Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Dems Rigging Primary Again?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dems Rigging Primary Again?


    Gabbard Victimized by DNC's Dubious Debate Criteria


    gabbard.jpg

    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.

    The absurdity mounts. A South Carolina poll published Aug. 14 by the Post and Courier placed Gabbard at 2%. One might have again vainly assumed that the newspaper with the largest circulation in a critical early primary state would be an “approved” sponsor per the dictates of the DNC, but it is not. Curious.

    To recap: Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in two polls sponsored by the two largest newspapers in two early primary states, but the DNC -- through its mysteriously incoherent selection process -- has determined that these surveys do not count toward her debate eligibility. Without these exclusions, Gabbard would have already qualified. She has polled at 2% or more in two polls officially deemed “qualifying,” and surpassed the 130,000 donor threshold on Aug. 2. While the latter metric would seem more indicative of “grassroots support” -- a formerly obscure Hawaii congresswoman has managed to secure more than 160,000 individual contributions from all 50 states, according to the latest figures from her campaign -- the DNC has declared that it will prioritize polling over donors. In polls with a sample size of just a few hundred people, this means excluding candidates based on what can literally amount to rounding errors: A poll that places a candidate at 1.4% could be considered non-qualifying, but a poll that places a candidate at 1.5% is considered qualifying. Pinning such massive decisions for the trajectory of a campaign on insignificant fractional differences seems wildly arbitrary.

    Take also Gabbard’s performance in polls conducted by YouGov. One such poll published July 21, sponsored by CBS, placed Gabbard at 2% in New Hampshire and therefore counts toward her qualifying total. But Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in five additional YouGov polls -- except those polls are sponsored by The Economist, not CBS. Needless to say, The Economist is not a “sponsoring organization,” per the whims of the DNC. It may be one of the most vaunted news organizations in the world, and YouGov may be a “qualified” polling firm in other contexts, but the DNC has chosen to exclude The Economist’s results for reasons that appear less and less defensible.

    Then there’s the larger issue of how exactly the DNC is gauging grassroots enthusiasm, which was ostensibly supposed to be the principle governing the debate-qualifying process in the first place. Gabbard was the most Googled candidate twice in a row after each previous debate, which at a minimum should indicate that there is substantial interest in her campaign. It’s an imperfect metric -- Google searches and other online criteria could be subject to manipulation -- but then again, the other metrics are also noticeably imperfect. There is no reason why the DNC could not incorporate a range of factors in determining which candidates voters are entitled to hear from on a national stage. For what it’s worth, she also tends to generate anomalously large interest on YouTube and social media, having gained the second-most Twitter followers of any candidate after the most recent debate in July. Again, these are imperfect metrics, but the entire debate-qualifying process is based on imperfect metrics.

    Gabbard has a unique foreign-policy-centric message that is distinct from every other candidate, and she has managed to convert a shoestring campaign operation into a sizable public profile. (She is currently in Indonesia on a two-week National Guard training mission, therefore missing a crucial juncture of the campaign.) Other candidates poised for exclusion might also have a reasonable claim to entry -- Marianne Williamson passed the 130,000 donor threshold this week -- but the most egregious case is clearly Gabbard. If only out of self-interest, the DNC might want to ponder whether alienating her supporters is a tactically wise move, considering how deeply suspicious many already are of the DNC’s behind-the-scenes role -- memories of a “rigged” primary in 2016 are still fresh. In its December 2018 “framework” for the debates, the DNC declared: “Given the fluid nature of the presidential nominating process, the DNC will continuously assess the state of the race and make adjustments to this process as appropriate.” Now would likely be an “appropriate” time for such a reassessment.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

  • #2
    She made the mistake of torpedoing Harris who is well liked in the party.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't know why people find this so surprising. Political parties are private organizations who can conduct their business however they see fit. If they wanted, they could simply select a candidate without allowing the people to cast a single vote.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        I don't know why people find this so surprising. Political parties are private organizations who can conduct their business however they see fit. If they wanted, they could simply select a candidate without allowing the people to cast a single vote.
        It's that they are always claiming how they want every vote to count when in fact they want some votes to count far more than others.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          I don't know why people find this so surprising. Political parties are private organizations who can conduct their business however they see fit. If they wanted, they could simply select a candidate without allowing the people to cast a single vote.
          That was the traditional way anyhow - delegates met at a convention and voted on candidates until one got a majority of delegate votes. Of course, it also used to be the case that the actual candidates didn't campaign, either.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            That was the traditional way anyhow - delegates met at a convention and voted on candidates until one got a majority of delegate votes. Of course, it also used to be the case that the actual candidates didn't campaign, either.
            Ever read about the 1920 RNC (Warren G. Harding's nomination)? It's astounding that its events could unfold not even a hundred years ago.
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
              Ever read about the 1920 RNC (Warren G. Harding's nomination)? It's astounding that its events could unfold not even a hundred years ago.
              They only saving grace for Harding's nomination is that they chose a competent VP.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                She made the mistake of torpedoing Harris who is well liked in the party.
                The problem with this theory is, as the article noted, the list of approved organizations for qualifying polls was made months ago. Her attack on Harris came after that. I don't think this was part of any kind of rigging or conspiracy against her.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  They only saving grace for Harding's nomination is that they chose a competent VP.
                  And it introduced the term "smoke filled room" into our lexicon.
                  "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    I don't know why people find this so surprising. Political parties are private organizations who can conduct their business however they see fit. If they wanted, they could simply select a candidate without allowing the people to cast a single vote.
                    Um, except for the laws preventing that...
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                      The problem with this theory is, as the article noted, the list of approved organizations for qualifying polls was made months ago. Her attack on Harris came after that. I don't think this was part of any kind of rigging or conspiracy against her.
                      But the polls are done by the exact same pooling organizations.

                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We should hold competency tests for all elected officials who want to apply to run for an elected position, then have a vote among the most qualified. Right now elections are just popularity contests among useless and incompetent rich people.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          She made the mistake of torpedoing Harris who is well liked in the party.
                          Grabbing the spotlight that way is probably the only way her numbers are as high as they are, though.
                          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Right now elections are just popularity contests among useless and incompetent rich people.
                            The fate of almost all republics. This is what the people want. Democracy.
                            Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                              The fate of almost all republics. This is what the people want. Democracy.
                              What we get is Bureaucracy and a bunch of celebritards mugging for the camera and fighting among themselves like an episode of Big Brother.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Today, 05:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              13 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:25 AM
                              32 responses
                              172 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post oxmixmudd  
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 01:48 PM
                              24 responses
                              102 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 11:56 AM
                              52 responses
                              269 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seer
                              by seer
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
                              77 responses
                              379 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X