for the preferred candidate??
If you are in NY you better register ASAP. They have an absurd registration deadline for primary voting eligibility. But its ok to disenfranchise those voters cause they may not vote the "right" way
"Tulsi Gabbard is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.
Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates -- especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang. But the Democratic National Committee has decreed that the polls constituting this average are not sufficiently “qualifying.”
What makes a poll “qualifying” in the eyes of the DNC? The answer is conspicuously inscrutable. Months ago, party chieftains issued a list of “approved sponsoring organizations/institutions” for polls that satisfy their criteria for debate admittance. Not appearing on that list is the Boston Globe, which sponsored a Suffolk University poll published Aug. 6 that placed Gabbard at 3%. The DNC had proclaimed that for admittance to the September and October debates, candidates must secure polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls -- but a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria. There has not been an officially qualifying poll in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month...."
Whats a Democrat primary contest without some fixing for the preferred candidate??
If you are in NY you better register ASAP. They have an absurd registration deadline for primary voting eligibility. But its ok to disenfranchise those voters cause they may not vote the "right" way
They still cheat their own people in the primaries. And with the Democrat's long history of cheating in New York, Chicago, South Texas and other places, Republicans are to believe they won't cheat in the general election?
(08-21-2019 08:52 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve been trying to figure out who, or how, they will screw Bernie again. The Left’s process is a train wreck. What and how are they going to run an “old white man” as their candidate after essentially calling all white men evil. Or as CNN’s Angela Rye said yesterday “white men are terrorists”
There's no need to screw over Bernie this time around. There are enough like minded candidates in the race that have effectively diluted Bernie's brand.
(08-21-2019 08:52 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve been trying to figure out who, or how, they will screw Bernie again. The Left’s process is a train wreck. What and how are they going to run an “old white man” as their candidate after essentially calling all white men evil. Or as CNN’s Angela Rye said yesterday “white men are terrorists”
There's no need to screw over Bernie this time around. There are enough like minded candidates in the race that have effectively diluted Bernie's brand.
Miko that’s an excellent point. They all co-opted his socialist speech to appeal to as many on “The Free Sh*t Train” as possible.
"Tulsi Gabbard is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.
Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates -- especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang. But the Democratic National Committee has decreed that the polls constituting this average are not sufficiently “qualifying.”
What makes a poll “qualifying” in the eyes of the DNC? The answer is conspicuously inscrutable. Months ago, party chieftains issued a list of “approved sponsoring organizations/institutions” for polls that satisfy their criteria for debate admittance. Not appearing on that list is the Boston Globe, which sponsored a Suffolk University poll published Aug. 6 that placed Gabbard at 3%. The DNC had proclaimed that for admittance to the September and October debates, candidates must secure polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls -- but a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria. There has not been an officially qualifying poll in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month...."
Whats a Democrat primary contest without some fixing for the preferred candidate??
If you are in NY you better register ASAP. They have an absurd registration deadline for primary voting eligibility. But its ok to disenfranchise those voters cause they may not vote the "right" way
They still cheat their own people in the primaries. And with the Democrat's long history of cheating in New York, Chicago, South Texas and other places, Republicans are to believe they won't cheat in the general election?
Well guys that's because the Democratic Party is no longer a political party. They are an ideological party. They've ceased having any semblance of listening to their constituents and are only interested in telling their constituents what to do.
If Trump needs to illustrate anything this is it! In speech, in action, and in ideology they are totalitarian. This is the U.S.A. vs Banana Republic Marxism plain and simple. And any sane Democrats left in America need to acknowledge this and abandon this insanity and help Trump root out and replace the obstructionist Republicans.
(08-21-2019 08:52 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve been trying to figure out who, or how, they will screw Bernie again. The Left’s process is a train wreck. What and how are they going to run an “old white man” as their candidate after essentially calling all white men evil. Or as CNN’s Angela Rye said yesterday “white men are terrorists”
There's no need to screw over Bernie this time around. There are enough like minded candidates in the race that have effectively diluted Bernie's brand.
Yep. Last time Bernie was it if you didnt like Clinton. Not this time.
(08-21-2019 08:24 AM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]I hope she runs the table.
I think the Bern is done, Sloe is on the plane crash emergency slide to oblivion, I don’t think even black folk like knee pads.
So, we’re left with Warren, I guess. Trump can give the whole Fauxcahontas thing a good run, but then he needs to let it drop.
Let her run around with all her 5 year “plans” like Mao did, and she can tout her fake HahVawd bona fides.
I mean, who else could possibly be more deserving of that prestigious spot?
I don't particularly like him, but what makes you think Bernie is done? He seems to be gaining support from what I've seen anecdotally, but I'll admit I pay little attention to polls.
(08-21-2019 08:24 AM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]I hope she runs the table.
I think the Bern is done, Sloe is on the plane crash emergency slide to oblivion, I don’t think even black folk like knee pads.
So, we’re left with Warren, I guess. Trump can give the whole Fauxcahontas thing a good run, but then he needs to let it drop.
Let her run around with all her 5 year “plans” like Mao did, and she can tout her fake HahVawd bona fides.
I mean, who else could possibly be more deserving of that prestigious spot?
I don't particularly like him, but what makes you think Bernie is done? He seems to be gaining support from what I've seen anecdotally, but I'll admit I pay little attention to polls.
He has a huge number of alt left small time supporters, but the wealthy and powerful have little use for him except as a foil. Basically, Bernie sells himself as the candidate for the little guy because he has to, and not necessarily because he wants to. Other candidates are co-opting his open and forthright pandering, but are still trying to appeal to the powers that vote blue. It’s nothing more than a modification of the formula that got Obama elected: pander to the wealthy behind closed doors, and the not-so-wealthy out in the open. The tricky part is doing this while hoping no one notices.
(08-21-2019 08:24 AM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]I hope she runs the table.
I think the Bern is done, Sloe is on the plane crash emergency slide to oblivion, I don’t think even black folk like knee pads.
So, we’re left with Warren, I guess. Trump can give the whole Fauxcahontas thing a good run, but then he needs to let it drop.
Let her run around with all her 5 year “plans” like Mao did, and she can tout her fake HahVawd bona fides.
I mean, who else could possibly be more deserving of that prestigious spot?
I don't particularly like him, but what makes you think Bernie is done? He seems to be gaining support from what I've seen anecdotally, but I'll admit I pay little attention to polls.
Elizabeth Warren has supplanted him as the alt-left candidate of choice. His campaign is DOA, it's only a matter of time. He should drop out after he doesn't win New Hampshire, but I imagine he will be too stubborn to do so.
He was exposed big time after the first debate of basically only having 3 talking points which he plays on repeat. It worked last time because it was just him vs. Clinton, but his message doesn't stand out anymore with 20+ other candidates all saying the same thing, and then some.
I'd admit that he's been better since the first debate, and experienced a slight bump, but the shift in support from him to Warren already happened, and I doubt they'll go back. There's no reason to, Warren is much more high energy.
(08-21-2019 08:24 AM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]I hope she runs the table.
I think the Bern is done, Sloe is on the plane crash emergency slide to oblivion, I don’t think even black folk like knee pads.
So, we’re left with Warren, I guess. Trump can give the whole Fauxcahontas thing a good run, but then he needs to let it drop.
Let her run around with all her 5 year “plans” like Mao did, and she can tout her fake HahVawd bona fides.
I mean, who else could possibly be more deserving of that prestigious spot?
I don't particularly like him, but what makes you think Bernie is done? He seems to be gaining support from what I've seen anecdotally, but I'll admit I pay little attention to polls.
Elizabeth Warren has supplanted him as the alt-left candidate of choice. His campaign is DOA, it's only a matter of time. He should drop out after he doesn't win New Hampshire, but I imagine he will be too stubborn to do so.
He was exposed big time after the first debate of basically only having 3 talking points which he plays on repeat. It worked last time because it was just him vs. Clinton, but his message doesn't stand out anymore with 20+ other candidates all saying the same thing, and then some.
I'd admit that he's been better since the first debate, and experienced a slight bump, but the shift in support from him to Warren already happened, and I doubt they'll go back. There's no reason to, Warren is much more high energy.
You underestimate the feverance of his supporters.
I think it will be Warren, but Sanders has a chance. Biden might even avoid embarrassing himself so much he gets knocked out.
Its too early to count anyone out, but it fortunately looks like the slut is fading. Harris was the scariest to me. She speaks well and sounds intelligent (i.e. not a demented creepy old man or a cranky old man who couldn't figure out communism was bad). She's female and Black so excites that part of the Democratic base. But she has absolutely zero principles. She will say and do anything. I think she would have a better chance of beating President Trump than any of the other 3 and is probably more competent than the other 3.
