Who's going to qualify for the Democratic debates?

[The Other Castro]

Now that Messem's gone and Steyer, Yang, and Gabbard are closer to making it, can you post an updated chart?

(Also, are Booker and Castro still too strong for the dead zone?)

They can both realistically make at least the donor threshold, so I'm just going to keep them both in the doomed zone. They've earned that distinction from the dead zone people.

[Shadows]

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1197182767504732160

Yes & he will have a SuperPAC as will Patrick. They will be spending 100s of millions of $ in early & Super Tuesday states to buy the election.

For all that spending Steyer still hasn't crossed the donor threshold for the 6th Debate. This is pathetic on part of the DNC.

[Tender Branson]

Tulsi now has more than 196.000 of the 200.000 needed donors (as of yesterday).

She's averaging about 1.500-2.000 per week and might get more after the debate now.

She should be fine with the donor threshold for the December debate, but still needs another qualifying poll. Her best shot is another NH poll.

[Mr. Morden]

Booker's at 200,000 donors now:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/politics/booker-fundraising-december-debate/index.html

Yet he has no realistic prospect of making the December debate, since he's going nowhere on polling.

[Sorenroy]

Considering Bloomberg's campaign filing and his decent hypothetical polling from the past few weeks, could he make it to the debates? Or will his continued turning down fundraising disqualify him?

[GAProgressive]

Considering Bloomberg's campaign filing and his decent hypothetical polling from the past few weeks, could he make it to the debates? Or will his continued turning down fundraising disqualify him?

If he (somehow) polls well enough, he will. He has too much influence to just leave at this point.

[Tender Branson]

New Suffolk/Boston Globe poll.

Gabbard 6%
Yang 4%

Sadly, this doesn't count (Suffolk only in combination with USA Today), because both Gabbard and Yang would be at the December debate.

I'm pretty sure both will complain about this poll, if they don't make it in the next 2 weeks ...

[Mr. Morden]

The new Quinnipiac poll doesn't change anything for December, since every candidate who got 4% or more has already qualified for December.

[Tender Branson]

The new Quinnipiac poll doesn't change anything for December, since every candidate who got 4% or more has already qualified for December.

And the Emerson NH poll later today is non-qualifying.

It’s getting hard for both Gabbard and Yang, because I don’t see that many additional polls coming that would qualify them ...

Maybe FOX or Monmouth in NH, but that’s about it and Gabbard has been polling low in their previous polls.

[Cinemark]

The new Quinnipiac poll doesn't change anything for December, since every candidate who got 4% or more has already qualified for December.

And the Emerson NH poll later today is non-qualifying.

It’s getting hard for both Gabbard and Yang, because I don’t see that many additional polls coming that would qualify them ...

Maybe FOX or Monmouth in NH, but that’s about it and Gabbard has been polling low in their previous polls.

CNN might have a national poll coming out tomorrow. Probably wont help Gabbard but could get Yang across the line.

[Tender Branson]

The new Quinnipiac poll doesn't change anything for December, since every candidate who got 4% or more has already qualified for December.

And the Emerson NH poll later today is non-qualifying.

It’s getting hard for both Gabbard and Yang, because I don’t see that many additional polls coming that would qualify them ...

Maybe FOX or Monmouth in NH, but that’s about it and Gabbard has been polling low in their previous polls.

CNN might have a national poll coming out tomorrow. Probably wont help Gabbard but could get Yang across the line.

CNN, MSNBC are all stacked against Gabbard and Yang anyway ...

MSNBC has even omitted Yang several times from their charts of candidates, even though he has been at every debate so far.

[Cinemark]

Not sure how many more qualifying polls are still left to come out between now and the 12th. Especially since pollsters wont be out in the field the rest of the week due to Thanksgiving.

[Tender Branson]

Both Gabbard & Yang received 4%+ in two NH polls recently, both (Suffolk, Emerson) do not count for the December debate ...

[Cinemark]

Both Gabbard & Yang received 4%+ in two NH polls recently, both (Suffolk, Emerson) do not count for the December debate ...

Emerson has never been considered a qualifying poll. Suffolk never got counted as a qualifying poll either. It was USA Today that counted towards the debate, they just always used Suffolk. For the November and December debates however, the DNC made it so that USA Today has to use Suffolk(and vice versa) if they want to have a poll that counts towards qualification.

https://democrats.org/news/dnc-announces-details-for-sixth-democratic-presidential-primary-debate/

For individual entities that are included only in Qualifying Poll Sponsor pairs but are not listed individually, independent polling by such individual entities or polling conducted in new partnerships with such individual entities shall not meet the Qualifying Poll Criteria.  The DNC reserves the right to add a Nevada-specific poll sponsor to this list in the near future.

That said, there are quite a few pollsters who haven't released data in a while that will probably put something out before the 12th. I have a hard time imagining Yang, Gabbard and Steyer not making the next debate.

[eric82oslo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IA3ZvCkRkQ&list=RDPSoOFn3wQV4&index=3

[Tender Branson]

New Suffolk/Boston Globe poll.

Gabbard 6%
Yang 4%

Sadly, this doesn't count (Suffolk only in combination with USA Today), because both Gabbard and Yang would be at the December debate.

I'm pretty sure both will complain about this poll, if they don't make it in the next 2 weeks ...

Gabbard complaining:

Outsider 2020 Democratic presidential contender Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) lashed out at the Democratic National Committee late Friday, charging that the DNC was deliberately ignoring a recent Boston Globe/Suffolk University poll putting Gabbard at 6% — her highest showing in the presidential contest so far.

In a statement released on Friday, Gabbard cried foul on that decision, accusing the DNC of deliberately ignoring the Suffolk/Globe poll even though it may be more reliable than other, recognized polls.

“Again, this is another example of the DNC being arbitrary and inconsistent. New Hampsire is the first in the nation presidential primary, but the DNC has not shown its voters the respect they deserve,” Gabbard said in an email to supporters.

“The Boston Globe is the largest newspaper in New Hampshire. The pollster the Globe uses is recognized by the DNC for other media outlets, there is no reason the DNC should not recognize this Boston Globe poll, other than adherence to a subjective, non-transparent process where party elites try to dictate to the primary voters.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-campaign-charges-dnc-deliberately-ignoring-poll-putting-her-at-six-percent

[The Other Castro]

Womp womp.

[Kleine Scheiße]

This is the first Gabbard poll qualification complaint I think does have some merit.

[Cinemark]

But the DNC isnt being "arbitrary and inconsistent". The rules including USA Today and Suffolk have been in place since September. And the Boston Globe has never been a debate qualifying sponsor.

[Kleine Scheiße]

The DNC isn't being inconsistent, but the rule that an otherwise-accepted pollster needs a particular press sponsor for the results to be considered "real" is totally arbitrary.

[Cinemark]

The DNC isn't being inconsistent, but the rule that an otherwise-accepted pollster needs a particular press sponsor for the results to be considered "real" is totally arbitrary.

Except Suffolk was never considered a qualifying pollster until this September with the new sponsorship rules.

[Kleine Scheiße]

The DNC isn't being inconsistent, but the rule that an otherwise-accepted pollster needs a particular press sponsor for the results to be considered "real" is totally arbitrary.

Except Suffolk was never considered a qualifying pollster until this September with the new sponsorship rules.

And? You're saying it's been considered a qualifying pollster since September, and that there are sponsorship rules that govern how their qualification is applied. I am saying that the rule governing how that qualification is applied is arbitrary, not that the rule doesn't exist or that Suffolk has always been a qualifying pollster. It's been a qualifying pollster since September and it is currently December.

All of these rules having been established well ahead of time was the original reason why Tulsi's initial complaints were rightly considered ridiculous. We're supposed to believe that now her complaint is ridiculous because the rule in question is new? Malarkey.

[W]

Quick refresher on the previous qualifications

June and July - 1% or more in 3 or more recent polls OR 65k or more donors AND at least 200 donors in 20 different states

September and October- 2% or more in 4 or more recent polls AND 130k donors AND at least 400 donors in 20 different states

November - 3% or more in 4 or more recent polls OR 5% or more in 2 or more early state polls AND 165k donors AND at least 600 donors in 20 different states

December - 4% or more in 4 or more recent polls OR 6% or more in 2 or more early state polls AND 200k donors AND at least 800 donors in 20 different states

I'm expecting for January the DNC wiill make it 5% or more in 4 different recent polls or 7% or more in 2 early states AND 250k donors AND at least 1000 donors in 20 different states. Assuming all who have qualified + Steyer + Yang + Gabbard qualify for the December debates I expect the latter 3 to be cut from the January debates.

[The Mikado]

If the cutoff is 5%, I'd expect we lose Klobuchar and Harris as well. No way either of them gets 5% four times by mid January, especially considering that there's usually no polls over the Christmas/New Years week.

[rhg2052]

Following the pattern of previous months, they should hopefully be announcing the January date/location (certainly IA)/qualifications no later than this week.

I think you nailed it, W. 5% in 4 or more polls + 250k donors. We lose Booker in December, and Steyer/Yang/Gabbard in January. Klobuchar will be on the bubble but ultimately not make January. Harris will be on the bubble and probably not make it, depending on if she stays in the 3-4% average where she is now or continues to drop.