Woe unto them that anger the Democratic National Committee — for they shall be separated for hereafter from the realm.
Finding herself in just this situation is Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii.
Because in the July Democrat presidential debate she humiliated comrade candidate, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. Criticizing her over her record as California attorney general on criminal justice reform, the death penalty and the war on drugs, she embarrassed and demeaned her.
Attacking Ms. Harris for having locked up thousands of people for marijuana possession and then laughing about it when asked whether she had smoked pot herself, she said Ms. Harris kept inmates in prison past their sentence “as cheap labor for California.”
She said Ms. Harris supported state laws saying parents whose children were found to be habitually truant in elementary school could be prosecuted, even though it would disproportionately affect low-income people of color.
She told Mr. Harris that “when you were in a position to make a difference, you did not. The people who suffered under your reign as a prosecutor, you owe them an apology.”
Ms. Harris’s poll ratings tumbled.
Thus, because she enraged progressives who threw money at Ms. Harris, Ms. Gabbard may be expelled from future Democrat presidential debates.
Decreeing Ms. Gabbard persona non grata, the DNC, arbitrator of the debates that would never take sides (overlook what it did to candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders running against Hillary Clinton) says candidates must obtain polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls.
Writes Jersey City, N.J., journalist Michael Tracey at RealClearPolitics:
… her poll standing in New Hampshire, 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.
She has polled at 2% or more in two polls officially deemed “qualifying,” and surpassed the 130,000 donor threshold on Aug. 2. While the latter metric would seem more indicative of “grassroots support” — a formerly obscure Hawaii congresswoman has managed to secure more than 160,000 individual contributions from all 50 states, according to the latest figures from her campaign — the DNC has declared it will prioritize polling over donors. In polls with a sample size of just a few hundred people, this means excluding candidates based on what can literally amount to rounding errors: A poll that places a candidate at 1.4% could be considered non-qualifying, but a poll that places a candidate at 1.5% is considered qualifying.
Perhaps Ms. Gabbard will appear and debate. If she doesn’t, it’s because she displeased the DBC.