Tulsi Gabbard has stated repeatedly and unequivocally that she will not run as a third party candidate in the 2020 election. Of course, politicians can change their minds -- or even deceive the public with false pronouncements. But in the rash of media-led paranoia about Gabbard’s alleged “spoiler” ambitions -- which intensified dramatically after Hillary Clinton accused her of being a “Russian asset” last month -- it’s notable just how eager certain journalists and commentators are to ignore these disavowals.

That’s because, for them, invoking a fictitious third party run serves a useful rhetorical function. It means they can perform one of their favorite activities, which is scolding anyone who might contemplate operating outside the traditional bounds of partisan American politics. To even consider doing this is inherently sinister in their minds, especially now, if it can be portrayed as decreasing the likelihood that Donald Trump will be voted out of office. (Ascertaining whether a theoretical third party run by Gabbard would actually “help Trump” is of course impossible, and so futile an exercise as to be pointless.)

So they wield this specter of a nonexistent third party “spoiler” for a very particular purpose, which is to impose discipline. Even vaguely gesturing at the prospect of a third party campaign brings forth condemnation and ridicule from the anti-Trump media class, thereby sending a clear message: merely entertain the prospect of defying the two-party system and you will be destroyed. The hectoring pundits will of course also insist that we are in the midst of a historic national emergency, which renders any third party run even more intolerable. (Somehow, every election cycle constitutes a national emergency of one kind or another.)

Gabbard, despite explicitly ruling out the possibility of running as anything other than a Democrat, provides a useful foil for these partisan media personalities hellbent on putting up a carefully regulated unified front against Trump. Her political arguments -- especially around foreign policy -- can be dismissed as the ramblings of a crank who simply wants to “spoil” the Democrats’ plans; addressing her on the substance is worthless, because her motives have already been impugned. Gabbard regularly professes her desire to defeat Trump, but that makes no difference to commentators who have already decided her intentions are secretly subversive. The latest to wallow in this argument is Jonathan Chait of New York magazine, who alleges that Gabbard is “working on behalf of the Republicans” despite her stated goal of defeating the incumbent Republican president. This paranoid mentality is pervasive.

But their antipathy for Gabbard goes beyond any purported third party menace. Democratic pundits particularly loathe that she has demonstrated a proficiency for communicating with conservative audiences, which is unusual in the current blinkered political landscape. Ordinarily, the ability to interact effectively with voters across the political spectrum would be lauded as an impressive skill -- an antidote to the tedious polarization that pundits often claim to be so tired of. But in Gabbard’s case, this attribute automatically stokes suspicion and condemnation from the liberal commentariat. Gabbard favors a universal government health care program, prohibition of fossil fuels, the codification of Roe v. Wade, and numerous other left-wing policy items, but somehow her capacity to express these views in conservative venues and not be run out of the room is regarded as nefarious.

In another context, one can imagine her aptitude being celebrated as a sign of keen political instincts, rather than dangerous deviancy. Dennis Kucinich, the two-time Democratic presidential candidate whom Gabbard traveled with on a 2017 trip to Syria that has dominated so much coverage of her campaign, summed up the dynamic aptly in a podcast interview with me over the summer. “Tulsi Gabbard is somebody who actually speaks to Democratic values in ways that Republicans can understand,” Kucinich said. “And I think we have to have that kind of fluency to get past partisan differences.”

It’s not as though “partisan differences” are always entirely meaningless. In a large democracy, voters justifiably rely on some degree of partisan affiliation to sort out their political views -- they can’t sit down and pore through policy papers all day, given the other obligations that consume their lives.

However, the “partisan differences” that end up dictating voters’ political identities are often superficial -- heavily influenced by culture war-style outrage that generates big TV ratings and Internet clicks but doesn’t have much bearing on how American governance is actually organized. Gabbard, in declining to take part in culture war theatrics, pierces through the ordinary modes of partisanship that Americans are accustomed to. In addition, making foreign policy the central feature of her political identity is unusual in American politics, so it shouldn’t be surprising that Gabbard’s support base is also a bit unusual -- a heterodox blend of libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and leftists. Anyone familiar with U.S. political history should know, however, that critics of prevailing foreign policy orthodoxies very commonly attract a diverse collection of supporters, because the issue area does not fall neatly along partisan lines.

Media profiles of Gabbard often dwell on the handful of online right-wing personalities who express affinity for her, but if you bother to get off Twitter and attend one of her events, you’ll find that the vast majority of Gabbard supporters, volunteers, and staff are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents. For paranoid pundits who want to imagine some kind of conspiratorial designs at work, this simply doesn’t compute. And so their only recourse is to scold.

Of course, the individual most responsible for the recent wave of Gabbard fear-mongering is Hillary Clinton, who took it upon herself to charge with zero evidence that Gabbard is being controlled by the Russian government. Democratic pundits hate that in responding to this egregious attack, Gabbard has attempted to force a reckoning with Clinton’s legacy in the party. Clinton’s unrepentantly hawkish foreign policy views were undoubtedly a significant reason why she lost to Trump, so you’d think such a reckoning would be regarded as healthy and necessary. But the pundits prefer to ignore this and instead castigate Gabbard for being too harsh on Clinton, while framing the episode as evidence of the Hawaii congresswoman’s strange ulterior motives.

Because these paranoid pundits lack much in the way of political foresight, they might be oblivious to the fact that their attacks on Gabbard are only heightening her profile. As of Oct. 30, Gabbard’s support in the polls has been steadily increasing and she is on the cusp of qualifying for this month’s debate. If they’re so desperate for her to go away (perhaps exiled to Russia?) they are choosing an odd strategy.