I'll keep repeating it for the edification of media scolds. There have been zero "approved" polls from NH/SC/NV in the past 5 weeks: you know, the states where candidates are actually campaigning. There's no national primary. This party-directed "winnowing" process is nonsensical
-
-
Show this thread
-
You can scream about "rules," but 1) The rationale for these "rules" have never been explicated by the party bosses who devised them in secret 2) The "rules" run contrary to how primary campaigns actually work, which is that you go campaign in the first states that vote
Show this thread -
Bernie gained traction in 2016 in large part because he surged early on in New Hampshire, despite trailing substantially in the national polls. That's because NH voters were the ones actually hearing from him. So unless you can defend them on the substance, STFU about "the rules"
Show this thread -
These "rules" were devised by party bosses with no transparency. This isn't some Constitutional mandate like the Electoral College, it's a set of arbitrary dictates constructed by DNC officials who above all are protecting their own interests (and those of their "media partners")pic.twitter.com/rOnf12KxYu
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
.
@DNC already showing their corrupt hand in 2020. -
She should have run on the GOP ticket.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
when she isn't included tulsi should do a rebuttal to the debate. if she has a network anywhere close to what ron paul had she could get more views than people who acutally watch the debate.
-
I think Tulsi should go on the .
@TuckerCarlson show on debate night. I have my complaints about him, but he's the only one that allows & encourages real discussion about anti-war. The lapdogs in the rest of the MSM simply repeat State Dept press releases and call it "journalism". - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The thing is... if they accepted more pollsters, they would probably want to make the required number of polls higher (5 instead of 4). What you're saying is "if they made it easier to get into the debate, there would be more people there" which fucking duh.
-
I think one of the primary arguments is *how* they choose these particular polls. Why are some of the most respected pollsters in the country not taken into account. There just needs to be transparency and there isn't.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Im glad the only known islamophobic is out of the debate
-
New conversation -
-
-
She's had her chance in two debates already and still can barely get above 1%. The qualifying rules were set before any candidates had announced and apply equally to all. So, no. The rules are imperfect but fair. Her exclusion is not absurd but necessary for a fair process.
-
Exactly
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Actually, I am quite happy that the American Hindu extremist didn't qualify
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Rules are always arbitrary. Tulsi didn't make it. That is all.
-
And I am very happy she did not make it! She does not belong there.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Right. It's much less arbitrary to only use polls from the first two (or three, or four, or five, or) states to hold primaries than to just use national polls to determine who to include in these nationally televised debates.
-
Not totally agreeing with the OP on the fairness of DNCs rules (if anything I think the complaints should have been brought up sooner), but thought I would clarify that they are already using regional polls, just from their list of approved polling orgs.
- 2 more replies
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.