Tag Archives: Presidential Primary election

Laying The Groundwork To Protect The Uni-Party

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the changes the Democrats have made to their primary election schedule. The Democrats have moved their first presidential primary to South Carolina.

The article reports:

In the last several weeks I have been saying to watch the state of South Carolina for how both Republican and Democrats wings of the UniParty, RNC and DNC respectively, plan to use South Carolina as the mechanism for the 2024 illusion of choice.  What I call the RNC and DNC roadmaps.

Essentially the RNC/DNC constructs are the roadmaps, from the club system – two private corporations, to control the 2024 primary election outcomes.

This is all about controlling the mechanisms of elections and creating the illusion of choice while the invisible hands of the big donors and club officers control the operations.

You might remember how South Carolina was the inflection point for Biden in the 2020 primary.  It was the SC primary when former President Obama (Black Lives Matter) and Congressman James Clyburn (AME Church network), aligned to select Joe Biden as the control mechanism to ensure Bernie Sanders was defeated.

Team Obama was operating with a sense of urgency because momentum was with Sanders and all other candidates including Biden were fractured.

The article notes:

The RNC club roadmap for Ron DeSantis is also looking to South Carolina, New Hampshire and Georgia as control mechanisms to stop President Trump from winning the nomination.   This has been part of a plan in the works for a long time (mid 2021).  The Nikki Haley and Tim Scott operations in South Carolina are part of the strategy; along with Chris Sununu in New Hampshire (despite backpedaling caused by CTH sunlight).   Brian Kemp is being leveraged in Georgia, and within the big picture push overall, the ‘Ready for Ron’ establishment is leveraging the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA) as an institution to have a much bigger role in 2024.  Just keep watching.

There are rumors that the Democrats chose South Carolina because they are planning to run Michelle Obama for President. As frightening as that may be, there is a strong possibility that she could win. Now is the time to get involved at your local level to try to stop the uni-party machine.

Please follow the link to the article for the total picture.

Still Rigging Primaries

Posted on by

Evidently the Democrat Presidential candidates are being winnowed down to fit on one debate stage. However, the winnowing process is about as fair as Bernie Sanders’ primary run in 2016.

The American Thinker posted an article today with their observations:

Iconoclastic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard did the unforgiveable in the eyes of the hidebound Democratic Party establishment: She knocked down one their favorites, Kamala Harris. 

…Now, through the miracle of rule-rigging, the Democratic establishment has maneuvered to exact a price from her: No appearance at the next Democratic debate. No more taking down the next favorite.

Yesterday Real Clear Politics posted an article about the exclusion of Representative Gabbard.

The article notes:

Tulsi Gabbard is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.

Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates — especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang. But the Democratic National Committee has decreed that the polls constituting this average are not sufficiently “qualifying.”

The article at RealClear Politics continues:

The absurdity mounts. A South Carolina poll published Aug. 14 by the Post and Courier placed Gabbard at 2%. One might have again vainly assumed that the newspaper with the largest circulation in a critical early primary state would be an “approved” sponsor per the dictates of the DNC, but it is not. Curious.

To recap: Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in two polls sponsored by the two largest newspapers in two early primary states, but the DNC — through its mysteriously incoherent selection process — has determined that these surveys do not count toward her debate eligibility. Without these exclusions, Gabbard would have already qualified. She has polled at 2% or more in two polls officially deemed “qualifying,” and surpassed the 130,000 donor threshold on Aug. 2. While the latter metric would seem more indicative of “grassroots support” — a formerly obscure Hawaii congresswoman has managed to secure more than 160,000 individual contributions from all 50 states, according to the latest figures from her campaign — the DNC has declared that it will prioritize polling over donors. In polls with a sample size of just a few hundred people, this means excluding candidates based on what can literally amount to rounding errors: A poll that places a candidate at 1.4% could be considered non-qualifying, but a poll that places a candidate at 1.5% is considered qualifying. Pinning such massive decisions for the trajectory of a campaign on insignificant fractional differences seems wildly arbitrary.

In Animal Farm by George Orwell, the pigs proclaim, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” I think that is the way the Democrat party runs their presidential primary elections.