The "DNC rules are unfair to Gabbard" stuff has intensified because she effectively attacked Harris last month. But like all candidates who went negative, Gabbard didn't benefit much; in RCP average she's gone from 1% to 1.4%.
-
-
The DNC rules are unfair, period. That they've clearly been applied to prevent Gabbard from participation is so painfully obvious one literally has to be blind not to see it. They'd likely do the same to Sanders if they thought they could get away with it.
-
lololol nobody cares about Tulsi. At least people cared about Bernie so it made sense. But about two people care about Tulsi
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
For this to show that the DNC is targeting Gabbard they would've had to "decree" that the poll isn't approved after seeing its results. Since the guidelines for approved polls have been in place for a while I actually don't see how this is a legit objection.
-
The objection is most valid if you assume the DNC is psychic and knew ahead of time which polls would be better and worse for particular candidates.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
MT vs DW, this is getting meta.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
RIGGING against Tulsi Gabbard. With a capital R. Period. DNC can go on with their little neoliberal insiders game...and get destroyed at the ballot box in 2020 (unless they can rig that too...they may try).

-
They've rigged the ballot box more than once, as Greg Palast has shown. Tim Canova in FL has a lawsuit running over it. Or they rig the game, as they did when W. Virginia's delegates were split to give HRC more than half despite Sanders' having swept the state in a landslide.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
So you’re saying the DNC should make a special exception for that specific poll? Wouldn’t that *actually* be rigging the debates???pic.twitter.com/6TCFFbcXbj
-
If the results come out from the 16 approved polls we'll accept them even if we don't like them. But they are not being released. Whether or not this is intentional or not, it raises suspicion.
#ReleaseThePolls
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
He says Tulsi "attacked" Harris (because she confronted her legitimately about her record...in a debate!), and that she "went negative." This is who these people are. They can't accept people being exposed to reality, and they hope we'll all stay in denial about the corruption.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You work for the Kremlin
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Gabbard's RCP average is better than or within two percent of half a dozen candidates who have already qualified. And whether you like her or not she's certainly far more interesting than all those narcoleptic centrists.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Let’s ask Russia Today, or better, let’s wait for one of their hard-hitting exposes to come out
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The objections are not "legitimate"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.