The DNC debates, the MSM and Tulsi

As some of the last minute Democratic presidential candidates scramble to qualify for the DNC’s upcoming June 26/27 primary debate, the latest poll results become more than nominally important given their elevated role in whether a candidate meets the requirements to participate.

In order to qualify, each announced candidate needs to have received either $65,000 from 200 donors in 20 states or to garner more than 1% support in any three of the DNC’s ‘favored’ polls—which includes those 2016 polls with either a flawed methodology or their thumb on the scale which missed the final election results in a big way, all of which proves that wishing does not make it so.

There is every reason to believe that the favored polls will provide the necessary percentage of support in order for all 21 candidates to qualify. Given any poll’s margin-of-error in statistical sampling, it would seem that measuring public support via a percentage is an arbitrary criteria that does not represent a true accurate basis with high precision results. Even if a candidate does not qualify for the June debates, they can still qualify for the July event. A house divided and all that…

The basic structure of the debates as announced by DNC Chair Tom Perez represents a presidential primary process that is “transparent, fair, inclusive” with ‘historic reforms’ and ‘increased trust’ which you may recall, the DNC process in 2016 did nothing to generate increased trust. While Democratic officials have been meeting for months with media partners, there is yet no announcement who the moderator or participating panelists will be or how the questions are being formulated. The June round of debates will be broadcast on NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo with the July debates on CNN.

According to the DNC, the max number of candidates participating will be a total of twenty even if all 21 announced candidates qualify as it threatens to eliminate candidates who had already made the cut—so much for “transparent, fair and inclusive.” Ten will appear on June 26 with the next ten on June 27 and selection will be determined by drawing lots. Conceivably, the Main Show of Bernie and Biden may occur on June 26 or they may be split, appearing on two different nights. In any case, it may be difficult for the public to determine a clear ‘winner’ by virtue of candidate separation from the total field.

Leaving First Amendment concerns aside, Perez cited a New Yorker expose “Fox News has always been partisan. But has it become propaganda?” by Jane Mayer reporting on an ‘inappropriate’ relationship between the Trump Administration and Fox News. Perez, therefore, determined that Fox was “not in a position to host a fair and neutral debate” and would not be a participating media partner. True to form,  President Trump responded that he would not participate in general election debates with the Democrat favorite MSM outlets.

It is more than ironic when MSM outlets, like the New Yorker reveal their own unprofessional bias without applying the same propaganda standard to itself or to its MSM colleagues for its inappropriate camaraderie with the high level Obama administration officials or current Democratic presidential candidates.

As the MSM continues to pat itself on the back and win awards it did not deserve after perpetuating a deep constitutional crisis which has torn the country apart, the NYT and WaPo received $15,000 for its 2018 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for its flawed, erroneous reportage on Russiagate, as CNN won $2,500 for the 2018 White House Correspondents Merriman Smith Award which was based on leaks from former Obama officials John Brennan and James Clapper rather than the old-fashioned method of investigative reporting. Presumably, all recipients kept the prize money.

On the part of the DNC, the obvious idea is to winnow the field in such a way that it does not appear obvious if any one candidate is being deliberately shoved aside without an equal opportunity. LOL with that. Examination of a less than inspiring slate of candidates leaves considerable space for true excellence to surface. It is ironic that the party so enthralled with diversity and identity politics actually represents a gross lack of diversity in terms of public policy options.

With the new CNN poll showing Joe Biden representing the fossil wing of the Democratic Party with a 39% favorable rating as Bernie drops to 15%, it is eerily reminiscent of  overstated polls for HRC in 2016. Thanks to CNN, additional White House contenders have qualified for the debate via the 1% option, including former Colorado Gov John Hickenlooper who might take the opportunity to inform the public why he attended the Bilderberg meeting in 2018.

Given her almost totally hostile reception by every MSM outlet who deigned to interview her, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has experienced, as an opponent of regime change wars, more bad manners and outright personal antagonism than any other candidate. While Gabbard easily qualified for the debates via the $65,000 requirement and continues to attract SRO audiences in NH, Iowa, California and elsewhere, yet until the newest CNN poll, she failed to register any 1% of public support. Something here does not compute given the ‘favored’ polls past history of favoritism. If the Dems continue to put a brick wall around her, Jill Stein has already opened the Green Party door as a more welcoming venue for a Tulsi candidacy. The Dems, who tend to be unprincipled and vindictive, better be careful what they wish for.

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Responses to The DNC debates, the MSM and Tulsi

  1. Eric Zuesse

    Thank you, Intrepid Report, and Renee Parsons, for this terrific report about mainstream and most ‘alt-news’ hostility toward the only candidate who scores near 100% on my progressivism-scale, even higher than Sanders. She also is the most gifted debater and presenter, of the entire bunch (though, strictly on that skill, Eric Swalwell and Pete Buttigieg are likewise formidable, but as liars not as truth-tellers). The only reason why I am expecting Biden to get the nod this time is that Hillary did in 2016, and he’s evil and incompetent and billionaire-backed as much as she was. But if he fades, then I’d expect Buttigieg to replace Biden. It could happen, because Buttigieg is vastly slicker than Biden. It would be great to hear Buttigieg and Tulsi go head-to-head in a Democratic debate. Maybe if that were to happen, then Tulsi would be able to win the nomination despite the hatred of her by the DNC, which is even more hostile toward her than it is toward Bernie. If the final contest will be Biden v. Trump, then it will be a mud-throwing contest, but I won’t vote for either one, because the only thing that will matter to me then would be to increase some third party’s vote-percentage sufficiently to get it automatic ballot-access in the next Presidential campaign and replace the Democratic Party like the 1860 contest replaced the Whig Party. However, that history also is dadly instructive, because after the bullet from John Wilkes Booth in 1865, the new progressive Republican Party got immediately taken over by America’s aristocracy and over decades became even more conservative than the Democratic Party became. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

  2. It’s a natural default assumption that when big-ticket events occur over the course of a presidential election, they are necessarily important.

  3. Pingback: Homepage