Tulsi Post-Debate: Progress on Many Fronts

So, the first post-November debate poll has dropped--a non-qualifying Boston Globe/Suffolk poll from New Hampshire--and Tulsi continues to look very strong there (as does Bernie):

Bernie: 15.6%
Warren: 13.8%
Buttigieg: 13.4%
Biden: 12.0%
Gabbard: 6.2%
Yang: 3.8%
Harris: 2.8%
Booker: 2.2%
Steyer: 2.0%
Undecided: 21.2%

Rounded poll values are here.

Nice to see Bernie on top there, Tulsi less than 6 points behind Biden, and Harris, Booker, and Steyer so low. Bloomberg didn't make the cut, which is nice. Also, look at those undecideds! Anything can happen--fascinating that such a large segment is still open to being convinced.

In other news, Tulsi is now less than 1,000 unique donors away from reaching the 200,000 mark needed for the December debates. She should gain that number in the next day or two if recent rates continue.

In still other news, Tulsi has achieved enough popularity to be portrayed as one of the presidential candidates on Saturday Night Live (SNL). While it seems like her portrayal was meant to be kind of mocking, it actually comes off kind of positively compared to the other portrayals:

SNL Democratic Debate Skit

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

any kind of positive. “I’m the villain!” she snickered, all but twirling a Snidely Whiplash mustache. I was surprised to see acknowledgement of the alleged front-runner Biden cratering.

up
0 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@FutureNow
That's who they were portraying her as.

The final thing they had "Tulsi" say was something like "Just joking, I don't really want to kidnap the Dalmations". Her demeanor throughout the skit was ice cold and deadly.

In other words, they see her as evil. I guess I can understand why; they feel very threatened by her. And by extension, they feel threatened by all of us progressives.

In order for the planet and the human race to survive, we are going to have to go through radical change in a short period of time. The folks at MSNBC do not want change. They don't want their lives to change, and most especially, they do not want to change their thinking. Anything that threatens their accustomed way of looking at the world must be stopped.

up
0 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Hawkfish's picture

Given that just this morning the NYT ran an article titled Did New Hampshire Fall Out of Love With Bernie Sanders?. It wasn’t even under Sydney Ember’s byline, so they must be really worried.

up
0 users have voted.

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Lookout's picture

She says Tulsi was sick...got out of bed, debated, and went back to bed.

Where is she in terms of the Dec. debate?

up
0 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

@Lookout … since the NH poll referenced above (despite a high rating from 538) is not one on the DNC "approved" list. 200K donors, right now, seems like a gimme. I believe the deadline is sometime around Dec. 12 or 13.

up
0 users have voted.

@JCWeb at this point not b/c I think she has a path to the nomination but b/c I want her voice on FP in the debates -- so far the only candidate with FP and regime change wars as the center piece of her candidacy.

But otoh, I'm getting impatient with seeing the 10-candidate debates at this fairly late stage. Judging from the dismal tv viewer numbers from the last debate, so are a lot of other people. It's too many pols, many of whom offer the same triangulating trimming at the margins, including a billionaire who essentially paid his way onto the stage.

The DNC should have had a firm 7-candidate limit by the Dec debate. Give 25% weight to polls, 75% to unique donor totals. Having skin in the game with a monetary contribution should count for far more than whether you've been among the relative few selected to answer a poll and whether you've been privileged with a poll that counts.

up
0 users have voted.

@wokkamile … before anyone has voted. But, heck, the DNC has already changed the rules in the middle of the game at least once this cycle; remember, when they said no more than 10 on the stage and one time, and then, when there were 12 who qualified for October, what did they do, divide it into two groups of 6? Heck no, they (probably influenced by the MSM, well, all except for Fox who they don't want moderating anything although using their polling data is just fine and dandy) kept it to a one-night extravaganza of 12. With 10 or 12, sure, each candidate gets maybe 3 or 4 questions and, depending on who is attacking who, a couple of follow-ups. Average talk time of around 10 minutes, and no chance of getting your point across if you can't speak in 60-second sound bites.

Agree, it's a terrible format, but I put a lot of blame on the moderators. Last debate, one stupid question after another, like asking Yang what he'd say to Putin if elected, etc. etc., asking about stuff they all agree on, softballs to people like Bootyjizz but then a set-up for Kamala to go after Tulsi. Ridiculous. Things would be much better off if they returned to the good ole days of letting the LWV run the debates, allowing equal time for all candidates.

I'd say, if there are 10 or more (maybe even 9 or more), then divide it two like they did for the first two debates. But it looks like that ain't gonna happen. Right now, we're looking at 6 to 9 in Dec. (with Tulsi, Yang and Steyer all on the cusp, assuming Bloomberg doesn't get "hot" in the upcoming polls in the next two weeks, which I seriously doubt).

Keep in mind, that the Boston Globe NH poll referenced in this thread doesn't count, according the DNC's "approved" list, even though the Boston Globe is the largest newspaper in the state of NH. On the other hand, in Iowa, polls by the Des Moines Register, that state's largest newspaper, do count. Why? Who knows, the DNC has been silent as to why some polls count, and others don't.

To go back to my original point, I just hate the idea that they are limiting the exposure of those candidates who aren't doing well in the polls before anyone has had a chance to cast a single vote. Who anointed these pollsters (and only certain ones) as gatekeepers? Number of donors alone would be better. Frankly, I'd rather see them rotate all of the candidates in and out randomly so each candidate gets the same amount of exposure. But, given lockstep between the DNC and the MSM (mainly CNN and MSNBC), that ain't gonna happen.

up
0 users have voted.
Jen's picture

Here in the Knoxville area, I have seen ads for 2 candidates on tv during prime time hours (8-11 pm). Tom 2020 and Bloomberg 2020. Bad Wondering if either Bernie or Tulsi will ever have any in this area. Wondering if they would air an ad for either of them even after it's paid for.

up
0 users have voted.

They get people debating whether they should elect a crook in a red hat or a crook in a blue hat, rather than whether or not they should be forced to elect crooks. -Caitlin Johnstone

@Jen expensive. Tulsi's campaign probably isn't funded sufficiently for many tv ad buys. For the billionaire candidates, it's no problem.

Plenty of digital ads though, for her and Bernie and Yang. These are cheaper, run longer, and offer better opportunities to micro-target voters compared to tv.

up
0 users have voted.
edg's picture

This poll is obviously bogus. It doesn't even contain Bloomberg, who's riding in on his white thoroughbred stallion to save us progressives from ourselves and Bernie. After all, who better to beat a New York billionaire than another New York billionaire? Smile

up
0 users have voted.
Situational Lefty's picture

It's good to see an anti-war candidate can gain traction in a modern Democratic Party Primary. MLK's dream might not be dead yet.

up
0 users have voted.

"He is the truest friend; he has the farthest vision; he is the greatest man I have ever known." --Winston Churchill on Franklin Delano Roosevelt