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.