Come on Michael. You know all too well that they're trying to crowd the playing field so nobody gets a majority in round 1 of voting. This is all for the superdelegates to purchase a 2nd term for Trump.
-
-
-
I think the real reason, like 2016 is "plausible" rigging of vote tallies, these candidates will be used as plausible beneficiaries of rigged votes, flipped electronic tallies, just enough to push being to 2nd round, but not so much to trigger street riots from the rigging.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Weird that only about 3 or 4 people ran in 2016 for the Democratic party nomination then. It's almost like the whole field was cleared to coronate Hillary.
-
Almost?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This. More than half of these people are jockeying to sell books, get posts in an administration or consulting firm, fill out their campaign coffers for other races. There is a reason people like Herman Cain and Klobuchar run.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Then why didn’t they run in 2016? The main reason they are running is to help peel earned delegates from Bernie, deny him 51% delegates, triggering superdelegates to pick Biden even if Bernie leads. Also, to move goalposts on debate qualifications hoping to lock out Tulsi.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also, voting on the nominee reverts to the superdelegates if, after the first round of primary voting, they decide the spread shows no clear frontrunner...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's hard to believe that you actually believe that's the reason, Mike. The reason all these people are running is to purposely try and kneecap
@BernieSanders and I think you know it.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If so, why the big change since 2016? Just askin’...
-
Hmmm...
Why of course! The answer is clear. It would have been futile in 2016. Wasn't that Hillary's turn?
Thank you for your thought-provoking question!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s all for name recognition for a run in 2024 because I think a lot of them secretly think Trump is going to get reelected in 2020
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In 12 months half of them will be gone and hawking a new bubble gum or something on the shopping channel.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It is also how the mainstream Democrats hope to dilute support for the insurgents like Gabbard and Sanders. Encourage calls for the “necessity” of rallying behind one, inevitably status quo politician.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm also now starting to wonder if this is an attempt to keep Tulsi Gabbard out of the debates. They better not dare. She got the 65,000 donors and was at 2% in a CNN poll, these other new candidates are behind her. I wouldn't put anything past the corrupt DNC and Dem party.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
True, but in many case the candidates are already office holders, and it costs money to run a campaign.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The electoral system helps more with candidate exposure? How?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I thought Montana’s was just a restaurant in Canada
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.