Following the first presidential debate on June 26th, Tulsi Gabbard was the most searched candidate on Google. She was, at that time, a credible Democratic Party candidate.
Almost immediately after, her Google Ads account was suspended without warning. This resulted in a lawsuit alleging that Google used its influence to “silence” Gabbard, who missed out on campaign donations as a result.
Prior to the third debate on September 12, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent a memo to all the campaigns saying they had changed their debate qualification process. This memo set a deadline of August 28th to reach 130,000 donors as well as a polling threshold, which Gabbard was ultimately unable to meet.
Soon after, she appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to communicate a “lack of transparency” on the part of the DNC, which created a “lack of faith and trust in the process”.
Prior to the October debate, she even threatened to boycott, claiming “[t]he DNC and the corporate media are trying to hijack the entire election process”.
Seemingly on cue, Hillary Clinton alleged on October 17 that Gabbard was being “groomed by Russia” to run as a third-party candidate. Gabbard later filed suit against Clinton for defamation because of this comment. The damage to her campaign was likely incalculable given Clinton’s lasting influence amongst Democratic voters.
This event marked a change in tone with respect to Gabbard’s campaign.
The November debate was “largely an amiable affair” with the exception of Gabbard. In addition to Clinton, she became a target of the other candidates as well. Kamala Harris suggested Gabbard’s history of criticizing the Obama administration was “unfortunate” and that she “buddied up to Steve Bannon”. Pete Buttigieg attacked her judgement for meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a “murderous dictator”.
Gabbard failed to qualify for the following five Democratic debates. The Friday before last, the DNC announced new qualifying standards for this month’s debate, leaving only Biden and Sanders to participate.
Gabbard just dropped out of the race and sadly endorsed Joe Biden.
Her decision to stick with the Democratic establishment despite their treatment of her boggles the mind.
In a recent CNN panel, Anderson Cooper suggested Gabbard only remained in the race in order “to be a Fox contributor.”
The cumulative effect of DNC rule changes and public attacks stifled Gabbard’s visibility to potential voters.
Contrast her experiences with DNC rule changes with that of Michael Bloomberg and his three month candidacy.
In January, the DNC again announced rule changes for the February 19 debate in Nevada. The new qualification standards would “scrap the grassroots funding support threshold”, according to NPR. As such, Bloomberg was not required to demonstrate grassroots fundraising support like every other candidate in previous debates.
His self-financed campaign and unprecedented spending “allowed him to quickly create a narrative about himself”, per CNN. Eventually, some media pundits even asserted “Michael Bloomberg is the most electable Democrat.”
This demonstrates the peculiarity of this election cycle to date.
At the beginning of debate season, the democratic field was celebrated for its “unprecedented diversity”. But by the December debate, it was criticized for having five male candidates and six white candidates.
While Gabbard would have met the DNC’s need for diversity, she was unable to qualify because of their own changing rules.
In a cultural atmosphere of increase “wokeness” and open endorsement of socialism, a billionaire white male was able to get fourth place in the DNC presidential race. The only remaining candidates with a chance at victory are facing widespread concern of health problems.
Tulsi Gabbard’s was bullied out of the race by a party that claims to work more in her interests than those of Bloomberg, or even Biden. At one point in time, however, she generated more interest than any other candidate. So why – given she’s no longer a candidate – did she endorse Biden and the broken DNC?