Who's going to qualify for the Democratic debates?

[Mr. Morden]

https://apnews.com/96040a1e27f04f2f944dddcf2ed4a412

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So how is the grassroots fundraising metric going to work for candidates who are announcing later?  If a candidate enters the race in April, then they won't have any first quarter fundraising #s, so I guess their fundraising can't be counted towards inclusion in the June debate?

[McGovernForPrez]

It's a good idea but I don't think it works well in practice. I don't think fundraising of any kind should be a requirement to get into the debates.

[Barack Oganja]

I know they want to appear unbiased but regarding the random draw for debates what happens if someone like Bernie or Biden happens to get stuck in a debate with a lot of lightweights? Would seem unfair to them considering they’re the current frontrunners.

[PaperKooper]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess that means tomorrow?  It'll be very nice to have concrete requirements. 

[Former Crackhead Mike Lindell]

Here it is.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/14/dnc-fundraising-polling-early-debates-1170182

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very interesting, and quite inclusive?

[Mr. Morden]

Vox elaborates on the polling measure:

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/14/18225341/dnc-tom-perez-debates-2020-president

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, 1% or more in three polls (either nationally or in early primary states), but the polls have to be done by "major news organizations or qualifying universities".  Therefore, I don't think they'll be including polls from, say, Rasmussen or Morning Consult.  Rather, it'll be a similar mix of polls to the ones the RNC used for their debates four years ago (meaning, polls by the TV networks or the NYT, WSJ, etc., or by a few selected universities like Quinnipiac).  Anyone want to compile a leaderboard on this one just based on polls so far?

It sounds like, since both the polling measure and the fundraising measure is cumulative (meaning that what happens in February is just as important as what happens in May), these criteria offer a huge incentive for all the remaining prospective candidates to jump in the race ASAP.  Some of them aren't even being included in polls yet, but probably would if they announced they were running.  I guess Biden, Sanders, and O'Rourke are in a strong enough position polling-wise that they don't have that same incentive.  But for a Hickenlooper or a McAuliffe or whoever, they should get in the race right now if they're going to do so, or they'll be wasting time that they could be using to reach one of these debate thresholds.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Vox elaborates on the polling measure:

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/14/18225341/dnc-tom-perez-debates-2020-president

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, 1% or more in three polls (either nationally or in early primary states), but the polls have to be done by "major news organizations or qualifying universities".  Therefore, I don't think they'll be including polls from, say, Rasmussen or Morning Consult.  Rather, it'll be a similar mix of polls to the ones the RNC used for their debates four years ago (meaning, polls by the TV networks or the NYT, WSJ, etc., or by a few selected universities like Quinnipiac).  Anyone want to compile a leaderboard on this one just based on polls so far?

It sounds like, since both the polling measure and the fundraising measure is cumulative (meaning that what happens in February is just as important as what happens in May), these criteria offer a huge incentive for all the remaining prospective candidates to jump in the race ASAP.  Some of them aren't even being included in polls yet, but probably would if they announced they were running.  I guess Biden, Sanders, and O'Rourke are in a strong enough position polling-wise that they don't have that same incentive.  But for a Hickenlooper or a McAuliffe or whoever, they should get in the race right now if they're going to do so, or they'll be wasting time that they could be using to reach one of these debate thresholds.

Actually quite a few candidates have already had 1+% in 3 Morning Consult polls this year, including Hickenlooper.  That is, unless rounding is an issue.

[Mr. Morden]

Vox elaborates on the polling measure:

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/14/18225341/dnc-tom-perez-debates-2020-president

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, 1% or more in three polls (either nationally or in early primary states), but the polls have to be done by "major news organizations or qualifying universities".  Therefore, I don't think they'll be including polls from, say, Rasmussen or Morning Consult.  Rather, it'll be a similar mix of polls to the ones the RNC used for their debates four years ago (meaning, polls by the TV networks or the NYT, WSJ, etc., or by a few selected universities like Quinnipiac).  Anyone want to compile a leaderboard on this one just based on polls so far?

It sounds like, since both the polling measure and the fundraising measure is cumulative (meaning that what happens in February is just as important as what happens in May), these criteria offer a huge incentive for all the remaining prospective candidates to jump in the race ASAP.  Some of them aren't even being included in polls yet, but probably would if they announced they were running.  I guess Biden, Sanders, and O'Rourke are in a strong enough position polling-wise that they don't have that same incentive.  But for a Hickenlooper or a McAuliffe or whoever, they should get in the race right now if they're going to do so, or they'll be wasting time that they could be using to reach one of these debate thresholds.

Actually quite a few candidates have already had 1+% in 3 Morning Consult polls this year, including Hickenlooper.

I doubt they'll include Morning Consult polls though.  "Major news organizations or qualifying universities" will probably be applied in a way that doesn't include them.

[Mr. Morden]

My hunch is that the DNC won’t count polls from, say, Morning Consult or Zogby.  The only poll from this year so far that I’ll bet they do count is the Monmouth national poll, from Jan. 25-27:

Wikipedia link

Here are all the candidates (or potential candidates) who got at least 1% in that poll:

Biden
Bloomberg
Booker
Brown
Castro
Gabbard
Gillibrand
Harris
Hickenlooper
Holder
Klobuchar
O’Rourke
Sanders
Warren
Yang

So that’s 15 candidates (or potentials) getting 1% in one poll so far.  Of course, presumably not all of those people are going to run.  But these folks are in the “lead” for making it into the debate right now, *if* this is the only poll that currently counts.

But it’s possible that Emerson and/or Harvard-Harris will make it in too.  They’re both university-sponsored polls, so the guidelines suggest they’re possibles.  But Emerson is a robopollster, and Harvard-Harris is online.  So my guess is that they won’t count, but I’m not sure.  Here’s the list of those getting at least 1% in those polls (including one from Iowa, and the DNC said early state polls count too):

Emerson (robocall), Jan. 20-21:
Biden
Bloomberg
Booker
Brown
Castro
Delaney
Gabbard
Gillibrand
Harris
Klobuchar
O’Rourke
Sanders
Warren

Harvard-Harris (online), Jan. 15-16:
Biden
Bloomberg
Booker
Castro
Gabbard
Gillibrand
Harris
O’Rourke
Sanders
Warren

Iowa: Emerson (robocall), Jan. 30 - Feb. 2:
Biden
Booker
Brown
Castro
Delaney
Gillibrand
Harris
Klobuchar
O’Rourke
Sanders
Warren

So if all of those polls were to count, then the current leaderboard would be:
Biden 4
Booker 4
Castro 4
Gillibrand 4
Harris 4
O’Rourke 4
Sanders 4
Warren 4
Bloomberg 3
Brown 3
Gabbard 3
Klobuchar 3
Delaney 2
Hickenlooper 1
Holder 1
Yang 1

So, if all four of those polls were to count, then Biden, Booker, Castro, Gillibrand, Harris, O’Rourke, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Brown, Gabbard, and Klobuchar have already qualified, though those from that list who haven’t formally launched their candidacy would still need to do so.  Of the declared / exploratory candidates, Buttigieg stands as the one person who hasn’t made it to 1% in any of these polls (though it’s still super early).  Is he in as much danger (or more danger) of being left out of the first debate as Yang is?

Also of note: Of those four polls, Gillibrand is at 1% in three of them, and 2% in the fourth one.  So she's polling poorly, but still managing to consistently make it to 1% as opposed to 0% (at least in non-Morning Consult polls).  And that's good enough for the DNC.  But it doesn't leave much margin for error.  Gabbard is on a similar 1/2% bubble, though she didn't make it in one of the four polls.

[henster]

I don't like the random draw idea. What if Harris gets stuck in the people like Yang, Delaney or Buttigieg which would draw lower viewers. And Gillibrand or Klobuchar gets put in a debate with Beto, Biden and Booker? Feel like all the top tier candidates should all be on one stage so they can go after each other. They seem to be going out of their way to accommodate the non serious candidates.

[izixs]

I don't like the random draw idea. What if Harris gets stuck in the people like Yang, Delaney or Buttigieg which would draw lower viewers. And Gillibrand or Klobuchar gets put in a debate with Beto, Biden and Booker? Feel like all the top tier candidates should all be on one stage so they can go after each other. They seem to be going out of their way to accommodate the non serious candidates.

I'd argue that there is no real 'fair' way to make an arbitrary separation or cut off. There would be someone near any polling or fundraising limit around the mid point that could easily be dominating support wise compared to everyone on the lower end or so far behind that they are irrelevant to the conversation with the popular kids, but yet in either case get tossed into the 'wrong' debate. With a random selection you have better odds of at least two or more relevant candidates being in both debates, and yes, it would make it a 'these two or three' show sort of deal for the most part, but at the same time offers up chances for the lesser known candidates who might make excellent presidents to even be noticed instead of being banished to the kids table debate that no one watches. And I'm all for finding the best possible candidate that best represents the party.

Still, the roll might not go well for one or more candidates and they could get tossed into an odd situation. But a smart candidate, one who's capable and able to leverage things in an election to their advantage at every opportunity (and thus is more competitive in the general election) should be able to make good use of even a bad debate assignment. If Harris is hanging out with the also rans that could provide her effective a platform to make her case without interference from competent campaigns. Make the right kind of noise there while the other debate is mired in pointless tit-for-tats and you can come out on top for a debate round without ever facing your main competition. And the low tier candidate who is secretly on the ball can steal the thunder of the top pollers by either sounding like the only sane one in the room or managing the chaos so that they do something unexpected (say brokering a truce on stage between two other candidates who've been at each other's throats for a while?).

[Mr. Morden]

I was also curious about the fundraising criteria: “Donations from at least 65,000 unique donors and a minimum of 200 unique donors per state in at least 20 US states.”  How hard is that to do?  I don’t have any comprehensive list in front of me, but here’s a thread on the Q2 2015 fundraising #s, which mention, for a few of the GOP candidates, how many unique donors they had:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=215395.0

We mention, for example, that in that quarter, Carson raised $8.3 million from 150,000 donors, Cruz raised $10 million from 120,000 donors, and Paul raised $7 million from 108,000 donors.

So getting 65,000 donors in one quarter seems very doable, but I’d guess that some of last cycle’s kiddie table candidates, like Jindal and Pataki, probably didn’t manage it.  My guess is that many candidates who can’t manage to get 1% in three polls will not be able to be bailed out by their fundraising #s.

And this underlines how crazy it now is for so many 2nd / 3rd tier candidates to stay on the sidelines, and delay their decision for another month or two.  If you don’t get into the race until the end of March, then you don’t even have a full quarter of fundraising before you have to qualify if the debate is in early June (we don’t yet know when in June it’ll be).  So if Merkley or Swalwell or whoever are really still undecided, they need to figure it out fast and declare one way or the other ASAP.  And Bullock’s talk of waiting until May before declaring now seems insane.  If he sticks to that, then he’s probably not going to be invited to the debate.

[Mr. Morden]

If anyone can find a story that states how many unique donors Delaney and Yang have so far, please post it here.  I'm curious to know if the fact that they've already been in the race so long might put them within striking distance of qualifying already.

[PaperKooper]

Sanders has definitely qualified for the debates. 

[History505]

If anyone can find a story that states how many unique donors Delaney and Yang have so far, please post it here.  I'm curious to know if the fact that they've already been in the race so long might put them within striking distance of qualifying already.

https://twitter.com/AndrewYangVFA/status/1098211420192284672

[Mr. Morden]

You know, comparing the national Dem. primary polling this time around to the GOP primary polling from four years ago:

2020 Wiki link
2016 Wiki link

It looks like we may have really nosedived in terms of the number of polls that the party committee might plausibly include in determining debate inclusion.  I guess this isn't all that apparent if you only look at Jan. / early Feb., because there was a similar dearth of quality polls in that timeframe four years ago.  But earlier than that, in late 2014, there were polls by CNN, ABC/WaPo, Fox News, McClatchy/Marist, and Quinnipiac.  Then those firms mostly took a break in the first couple of months of 2015 before coming back in March/April.

This time though, we had CNN in December, but where's Fox?  Where's Marist?  Where's Quinnipiac?  We did have an ABC/WaPo poll recently, but it didn't prompt the respondents with a list of names, so no one except the most well known candidates got any support in it.  These firms aren't polling so far, even though the candidates have been declaring several months earlier than normal this time.

Are these firms going to come out with some polls in March/April/May or not?  If not, then that could really limit the number of candidates who qualify for the debates by getting 1% in three polls, because I don't see the DNC counting polls from Morning Consult, McLaughlin, Rasmussen, Zogby, etc.  OTOH, if those firms that the DNC will count do give us a slew of polls, then >15 candidates qualifying for the debates is very plausible.  Even a candidate with only half a percentage point of support will get 1% in some polls just by chance....if you include him/her in enough polls.

[Sestak]

Yang looks like he could actually hit the threshold by June? Maybe?

Delaney idk.

[Mr. Morden]

Yang looks like he could actually hit the threshold by June? Maybe?

Which threshold?  The donor one?  He's been running since 2017, so if he's only now hitting 20,000 donors, then I'm skeptical of him making it to 65,000 by the end of May.  Maybe he could hit the polling threshold instead if the pollsters actually included him, but most of them don't.  Though maybe if/when we start to get more polls from the higher quality pollsters, they'll include everyone who's declared, just to be fair.

[Sestak]

Yang looks like he could actually hit the threshold by June? Maybe?

Which threshold?  The donor one?  He's been running since 2017, so if he's only now hitting 20,000 donors, then I'm skeptical of him making it to 65,000 by the end of May.  Maybe he could hit the polling threshold instead if the pollsters actually included him, but most of them don't.  Though maybe if/when we start to get more polls from the higher quality pollsters, they'll include everyone who's declared, just to be fair.

I meant the donor one; though I forgot he’s been running for so long. Does he have most of his donations from early in his campaign, or are they more recent?

[Former Crackhead Mike Lindell]

Marianne Williamson is well-connected and has a sizable, if largely non-political, fanbase that she tap in to. She'll have no problem reaching the necessary number of donors by June. She has more twitter followers than Kamala Harris, for crying out loud. I would put money on her making it to that debate stage.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Marianne Williamson is well-connected and has a sizable, if largely non-political, fanbase that she tap in to. She'll have no problem reaching the necessary number of donors by June. She has more twitter followers than Kamala Harris, for crying out loud. I would put money on her making it to that debate stage.

Stop

[Mr. Morden]

Let’s add the ABC/WaPo poll from January (which didn’t prompt respondents for a choice, but just let them come up with the names on their own) and now the latest Emerson national (Feb. 14-16) and Emerson NH (Feb. 21-22) polls.  Adding those to the others ones, the standings (# of polls in which someone got 1% or more) would be:

Biden 7
Harris 7
O’Rourke 7
Sanders 7
Warren 7
Booker 6
Gillibrand 6
Bloomberg 5
Brown 5
Castro 5
Klobuchar 5
Gabbard 4
Delaney 3
———qualification line———
Buttigieg 1
Hickenlooper 1
Holder 1
Yang 1

So if we use what I think is the most permissive of standards for which polls might realistically be used by the DNC to determine inclusion, then Delaney, for example, is already in.  But I’m really uncertain about whether they’re going to count university polls that don’t use a live interviewer.  Take all the Emerson polls out, and there are very few left at the moment.  Really curious to see if we actually get many higher quality polls in the next three months.  I would think we should, but I don’t know.  We’ll see.

[History505]

Let’s add the ABC/WaPo poll from January (which didn’t prompt respondents for a choice, but just let them come up with the names on their own) and now the latest Emerson national (Feb. 14-16) and Emerson NH (Feb. 21-22) polls.  Adding those to the others ones, the standings (# of polls in which someone got 1% or more) would be:

Biden 7
Harris 7
O’Rourke 7
Sanders 7
Warren 7
Booker 6
Gillibrand 6
Bloomberg 5
Brown 5
Castro 5
Klobuchar 5
Gabbard 4
Delaney 3
———qualification line———
Buttigieg 1
Hickenlooper 1
Holder 1
Yang 1

So if we use what I think is the most permissive of standards for which polls might realistically be used by the DNC to determine inclusion, then Delaney, for example, is already in.  But I’m really uncertain about whether they’re going to count university polls that don’t use a live interviewer.  Take all the Emerson polls out, and there are very few left at the moment.  Really curious to see if we actually get many higher quality polls in the next three months.  I would think we should, but I don’t know.  We’ll see.

It would be really odd if he didn't get in higher quality polls in the next few months.

[PaperKooper]

The DNC press release gives more details on qualifying pollsters:

Polling Method: Register 1% or more support in three polls (which may be national polls, or polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and/or Nevada) publicly released between January 1, 2019, and 14 days prior to the date of the Organization Debate.  Qualifying polls will be limited to those sponsored by one or more of the following organizations/institutions:Associated Press, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Des Moines Register, Fox News, Las Vegas Review Journal, Monmouth University, NBC News, New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), Quinnipiac University, Reuters, University of New Hampshire, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Winthrop University.  Any candidate’s three qualifying polls must be conducted by different organizations, or if by the same organization, must be in different geographical areas.

[Mr. Morden]

The DNC press release gives more details on qualifying pollsters:

Polling Method: Register 1% or more support in three polls (which may be national polls, or polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and/or Nevada) publicly released between January 1, 2019, and 14 days prior to the date of the Organization Debate.  Qualifying polls will be limited to those sponsored by one or more of the following organizations/institutions:Associated Press, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Des Moines Register, Fox News, Las Vegas Review Journal, Monmouth University, NBC News, New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), Quinnipiac University, Reuters, University of New Hampshire, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Winthrop University.  Any candidate’s three qualifying polls must be conducted by different organizations, or if by the same organization, must be in different geographical areas.

That is super clarifying, thank you.  So I guess Emerson and Harvard/Harris aren’t going to count then.  Which means, I think, we only have three qualifying polls from the last 2 months:

Monmouth, ABC/WaPo (the methodology was unusual with the open question, but I guess it’ll count), and UNH

So then the actual standings would now be:

Biden 3
Harris 3
O’Rourke 3
Sanders 3
Warren 3
———qualification line———
Booker 2
Brown 2
Gabbard 2
Gillibrand 2
Klobuchar 2
Bloomberg 1
Buttigieg 1
Castro 1
Hickenlooper 1
Holder 1
Yang 1

We still have at least another 2.5 months to go, and one would assume that the rate of polls from these pollsters would pick up, but it looks like these organizations are not polling nearly as much as four years ago, leaving it to outfits like Morning Consult and Zogby to pick up the slack.  Given that, it wouldn’t surprise me if no one ends up getting in on the polling threshold who wouldn’t have made it on the donor threshold anyway.  But I’ll keep tracking this nonetheless.