Update: Tulsi at 145,933 Unique Donor Mark, Polls 3% in Non-qualifying National Poll
As predicted, today Tulsi surged past the unique donor requirement of 130,000 for the 3rd and 4th (Sept. and Oct.) debates. The campaign has, for now, taken down the tracker for unique donors, but the latest update they gave puts her at 145,933 unique donors.
Since the morning of the day of her 2nd debate, she gained about 36,000 donors--in just 3 days.
Also today--the first national poll for dates entirely post-second-debate, a Rasmussen/Harris X poll, which of course is not in the DNC's list of approved "qualifying" polls, has Tulsi clocking in at a solid 3%.
They have a nicer chart here, but it'll likely scroll off the front page eventually:
What's great about this is that in the July 27-29 baseline poll, Tulsi was at 0%. Post-debate, she was 3%, the biggest gainer of the debates. Biden lost the most (-4%). Somewhat surprisingly, Harris gained 1%.
I'm sure more post-debate polls are in the wings . . .
Comments
Thanks, apenultimate, for the update! You've become
my 'go-to person' for news regarding TG.
Have a nice weekend.
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
The devil is in the details
“The latest ScottRasmussen.com national survey of Democratic voters and Democratic leaning Independents”. Seriously, how difficult would it be to include Trump (and Weld) in these polls, and poll Republicans, too? I know that wouldn’t fit with the DNC’s goals, but this two-party duopoly has gone beyond ridiculous.
It’d be nice to see ranked choice polling, too, and polling of people who are eligible to vote, but not registered.
that's a surprising result, knowing as I do (thanks to
analysis by Rolling Stone magazine) that TG was one of the losers of the debate.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
@UntimelyRippd Please provide verifiable
Please provide verifiable evidence of this "fact":
"On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon."
The burden of proof is on you.
How 'bout you provide "verifiable evidence" that it didn't happen.
Put up or shut up.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
You mean, other than all the parts of the airplane
that were collected from the lawn ([edited to replace plural with singular] including at least one large sheet of aluminum from the fuselage, with the AA logo painted on it), or were found inside the Pentagon building itself, or in the courtyards of the Pentagon (Not to mention the tiny bits of aluminum found embedded in the exterior walls of the Pentagon where the wings were pulverized on impact)?
Or maybe, the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane racing towards the Pentagon at extremely low altitude (including many who saw the plane hit the building), versus the 0 (ZERO) eyewitnesses who saw the plane pulling up and flying away into the blue yonder?
Or maybe, the 100% of the passengers and crew who have never been seen alive again -- though their relatives did receive some of their body parts. Actually, some of the corpses were recovered relatively intact, still belted into their seats, buried under the rubble of the collapsed floors.
Because other than that, yeah, I got nothing.
Now, would you care to also discuss AGCC? The holocaust? The age/shape of the earth? The moon landing? It happened, more than once. Paul McCartney? He's still alive ... his concerts are apparently a blast, though his voice is nearly shot. Maybe you'd like to ask me why I'm almost certain that a bunch of lame Russian boiler-room clickbait ads weren't part of a massive Putin plot to undermine our not-particularly-democratic electoral system?
Go for it, man.
[additional EDIT: If you want to challenge something in my sig (or anyone else's, for that matter) it's probably more appropriate to do so in an open thread, lest a major threadjack occur. in this particular event, i've said all i have to say.]
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Oh look
It's Elvis on a pogo stick!
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
that kooky old geezer, always the life of the party.
you know, i once read a rather remarkable article suggesting that Jesse Garon Presley, Elvis's supposedly stillborn twin brother, was alive and well (in 1984), going under the name "Esau Smith". the article appeared in a book called The Unsung Heroes of Rock n Roll, by Nick Tosches. It's a great book -- that's where I first heard of Wanda Jackson, 15 years before videos of her popped up on youtube (see below). (Tosches said she sounded like "you could fry an egg on her pudendum"). In the chapter, "Esau Smith, the Hairy and the Smooth" Tosches quotes Smith as saying, "Nobody's ever bothered to look up the death certificate." The basic idea being, the Presleys couldn't manage to care for both boys, so one of them was adopted out, and that his new family named him Esau in a deliberate reference to the Biblical story. (Jesse was the firstborn, 35 minutes ahead of Elvis.)
Wanda Jackson, 10 years ahead of her time.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzJ3hiqsi0U]
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQX5yGZvjzs&list=PLKQHTKBkTBqOadFT757BpR...
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Wanda Jackson
Apologies to OP for continuing the threadjack, but I had never heard the story about Elvis' brother possibly being alive, or of Wanda Jackson. What a firecracker! Thanks for sharing the tidbits and video.
Side note: Love her dress (or is it a top+skirt?) in 1st video. Wish I could see it in color.
You’ll get flak, but it’s not unreasonable to ask for links…
Anyone can assert anything boldly as a bluff and, since most people won’t bother to think about it very much, hope their very assertiveness makes a subliminal emotional impression and deters challenge.
About 9/11 specifically, I also not infrequently see the opinion expressed that raising doubts about the Pentagon strike represents a Deep-State attempt to “poison the well” in order to distract from, and discredit the questioning of, the more obviously problematic parts of the official explanation, the most blatant one being the collapse of WTC 7.
I suspect that the "qualified" pollsters
are those using the most bogus polling methods. No one polled under 50 years of age? No problem!
Very important
polling coming up in the next few weeks. It would seem a good time to be carefully checking the internals to see if the poll is valid and not biased against Tulsi. I remain skeptical she will get a fair shake -- too many powerful institutional forces against her.
Unfortunate too that the DNC has determined that polls with their margins of error exceeding the total % required to make the grade should count for as much as people expressing their support for a candidate by contributing their money. I should think a fairer way would be to have the 130k unique donor threshold be the determining factor. But then, the DNC is only interested in seeming to appear fair, not actually being fair.