Tulsi Gabbard found out yesterday that she will not be included in the third Democratic Presidential Debate, having met the fundraising requirement to be included — at least 130,000 unique donors to her campaign — but failed to meed the polling requirement of at least 2% support in four qualifying polls, only one poll from each polling entity can count: the polls must either be national polls, or they must be from one of the first four “early” states — Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, or South Carolina.
On Five Thirty Eight blog, where they aggregate polls, I counted 8 national polls and 7 polls in early states where Tulsi scored 2% or higher. The question is, why don’t more of these polls count? What criteria did the DNC use to select which polls they would use to qualify candidates? Looking at the list there are certainly some polls that are more reputable than others, certainly, but why didn’t the Emerson College poll count, for example? No one outside of the DNC inner circle knows.
Where other candidates may have used not meeting the criteria established by the DNC as a reason to drop out of the race, Gabbard seems to have only gotten more determined. She went on Fox News and spoke to Tucker Carlson about the need for transparency the same day that the debate participants were announced (yesterday, as of this writing). While some may look sideways at her choice of venue, it is clear to those of us who are watching her campaign at all closely that she would not have been able to get on MSNBC to discuss this issue. If she’d been brought on at all, the topic of conversation would likely have been “Assad apologist” beginning to end. MSNBC is not known to be particularly supportive of progressives.
Below is a clip from her appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show.
Broadcast From the Brain Radio 