Why don't you like Tulsi?

Any group of the Democrat electorate who actually vote are worth pursuing. Ignoring and dismissing a good portion of the electorate won't do any candidate good. An overwhelming majority of Bernie supporters/primary voters voted for Hillary in the 2016 general election and she's the embodiment of an establishment Democrat. These people aren't blind and tone deaf when it comes to the reality of the situation, had they not voted in the general for her she would've lost the popular vote as well.

As for Warren, we'll have to wait and see what develops of this story if anything develops at all. Regardless, she's an amazing, strong candidate and I'd happily vote for her in the general if it came down to it as she's my second choice.

Just like I predicted last week

She still had about 9M cash on hand from her fundraisers, so whatever she will do now (probably defend her seat in the senate), she'll have the money to do it.

As I expected, Tulsi didn't reach the required polling % based off the highly selective bs cherry picked "approved" polls of the DNC - despite her reaching the threshold in a ton of others... Fuck the DNC, I'm still supporting her. Donated to her all ready and this makes me want to do it again. I think the Dems weren't too keen on her destroying one of their establishment darlings, Kamala Harris, in the last debate haha.

At least she's still technically in the race, and Andrew Yang - my second favorite candidate is go for the next debate. Though I have a bad feeling he's next on the chopping block when it comes to boxing out "undesirable" candidates. And I truly think they're going to come for Bernie yet AGAIN - though he's a ways off, well after they get Yang..

I can tell already - the establishment lapdops are Biden, Harris (though she received a major blow thanks to Tulsi), and to a lesser extent, Warren. They will absolutely be the last 3 standing. You can take it to the bank - bookmark it if you want lol. You can just tell based off the media favoritism and the shouting of "RUSSIA!! Secret Trumper!" "Assad apoligist!!1" to those who oppose them.

Have mixed feeling about Warren at least, would consider voting for her. Absolutely would NOT vote for Biden or Harris. 

Done  ^^

Also, if either Harris or Biden would make it (which I'm very sure they don't btw), why not vote for them. I mean, not going to vote will only strengthen Trump in your state. They might be less than ideal, but still miles above the alternative.

Similar to Inslee she had a shot at reaching the fourth debate. Probably run out of money.

So, Gabbard and Steyer apparently miss the third debate, but actually have good chances to make it to the fourth. Williamson also has a shot, as would have Gillibrand and Inslee, hadn't they dropped out. Everyone else: nope.

That said, I am kinda curious on how the DNC plans to tighten the criteria for the fifth debate. They doubled the criteria from the first two debates to the second two. If they do it again, how would it look? Well, five candidates (Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg) regularly poll above 4%. A few more (Booker, O'Rourle, Klobuchar, ...) might squeeze single polls in where they get above 4%. So that would be quite good.

And then we have 260K unique donors. No problem for the top five. Warren, Sanders, Harris and Buttigieg had met this back in June. Biden was pretty close with 256K, so reasonably he is above the threshold now. The next were O'Rourke with 188K and Yang with 133K. I can see O'Rourke struggle his way to 260K, and with much social media activism maybe even Yang. I doubt it for everyone else. Well maybe Steyer, he was incredibly quick to get to 130K.

So will the DNC again double the criteria?

Biden should be past it now, but he still has a financing problem: Over half of the contributions he got during the first semester came in during the first week. He's only ranked sixth by money raised (though number 4 is Delaney, who just withdraws from his large bank account for the most part), And Sanders already raised more than twice as much. In fact, Sanders had more cash on hand by end of June than Biden had raised in total for his campaign. Buttigieg does too, and Warren isn't far behind in that regard. Biden has in that respect the same problem as Gillibrand did: She raised about 10M initially, but only a further 5M after that. If Biden can't change that course, he will not be able to keep up with the others in terms of advertising, for instance, which might be catastrophic for his bid on the long run.

Not only Biden was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in here, but now the old chap is going broke too. Sure folks, swing for the fences, swing for the fences.

Lol, quite an overreaction.

I'm just saying that Biden doesn't seem to nearly as much money from donors as Bernie, Buttigieg or Warren do, and that will be detrimental for him on the long run.

In fact, I think that it reflect in the polls already. You don't give money to a candidate unless you're sure and/or enthusiastic about them. The enthusiasm for him is waning and so are his results in most polls over the last months.

https://www.thenation.com/article/tulsi-gabbard-president-foreign-islam/

If she meets with a foreign leader who kills hundreds of thousands behind Congress's back with dark money, if she pushed stuff like "splitting up Iraq", if she fans the flames of right-wing conspiracy theories about Google censorship, if she met with Sisi after he oppressed hundreds, she is straight up a bad leader.

If she has the audacity to say the Syrian people "support Assad", despite knowing full well those same people would be jailed or tortured, that shows lack of empathy or ethics.