Tulsi and Marianne need to face facts: no one wants them at the next debate

After failing to qualify for the next televised Democratic debate, Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson are questioning the DNC's clear, transparent benchmarks. They can complain all they like, but I hope this is the last we see of them

"I think the bigger problem is that the whole process really lacks transparency," said presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesday’s episode of Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight. One might wonder if this appearance on Tucker Carlson’s White Power Hour was actually an audition to be 2020’s Jill Stein, because nothing says spoiler quite like a Democrat going on Tucker Carlson to complain about the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC made a lot of mistakes in 2016, when its unfair handling of the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders led to the resignation of chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Yet since then they’ve tried extremely hard to reform and show transparency when it comes to the debate criteria. Of course no one is obligated to agree with the DNC or the benchmarks it sets. But while DNC chair Tom Perez might be annoying, he has been completely and utterly transparent about the 2020 primary’s debate criteria.

This time around there is no mystery. There is no fix – or any credible allegations of one. Three months ago, in May, Perez announced that for the September debates a candidate could qualify by both polling more than 2 per cent and by having more than 130,000 unique donors. On 1 August – just 28 days ago – the New York Times ran the following statement: “Candidates will need to have 130,000 unique donors and register at least 2 percent support in four polls. They have until Aug. 28 to reach those benchmarks.”

I’m not sure how Gabbard has had trouble understanding these extremely clear benchmarks? Or, even worse, how she can possibly accuse the DNC of lacking “transparency” over its criteria? These benchmarks aren’t creative: they aren’t poetic, but they are very clear.

Even notorious liberal-DNC-loving-hippy-magazine The National Review thinks the two percent threshold is reasonable: “The threshold is 2 percent, people. If consistently getting 2 percent or more of members of your party to make you their first choice is too difficult… Well, the presidency doesn’t have many easy days.” The only president who polled at less than two percent in modern history was Jimmy Carter – and we all know how that ended. Still, try telling these facts to Gabbard’s campaign which is citing what they describe as “several irregularities in the selection and timing of the DNC sponsored polls.” It’s easy to smell where this is going. I hope I’m wrong, but it feels like Gabbard is setting herself up to be “Doctor” Jill Stein 2.0.

Tulsi wasn’t the only sore loser in the bunch: Bullock complained about “arbitrary D.N.C. debate rules” and Marianne Williamson’s campaign complained about polling cutoffs too. (A 13 August poll had Williamson at zero per cent, but, you know, “dark forces” and “love energy” and all that.) Quite rightly, the DNC quickly defended itself. Representative Adrienne Watson said: "The September threshold is inclusive, transparent and low.”

Though there is some bad news too. The qualification rules are exactly the same for the following debate, which means there will be more time for campaigns to qualify. This means that in October we could theoretically see a stage with Tulsi and Marianne, Tom Steyer and Bill Deblahblahblah, Joe Sestak and John Delaney. Please, God, if you’re up there, just make it stop.

If that happens, you’re going to see a lot of extremely traumatized Democrats. For now, we can enjoy our nearly empty ten candidate debate stage but there is a chance – albeit a small one – that October will see another monster two-night soul crusher featuring Russian asset Tulsi and voodoo-witch anti-vaxxer Marianne.

Ultimately, losing extreme, low-polling voices from both sides as the race progresses is a good thing. I say good riddance to Tulsi and so-long to Marianne. Because if we’ve learnt anything from Gabbard’s second debate performance or from Bill De Blasio yelling over everyone else on the stage, it’s that no one is more dangerous to a front runner than an angry low-poller with nothing to lose.