Gabbard Would Outperform Sanders In Debate With Trump

Tulsi Gabbard would have a considerable edge in debate against Trump which Sanders would not have. The ONLY exception would be voters rabidly pro-Sanders or ANYONE-but-Trump. For all other voters, in debate with Trump, Sanders would struggle with certain topics which most Americans find highly important.

Russiagate and Sanders. The first example of this came this week. Hillary Clinton went on a talk show and tied Sanders to the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. Now, most of us have little interest in what Clinton has to say on any subject, so this should be a non-issue. However, it was picked up by the Russiagate media and talked about widely.

Now the biggest problem with this subject is the fact that Sanders has not opposed Russiagate. He has propagated it. He has stated publicly that Russia helped his campaign in 2016 without his knowledge. He has previously accused his own supporters in 2016 of being influenced by Russian propaganda if they did so much as question Hillary Clinton.

What this means is that Sanders has bound his own hands regarding Russiagate. So far the media on this subject has gone easy on Sanders. You may think not but trust me, it will absolutely get worse. Sanders has not faced any accusations regarding Russiagate in DNC debates. Trump will absolutely bring up the subject, even if only in an attempt to deflect accusations against him by the media. This will place Sanders on the defensive because the questions will come not only from Trump but also neoliberal AND conservative media. Trump has denied any political ties to Russia and can point to how hawkish he has been against Russia. Sanders has no effective defense, since he has promoted the Russiagate narrative and claims that Russia helped him in 2016.

Russiagate and Gabbard. Gabbard would not have this problem. She makes her foreign policy stance very clear. She will work toward diplomacy and easing tensions with other countries, including Russia. The risk of maintaining those tensions is too great to allow them to increase further. Aside from wild-eyed schizophrenic talking heads who see Russians in their closets and refrigerators, there has been no accusation of Gabbard having any ties to Russia and those claims cannot be in any way quantified rationally. I’m sure Rachel Maddow will try, though.

Election integrity. Another issue on which Gabbard has the upper hand is her defense of election integrity. It has been absolutely proven that the DNC committed election fraud in 2016, with Hillary Clinton at the helm. Trump will absolutely bring that subject up. Sanders will have no defense on the subject at all. Not only did he campaign for Clinton in 2016 but he has been completely silent regarding election fraud in the primary up to this very day.

Gabbard, on the other hand, stepped down from the DNC vice chair position to protest election fraud, did NOT campaign for Clinton, has been publicly critical regarding the DNC and openly opposed Clinton only weeks ago. She also has announced that she will not be running for her Congressional seat again, so the DNC holds absolutely no power over her political future, as far as we know at this time.

Foreign policy. On foreign policy, Trump would likely not even challenge Gabbard. While he has failed at his campaign promises of ending wars and easing tensions with allegedly hostile leaders, he can point to efforts he has made. Gabbard also shows she will meet with those leaders and states the absolute goal of ending wars. Trump can absolutely challenge Sanders on foreign policy because Sanders has only offered platitudes on foreign policy. He has not offered any specific policies, goals or methods for his foreign policies.

Healthcare. Trump’s healthcare policies have been an absolute tragedy, leaving millions without medical insurance coverage of any kind while insurance and medical costs have continued to rise drastically. The one thing he can point to is that he eliminated mandatory private coverage and the penalty for not being insured. He will use the last part as a weapon against both Sanders and Gabbard, who both support universal healthcare.

With Gabbard, she openly states she supports universal healthcare with no private insurance involved for basic care. She does support the availability of supplemental care through private insurance, which is consistent with most countries that have universal healthcare. Much of her proposed healthcare plan would be paid for by reducing military spending. That reduction would be constant, not affected by stock market performance.

With Sanders, his plan also has the same components. However, he has been less prone to discuss the supplemental insurance aspect, which can be construed as an attempt to hide that fact. His plan is largely financed through a tax on stock market trades. Problem is, the amount available would decline if and when the stock market declines. Which the stock market is poised to do precipitously. He states he would decrease defense spending but without a plan in place for reducing conflicts, that would be difficult to justify and accomplish.

Debate style. One has to look at debate styles and behavior. On his own, Trump goes on tangents, we all know this. However, if you recall the RNC debates in 2016, he tends to remain rather composed and on the offensive at all times.

Sanders can be put on the defensive easily. He does try and keep a strong focus on the issues but can become visibly shaken. Trump has the tendency to change subjects and use more personal attacks, which tends to put Sanders on the defensive and he is rather consistent about it. When faced with subjects for which he actually has to defend himself, he stutters a lot.

Gabbard is a lot harder to shake. She can go on the offensive very easily. She goes into debate well prepared regarding her opponent. That is, in addition to being well versed on the issues. On top of that, she thinks on her feet and can transition without blinking an eye. She can face an aggressive opponent down with a smile on her face, never show fear and not stutter a single time.

Between Sanders and Gabbard in debate against Trump or any aggressive opponent, I would definitely say Gabbard would fare much better. Sanders fosters the image of the grandfather figure focused on domestic policy. Gabbard projects the image of a warrior, ready to fight the Establishment while working to ease international tensions. In a world currently at war, with raging international tensions, highly aggressive characters and forces in our political parties and a blatantly dishonest, adversarial corporate media, at this time the warrior/diplomat is what this country sorely needs and the one who will fare far better in debate in this environment.

Dishonest Polling Eliminates Gabbard From Debate, Still In The Race

I wish I could say I find it surprising that more people do not understand that Gabbard makes a valid point when she states that the polling used to eliminate her from the next debate. Her statement is completely truthful and valid.

The DNC dictates a specified list of polls which allow a candidate to qualify for debates. These polls are conducted by means which favor neoliberal/neoconservative voters. First, they are advertised in ways that attract a very specific audience, such as on specific corporate “news” outlets. Outgoing polls are conducted using means which gain responses from very few younger or less affluent voters.

One such tactic is conducting polling via land line. Other than businesses, who has a land line any more? The answer is old, wealthy, white people. I am 57 and have not had a land line for at least 16 years, other than my internet connection. I have a VOIP line but it is not used. Part of a package deal.

Of course, there is the wording in a poll. Anyone who has ever taken any kind of poll knows the wording used determines the response. “Would you prefer taking poison or being drawn and quartered?”

Polls are frequently “weighted”, meaning some methods of response have greater value than other methods. Which can lead to a desired response counting as 10 votes in favor, while less desired responses count as 1 vote.

Placement in a poll play a role as well. Names near the top tend to get more favorable responses, those near the bottom get the fewest favorable responses. This is negated if the poll places all candidates in alphabetical order.

Some polls use specific names more often than other names, leading to an obvious, easily identified bias. However, most people are subject to being influenced and will automatically lean toward the names mentioned most often and in the bias which the poll presents.

In 2016, I examined polling which showed certain candidates having a low popularity, while their attendance at rallies indicated a very high popularity. What I found was that many of the polls completely eliminated that candidate’s name. I took a cursory look at some of the polling stating a low favorability for Tulsi Gabbard and found that some of those polls did not include her name at all or far less often than other names.

You can absolutely expect that polls conducted by capitalist entities will show low response rates for candidates who oppose capitalist policies. Entities which favor war will have low positive responses for candidates who favor diplomacy. Entities that run continuous negative stories on a candidate will have very negative responses regarding that candidate.

Just because Tulsi Gabbard is not in the debate does not mean she has dropped out of the race. I personally hope she does not. If anything, the bias against her has solidified my support for her further. I wish she would reconsider running third party if she does not get the nomination. Then she would absolutely get my vote. She will in the primary, any way.

I Didn’t Bother With The DNC Debate

Caitlin Johnstone did a wonderful and accurate review of exactly what the DNC “debate” was like. Which was precisely what I expected of it.

“Debate” is a highly contentious description. You could tell what it was going to be like in advance by the lineup of moderators. Each and every one of the moderators are neoliberal sycophants bowing to the corporate elite.

As far as the candidates, the only one I have any leaning toward is Tulsi Gabbard, being the only candidate who is truly anti-war. The rest are overtly or covertly corporate neoliberal puppets. Yes, I know this statement will get lots of dissent by the unwitting cult members who refuse to think straight or take off their cognitive dissonance blinders.

Here are the facts. If you think that any candidate is not a covert neoliberal illusionist while pushing certain concepts, you’re dead wrong. I’ve covered these subjects in detail before but let me go over them in brief one more time.

If a candidate is in favor of ousting Maduro, they are working in favor of the Koch Brothers and opposes Socialism or Social Democracy, as it were. When they try and convince you that Venezuela needs to accept US aid, yet fails to mention that the country needs aid because their resources have been seized by the US, that Venezuelans are dying because of US sanctions blocking medications, medical equipment and water purification equipment they are intentionally deceiving you. If they support continued sanctions, they are intentionally deceiving you. If they fail to mention that the election in Venezuela was monitored by observers from FORTY different countries and declared valid, they are intentionally deceiving you. If they fail to mention that Venezuela has received hundreds of tons of humanitarian aid from Russia, China and other countries, they are intentionally deceiving you. If they claim they are against military intervention in Venezuela, yet issue mandates to the leader of another country without stating what happens if those mandates are not met, they are intentionally deceiving you.

If a candidate claims to support election finance reform, yet has no specific policies which completely eliminate corporate money in political campaigns, they are intentionally deceiving you. For the record, eliminating Citizens United does not stop corporate money in politics. That’s a talking point which has no teeth. Corporate money in politics existed before Citizens United. Eliminating CU would be nothing more than a hollow victory with no substance and no effect. Vox did a very good article on this subject in 2018. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/7/17325486/citizens-united-money-politics-dark-money-vouchers-primaries The ONLY way to remove corporate money from political campaigns would be through government funding of elections. If they are not even suggesting this solution to corporate money in politics yet talking about campaign finance reform, they are intentionally deceiving you.

If they are speaking about election reform, yet not talking about going to paper ballots, they are intentionally deceiving you.

If they are talking about election reform but not addressing gerrymandering, they are intentionally deceiving you.

If they speak about election integrity yet fail to mention or stand against DNC fraud and favoritism, they are intentionally deceiving you.

If they try and convince you that the GOP is against election reform because the GOP blocked a bill funding paper ballots, they are intentionally deceiving you. Paper versus electronic ballots are determined and funded at the state level, not federal.

If they speak against military intervention and regime change yet say Maduro and Assad and the Iranian president have to go because the US says so, they are intentionally deceiving you.

If they talk about peace yet support sanctions against other countries, they are intentionally deceiving you. Sanctions are acts of war. Sanctions kill. They starve human beings to death, they deny medications and medical equipment to nations, they deny water filtration equipment. There is absolutely NOTHING peaceful about sanctions. In addition, sanctions do harm to our allies, sometimes destroying entire industries in allied countries.

If ANY candidate claims to be against corporate money in politics and corporate control of our government yet campaigned for Hillary Clinton (the most corporate friendly candidate in history, who raised more corporate money that any candidate in history), they are intentionally deceiving you.

The one, single, solitary Democratic candidate who stands the smallest chance of getting my vote is Tulsi Gabbard. She is the ONLY Democrat who has stood against war, against regime change and has stood up to fraud and favoritism by the DNC, who risked a LOT in doing so. My current plans are still to vote Green Party, depending on who their candidate is. IF I change my vote because I do not agree with the GP candidate, it will be to Tulsi Gabbard. In the interim, I will donate to her campaign. Though I am hoping she changes her party to Independent.

I will continue refusing to watch the DNC “debates”, which lob softball, fawning questions at neoliberal favored candidates while firing baseless flaming accusations at anyone even appearing to be slightly left of center. I will not support corporate media profits. I will not boost DNC ratings. I will not tolerate watching something that makes me feel like my intelligence is being insulted. If you watch these shit shows, keep in mind that all the above is exactly what you are doing. You have NO right to complain when you help this situation to continue. You simply insure that it happens even more. Don’t blame someone else. It’s your fault, not mine. This is all completely apart from the fact that virtually nobody watching these staged presentations will change their mind about who they support. It is a collection of cults under the umbrella of a larger cult and every Blew No Matter Who supporter is nothing more than a neoliberal sycophant, whether they admit it to themselves or not. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Enjoy the show.