Who's going to qualify for the Democratic debates?

[The Other Castro]

NBC/WSJ did withhold some stuff, but it’s not a guarantee that these are horserace numbers. If they are, unlikely they’d do much anyway given Castro’s duplication and Steyer’s weakness in national polls. Also, Castro is using ABC/WaPo already as well, so another of those wouldn’t help him either.

[The Other Castro]

Castro is IN, just got 2% in the new CNN national poll.

[The Other Castro]

September's simplified enough now that it probably doesn't warrant a chart update. Steyer needs 1 poll, Gabbard needs 2, and that's about all the relevant info. Here's my new chart for just the October debates:

[The Other Castro]

USA Today/Suffolk poll, most likely national, coming this week, possibly today or tomorrow.

[The Other Castro]

Interesting that (according to Politico), Warren will be in the middle with Biden, not Bernie. I wonder what polls they used to determine that.

The 10 most recent qualifying polls, according to ABC.

[The Other Castro]

October debates will be October 15 and 16, polling deadline 11:59 PM October 1.

[The Other Castro]

Anyone can edit Wikipedia with false information.

[The Other Castro]

Anyone can edit Wikipedia with false information.

None of it has been wrong so far on the polls and donors: who has qualified.

Yes it has, it just usually gets fixed pretty quickly once the mistakes are discovered. Like right now, for instance. Gabbard has two polls, not three.

[The Other Castro]

Steyer will very likely qualify tomorrow, CBS/YouGov has IA, NH, SC, and possibly NV polls coming out.

[The Other Castro]

Gabbard gets 2%, according to Washington Post's top-line results for the ABC/WaPo poll...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-ahead-in-democratic-race-with-sens-bernie-sanders-and-elizabeth-warren-also-forming-the-top-tier/2019/09/07/0bdba9fa-d0cc-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

DNC clarified, she can only use her Adults number, not her RV number, so she has 1% in this poll.

[The Other Castro]

https://twitter.com/ZachMontellaro/status/1170837910859501569

[The Other Castro]

Updated chart on the October debates:

[The Other Castro]

They're being overly nitpicky in general, which has hurt multiple candidates in the past (Bullock and Yang for example). Unfortunately for Gabbard, she got a good number in a sample that doesn't count because of the overall mindset of the DNC rulemakers.

[The Other Castro]

No. The DNC already gave low-polling candidates like Gabbard a chance to appear in two debates. Now they're simply narrowing the field with a set of requirements that apply to all candidates, rather than to one disfavored candidate in particular, because they want to narrow the focus of the debates to candidates that have a plausible shot of winning the nomination.

The DNC posted their requirements for the third debate back in May, so if they are purposely trying to keep Gabbard out, then they had absolutely remarkable foresight.

There is nothing in your link that says an „adult“ sample should be given priority over a RV sample, which in itself is an absurd measure. RV samples are always better than adult samples.

Even if the DNC is not manipulating things against Gabbard, they are still idiots because they use the worse sample for qualifying.

The DNC didn't accept the RV numbers because the Adults numbers were the toplines, not the RV numbers. It's not about one type being given priority.

[The Other Castro]

No. The DNC already gave low-polling candidates like Gabbard a chance to appear in two debates. Now they're simply narrowing the field with a set of requirements that apply to all candidates, rather than to one disfavored candidate in particular, because they want to narrow the focus of the debates to candidates that have a plausible shot of winning the nomination.

The DNC posted their requirements for the third debate back in May, so if they are purposely trying to keep Gabbard out, then they had absolutely remarkable foresight.

There is nothing in your link that says an „adult“ sample should be given priority over a RV sample, which in itself is an absurd measure. RV samples are always better than adult samples.

Even if the DNC is not manipulating things against Gabbard, they are still idiots because they use the worse sample for qualifying.

The DNC didn't accept the RV numbers because the Adults numbers were the toplines, not the RV numbers. It's not about one type being given priority.

WaPo had the RV numbers as their top-line results (ABC had the adult numbers) so based on the DNC’s own criteria both numbers should count.

Apparently the DNC views "original public release" as the polling document from which the sponsor's numbers are derived, which in this case had Adults listed before RV. There was certainly some wiggle room here, but the DNC went the other way.

[The Other Castro]

No. The DNC already gave low-polling candidates like Gabbard a chance to appear in two debates. Now they're simply narrowing the field with a set of requirements that apply to all candidates, rather than to one disfavored candidate in particular, because they want to narrow the focus of the debates to candidates that have a plausible shot of winning the nomination.

The DNC posted their requirements for the third debate back in May, so if they are purposely trying to keep Gabbard out, then they had absolutely remarkable foresight.

There is nothing in your link that says an „adult“ sample should be given priority over a RV sample, which in itself is an absurd measure. RV samples are always better than adult samples.

Even if the DNC is not manipulating things against Gabbard, they are still idiots because they use the worse sample for qualifying.

The DNC didn't accept the RV numbers because the Adults numbers were the toplines, not the RV numbers. It's not about one type being given priority.

WaPo had the RV numbers as their top-line results (ABC had the adult numbers) so based on the DNC’s own criteria both numbers should count.

Apparently the DNC views "original public release" as the polling document from which the sponsor's numbers are derived, which in this case had Adults listed before RV. There was certainly some wiggle room here, but the DNC went the other way.

I don't see how there's wiggling room here. The DNC shouldn't count a poll multiple times simply because it was co-sponsored by multiple outlets. When two outlets collaborate on a poll, the first topline number released by either outlet for that poll is, by any reasonable definition, the "original public release".

Now if there was evidence that the DNC had changed the rules to favor or disfavor certain candidates, that would be an example of unfairness, but no one has presented any evidence that they have done anything but enforce the rules and policies that they put in place long before the debates.

My position is that "original public release" could have been defined in a sponsor-based context. Because of the multiple sponsors in this situation, my preference would have been that candidates could use either ABC's adults numbers, or WaPo's RV numbers, but not both, similar to how candidates could use NBC/WSJ or NBC/SurveyMonkey, but not both. I don't think the DNC has targeted any specific candidates, but they can be kind of a dick sometimes.

[The Other Castro]

Oooo this is gonna be a fun chart.

[The Other Castro]

Where's @Castro2020 at with his chart for November?? I need it!

Just waiting until after the Monmouth NH poll.

[The Other Castro]

My chart on the November debates:

[The Other Castro]

Updated November chart with the new CNN polls from NV and SC:

[The Other Castro]

Steyer and Booker just qualified for November.

[The Other Castro]

Updated November chart:

[The Other Castro]

DNC just announced the November debate will be on November 20 in Georgia, placing the polling deadline on November 13.

Here is the updated chart with the new Quinnipiac poll:

[The Other Castro]

Updated chart:

[The Other Castro]

Klobuchar is IN.