By Richard John Stapleton
This essay shows with compelling evidence and analysis that Tulsi Gabbard won the CNN DNC primary debates by a large margin in the eyes of viewers of the debates.
Unfortunately the DNC establishment, CNN, and MSM (Mainstream Media) hid the fact. This is a classic example of MSM creating fake news by lying by omission.
Tulsi Gabbard would be the “frontrunner” in the eyes all US citizens for the 2020 ellection, if only the US had a truly democratic unrigged system.
I posted on my Facebook page a Drudge Report poll October 16, 2019 showing Tulsi Gabbard handily won the sixth Democratic National Committee primary debate televised by CNN, garnering 40 percent of some 47,000 votes clicked in by respondents at that time, which by today October 22 has grown to 207,726 votes clicked in for this poll, of which Tulsi Gabbard garnered 38 percent of the total votes in the last count, Yang being second with 18 percent, Buttigieg being third with 12 percent, Warren being fourth with 7 percent, Klobuchar being fifth with 6 percent, Biden being sixth with 5 percent, Sanders and Steyer being tied with 4 percent each, O’Rourke had 2 percent, Harris 1 percent, Castro 1 percent, Booker 1 percent. These percentage ranks changed very little from October 16 to now October 22. The poll was programmed in such a way that no respondent could vote more than one time. I tried to vote twice after deciding to cast another vote for another candidate in addition to the one I had already voted for. The program would not accept the click and reminded me I had already voted, indicating the process was legit.
The poll by POLL.FM was titled “**DRUDGE POLL** WHO WON THE SIXTH DEM DEBATE?” and was posted posted at https://poll.fm/10434126/results?msg=voted&fbclid=IwAR1vzidQjjgTJYvlSGY8D3N4-UUJFYx7g8m9ElyLRuDvGhtRQEe7Njf5W0M.
You can also find today similar results reported for the fourth DNC debate by the Daily Caller at https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/15/drudge-poll-winner-fourth-debates/.
I included the following comment with my Drudge Report poll post where it says Say Something on my Facebook page October 16 shortly after seeing the DR poll results.
“Now here is an interesting post, showing clearly something is wrong with political reporting in MSM (Mainstream Media), and in CNN and DNC land. According to this poll Tulsi Gabbard won the sixth DNC debate handily with forty percent of the vote, far ahead of the next best, Yang, with about twenty percent. Biden and the rest got less than seven percent each. Gabbard also won another DR poll about another CNN debate I saw s month or so ago with about the same results as this one, which unfortunately I did not post on my Facebook page.
“Yet there has been no mention of this I have seen in MSM, which does not say much considering I rarely watch or read MSM, but my wife does and she has not said anything to me about seeing or hearing any news about Gabbard handily winning the DNC CNN debates. Apparently it’s not that MSM publishes fake news so much by commission; apparently they primarily publish fake news by omission. According to MSM, CNN and the DNC Tulsi Gabbard is not a serious Democrat candidate. Are these Drudge Report Internet polls anomalies? Or what?”
To which I received the following post in response on my Facebook page.
“Why would anybody even consider paying any attention to Drudge on the Democratic debate? Like listening to what a dog has to say about a cat beauty contest, run by cats, for cats.”
To which I responded with:
“There have been 205,918 Total Votes cast in this poll so far. Are you saying this is irrelevant? Or that everything posted on the Drudge Report is fake news? i watched the debate on CNN, and i think Tulsi and Yang were the smartest and the best. Unfortunately they have little chance of being nominated given the way “democracy” works in the US. On the other hand, I voted for Steyer, probably a mistake.”
Which prompted this response:
“The purpose of the Drudge Report is to present fake news. Sometimes this goal is best served by telling the truth but this does not make them a trustworthy source. About a (sic) reliable as DT’s tweets. And everybody knows you solicit any result you want in a poll.”
Which prompted this response from me:
“Wrong in your first sentence. Basically the Drudge Report is an aggregator. It links articles from all over, the New York Times. Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Internet blogs nobody ever heard of, such as my Effective Learning Report. Yes, it’s basically a tabloid type thing primarily designed to attract casual readers and thinkers, but some of the shit linked is pretty good, overall giving any reader one of the best general pictures they could find free in a hurry of what is going on in the minds of all Earthian humans right now, of all persuasions and faiths, caused by hundreds of publication sources that are linked, MSM or social media, just by reading their headlines. Who needs a “trustworthy” source? If you need a “trustworthy” source that means you cannot think for yourself, and are being indoctrinated, being unable to figure out what is fake and what is not. Of course all the responses were solicited or the Drudge Report would not have gone to the trouble to make this voting process available. Did they try to manipulate people into voting as they did? Hell no. The Drudge Report is less contaminated by bias and prejudice than MSM since they are not dependent on charging customers for subscriptions. I have never paid the Drudge Report a cent for the information I have received from them. Don’t believe me, ask Google “how many hits does the Drudge Report get per day?””
Which elicited this response:
“Good topic for next time I can make The Ogeechee Economic Forum.”
And then this from me:
“Great. See You There.”
The Ogreechee Economic Forum is a Game-Free group I moderate the third Saturday of the month at 11-12 a.m. at the Eagle Creek Brewing Company in my hometown, Statesboro, Georgia, USA. For details about the forum go here https://www.effectivelearning.net/ogeechee-economic-forum.html.
There is nothing like face-to-face political discussions in small groups to get to the truth of the matter. You can often tell by looking at the faces of people in a group when they are lying and telling the truth. These truthful body language signals are not as obvious in mass media. On the other hand, unfortunately despite emailing to one hundred or more people within driving distance of Statesboro inviting them to the Ogeechee Economic Forum meetings, and inviting them to invite their friends, most people are not interested. Having moderated the forum about a year once a month by now, no more than three participants have shown up for any meeting. Unfortunately this small group is like most groups and organizations; we are mostly preaching to our own choir. Almost all the participants have been well-educated relatively intelligent relatively unprejudiced white males. In order for face-to-face groups such as this one to produce significant learning you need participants of all persuasions, faiths, sexes, ages and races in the group to generate dialectical give and take Adult-Adult ego state transactions that can produce consensual answers capable of generating peaceful life-sustaining policies and processes. Unfortunately, based on my experience trying to establish a Game-free open free fair face-to-face Adult-Adult ego state economic and political discussion group in my town, it appears to me a good bet is that most Earthian humans are too apathetic or too afraid to engage in such groups. One Ogeechee Economic Forum participant said most humans do not have psychological permission to discuss economic and political problems in public, being afraid their bosses and cohorts in various groups, primarily at work, will “talk down to them” about participating in such activity.
Having gained satisfaction from the above Facebook exchange about Tulsi Gabbard on my Facebook page with one of the participants in the Ogeechee Economic Forum, I decided to venture forth with some other folks on my Facebook page newsfeed who were posting comments about various articles about Tulsi Gabbard that had been recently posted on Facebook, mostly about Gabbard’s reactions to her treatment by the DNC, having accused the DNC of trying to hijack the primary debates, and her truthful and courageous responses to Hillary Clinton’s allegations that she was a “Russian asset”, framing Hillary as a hypocrite, calling her the “queen of warmongers” and “the embodiment of political corruption,” as reported at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/19/20922122/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-queen-warmongers-russia-2020-election. .
Other Democrats in various posts have accused Gabbard of plotting a third party challenge maybe in the Green Party if Jill Stein would let her, to which Gabbard allegedly promised she would not run as a third party candidate if she did not get the DNC nomination, which, if true, seems to me to be a mistake. Being a Jill Stein voter in 2016, I posted a video October 22, 2019 on my Facebook page presenting Jill Stein in an interview truthfully and courageously telling Hillary Clinton what she thought about Clinton’s comments about Gabbard and herself being Russian assets. See this U-tube video interview posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY5KIcK2iug&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3Ysm8XKxqna5Zhb8SqFdOZ2UQA7NSV-xDXm__huGigKEqgfvmAuv2Whsw/
Most of the respondents and commenters on my Facebook newsfeed I randomly got involved with as mentioned above apparently were Democratic true believers, being convinced Biden, Warren, and Sanders were clearly the leaders in the primary process and the rest should just willingly drop out to make things smoother for the DNC, to which I responded with, “But what about Tulsi? She is obviously a strong candidate? Have you seen this Drudge Report poll? According to this poll Gabbard won the sixth debate hands down,” posting the comment and the Internet address for the DR poll showing the above results in the thread of comments.
And then three or four of the participants immediately started attacking me for having the temerity to post a Drudge Report post in their august midst, posting Parent ego state tirades about how low brow and fake the DR is, as anybody should know. One of them said she hoped I was getting paid for this since I was making such a fool of myself, implying I was a troll.
One person in the thread allowed they should at least cut Tulsi some slack and wait for more information, but none of the rest would hear of it, being convinced Warren, Sanders, and Biden were the only candidates worth considering. And then one of them posted a fact check website in response to one of my posts in which I asked them if they had any evidence the DR was an untrustworthy fake news site? According to the fact check site the DR did publish some fake news, also conspiracy theories, and was generally untrustworthy, recommending fact checking any post you might want to remember and use posted by the DR. The fact check site also criticized the DR for linking articles posted in ZeroHedge, another so-called conspiracy theory site. The fact check site said about seventy-five percent of DR readers were conservatives some of whom listened to Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk. Having never listened to Rush Limbaugh nor watched Fox So-called News, considering myself a staunch Independent, I nevertheless began to think I might be more conservative than I thought I was.
The Facebook posts mentioned above convinced me the Drudge Report is labeled and villified as a fake news conservative site by a lot of Democrats, which I had not considered or concluded in four or years of perusing and reading the DR, mainly reading headlines just to see what is going on around Spaceship Earth, which I am still convinced is worthwhile, the DR being one of the best sites for this sort of thing. The negative posts about the DR and the fact checker information caused me to do a Google search about the DR in which I found out the DR now has probably the greatest number of hits per day of any web news source anywhere, over one million hits per day.
If some seventy-five percent of the DR hits per day are conservatives that means some of the other twenty-five percent could be people like me, Independent Jill Stein-voting-for Progressives, and many are people like Democrats of various persuasions, ranging from true believers to ordinary liberals, and that means a sample of 207,726 Total Votes cast in a DR poll over a week or so about a CNN DNC televised primary debate would be biased to some extend by an overweighting of conservatives, all other things being equal, but it would not necessarily be biased about what most US presidential eligible voters think, including about 50,000 non-right wing conservative eyeballs, and it is worth noting that the DR poll no doubt included eligible voters who voted in 2016 and those who did not vote in 2016, and those who will not vote in 2020, increasing the accuracy of the picture the poll painted about who won the debates, namely Tulsi Gabbard.
As I understand political polling in the US, the sample sizes for most polls are not that large, much smaller than the DR poll referenced here, and thus would be more biased than the DR poll based on sample size alone. According to this CNN article about a CNN poll at https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/cnn-poll-biden-lead-increases/index.html, Biden is way out in front as the winner of the DNC primary process, having the support of 34 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, as of October 23, with the next best Warren having 19 percent support and Sanders having 16 percent.
Here is a CNN comment from the above article: “But Biden has seen big spikes in support among moderate and conservative Democrats (43% support him now, up from 29% in the September poll), racial and ethnic minorities (from 28% among all nonwhites in September to 42% now) and older voters (up 13 points since September among those 45 and older) that outpace those among younger potential Democratic voters (up 5 points among those younger than 45)”.
The CNN poll write-up went to say Biden was considered by Democrats to be most likely to vote for issues that could be passed in Congress and he had the best grasp of foreign policy. The article said however that viewers of the last debate in their poll, the sixth one referenced by me above, viewed Biden less favorably than those who did not watch the debate.
Here is the CNN description of the poll size in the above referenced CNN article: “The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS from October 17 through 20 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults reached on landlines or cellphones by a live interviewer, including 424 registered voters who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points. For results among potential Democratic voters, it is plus or minus 5.8 points.”
If you want a view of what US voters as a whole think it seems to me the above referenced CNN poll was more biased than the above referenced DR poll, based on sample size alone, plus the CNN poll targeted Democratic true believers and likely Democratic voters with no mention of the political leanings of the remaining five hundred or so of the sample. In any case, a sample size of one thousand in the case of the CNN poll pales in comparison with the DR poll sample size of 207,726. Not being a statistician I have no idea how you would go about proving which poll had the highest statistical reliability and validity, but it seems to me the DR poll paints the clearest picture about who won the debates, and that picture shows most US eligible voters prefer Gabbard rather than Biden.
On the other hand, my homegrown sample of one, my Democratic professor emeritus statistically-expert mathematician wife had this to say: “So what, all those conservatives in the DR poll said they think Gabbard won the debate because they think she is the best looking, and they think she would be the easiest one to beat in a race with Trump.”
Regardless, it seems to me the statistical reliability and validity of the DR poll would most likely be just as high as the reliability and validity of the CNN poll.
The question remains, who do most US eligible voters think is the best presidential candidate: Gabbard or Biden?
Seems to me it boils down to what you think is most enlightening, relevant and least fake, your own eyes and ears watching and hearing the debates, the above referenced DR poll, or the above referenced CNN poll?
While there are several possible arguments one might make based on an analysis of this case, I have neither the time nor the energy to discuss them here. I also realize it is impossible to prove anything about the candidates or the DNC primary process based on the facts of this case; and I also know it is always impossible to find or generate provably-true right answers for political, economic, and social states of affairs anywhere anytime, the best you can hope for being to generate consensual answers satisfactory to most of the humans subject to them. Nevertheless, following are my conclusions based on evidence presented in this case. Call it fake news if you will.
It seems to me the DNC is again rigging their primary election, with Biden as the new Hillary, as Michael Moore has pointed out in a Facebook post. It was obvious to my eyes watching the first CNN debate referenced above that the show was rigged in favor of Biden. The debate questioners over and over referred to Biden as the “frontrunner,” giving him more deference and air time than the others. It was less evident in the sixth debate but it was still there. CNN has conducted the debates to generate advertising revenues and then proceeds to conduct a poll about who won and then writes up the poll results for their advertisers and viewers. How unbiased is that?
I have no idea what is really going on internally within the DNC, but it seems to me there are parallels between their behind the scenes machinations now and whatever it was they did to sidecar Sanders in 2016. Warren in recent days has been saying the 2016 DNC primary election was rigged against Sanders, which seemed obvious to me at the time. Gabbard has recently said the DNC is trying to “hijack” the primary election now. Rigging, hijacking, whatever, this sort of the thing seems to be standard operating procedure for the DNC.
It seems to me the DNC is primarily interested in finding a presidential nominee who they think will preserve the perks, legacies, jobs, and careers of Democrat politicians and bureaucrats in Washington than they are in finding a nominee that can defeat Trump and improve conditions for we the people, humans not only living in the US, but homo sapiens and other species still alive all around Spaceship Earth, including about fifty percent of eligible US voters who did not vote in the 2016 election, which no doubt was to some extent caused by having to vote for a supposed lesser of two evils.
There is no proof that Trump has been more evil in office than Hillary would have been. At least Trump has not destroyed any more nations yet. Look what Hillary did to Libya when she was secretary of state under Obama.
It seems to me Tulsi Gabbard would have a much better chance of beating Trump and doing something to significantly improve the functioning of the US government than Biden, but she apparently does not stand a chance of getting the DNC presidential nomination, primarily because of the way the DNC primary process has been hijacked and rigged, primarily by forcing DNC presidential primary candidates to solicit large sums of money from elite rich and corporate donors to stay in the race, donors who in general will not donate to young highly intelligent creative and energetic progressive female candidates they cannot trust to do their bidding in office, in a process that in effect forces most presidential primary candidates to accept bribes psychologically obligating them to pay back their elite rich and corporate donors after they get in office by voting in their favor. Bernie Sanders was an exception in this regard in 2016 but it did him no good in the end, thanks to the rigging of the DNC.
It also seems to me most Democratic true believers are naively playing a DO ME SOMETHING psychological Game, socially pretending they primarily want a presidential candidate who will improve the US government and benefit we the people, whereas psychologically they want an older not so bright pork barrel male politician who they falsely think will help them personally (rather than elite rich and corporate donors) with more perks and benefits, which in my view are necessary in many cases, but which should not be the driving force behind voting in US presidential primary elections, otherwise the US and Spaceship Earth will continue their downward spirals.
Unfortunately large political parties become corrupted—having been bribed by the elite rich and large corporations, having created voting rules and processes that require politicians running for high office to take billions of dollars in bribes to purchase air, screen and print time and space from Mainstream Media to broadcast campaign propaganda to targeted audiences to get elected. They are authoritarian; evolve into fascism; cause humans to act like sheep; accomplish nothing of significance obvious to everyone when terms of office end, after promising to solve everything, after spending billions of dollars on elections; function like gangs fighting other gangs; encourage intolerance, polarizations and enmity among the populace; cause conformity and group think in organizations everywhere; create dependence; foment wars and warlike behaviors; foster obedience to party lines; waste money and resources; function with faux democracy like high school students winning popularity contests, where most of the time only those with narcissistic movie star-like looks, mannerisms, and speech win; create grandiose illusions that turn to ashes when terms of office end and poor people realize their lives have continued to deteriorate, causing anger, disillusionment, and depression; play psychological Games instead of doing things to solve real problems, such as poverty, inequality, and the like; exploit family scripts, preying upon generationally ingrained dysfunctional scripted family feeling, thinking and behaving, rather than encourage learning, growth and script-free feeling, thinking, and behaving; dumb people down; cause and reward immoral and unethical behavior, selecting leaders who have character and intellectual defects, often selecting sociopaths with little enough empathy to be able to maim and destroy nations and people with a straight face and keep a clear conscience, while presenting an innocent-looking face in public; use ad hominem slurs, innuendoes, and verbal attacks to slander humans who argue against their party line doctrines, dogmas, and slogans; create discord, mayhem, sanctions, and wars, frustrating, undermining, bullying, and destroying other countries and people around Spaceship Earth, playing one-upmanship psychological Games and plundering resources that justifies war making behaviors and expenditures to combat blowback and create jobs, profits, and votes internally; ignore global warming and climate change, to maintain their grip on the populace, telling their sheeple fairy tales instead of the truth, while not doing things to prevent the extinctions of Earthian species of fauna and flora, probably including sooner or later the Earthian human species.
Richard John Stapleton, PhD, CTA is an emeritus professor of operations management, management information systems, organizational behavior, business policy, and entrepreneurship at Georgia Southern University, using the case method in all courses. He is a founder and owner of Effective Learning Company, and the founder and moderator of the Ogeechee Economic Forum at https://www.effectivelearning.net/ogeechee-economic-forum.html .
One thought on “WHY LARGE POWERFUL POLITICAL PARTIES ARE EVIL”
Comments are closed.