Posted on 10/15/2019 2:35:57 PM PDT by rintintin
We hadn’t thought of Tulsi Gabbard as a whistleblower but the Democratic presidential hopeful from Hawaii may have to enter a witness protection program to be shielded from her own party.
Gabbard asked supporters last week whether she should boycott this Tuesday’s televised “debate.” She says it’s not a true debate (she’s right there). She says it’s part of her national party’s effort to replace the role of voters in New Hampshire and elsewhere by “using polling and other arbitrary methods which are not transparent or democratic...”
The “so-called debates,” she says, “are not debates at all, but rather commercialized reality television meant to entertain rather than to inform or enlighten.”
This is not new. The DNC in 2016 did its best to rig its selection process to favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders and others. Indeed, it opposed a final Clinton-Sanders debate before the New Hampshire primary, relenting only when this newspaper agreed to bow out as a sponsor.
(Excerpt) Read more at unionleader.com ...
She’s correct.
I am so glad I have to wash my hair tonight! ;)
I love a good ‘rat fight
Correct and refreshingly honest for a Dem. Maybe it’s only a small window of honesty, but it’s welcomed nevertheless.
Tulsi is almost a RINO. And the rats hate her for that.
Republicans are not much better, but Trump did win.
I’m almost tempted to watch just to see who she takes down tonight, but I’ll just wait for the postmortem.
She is certainly the only one in the DNC race that even resembles a leader.
Waiting for courageous Bernie Sanders,to agree with her.
I suspect her military training had a lot to do with that.
I don’t know about that, a flaming “progressive socialist” by the name of Jimmy Dore and people that he interacts with really like her.
“I’m almost tempted to watch just to see who she takes down tonight, but I’ll just wait for the postmortem.”
I’m hopeful that Gabbard will tear into Fauxcahontas tonight.
As I understand the DNC changed the nominating rules for 2020, and I am not up to speed on the changes. But in 2016 and before, they had a very large number of superdelegates and they gave proportional allocation of state delegates. Hypothetically a candidate could come in 3rd place with 20%-25% of the party voters in every state, and still come out on top either by gathering enough smoke-filled backroom superdelegates, or by the #1 and #2 vote getters changing frequently (e.g. more than 4 or 5 candidates some coming in 1st and 2nd in some states and 4th and 5th in other states) or some mixture of the two. It was basically rigged to give a lot of power to the insiders.
The GOP also had superdelegates, but not nearly as many, and the states were winner take all. No proportional allocation. Could you imagine how it would have shaken out if the GOP did give proportional delegates with 17 candidates vying for the win?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.