Lately I've noticed a rash of Bernie supporters expressing a great deal of concern

[pnwmom]

that the Dems are being mean to Tulsi Gabbard.

And at least some of those expressing concern are actual people, not bots.

Are they hoping that Tulsi could draw some support from Biden, as long as she stays in?

[fleabiscuit]

1. I doubt that her 10's of supporters will have a big impact. nt

[pnwmom]

8. These aren't her supporters. They're people I've seen pushing Bernie. But they think that women

who express sadness about Warren, Klobuchar, and Harris dropping out should be more supportive of Tulsi staying in.

[wiley]

17. Yep.

which I guess they believe helps Bernie.

[pnwmom]

19. That's what I think. n/t

[yardwork]

24. I didn't support Warren because she and I are women.

I don't support people for president just because they're women. The suggestion is actually insulting, as if I'm a child who can't reason properly.

Your OP is spot on. Suggesting that anybody "should" support Gabbard just because she's female is silly.

[Demsrule86]

26. It is insulting for people to say shit like that...and conversely I didn't support Warren as my

first choice...and it had nothing to do with her being a woman. She was my second choice for most of the primary.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. By that logic - It's OK, ladies; there's still another one of you wimminfolk you can vote for -

Bernie's supporters shouldn't be disappointed, because Biden is a man, too - so don't haz a sad, guys; there's another man to vote for.

[yardwork]

28. Right?!

[applegrove]

2. They are hoping she runs third party and takes unhappy Bernie people

to Tulsie's camp if Biden wins the nomination. Just because it is a person posting the propaganda does not mean they are not russian assets or GOP assets who have been given orders to hurt the democratic nominee in the General Election.

[Historic NY]

3. Bernie needs a foil

who can mount an attack.

[RhodeIslandOne]

4. Tulsi Who?

Seriously, she's a joke.

Did the final numbers in Alabama confirm she lost to Gas Station Sushi?

[stopdiggin]

5. haven't seen it

And given the 15% threshold TG certainly isn't siphoning off any actual delegates.
Frankly .. haven't seen TG name in print in .. quite a while.
Can't muzzle trollish supporters .. but I can't see this as any sort of factor ....

[Shemp Howard]

6. My take, as a Sanders supporter

1. The DNC changed the rules to let Bloomberg participate in the last debate. And now they are changing the rules to prohibit Gabbard from participating in the next debate. On the surface anyway, that doesn’t seem fair.

2. I’d like to see Gabbard participate in that next debate. It would be at least a nod to the value of diversity. Having two white men as our two final candidates, that’s bad optics if nothing else.

3. If Gabbard for some reason decides to run as a third-party candidate, I will shun her like the plague. And I will encourage my friends to do the same.

4. If Bernie for some reason decides to run as a third-party candidate, the same applies. I will shun him like the plague. And I will encourage my friends to do the same.

[pnwmom]

11. I disagreed with their letting Bloomberg in. They'd always said the criteria would be

tightening up over time. So Bloomberg was an aberration, but that isn't a good argument for having her on the stage. She refused to vote for Trump's impeachment , despite the mountain of evidence.

She has less than 1% support now. It wouldn't be fair to the other candidates -- those who dropped out because of the rules -- to allow her back into the debates.

[Shemp Howard]

13. That would not be letting Gabbard "back in".

Under the current rules, Gabbard qualifies for the next debate - she has a delegate. So she is already in. The proposed rule changes will push her out.

I’m not a Gabbard supporter. So I would not be upset about this except for two things.

1. The debate requirements were blatantly lowered to allow an opportunistic, stop-and-frisk ex-Republican billionaire in. He did not even bother to start campaigning when everyone else did. But because he’s so wealthy, he gets every break. I find that outrageous.

2. We are the party of diversity. Yet the DNC is working to exclude a woman of color from the debate. There is no good reason to do that. It’s not like the stage is crowded anymore.

[pnwmom]

15. No, the rules only applied to the PREVIOUS debate. It was predetermined that the rules

would keep getting tightened.

And it's not fair to Kamala or Cory or anyone else who dropped out because they hadn't met CHANGED debate requirements to let Tulsi in now.

She's out. And good riddance to the Trump-protector.

(And don't think you're fooling anyone as a Sanders supporter. If you thought her staying in the race would benefit BIDEN, you'd take the opposite position.)

[moriah]

16. ... simply being a woman or a person of color does not get you on the debate stage.

Nor should simply being a rich white man have done so.

But he's done and gone (thanks Liz), and Tulsi also had her opportunities to make her case to the people on a debate stage. More often than Bloomberg did.

Those who have a vote left to cast (I don't) would benefit more from the two viable candidates being on the stage than believing that Tulsi Gabbard, of ALL the Democratic women of color that have been on our debate stage, will suddenly achieve viability as a result of having her there. And if she can't be the nominee (which she realistically can't right now), then what point does she serve in the debate?

[pnwmom]

18. She'd just be there grabbing attention for herself and muddying up the waters.

We need a serious discussion between the only two who can win, and that's Biden and Sanders.

[W_HAMILTON]

22. They weren't lowered to allow Bloomberg in.

They were INCREASED -- in terms of the polling requirements -- and Bloomberg met those increased requirements. A candidate had to receive at least 10% or more support in at least four polls or at least 12% or more support in two single-state polls in South Carolina and/or Nevada. Those were some of the most stringent polling requirements we've had thus far during this entire primary season.

If you are going to let every single candidate make the debate stage, there is no point to even set requirements. Requirements are established so that the debate stage has only the most viable candidates on it. Gabbard is not viable, period. She hasn't been really ever, but certainly not anytime recently.

[yardwork]

25. I disagree with you. This isn't about being fair, it's about electing a Democrat.

The Democratic Party is a political party. I'm a member. I want the party to choose a strong nominee and get them elected president. I want the party to focus on that goal.

[onenote]

30. The criteria for participating in the debates has changed throughout the process

The idea that Gabbard is being singled out is pure bullshit.

For the first debates, held almost nine months ago, the bar for eligibility was set extremely low so as to permit the greatest number of candidates to have an opportunity to be heard. To qualify, one had to meet a one percent threshold in 3 national polls (or in four polls from the first four primary/caucus states) and have 65000 unique donors with at least 200 unique donors in at least 20 states). The criteria were unchanged for the second debate, but a half dozen candidates who made the first debate cut fell short for the second (Gabbard still qualified, however). After the second debate the criteria were lifted to a 2 percent polling threshold and 130,000 unique donors with 400 unique donors in 20 states. This cut the field for the third debate to ten (and Gabbard fell short because she couldn't meet the polling standard). The standard remained the same for the fourth debate and the number of qualifying candidates increased from 10 to 12 -- and Gabbard made the cut. Before the fifth debate, FIVE months into the campaign, the standard was upped again requiring 3 percent or 5 percent polling (depending on where the polls were from) plus donations from 165,000 donors with 600 unique donors in 20 states. This cut the field back to ten, with Gabbard again qualifying. Before the December debate (number 6), the bar was raised a bit more, to 4 (or 6) percent polling and 200,000 donors with at least 800 unique donors from each of at least 20 states. This narrowed the field to seven candidates, with Gabbard, along with Booker and Castro, falling short. As the campaign moved into the new year and the first delegate selections were held, the debate eligibility criteria continued to evolve. For debate 7 in January the polling standard was 5 (or 7) percent and the fundraising criteria was 225,000 unique donors with at least 1000 in each of 20 states. Gabbard was one of many that didn't qualify -- only six made the cut. Things changed dramatically starting with the 8th debate in early February. By the time this debate was held, caucuses had been held in NH and IA. So separate and apart from the polling and fundraising criteria (which remained unchanged), a new automatic qualifying test was added: one delegate won in either of the caucuses. Five candidates met the delegate threshold and two more got in via the polling/fundraising route. Gabbard was among the crowd not qualifying. For the ninth debate in mid February, the party dropped the fundraising criteria -- polling alone (at a 10 or 12 percent level) or one delegate from NH or IA got you in. Gabbard didn't qualify under either test. The tenth debate, in late February, came after the Nevada caucuses. But the threshold criteria remained the same -- even a single delegate got you a spot onstage. The number of qualifying candidates actually increased for this debate - but Gabbard wasn't one of them. That brings us to the next debate By the time that debate is held, the number of caucuses and primaries held will have grown from 3 to 26. The number of delegates awarded will have climbed from around 100 to over 1700. Obviously, the "one" delegate test no longer represented a measure of viability. So, as it has for the past nine months, the standard for eligibility was changed to reflect the actual viability of a candidate nine months after the first debates.

Fun fact for those whining about Gabbard: if the party returned to the original first debate standard of polling plus fundraising -- she wouldn't qualify because her polling now is worse than it was then.

So stop whining.

[Denis Enko]

7. Gabbard Gabbard GOO!

But I don't think even Fred Flintstone would vote for her!

[Loki Liesmith]

9. Gabba gabba hey

[LizBeth]

10. Bottom line, bad mouth Democrats, Democrats are going to get mad.

Kind of like 1 + 1 = 2.

[Maru Kitteh]

12. Tulsi who? What does she do?

[SleeplessinSoCal]

14. She is so much worse than Bloomberg.

God knows why she ran at all. Sanders wingman?

[pnwmom]

20. She never went after Sanders, did she? But I remember her going after Kamala

and other women.

[wiley]

21. When she felt it would benefit her she praised Sanders

[Cha]

23. She does this..

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

29. Desperate times...

... desperate measures. (Sigh.)

[mcar]

31. Wonder if they are hoping she'll run 3rd party

and be a spoiler.

[pnwmom]

32. I think they thought she would continue to be Sanders's wingman in debates. n/t