Gabbard, Gillibrand, Steyer, Williamson Unlikely to Qualify for September Debate

[NYSforKennedy2024]

The two polls released this morning failed to give any of them the 2% which they needed to help them qualify for the September DNC debate.

Politico has said that some candidates are thinking about exploring different options like a debate of their own or some sort of joint statement to the DNC, while (as of writing this) the Gillibrand campaign is still sending out cringeworthy emails asking for donations as midnight draws closer, despite not meeting the polling requirement.

Do you think any of them drop out?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Gabbard, Williamson, and maybe Steyer will accuse the DNC of trying to silence them, despite the fact these rules have been in place for months and it’s not their fault they couldn’t meet them, but that’s all I can really see happening.

https://twitter.com/josecanyousee/status/1166739618185662464?s=20

[Mr. Morden]

Gabbard and Steyer still have a good shot at making the October debate.  The others don't, so maybe some of them will go off and start doing rogue debates of their own.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

This is part of the reason I don't like Gabbard. She rode Bernie's coattails and now she's co-opting the "DNC is rigged against me" argument when the fact is that she doesn't resonate with people the way that Bernie does and she should have just waited until after Bernie's career was over to carry his banner.

[IceSpear]

This is part of the reason I don't like Gabbard. She rode Bernie's coattails and now she's co-opting the "DNC is rigged against me" argument when the fact is that she doesn't resonate with people the way that Bernie does and she should have just waited until after Bernie's career was over to carry his banner.

Not to mention the fact that it is literally impossible for the DNC to have "rigged" this against her, unless the lunatic is implying that a) they had clairvoyant visions and knew which pollsters Gabbard would hit 2% in and which ones she would not months in advance and/or b) are colluding with the polling companies to manipulate the results and ensure Gabbard does not hit 2% in them.

And you know, if they were using psychic powers and clandestine collusion all for the sake of rigging the primary against poor Tulsi, they probably could've managed to exclude her from the first two debates as well.

[Skunk]

Marianne Williamson and Tulsi Gabbard should be the debate moderators as a compromise.

[Crumpets]

Tulsi failing to qualify is a welcome consolation prize for Gillibrand also failing to qualify.

Warning: Contains language unbecoming of Atlas's most delicate of ears.
https://twitter.com/CIVlCSBOY/status/1166706556437782528

[NYSforKennedy2024]

One down, three to go.

[Roronoa D. Law]

The dark psychic force of collectivized hatred have won yet again.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

This is part of the reason I don't like Gabbard. She rode Bernie's coattails and now she's co-opting the "DNC is rigged against me" argument when the fact is that she doesn't resonate with people the way that Bernie does and she should have just waited until after Bernie's career was over to carry his banner.

I’m a huge Tulsi fan, and even I can somewhat agree with this.

[Saint Milei]

This is part of the reason I don't like Gabbard. She rode Bernie's coattails and now she's co-opting the "DNC is rigged against me" argument when the fact is that she doesn't resonate with people the way that Bernie does and she should have just waited until after Bernie's career was over to carry his banner.

I’m a huge Tulsi fan, and even I can somewhat agree with this.

That would take forever. Plus Tulsi and Bernie are different. Tulsi's number 1 issue is war. Bernie's is income inequality.

[Progressive Pessimist]

So, is it looking like there may only be one debate night at this point?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So, is it looking like there may only be one debate night at this point?

Yes, but October might be 2 nights as I mentioned here.

Wouldn't it be weird if 10 qualify for September so it's 1 night, and 11 or 12 qualify for October so it's 2 nights?

[Mr. Smith]

I wonder if this means we should be looking for signs of a Gillibrand exit soon...

EDIT: Ha! Called it. I thought I  had posted this earlier before she done did it, but alas.

[Sestak]

very glad Steyer missed.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

She truly is an idiot. She’s only in the race to disrupt the primary and that’s why Republicans love her. If she weren’t, she wouldn’t be crying the blues to Tucker “hate crimes are a hoax” Carlson.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1167068634620936193?s=20

[Calthrina950]

She truly is an idiot. She’s only in the race to disrupt the primary and that’s why Republicans love her. If she weren’t, she wouldn’t be crying the blues to Tucker “hate crimes are a hoax” Carlson.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1167068634620936193?s=20

To "disrupt the primary"? How exactly is Gabbard doing that? Again, I don't understand the reasons people provide on here for their dislike of this woman. Is she really that awful?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

She truly is an idiot. She’s only in the race to disrupt the primary and that’s why Republicans love her. If she weren’t, she wouldn’t be crying the blues to Tucker “hate crimes are a hoax” Carlson.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1167068634620936193?s=20

To "disrupt the primary"? How exactly is Gabbard doing that? Again, I don't understand the reasons people provide on here for their dislike of this woman. Is she really that awful?

Yes, she really is that awful.

[Calthrina950]

She truly is an idiot. She’s only in the race to disrupt the primary and that’s why Republicans love her. If she weren’t, she wouldn’t be crying the blues to Tucker “hate crimes are a hoax” Carlson.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1167068634620936193?s=20

To "disrupt the primary"? How exactly is Gabbard doing that? Again, I don't understand the reasons people provide on here for their dislike of this woman. Is she really that awful?

Yes, she really is that awful.

The only things that I can see which are "problematic" about Gabbard are her prior record on LGBT issues (before she entered Congress) and her meeting with Assad. As to the former, Gabbard "evolved" on the issues like many other Democrats did, and in her case, I believe it was a genuine evolution. She's supported pro-LGBT legislation while in the House, such as the Equality Act. And as to the latter, Gabbard is not an apologist for "dictators", and has a genuine non-intervention, anti-war policy, which, frankly, I think a majority of Americans would agree with her upon. Aside from these two things (which aren't nearly as bad as people on here make them out to be), she is a firm progressive on all other issues.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

She truly is an idiot. She’s only in the race to disrupt the primary and that’s why Republicans love her. If she weren’t, she wouldn’t be crying the blues to Tucker “hate crimes are a hoax” Carlson.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1167068634620936193?s=20

To "disrupt the primary"? How exactly is Gabbard doing that? Again, I don't understand the reasons people provide on here for their dislike of this woman. Is she really that awful?

Egregious leftist grifting. Follow the money and you realize she mostly donates to right-wing/centrist Democrats.

[Calthrina950]

She truly is an idiot. She’s only in the race to disrupt the primary and that’s why Republicans love her. If she weren’t, she wouldn’t be crying the blues to Tucker “hate crimes are a hoax” Carlson.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1167068634620936193?s=20

To "disrupt the primary"? How exactly is Gabbard doing that? Again, I don't understand the reasons people provide on here for their dislike of this woman. Is she really that awful?

Egregious leftist grifting. Follow the money and you realize she mostly donates to right-wing/centrist Democrats.

"Leftist grifting"? Would you prefer that she support Republicans, then? Most of her policy views are clearly on the more progressive end of the Democratic lane. Her opposition to war is a very good example of this.

[izixs]

She truly is an idiot. She’s only in the race to disrupt the primary and that’s why Republicans love her. If she weren’t, she wouldn’t be crying the blues to Tucker “hate crimes are a hoax” Carlson.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1167068634620936193?s=20

To "disrupt the primary"? How exactly is Gabbard doing that? Again, I don't understand the reasons people provide on here for their dislike of this woman. Is she really that awful?

Egregious leftist grifting. Follow the money and you realize she mostly donates to right-wing/centrist Democrats.

"Leftist grifting"? Would you prefer that she support Republicans, then? Most of her policy views are clearly on the more progressive end of the Democratic lane. Her opposition to war is a very good example of this.

I think there might be a running into one of the fundamental issues of disconnect between the left and the right: Someone loudly checking the boxes on the things that 'the left likes' does not a leftist make.

For instance, in her 'evolution' on LGBT+ issues, her stated reason was that she was only evolving on the issues because she specifically didn't want the US to emulate islamic countries, with the solid implication that she still held her awful views, but just didn't want to push them on others. This is a clear indication that she may indeed check the box, but... is clearly no ally.

I know it might seem bizarre that folks on the left aren't realpolitik about stuff like that, in taking the person who hits enough boxes and then pushing them blindly and the like, but we very much know that sort of thing will come back to bite us in the backside. Especially when there are multiple much better options out there without all the garbage attached. We prefer people who at their core internalize where we're coming from, not people who are simply opting to not be awful because they don't want to emulate people they don't care for. Tends to mean we don't have to be too wary of a backstab.

[Calthrina950]

She truly is an idiot. She’s only in the race to disrupt the primary and that’s why Republicans love her. If she weren’t, she wouldn’t be crying the blues to Tucker “hate crimes are a hoax” Carlson.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1167068634620936193?s=20

To "disrupt the primary"? How exactly is Gabbard doing that? Again, I don't understand the reasons people provide on here for their dislike of this woman. Is she really that awful?

Egregious leftist grifting. Follow the money and you realize she mostly donates to right-wing/centrist Democrats.

"Leftist grifting"? Would you prefer that she support Republicans, then? Most of her policy views are clearly on the more progressive end of the Democratic lane. Her opposition to war is a very good example of this.

I think there might be a running into one of the fundamental issues of disconnect between the left and the right: Someone loudly checking the boxes on the things that 'the left likes' does not a leftist make.

For instance, in her 'evolution' on LGBT+ issues, her stated reason was that she was only evolving on the issues because she specifically didn't want the US to emulate islamic countries, with the solid implication that she still held her awful views, but just didn't want to push them on others. This is a clear indication that she may indeed check the box, but... is clearly no ally.

I know it might seem bizarre that folks on the left aren't realpolitik about stuff like that, in taking the person who hits enough boxes and then pushing them blindly and the like, but we very much know that sort of thing will come back to bite us in the backside. Especially when there are multiple much better options out there without all the garbage attached. We prefer people who at their core internalize where we're coming from, not people who are simply opting to not be awful because they don't want to emulate people they don't care for. Tends to mean we don't have to be too wary of a backstab.

I believe Gabbard also said that her service in the Middle East helped her change her viewpoints on the matter. And as I've said, she's not the only Democrat who was previously opposed to gay marriage, or even gay rights, who subsequently changed their views and are now supportive of those rights. If we can't excuse her for her prior positions, then how can we excuse other Democratic politicians, such as former Presidents Clinton and Obama? Clinton signed DOMA and Obama was opposed to gay marriage prior to 2012.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

She truly is an idiot. She’s only in the race to disrupt the primary and that’s why Republicans love her. If she weren’t, she wouldn’t be crying the blues to Tucker “hate crimes are a hoax” Carlson.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1167068634620936193?s=20

To "disrupt the primary"? How exactly is Gabbard doing that? Again, I don't understand the reasons people provide on here for their dislike of this woman. Is she really that awful?

"I don't understand the reason people provide on here for their dislike of this woman"

I can't believe I have to say this: This is a democratic primary, which means you need the support of democratic voters to win the democratic nomination. What in her right mind makes her think that allowing herself to be openly promoted by people such as Tucker Carlson and "media outlets" such as Breitbart and the Free Beacon is a good strategy for winning the democratic primary for the democratic nomination? She's either extremely stupid, has a p*ss poor campaign strategist, or her motives are more sinister.

[Suburbia]

They're not going to be the nominee