The DNC just made it mathematically impossible for Tulsi Gabbard to make the next debate

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

leaving Biden & Sanders one-on-one

For a few days, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii technically had a chance of making it back onto the debate stage.

But after the Democratic National Committee announced on Friday that candidates will need at least 20 percent of all of the delegates allocated so far to qualify, Gabbard will be on the outside looking in at the race's first one-on-one debate on March 15 between former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Even if Gabbard were to somehow secure all 352 of the delegates on the table on election night March 10 and nab the dozen on March 14 between Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, she would still fail to break the 20 percent threshold.

The Friday news led to the retirement of the hyper-observant Twitter account dedicated to the televised debate qualifications, now going by the name "The Artist Formerly Known as Debate Tracker."

Link to tweet

?s=20

https://news.yahoo.com/dnc-just-made-mathematically-impossible-224307941.html

[RandySF]

1. Good

[dhol82]

2. Good.

[DonaldsRump]

3. That Democratic Establishment conspiring yet again!

Democratic Establishment = me and every other D voter

[msongs]

4. she couldnt get enough ppl to care about her candidacy up to now. why reward her? nt

[TwilightZone]

5. As it should.

She's irrelevant at this point. It's a two-person race.

[IronLionZion]

6. I'm no fan of Tulsi, but this is vindictive establishment politics

against the only woman still in the race

[zackymilly]

9. So it has nothing to do with her delegate count. Okay.

[Cha]

10. No it isn't

[IronLionZion]

16. It's targeted at Tulsi to shut her out of debates

[Bucky]

23. There are good reasons to shuttle Gabbard out of the debate

I assure you it has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has to do with her being a dissident within the party, who refused to vote to impeach the most crooked president in our history, who has warm ties to PM Modi of India and Pres Assad of Syria, and is a denier of Assad's human rights atrocities.

This is not about gender, race, or religious prejudice. It's about intolerance for those who would give political cover to human rights abusers.

[tritsofme]

25. Good. She's not a real candidate. No reason to continue humoring her this late in the process.

[Indykatie]

30. Why Should Anyone with 2 Delegates Be On Debate Stage At this Point?

I'd rather the DNC take whatever hits come from her exclusion than the hits they would have gotten from those like me pissed about her being on the debate stage.

[beachbumbob]

40. a find that this statement insulting

[yardwork]

46. Nonsense. Seriously, that is silly.

I'm a woman. Gabbard has no chance of winning the nomination at this stage and we don't need her in the debate. We have a presidency to win.

This isn't circle time in kindergarten where everybody gets a chance to share.

[still_one]

52. +++

[still_one]

53. No. She is not a viable candidate . This reminds me of Nader in 2000

wanting to participate in the presidential debates, but was denied because he couldn't garner 15% in polling

[patphil]

7. How many delegates has she won so far?

One?!
She has marginally more validity for being on the stage for the next debate than I do.
Which is to say, NONE.

[question everything]

12. More than Bloomberg when he participated in the last two debates

[patphil]

61. Sorry, after Super Tuesday the criteria for getting on the stage has changed.

It's no longer just that you want to be there, you have to earn a place on the stage.
Right now there are only two candidates who have done that.
One of them will be the Democratic nominee for President.
It's their show now.

[jimfields33]

43. Biden had 7 before South Carolina

One decent debate changed all that. I say let her debate. What’s the harm.

[IluvPitties]

45. She's a disruptor, friendly to the right.

That's the problem.

[yardwork]

47. What's the harm? Potentially losing the White House and Congress.

We have elections to win.

[BusyBeingBest]

55. Yes. She has no way to win, she wants to be there to attack

Biden. She will try to do to him what she did to Harris. What would be the point of allowing this to happen?

[ibegurpard]

8. Can't top the DU GDP banner play though

Still making me lol

[Cha]

11. Thank you!

[Moderateguy]

13. I agree with this...

We don’t know why she’s still in the race and what her actual agenda is... so the DNC should not give her national screen time

[IronLionZion]

17. Are you sporting the Tulsi badge ironically?

I considered doing that, but too many would take it seriously.

[Moderateguy]

18. Yes, showing her some love....

I might change it soon because people are taking it too seriously

[IronLionZion]

19. Lead with love!

[yardwork]

48. You don't know what her actual agenda is, but you're promoting her on DU?

[IronLionZion]

56. She's the one percent

Here on DU anyway. Tell Bernie's people she's the one percent

[RDavisJ1]

14. Not a Tulsi fan but...

Tulsi has no viable path for the nomination at this point. What role would she play in the debate? What would she bring to it? Quite honestly, America needs to see the difference between Biden and Sanders as Sanders could be done that next Super Tuesday election. Having her on the stage helps no one, not even her.

[TomCADem]

15. Real Question Is Why Hasn't Tulsi Gabbard Dropped Out And Endorsed Bernie?

Bernie supporters have been attacking Warren for not immediately swearing fealty to Bernie, but what about Tulsi Gabbard? Bernie has featured her as a speaker at his foundation's events. It is odd that Bernie can't convince her to support him when he has featured her in the past as a supporter.

How can Bernie have the skills to push through his agenda if he can't even convince his strongest allies to endorse him when their presidential ambitions fail?

[Cha]

22. Maybe she's waiting for

a more dramatic moment?

[sweetloukillbot]

58. (Cough) VP (Cough) nt

[Las Vegas Mixx]

20. Tulsi is not really running for President, she is running to cash in as a new Fox News host

[Salviati]

28. This.

It's not a campaign, it's a grift.

[Cha]

35. After she went on tucker carlson's to

viciously attack Hillary, our historic Democratic nominee in the last election, I agree.

And, trump war room retweeting her tweet after her last debate..

Link to tweet

[LVZ]

36. Move over Joe Lieberman. Photogenic Tulsi has become the Faux News favorite "? Democrat ?"

Will she be at the Republican Convention with pals Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson?

https://1-dot.com/radio/newsplus CNN MSNBC NPR CBC BBC

https://apnews.com/c9b93bfb34004616f04fd5fd1ae3709b
https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-impeachment-vote-democratic-primary-1479112

[beachbumbob]

41. this and a 3rd party run paid for by trump and putin??

[Vivienne235729]

21. Good. She shouldn't be there but doesn't have enough good graces to get the heck out

[Hekate]

24. Good. She's a lot of things, but a Democrat, even a small-d democrat, is not one of them.

[napi21]

26. Will anybody really care? If I were to ask my neighbors, my sons, or my husband who she is,

none of them would know.

[Shemp Howard]

27. Evidently only billionaires get cut a break.

I’m not much of a Gabbard fan. My choices were Bernie, then Elizabeth, then Joe - in that order.

But the DNC changed the rules to let ex-Republican billionaire Bloomberg in. And now they are changing the rules to keep Gabbard out.

I really don’t see the harm in letting her in. It’s not like there will be 20 candidates crowding the stage. And having a woman of color debating along side two white men, I don’t see why that’s not a good thing.

As to the comment “she has no viable path forward”, I always thought the voters should be the ones who decided that.

[tirebiter]

29. The voters did decide

Bloomberg took American Samoa

[Shemp Howard]

31. That was AFTER the debate.

Bloomberg took (bought actually) American Samoa after the debate in which the rules were changed to let him in. So the Samoa voters did not give him debate privileges. The DNC did.

And I say Bloomberg bought American Samoa because he had seven full-time staffers working there since January. Those staffers don’t work for free.

And to be honest, I am frankly shocked that so few Democrats are bothered by how the DNC changed the rules to accommodate this ex-Republican opportunistic billionaire, a guy who thought stop-and-frisk was a great idea. I suppose money really does talk.

[Hav]

32. Did she qualify through the other ways

like poll results and donations? If not, it's a needless discussion anyways. I also don't know whether this delegate rule was planned all along or whether they just came up with it now. The thresholds to participate got raised throughout the campaign.

[Shemp Howard]

33. As I understand it...

Gabbard qualifies under the current rules because she has won at least one delegate.

You do make a good point - the threshold to participate usually gets raised as time goes on. But nothing says that the threshold has to be raised. It’s not like we still have a crowded field of 20 candidates.

I just find it very distasteful that the requirements were lowered to allow an opportunistic ex-Republican billionaire to debate. And now they will be raised solely to keep a Democrat woman of color out.

As a side note, I feel a bit like I’m in the Twilight Zone. I don’t even particularly like Gabbard. But evidently I’m her most vocal supporter on this issue tonight.

[ucrdem]

34. I don't object, but I don't see the harm of letting her be there, either.

Yes, it's a kind of a fluke, but on the other hand, she is a Democrat and followed the rules. Also she is young, female, and represents a marginalized population, namely Pacific Islanders. If they are part of the US, would it kill us to let their delegate get a little face time on TV? I'm pretty confidant she wouldn't go after Biden, as in all likelihood he's our next president, so she's mainly a threat to Bernie, but a very minor one. Also 90 minutes is a long time and a little comic relief might have been welcome.

Just my $.02!

[dansolo]

42. At this point, it isn't about participation

She has been given the opportunity to participate in several debates. The field has been narrowed to two viable candidates. The only people who want her in the debate are those who want her there to attack Biden.

[yardwork]

49. She would certainly attack Biden. She attacks the Democratic Party often.

Gabbard is not a friend to the Democratic Party.

[BusyBeingBest]

54. Ask Kamala Harris if Tulsi's presence on the debate stage was harmless.

That was IMO the beginning of the end for Kamala.

[Scurrilous]

37. If funny how the people who constantly demand change in our party always get mad about changes.

The change has to come at their behest and with their assent. If not, then change is corrupt establishment change of dubious merit and questionable motive.

Rules are changed all the time. Look at sports. If the DNC wants to change a rule it's their prerogative. It's a debate for candidates actually running for the nomination, not candidates who are merely present.

[Cha]

38. A Amen!

Link to tweet

[beachbumbob]

39. a 1% percenter being denied, about time right?

[Devil Child]

44. Very disappointed but not surprised by the DNC's actions

Arbitrary rule changes in the middle of the game don’t strike me as very democratic.

[yardwork]

50. The DNC owes Gabbard nothing. She's proven herself to be untrustworthy.

[greatauntoftriplets]

51. Is she still waiting for her participation trophy?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

60. Here's one for her

[aikoaiko]

57. Bad optics for the DNC, but it's just one more thing in a pattern.

Wagon circling.

[yardwork]

59. Political parties are expected to have strategies to win.

The Democratic Party is a political party. It's purpose is to promote victories for members of the party.