That’s not a tirade, it’s an explanation. Gabbard has very little support because her positions and arguments are very unpopular. I think they deserve to be unpopular. You might disagree. But either way, spinning conspiracy theories about deliberate bias designed to keep her out of the third debate (but not the first or second) stems from a failure to confront the obvious: Democratic primary voters just aren’t into her.

On your second point, I disagree. The Democratic Party already held two televised debates. CNN held town halls for each candidate, unencumbered by anyone else on the stage. All the candidates have websites, campaign events, and surrogates. They’ve all done media interviews. In Gabbard’s case, she was also the most-Googled candidate after both the first and second debate. It’s a stretch to say that candidates that have never polled above the low single digits due are polling so poorly due to lack of exposure, rather than due to voters’ opinions.

Many Democratic primary voters reasonably want to see the field narrowed so they can focus on picking among the top candidates, rather than see the stage clogged with fringe candidates they’ve already seen debate twice. If the party didn’t allow any opportunities for lesser-known candidates to get some time in the spotlight, I’d agree with your criticism. But they had multiple chances. Andrew Yang made a positive impression with some voters and qualified for the third debate. Tulsi Gabbard evidently didn’t. Maybe she’ll make the fourth.