Who's going to qualify for the Democratic debates?

[The Other Castro]

So at the very least, these 11 are guarenteed (P+F):

Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Warren, O’Rourke, Yang, Booker, Gabbard, Castro, Klobuchar

Polls only candidates (6/7): Gillibrand, Inslee, Hickenlooper, Delaney, Ryan, Swalwell, [Bullock]
-unclear how close any of these are to hitting 65K

So that’s 17 (18 with Bullock), and realistically I would think only Bennet and de Blasio can pursue the polls option. If they both get in by polls, and assuming Bullock and de Blasio run, that’s our 20 right there. At that point, any fundraising option candidates are kicked out, and it doesn’t matter if Williamson breaks 65K (assuming my understanding of the tiebreakers is correct).

First off let’s assume we get those 20 + Williamson as the potential 21st. The first tiebreaker is to meet both criteria, which we already covered with those top 11. The next tiebreaker is highest polling average, which I take to also mean that preference will be given to poll-option candidates over fundraising-option candidates. Let’s assume therefore that the 6/7 polls candidates are safe.

Since de Blasio will probably get his 3rd qualifying poll, I think this means Williamson’s biggest obstacle to getting in is Bennet hitting 3 polls.

[The Other Castro]

Yep, de Blasio not running would be huge for Williamson’s chances.

[The Other Castro]

DNC has sent out a clarifying memo, confirming earlier assumptions that those who qualify by polls only are given preference over those that qualify by fundraising only.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016a-9e3d-d399-afef-9ebdc4370001

So, a Bennet candidacy with three 1% polls would get in before Williamson.

[The Other Castro]

DNC has sent out a clarifying memo, confirming earlier assumptions that those who qualify by polls only are given preference over those that qualify by fundraising only.

For me, the more interesting thing here is that they're defining "polling average" as the average of the top three polls the candidate was in, regardless of how many they were in.  So if you have three polls at 5% then you won't be hurt if a fourth poll has you at just 1%.

What about this: One particular candidate gets exactly 1% in many polls, and another gets enough in just 3 polls, but the 3rd gives that person 2%, making his or her avg higher than the first candidate. The first would be kicked out even though he or she had more qualifying polls (in the event where 20+ meet the polling requirement). I guess we need to be tracking these top 3 averages as well, and not just number of qualifying polls.

[The Other Castro]

Well, now this could get interesting. If Williamson gets her third, it’s tiebreaker time for other polls only candidates.

[The Other Castro]

Scenario 1: Bennet gets a third poll, Williamson doesn’t, and Bennet fills spot #20.

Scenario 2: Williamson and Bennet both get a third poll, securing Williamson a spot and rendering fundraising only path moot. Candidates with the fewest number of 1% polls are most at risk, which would be Delaney, Swalwell, de Blasio, Bullock, and Bennet (though the latter three may secure spots via fundraising as well, leaving it down to Swalwell and Delaney).

Scenario 3: Bennet doesn’t get a third poll, and Williamson makes it in just by fundraising alone

Either way, Gravel, Messam, and Moulton are pretty much doomed.

Edit: WTF happens if multiple candidates get exactly three 1% polls each, tying for the 20th spot? There doesn’t appear to be additional tiebreakers to resolve this.

[The Other Castro]

Here’s a handy chart:

[The Other Castro]

de Blasio says he has reached 1% in three polls, so according to his campaign at least, the Reuters poll counts.

https://twitter.com/epngo/status/1129075264691081223?s=21

[The Other Castro]

Inslee was already in decent shape with 5 qualifying polls, but he is apparently very close to hitting the donor mark as well, guaranteeing him a spot.

https://twitter.com/tommatzzie/status/1130546282307686400?s=21

[The Other Castro]

Updated with new Monmouth poll. I made two versions since it is still unclear whether or not the Reuters poll counts for de Blasio.

With de Blasio 1% from Reuters:



Without de Blasio 1% from Reuters:

[The Other Castro]

I believe, when there is a reasonable case to be made, the DNC will err on the side of inclusiveness. If it comes down to it, I think Bullock's and de Blasio's questionable polls will be counted. They really don't want to be seen as unnecessarily intervening to stop candidates from making the debates.

[The Other Castro]

Inslee has crossed the 65K donor mark, securing his debate spot. His Sr. Comms Advisor says Inslee’s donor rate increased by 40% after his climate change policy rollout.

[The Other Castro]

On the note of fairness from the DNC, there comes a point where too much action to promote artificial fairness actually creates an unfair system. Nate Silver had a relevant tweet on this subject. Randomly separating candidates into two groups instead of an undercard debate is one thing (which I actually agree with, I think it’s better than an undercard) but this additional step is one purely for the appearance of fairness against the results of the unbiased randomizer. This unfairly benefits the lower tier candidates.

[The Other Castro]

On May 27, Gravel said he was at 38K donors. Also, after a careful reading of the rules, the DNC actually mentioned a preference for top line results in the published pollster memos, and a straightforward analysis would agree that both de Blasio and Bullock have hit 3 separate, eligible polls with at least 1%.

[The Other Castro]

Posting this updated version:



Dispute 1: Whether Bullock's 1% counts in ABC/WaPo Open-Ended 1/25 poll

Dispute 2: Whether de Blasio's 1% counts in Reuters/Ipsos "All Americans" 5/15 poll

Additionally, here is a helpful chart to see which polls are no longer eligible for particular candidates:

[The Other Castro]

From the other debate thread: DNC rules for the 3rd and 4th debates are that open-ended polls are now ineligible, implying that they were previously eligible, which would therefore mean that Bullock has hit three 1% polls and has qualified.

[The Other Castro]

Yang will almost certainly meet the donor requirements for the 3rd and 4th debates, with polling being his biggest hurdle. Plenty of time.

https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1133739571324293121

[The Other Castro]

Donor update:

6/1: Gravel is at 40K donors. His twitter account specifically refers to only the July debate, so he’s given up on June. But, unless we get some dropouts, even qualifying by fundraising alone likely won’t get him into that debate (he’s still not being including in most polls).

https://twitter.com/mikegravel/status/1134886325709156352?s=21

6/1: Gabbard says she’s at roughly 80K donors, 50K away from where she needs to be for the September debate.

https://twitter.com/missbeae/status/1134996261730422784?s=21

[The Other Castro]

Mr. Morden is correct, this is quite the conflict. I believe there may be a Monmouth National poll soon, which would be relevant for all except de Blasio (who already has 1% in Monmouth National). Here's my updated chart of the information:

[The Other Castro]

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1136437305558917120?s=21

Relevant for the July debate as well.

[The Other Castro]

HUGE update:

The DNC has clarified to POLITICO that de Blasio's Reuters poll DOES count, but Bullock's ABC/WaPo poll DOES NOT count. That means de Blasio is confirmed to be at three polls, but Bullock falls back down to two polls, and is not qualified for the debates.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/06/democratic-debates-2020-election-1356115

Updated chart:

[The Other Castro]

HUGE update:

The DNC has clarified to POLITICO that de Blasio's Reuters poll DOES count, but Bullock's ABC/WaPo poll DOES NOT count. That means de Blasio is confirmed to be at three polls, but Bullock falls back down to two polls, and is not qualified for the debates.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/06/democratic-debates-2020-election-1356115

Updated chart:

(...)

WTF ?

Wasn't the WaPo poll open-ended ? Which means this is actually a better indicator of support for a candidate, because names are not read to respondents and they have to volunteer a name on their own ... !

Correct, WTF indeed. This is pretty ridiculous of the DNC to do this (especially because, at the same time, they are being lenient with de Blasio and counting his Reuters poll)

[The Other Castro]

Apparently the DNC told Bullock's team a while ago that the poll wouldn't count, but waited until today to reveal that to Politico. This is the Bullock campaign's statement:

[The Other Castro]

So, apparently there’s a good chance that our understanding of tiebreaking polls may be slightly wrong. The original rules stated that you need three polls at 1%+ from three separate pollsters (or if from the same pollster, they need to be from different regions, such as Monmouth National+Monmouth Iowa) in order to initially qualify under the polling method. However, we assumed that these same rules would apply to the polls used for breaking ties, and this may not be the case.

Some orgs, like Politico, are saying that tiebreaks would use ALL polls where a candidate is 1%+, including polls where candidates got 1% from the same pollster in the same region. That means, when talking about tiebreakers, the polling averages are still the same, BUT the number of tiebreaking eligible polls are different for some candidates. For example, Delaney, Swalwell, de Blasio, and Bennet all have 1% from just three different pollsters. However, Delaney has a Fox duplicate poll, bringing him to four total polls, and de Blasio has a Reuters duplicate poll and two Monmouth National duplicate polls, bringing him to six total polls. Swalwell and Bennet are unchanged at three polls under this reading of the rules.

What’s the significance of this? Nothing right now, but it could be very important if Bullock gets a third poll before the June debate cutoff. Under the original reading, this would bring him to a tie with Delaney, Swalwell, de Blasio, and Bennet, but under this other reading, he would only be brought into a tie with Swalwell and Bennet, with Delaney being slightly safer and de Blasio having a decent buffer zone.

[The Other Castro]

A conspiracy-minded person might suggest that the DNC announced this open-ended poll ban in order to avoid the need for tiebreakers so that they wouldn’t have to clarify/implement new rules...