The Crooked DNC

[coorslite21]

There are a few who 

have been pretty vocal here about Trump....and the Right.....with the help of the Russians....fixing the 2016 election....

 

The only proven fix was by the DNC.....HRC....and the MSM....involving their Primary....just a factual statement....Sanders got screwed.....and HRC.....the chosen one....was a crap candidate.....

 

So what's going on this time.....?

 

Same old thing......for those of you who lean to the left....you should spend your time getting your house in order.....or you'll be looking at another 4 years of the Golden Fox.......    CL

 

Kim Iverson, I’ll see your DNC rigging claim and raise you one collusion accusation.

Dawn Papple

Aug 19 · 3 min read

Kim Iversen in “Is The DNC RIGGING The Primary Against Tulsi Gabbard and Others?” video 8/18/19

At the time of this writing, Kim Iversen’s video entitled “Is The DNC RIGGING The Primary Against Tulsi Gabbard and Others?” has nearly 40K views. Kim asserts that she believes the DNC is rigging our election again. Kim’s right, but it’s even easier to point fingers when even more complimentary facts are considered. These additional facts indicate only two possibilities: Journalistic negligence or collusion on the part of several mainstream media organizations.

Several media organizations were tasked with conducting and publishing polls to qualify candidates for the September debates simply. Most of them have neglected to accomplish this task following the crucial second set of debates.

The Democrats published a press release with the rules for qualifying for the debates. It listed the organizations which will conduct polls that will be considered qualifying polls. The press release also stated another caveat:

“ For the September debate, each poll must be publicly released between June 28, 2019, and August 28, 2019.”

So, not only is Democracy able to be manipulated by the methods and filters used in qualifying surveys but furthermore, Democracy can be completely snuffed out if the people in these organizations look at the results of the polls they conduct and simply choose not to publicly release the results or refuse to conduct the polls at all.

It’s been nearly three weeks. We’ve only seen the addition of three qualifying polls.

The following organizations were, in essence, tasked with conducting qualifying polls during this debate season:

• Associated Press
• ABC News
• CBS News
• CNN
• Des Moines Register
• Fox News
• Monmouth University
• NBC News
• New York Times
• National Public Radio (NPR)
• Quinnipiac University
• University of New Hampshire
• Wall Street Journal
• USA Today
• Washington Post
• Winthrop University

Of those 16 organizations, only three of them have respected the American people minimally enough to even follow through with their responsibility to either conduct or publish the results of the polls they conducted after the second rounds of the Democratic Debates.

The #DemDebates took place nearly three weeks ago on July 30 and July 31. Only FOX News, Quinnipiac University, and Monmouth University have published poll results. So, to be clear: In almost three weeks and out of 12 media platforms, only FOX News published the results of a presidential preference poll.

So the question is simple. Were these other organizations so negligent at their jobs that they didn’t conduct any polls in the nearly three weeks that followed the very heated debates in July, or did they simply choose not to publish the results?

Because if it’s the latter, that’s collusion against the American people to manipulate the results of a Federal election.

By the way, if you are new to the whole concept of the DNC meddling with Democracy, you can check out the still ongoing DNC fraud class-action lawsuit from the last presidential election on JamPac. That class-action lawsuit was dismissed in the trial court for issues relating to standing and damages. Oral argument on the dismissal was last December as the dismissal is being appealed in the Circuit Court. That appeal is still pending.

 

 

• Politics
• Election 2020
• Dnc Fraud Lawsuit
• Election Fraud
• Collusion

 

147 claps

 

WRITTEN BY

Dawn Papple

Tweet: @PappleDawn | Facebook: @dawnpapple | Libertarian-leaning Progressive

Follow

 

 

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

Here in Florida we're only too aware of the left's penchant for rigging the Votes.

 

They are SO blatantly guilty, yet repeatedly escape Justice.

WHY?

 

Until they are held accountable, they'll continue.

Until we're able to circumvent their push-back against Voter I.D., they'll continue.

 

Russia - Race - Recession.

They repeatedly beat these fake topics to death in an attempt to poison Voters' minds 

against an Administration voted in by We The People....
An President that's actually working -- for US.

 

We saw how they stole Elections all across the Land to turn Congress kommie.

Now they're going after the White House using the same traitorous tactics.

 

Lie - Deny - Deflect

Having lost the battle with honesty & truth long ago, they're backed against a wall and

turning to illegalities, lies & deflections and slight of hand.

Klassic kommie.

 

The only Candidate they have with respectable numbers is something they profess to hate...

An actual PMS...

that's right,

a PALE, MALE, STALE old guy doubling as an anchor around their god Ho'bummer's neck.

 

If they don't STEAL the next Election outright through theft & deception,

 they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

And they know it.

Panic in the dem disco. 

 

 

.

Edited August 20, 2019 by SgtFuryUSCZ

[Muleslayer]

 

9 hours ago, SgtFuryUSCZ said:

Panic in the dem disco

 

[coorslite21]

Here's some additional info on the crooked DNC.....they will destroy their own party at this rate......and then ......it looks like the alternative is a Socialism platform.....not looking too good for those on the left......    CL

 

 

 

 

 

 

5' 

‌

‌

AP Photo/Paul Sancya

Gabbard Victimized by DNC's Dubious Debate Criteria

By Michael Tracey

 

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. 6that 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.

More in Articles

 

Leaving Afghanistan: Hawks and Doves Weigh Risks

 

 

Ethnic Studies Latest Ploy to Brainwash Kids

 

 

The Media's Intersectional Embrace of Anti-Semitism

 

 

Triggering the Google Social Credit System

 

 

Will '80s Stance on 'Ethnocide' Harm Sanders With Native Americans?

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.

Michael Tracey (@mtracey) is a journalist in Jersey City, N.J.

‌

 

 Comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

AP Photo/David Sharp

 

[coorslite21]

 

 

 

 

 

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

On 8/21/2019 at 12:00 AM, Muleslayer said: