Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has been a thorn in the side of the Democratic Party for a few years now. Already loathed by the party’s establishment for speaking out against Hillary Clinton and supporting Bernie Sanders in 2016 (and making further waves by criticizing fellow Hawaiian Democrat Mazie Hirono last year), Gabbard has become nothing less than poison after getting a few good licks in on Kamala Harris at the last debate. As such, the DNC has decided that, despite meeting the written qualifications for the next debate, Gabbard will probably not be allowed to participate.
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.”
What makes a poll “qualifying” in the eyes of the DNC? The answer is conspicuously inscrutable.
Well, maybe Gabbard is below the mark when it comes to fundraising, which is also a qualifying factor. Except no, she’s well above the 160,000 unique-donor threshold required by the DNC to get on the stage. So what gives? How is it that a new-age fruitcake like Marianne Williamson will get to participate in the next debate, but not Gabbard? How is it that fair? Could it be that the DNC simply doesn’t like Tulsi and the frequent shots she takes at the Democratic Party leadership? Could it simply be that they really didn’t appreciate her taking Harris to task for her record as a prosecutor?
We just find it endlessly interesting that the Democratic Party feels the need to put their thumb on the scale whenever they sense one of their unwanted, non-compliant candidates gets a little too much attention. It seems the DNC learned very little from their overt favoritism towards Clinton in 2016.