Gabbard hits DNC over poll criteria for debates

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) hit the Democratic National Committee (DNC) over its polling criteria for upcoming primary debates, asking it to "ensure transparency and fairness" in selecting the qualifying surveys.

The campaign noted that Gabbard has exceeded 2 percent support in 26 national and early state polls but said only two of those are on the DNC's "certified" list, even as "many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable organizations such as The Economist and the Boston Globe, are ranked by Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some DNC 'certified' polls."

"The Gabbard campaign is calling on the DNC to hold true to their promise and make adjustments to the process now to ensure transparency and fairness," the campaign said in a Friday release.

"Crucial decisions on debate qualifications that impact the right of the American people to have the opportunity to participate fully in the Democratic process should not be made in secret by party bosses."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gabbard-hits-dnc-over-poll-criteria-for-debates/ar-AAGeniP?li=BBnb7Kz&pfr=1

[roody]

1. Good luck Tulsi. We need her voice in the debates.

[Devil Child]

4. Damn right we do roody!

[RhodeIslandOne]

20. I'd like her to repeat the Mueller Report found nothing, let's move on

Somehow that voice doesn't show up on the debate stage.

[Princetonian]

21. The New York Times' top headline said the same thing on the same day. So did all the news outlets.

[RhodeIslandOne]

22. Maybe she should become a headline writer then.

Instead of a representative who should read more substantial shit instead.

[Princetonian]

24. Gee, that makes sense. Not.

[RhodeIslandOne]

25. I'm rubber and you're glue?

Cool retort, bro.

[pangaia]

29. Actually if she got her info from headlines and articles, it does make sense.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. She doesn't answer the questions asked

What would be the point?

The last debate - a moderator asked her about her comments in regards to Harris' on Biden.

Instead of not staying the course - she gave another canned response.

She's not authentic.

Also - doesn't she normally refuse to debate her opponents? Why now?

She's taking time away from folks who have a shot.

[rogue emissary]

19. Ever since she complained about the DNC presidential debates.

She has refused at least three primary debates with two different opponents for her seat.

[Cha]

33. That's right! Thanks for the reminder..

I voted for the last two of her primary opponents she wouldn't debate.

[karynnj]

3. It would be unfair to others to change the rules midstream

The polls included were defined long ago and until she was failing to meet the criteria. One consequence of changing the rules is that that change alone might mean two nights rather than seeing them all together.

What makes more sense might be to admit she might not make the next one, but concentrate on the debate after that which I read has the same criteria, but a longer period to get the polls. Missing one early poll will not play a huge difference in her very low chances.

[thesquanderer]

14. It's not unfair to let more polling organizations qualify...

It can help borderline candidates, but it can't hurt anyone, And it doesn't mean candidates would have done something differently, because candidates can't "strategize" toward doing well in specific polls.

[StevieM]

5. We heard complaints about the debates in 2008 and 2016 as well.

But only when HRC was a candidate did we hear a bunch of nonsense about a giant conspiracy or a rigged system.

[comradebillyboy]

6. Tulsi's ceiling might be 2%. Got to narrow down the field

sooner or later.

[we can do it]

7. Here we go again.

[mcar]

8. ...

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Echoes of 2016 all over again.

[BannonsLiver]

10. This is part of the setup to become a chaos candidate

Which was the plan from the beginning.

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. I truly believe that. Her cozy relationship with Russian TV is evidence of that "chaos". nt

[RhodeIslandOne]

28. Thankfully she doesn't have the numbers

She'll still take her marching orders though.

[sharedvalues]

30. Correct. The right backs Gabbard

Republicans are setting up to encourage her to run as a third party candidate. A third party candidate presence is the main path Trump has to winning.

There are rightwing trolls pushing Tulsi on a variety of sites. Many of them also use Tulsi to bash other strong Dems that the right dislikes, like Harris, Sanders, and Warren.
Also, Putin’s trolls and outlets (RT, Sputnik) push her.

Gabbard grew up in a religious cult, and she hasn’t disavowed them. I don’t want candidates who have blindly followed an authoritarian-type leader before.

It is good for the party Gabbard did not qualify for this debate.
Also note that Daily Kos endorsed her primary challenger.

[obamanut2012]

31. 100% this

[yardwork]

13. Where I come from we call this whiney butt.

It's not a good look.

[W_HAMILTON]

15. The list of DNC-approved polls has been public since early this year.

This is Gabbard doing her best, once again, to disrupt our party from within.

[flamingdem]

16. We need to narrow the field

asap

[Indykatie]

17. It May Just Be Me But At This Point I Don't Care to Hear From Candidates Polling Less Than 2%.

I think the polling threshold should have been 3%-5% so we wouldn't still have 15+ candidates after 2 debates. It's unfair to those who have a credible chance at winning the nomination.

[crazytown]

18. Toast

[Princetonian]

23. Steyer has said something similar. Bullock and Bennet are kvetching too.

[BeyondGeography]

26. My only problem with the rules is capping the single debate qualifying number at 10

We really could use one debate at this point. I would move the cap to 12 if 11 or 12 qualify. Other than that, I think Perez has done a good job with this. The field needs to be narrowed down.

[Garrett78]

34. I agree. Even 10 is too damn many for a so-called debate, but...

...to not have every candidate on the same stage is even more absurd. We'll be less than 5 months away from voting and there have already been 2 debates. We shouldn't still be at a point where we're having to split up the field. 2 of the leading contenders are yet to share a debate stage. Enough already.

If you can't beat out Andrew Yang, perhaps it's time to leave the race.

[qazplm135]

27. the next one should be five percent

it's time to trim.

[namahage]

32. Guess her premeditated and preplanned debate attack

Didn’t work out that well for her.

She took a gamble, and she lost.

Of course, that presupposes that her intent all along was to win.

[oasis]

36. "..her premeditated and preplanned debate attack didn't work.."

We're only talking about Tulsi, right?

[iwannaknow]

35. Bye bye Tulsi!

[Uncle Joe]

37. This paragraph does stand out to me.

(snip)

The campaign noted that Gabbard has exceeded 2 percent support in 26 national and early state polls but said only two of those are on the DNC's "certified" list, even as "many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable organizations such as The Economist and the Boston Globe, are ranked by Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some DNC 'certified' polls."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gabbard-hits-dnc-over-poll-criteria-for-debates/ar-AAGeniP?li=BBnb7Kz&pfr=1

(snip)

Thanks for the thread Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin.