It’s no secret that the Democratic National Committee (DNC), led by Hillary fangirl Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, has controlled the quantity and timing of debates in an effort to favor Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Accusations have been met so far by the DNC with a collective shrug and flat out lies denying any favoritism.

Now they are going to have to answer to the data.

The Blaze reports:

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s claim that her party’s debates were scheduled at times meant to “maximize” viewership was rated as false by Politifact Wednesday. Over the weekend, Wasserman-Schultz was grilled on CNN for choosing to hold the debates over the weekend.

“I did my best to make sure, along with my staff and along with our debate partners, to come up with a schedule that we felt was going to maximize the opportunity for voters to see our candidates,” she insisted.

… Politifact analyzed the claim by examining the ratings and contacting five professors of political science and communications. The data showed that the Republican debates have attracted more viewers and not one of the professors contacted by fact-checkers bought into Wasserman-Schultz’s argument.

Finally, evidence supporting what we knew all along- the DNC is in the tank for Hillary Clinton.

Now here’s where things get really interesting…

Bernie Sanders is closing the gap on Hillary Clinton in the polls despite the limited number of debates. Wasserman-Schultz has threatened to disinvite any candidate who tries to participate in a debate outside of the DNC sanctioned schedule, but does that threat even matter anymore? It looks like the sparse debate schedule actually worked to Bernie’s advantage.

The icing on the cake: after catching ALL that heat for refusing to deviate from the 6 debate schedule, they suddenly announced that CNN will host a last-minute Democratic town hall in Des Moines, just 1 week out from the Iowa caucuses where Hillary is losing her lead.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Could they be any more obvious?

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,