Who's going to qualify for the Democratic debates?

[Orser67]

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.

[Orser67]

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.

Yup. From the article I linked:

Each polling result must be the top-line number listed in the original public release from the approved sponsoring organization/institution, whether or not it is a rounded or weighted number.

It's reasonable to criticize the standards set by the DNC (e.g. it make sense for them to accept either registered voters or all adults), but they laid out their standards and are sticking to them. There's no rigging involved here.

[Orser67]

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.

[Orser67]

Helpful chart from another poster in a different thread:

[Orser67]

So unless several polls are released today that suddenly favor Williamson or some other lesser-known candidate, the October debate will be have 12 people in a one-night debate: Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Booker, O'Rourke, Yang, Klobuchar, Steyer, Castro, and Gabbard.

I imagine with Ukrainegate and the large field, this could be a make-or-break moment for Biden, whereas the minor candidates will struggle to be heard.

[Orser67]

Darn, already back to 9 candidates. Hopefully O'Rourke, Castro, and Gabbard don't qualify.

[Orser67]

I'd really like an eight person debate at this point: Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Booker, Klobuchar, and Yang. Ideally, Booker, Klobuchar, and Yang would be cut from the December debate unless they really move up in polls.

Darn, already back to 9 candidates. Hopefully O'Rourke, Castro, and Gabbard don't qualify.

Why do you hate democracy ?

There is a set of rules and if certain candidates meet them, they should be in.

No matter what YOU think ...

Nowhere in my post did I say that Democrats should retroactively change the rules. I simply wish they had set a slightly higher threshold for this debate. Each of the three candidates I mentioned have already been given plenty of time to speak at the debates, and none have garnered significant support.

[Orser67]

Is Steyer really that likely to make it? Six percent seems like a pretty high bar to clear for early state polls. I'm actually wondering if Yang and O'Rourke have a better chance than Steyer given their relatively strong performance in national polls.

[Orser67]

Is Steyer really that likely to make it? Six percent seems like a pretty high bar to clear for early state polls. I'm actually wondering if Yang and O'Rourke have a better chance than Steyer given their relatively strong performance in national polls.

If it was 6%, he wouldn't make it, but the DNC has the same 4 x 4% standard for early-state polls as national polls (or a 2 x 6% possibility, which is what you're referring to), which is why he's qualifying for these things so easily.

Ok got it, thanks for clearing that up for me. That was some bad reading comprehension on my part.

[Orser67]

So November will almost certainly have ten candidates:  Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Klobuchar, Booker, Yang, Steyer, and Gabbard

December so far has six candidates: Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Klobuchar
Plus four in the "hopeful zone": Booker, Yang, Steyer, and Gabbard

[Orser67]

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_121019/

I love that Gabbard not only will likely miss the debates, but that she got less than 1 percent in this Monmouth poll.

[Orser67]

Bloomberg is probably my least favorite candidate with a semi-plausible path to the nomination, and I like these smaller debates, but I kinda think they should have dropped the donor requirements by now. The requirements were good for distinguishing candidates who received ~1% of the vote, but imo anyone who receives 5% support nationally has a significant following and should be treated as a serious candidate.

[Orser67]

Seems like Bloomberg is happy to avoid the debates, even while blaming Democratic rules for him missing out:

Bloomberg insisted he’d like to debate if the rules allowed. But the billionaire, a latecomer to the Democratic primary, reasoned it is inappropriate for someone of his wealth to ask supporters for cash...

...Bloomberg has always self-funded his campaigns for the same reasons he laid out Tuesday. In this case, the strategy comes with an additional benefit: inoculating him from televised attacks from opponents and risking a rhetorical misstep.

[Orser67]

Hopefully we'll finally get a smaller debate on February 19th or February 25th.

[Orser67]

I think the DNC set the standard a little too high for this debate by requiring 20% of delegates awarded so far. E.g Warren and Bloomberg would be excluded if they were still in the race. I think somewhere in the 5-10% range would be better.

The standards obviously don't matter anymore for this primary cycle (well, unless you're a Gabbard supporter) but I think the DNC should be looking to establish a good precedent for future cycles so that they can minimize the inevitable "rigged" claims.