Admittedly, it’s much too early in my career to start encouraging readers to make Molotov cocktails and begin lobbing them at banks and government buildings. Unfortunately, I’m nowhere near influential enough to make a dent on that front…yet – so for now, let’s talk about this depressing dystopian disgrace that is the Democratic primaries.
More specifically, we need to look at the asinine ever-changing debate qualification criteria, how the DNC is choosing to use polling data, and the disturbing non-stop fundraising drives. From where I’m sitting, what’s going on in the 2020 Democratic primaries – and the election cycle as a whole — may be the most depressing, unfair, and exploitative process the Democratic Party’s chief vampires-in-charge have concocted to date.
Party leadership gets to choose which polls count and which don’t arbitrarily. Meanwhile, some of the approved polling data is several weeks old and most likely no longer reflective of reality.
Then, each new debate comes with some fresh new financial requirements, which has created a situation in which working-class people are being duped out of increasingly-massive sums of money every month.
All of this in a desperate effort to compete with rich bastards and their prostitutes…..err, I mean their “candidates” – just praying that if they collectively donate enough, maybe their investment will pay off somehow. Maybe they’ll finally have some real representation in Washington DC. Hell, maybe they’ll even get some healthcare out of the deal.
The whole thing makes you want to spit.
First, it was Tulsi…
The first person to publicly lambast the DNC’s rigged primaries and the debate qualification criteria was Tulsi Gabbard. The Congresswoman was calling “BS” as early as October when she threatened to boycott the fourth debate.
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 10, 2019
What Gabbard figured out early is that the Democratic Party officials are using the debates and their escalating participation requirements to winnow the field before the American people get to cast their votes. By setting these arbitrary monthly markers, the DNC is getting to pick and choose who can be heard.
Things get especially sinister when you start analyzing the “approved” and “disapproved” polls that determine which candidates get on the stage. More on that later.
Congresswoman Gabbard went on to appear in the November debate but skipped December’s event.
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) December 10, 2019
Of course, you’re probably saying to yourself, “Who cares if they let Tulsi participate in the debate, she’s working for the Russians; she’s an Assadist; she voted ‘present’ on impeachment!”
And to that, I must admit – you are an idiot. But don’t worry, you’re in the majority in that regard! It’s fascinating to me that Democrats are still attacking the Congresswoman over Russia and her trip to Syria, considering she’s been completely vindicated.
Gabbard went to Assad’s country to see the realities of the conflict on the ground and found the US funding ISIS militants in an attempt to overthrow the country’s government.
– Slim Charles.
“But what about Assad launching gas attacks on his own people?” you’ll surely parrot.
Well, a set of leaked internal documents from within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) have all but confirmed that the alleged chemical weapons attack was a hoax. It was a constructed work of fiction meant to justify further military intervention in the region.
In Caitlin Johnstone’s December 27 article for Medium, she highlights:
“This new WikiLeaks drop includes an email from the OPCW Chief of Cabinet Sebastien Braha (who is reportedly so detested by organisation inspectors that they code named him “Voldemort”) throwing a fit over the Ian Henderson Engineering Assessment which found that the Douma incident was likely a staged event. Braha is seen ordering OPCW staff to “remove all traces, if any, of its delivery/storage/whatever” from the organisation’s secure registry.”
The leaks only get more damning from there.
“The drop also includes the minutes from an OPCW toxicology meeting with “three Toxicologists/Clinical pharmacologists, one bioanalytical and toxicological chemist,” all four of whom are specialists in chemical weapons analysis.
“With respect to the consistency of the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged victims with possible exposure to chlorine gas or similar, the experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure,” the document reads.
According to the leaked minutes from the toxicology meeting , the chief expert offered “the possibility of the event being a propaganda exercise” as one potential explanation for the Douma incident. The other OPCW experts agreed that the key “take-away message” from the meeting was ‘that the symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine and no other obvious candidate chemical causing the symptoms could be identified.'”
So, is she still a traitorous “Assadist,” if she was right all along?
By the way, the fact that these leaked documents and what they reveal aren’t the biggest news story in the country right now is terrifying. The media’s silence on something of this magnitude – after we just learned about our government knowingly lying about the unwinnable Afghanistan war for YEARS, no less – is damn near proof that we’re officially in Brave New World / 1984 territory. And in a very real way, that’s not hyperbole.
But I digress…
— Jimmy McNulty
What matters now is how the DNC is clearly manipulating the entire primary process. And concerned citizens can’t even complain, lest they are associated with Tulsi Gabbard and “Russian talking points,” which are used as an excuse to dismiss legitimate arguments.
It’s a terrifying development in modern communication and discourse. It shouldn’t be this easy to distract and silence people; these are grade-school-level tricks. That our countries collective critical thinking skills have declined to this degree in such a short amount of time should horrify us all.
Though, I guess it explains how the Democratic Party is getting away with this sham primary.
Andrew Yang and the January Debate
“The game’s the same; it just got more fierce.”
— Slim Charles
On January 14, the Democratic Party will host its seventh debate. This one will be held in Iowa, a little over two weeks before the state’s primary caucus, making it especially crucial.
Since the last debate, Yang’s profile as a legitimate presidential candidate has been soaring, as have his campaign donation numbers – yet, he’s not qualifying to be on the stage at Drake University on the 14th. But, why isn’t he currently approved to participate? Get a load of this…
To qualify for the January debate, candidates need 225,000 unique contributors and at least 5 percent support in four of the DNC’s “eligible” polls, or 7 percent support in two state-level polls.
Andrew has already far exceeded his required number of donors, but he’s only above 5 percent in one approved poll, leaving him three short.
— Theresa D’Agostino
The problem is, the most recent state-level polls were conducted in November!
That was back when Kamala was still in the race, and Trump had yet to be impeached! Two debates have happened since the numbers in Iowa, and New Hampshire were recorded, including the one in December, from which Yang emerged the winner, based on Google searches of his name, overnight donations, and the conversations he generated on Twitter.
Not to mention being endorsed by Donald Glover. Surely, he’s worth a couple of well-placed percentage points or two in the poll numbers.
Why wouldn’t the Democratic Party want the most current figures when determining who should in the debate? Why does it feel like they just stopped polling once they were able to get Amy Klobuchar approved? What is the point of reducing the field to this extent before we see any official results in early states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina?
Andrew has spent much of the last couple weeks begging party officials to conduct new polls that will reflect all that’s happened since mid-November. He also sent a letter to DNC Chairman Tom Perez, requesting four early state qualifying polls before the January 10 cut-off.
“It has been 38 days since a qualifying poll in Iowa, New Hampshire, or Nevada was taken. As you know, big shifts can happen within short periods in this race, as we’ve already witnessed multiple times,” Yang explained.
Naturally, the Democratic National Committee rejected his proposals to sponsor additional polls.
“The DNC will not sponsor its own debate qualifying polls of presidential candidates during a primary. This would break with the long-standing practice of both parties using independent polling for debate qualification, and it would be an inappropriate use of DNC resources that should be directed at beating Donald Trump,” replied Deputy Communications Director Adrienne Watson in a prepared statement.
We are headed for an exact repeat of 2016. This stupid party refuses to get out of its own way – although I still contend that this is being done on purpose.
The Disturbing Never-ending Fundraising Cycle
— Frank Sobotka
The worst thing about the obscene pre-primary pseudo-primary the DNC is running with their monthly deadlines and debate qualification goals is the disturbing cash grab it’s all become. I feel like I’m watching a very sick, very cruel joke being played by the wealthy donor classes on the masses.
Every 30 days or so, they have all the plebeians scrambling to scrape together another $100 or so, in an effort to push their favorite candidates onto the debate stage. Meanwhile, all of the preferred establishment picks just breeze through each deadline while it doesn’t impact their affluent benefactors in the slightest.
We live in a country where 78% of the population is currently living paycheck to paycheck. Most Americans can’t cover an unexpected $1000 expense – whether it be a car repair, medical emergency, etc. Yet, here we are, pouring tens of millions into Democratic primary campaigns that just keep needing more.
— Omar Little
If we’re only looking at individual contributions collected by Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Tom Steyer, Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Andrew Yang, and Amy Klobuchar – almost $295-million has already been raised this election cycle. Many of those Americans — especially the ones supporting Bernie, Warren, and Yang – are giving away their much-needed cash in the hopes of getting something in return.
Imagine what the citizens of the United States could accomplish if they just pooled these resources together for themselves and funded public works projects they actually wanted? Instead, these funds are used to buy more advertisements.
So, poor people perpetually raise money for candidates to try and defeat the billionaire donor classes at their own game, all the meanwhile dumping hundreds of millions into their pockets throughout the entire process – thus adding to the ever-increasing wealth inequality.
If you don’t think things like a capital gains tax, campaign finance reform, free healthcare, and college loan forgiveness are a pipe dream, read that again. The game is rigged and rotten to the core.
– Marla Daniels
I’m telling you right now – these people are going to keep emptying their pockets once a month until the primaries are finally over and a candidate is nominated. We’re going to get all the way to the end, and the DNC is just going to pick whoever they want regardless, just like in 2016.
At that point, I’m going to dedicate my life to organizing the working classes to take matters into our own hands. Raise our own funds and start building communities without participating in this apparent scam. “You cannot lose if you do not play,” indeed. I’m not remotely charming enough to pull it off, but somebody has to do something to try and end this nightmarish pain cycle.
Implications of Yang’s Absence on the Debate Stage
“Who’s winning?” (Referring to football on TV)
“No one wins; one side just loses more slowly.”
— Roland “Prez” Pryzbylewski
So, how does it affect the primary race if Andrew Yang isn’t allowed on the debate stage in January? I’m actually quite surprised that the Democratic National Committee isn’t working harder to propel him further. Lately, I’ve been wondering if Andrew and Bernie are competing for the same base.
Both movements are fueled primarily by young voters and individual donors, and the campaigns share a certain enthusiasm and powerful online presence. Ever since the sixth debate, I’ve been expecting Yang to rise in the polls to around 7-8%, taking just enough would-be Sanders supporters to allow a moderate like Biden or Buttigieg to slide through to the nomination.
If the DNC isn’t going to change their strategy of ignoring or dismissing Andrew Yang as a legitimate candidate, Bernie has much less to worry about. That’s massive news for Senator Sanders’s campaign, which is looking more promising by the day to steal Iowa from Mayor Pete.
Assuming being left out of the debate hurts Yang’s performance during the caucuses, I’m really starting to like that +220 betting line for Bernie Sanders to win in Iowa. If Andrew does eventually qualify and leaves a positive impression on the electorate once again, I may feel more comfortable picking Mayor Pete at +190 instead.
Malik ‘Poot’ Carr: “It’s a cold world, Bodie.”
Preston ‘Bodie’ Broadus: “Thought you said it was getting warmer.”
Malik “Poot” Carr: “World going one way, people another.”
Listen, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – thank God for political betting. To anyone paying attention, it’s fairly obvious that the United States of America has descended into some kind of dystopian oligarchy.
The wealthiest citizens control all of the capital, are legally allowed to essentially bribe our elected officials, and are given immunity from the justice system.
At the same time, the middle class is swiftly evaporating, despite living in the richest economy in the history of the world. None of it is trickling down.
While this all goes on, the Democratic Party is running a complete embarrassment of a primary that symbolizes everything wrong with our political system. The poor are constantly throwing more of their hard-earned money at campaigns, while the donor classes benefit. And after all of this, they’ll just pick whoever they want regardless.
Anyone who has a problem with that is “clearly just a Russian plant,” and not “focused on solidarity and beating Trump,” like a good Democrat.
If it weren’t for political betting , this whole charade would be too depressing for me to stand. At least this way I can commodify my cynicism! What’s better than wagering on a fixed game, if you already know the fix is in? It’s like having a backstage job at WWE and being allowed to bet on the Royal Rumble winner.
I guess the only thing left to do now is to win enough money during this election cycle to become one of the donor class bastards having all the fun before 2024 — because I’m not watching this vicious cash grab play out for a second time.
Here are my favorite 2020 election wagers to start the New Year (MyBookie Odds ):
- Bernie Sanders to Win Iowa Caucus +220
- Bernie Sanders to Win Democratic Nomination +450
- Hillary Clinton to Win Democratic Nomination +1200
- Donald Trump to Win 2020 Presidential Election -250