Who's going to qualify for the Democratic debates?

[Tender Branson]

Until the debates, there are ca. 56 days left - so 65 in total. So, if he meets the online goal and the trend continues, he'll get some 1.4-1.5 million $ in online donations until the debates.

From the DNC's original press release:

https://democrats.org/press/dnc-announces-details-for-the-first-two-presidential-primary-debates/

it looks like to qualify via polls, it has to be polls released at least 14 days prior to the debate.  However, there's no similar window explicitly mentioned for the fundraising method.  But I figure there kind of has to be.  They can't still be deciding who's going to be on the debate stage just a couple of hours before it starts.  That's impractical.  And in fact, a time window for fundraising seems more necessary than for polls, since the fundraising totals have to be vetted by the DNC for accuracy, whereas the polls are just public releases, where they can plug the numbers into a formula.

So, bottom line, I don't know that the candidates can really count on not making it to 65,000 as late as the day of the debate.

Interesting that they didn't include a cutoff date for donors like they did with the polls ...

Their press release says:

To demonstrate that the fundraising threshold has been reached, candidates must provide verifiable evidence, which they may do by authorizing ActBlue and/or NGP VAN to provide that evidence.

... which, theoretically, can be provided by a campaign on the day of the debates for example. If ActBlue etc. confirms to the DNC the number of donations, they don't need to re-check them.

Still, I think Williamson has the advantage over Moulton for now, because she already has 1 poll as qualification (zero for Moulton) and polls are the first qualifier, while donations are only the 2nd qualifier.

It could also be that both Williamson and Moulton make the debate as 19th and 20th, if Bennet waits too long to jump in.

[PaperKooper]

So there are 17 candidates currently qualified. 

Bullock will immediately qualify if he runs and Williamson should qualify on fundraising.  The candidates who have yet to qualify are Gravel, Messam, and Moulton.  The potential candidates who have yet to qualify are Abrams, Bennet, de Blasio, and Sanberg. 

[Mr. Morden]

... which, theoretically, can be provided by a campaign on the day of the debates for example. If ActBlue etc. confirms to the DNC the number of donations, they don't need to re-check them.

I just think this is not very practical if we get to over 20 candidates qualifying and the fundraising numbers are relevant for tiebreakers.  What are they going to do?  Make provisional invitations for candidates, and then an hour before the debate say something like "Oops, looks like Seth Moulton has just pulled ahead of Marianne Williamson in number of donors, and they're competing for the 20th spot, so he's now in and she's out?"  All the debates last time had invitations sent out to candidates like a week or so before the debate took place, and I've got to imagine that this time it'll be similar.

[Tender Branson]

... which, theoretically, can be provided by a campaign on the day of the debates for example. If ActBlue etc. confirms to the DNC the number of donations, they don't need to re-check them.

I just think this is not very practical if we get to over 20 candidates qualifying and the fundraising numbers are relevant for tiebreakers.  What are they going to do?  Make provisional invitations for candidates, and then an hour before the debate say something like "Oops, looks like Seth Moulton has just pulled ahead of Marianne Williamson in number of donors, and they're competing for the 20th spot, so he's now in and she's out?" All the debates last time had invitations sent out to candidates like a week or so before the debate took place, and I've got to imagine that this time it'll be similar.

That’s probably exactly what’s going to happen if they don’t set a cutoff date for donors, just like they did with the polls ...

[Mr. Morden]

... which, theoretically, can be provided by a campaign on the day of the debates for example. If ActBlue etc. confirms to the DNC the number of donations, they don't need to re-check them.

I just think this is not very practical if we get to over 20 candidates qualifying and the fundraising numbers are relevant for tiebreakers.  What are they going to do?  Make provisional invitations for candidates, and then an hour before the debate say something like "Oops, looks like Seth Moulton has just pulled ahead of Marianne Williamson in number of donors, and they're competing for the 20th spot, so he's now in and she's out?" All the debates last time had invitations sent out to candidates like a week or so before the debate took place, and I've got to imagine that this time it'll be similar.

That’s probably exactly what’s going to happen if they don’t set a cutoff date for donors, just like they did with the polls ...

I'm just saying that I think they *won't* revoke anyone's invite at the last minute because it would be ridiculous.  Therefore, there will be some kind of deadline, even if they haven't codified it yet.

[eric82oslo]

According to a new CNN article, Cory Booker has reached 63,408 donors, while Julián Castro is at almost 63,000. Both are likely to reach the threshold within the next week.

Both Jay Inslee and John Delaney are still quite far away it seems, at least their campaigns are not willing to disclose their donor numbers.

Also: "DNC officials plan to certify who has qualified for the debate 14 days before the first event, slated for June 26 and June 27 in Miami."

That should mean the cut off date will be June 12.

"The party plans to use higher fundraising and polling thresholds for candidates to qualify for debates later in the primary campaign. "I think it's important for candidates to show they've made progress," DNC chairman Tom Perez said in a recent C-SPAN interview, "We haven't made firm decisions on what those thresholds will be, but it's absolutely undeniable that as we move forward, we will adjust the thresholds to reflect the fact that we're closer to the caucus and voting.""

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/02/politics/2020-democrats-donor-threshold-dnc-debates/

As a comparison, Andrew Yang currently stands at 106,141 individual donors.

[Mr. Morden]

According to a new CNN article, Cory Booker has reached 63,408 donors, while Julián Castro is at almost 63,000. Both are likely to reach the threshold within the next week.

Both Jay Inslee and John Delaney are still quite far away it seems, at least their campaigns are not willing to disclose their donor numbers.

Also: "DNC officials plan to certify who has qualified for the debate 14 days before the first event, slated for June 26 and June 27 in Miami."

That should mean the cut off date will be June 12.

"The party plans to use higher fundraising and polling thresholds for candidates to qualify for debates later in the primary campaign. "I think it's important for candidates to show they've made progress," DNC chairman Tom Perez said in a recent C-SPAN interview, "We haven't made firm decisions on what those thresholds will be, but it's absolutely undeniable that as we move forward, we will adjust the thresholds to reflect the fact that we're closer to the caucus and voting.""

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/02/politics/2020-democrats-donor-threshold-dnc-debates/

As a comparison, Andrew Yang currently stands at 106,141 individual donors.

Tulsi has more donors than Booker or Castro. Marianne Williamson has almost as many donors as Booker and Castro. Amazing.

In this fivethirtyeight chat, they also mention that Gabbard has been Googled more than Klobuchar, Gillibrand, and Castro in the last 30 days.

[eric82oslo]

According to a new CNN article, Cory Booker has reached 63,408 donors, while Julián Castro is at almost 63,000. Both are likely to reach the threshold within the next week.

Both Jay Inslee and John Delaney are still quite far away it seems, at least their campaigns are not willing to disclose their donor numbers.

Also: "DNC officials plan to certify who has qualified for the debate 14 days before the first event, slated for June 26 and June 27 in Miami."

That should mean the cut off date will be June 12.

"The party plans to use higher fundraising and polling thresholds for candidates to qualify for debates later in the primary campaign. "I think it's important for candidates to show they've made progress," DNC chairman Tom Perez said in a recent C-SPAN interview, "We haven't made firm decisions on what those thresholds will be, but it's absolutely undeniable that as we move forward, we will adjust the thresholds to reflect the fact that we're closer to the caucus and voting.""

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/02/politics/2020-democrats-donor-threshold-dnc-debates/

As a comparison, Andrew Yang currently stands at 106,141 individual donors.

Tulsi has more donors than Booker or Castro. Marianne Williamson has almost as many donors as Booker and Castro. Amazing.

In this fivethirtyeight chat, they also mention that Gabbard has been Googled more than Klobuchar, Gillibrand, and Castro in the last 30 days.

Over the past 30 days, Yang has seen more Google search than both Booker, Castro and Gabbard every day except two, when Booker surged past him.

In the same period, and out of those four, Yang has been the most Googled name in every state except for six; Castro topping in Wyoming, Gabbard topping in New Hampshire, while Booker has lead in New Jersey, South Carolina, Mississippi and New Jersey.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&geo=US&q=%2Fg%2F11c37jsw3y,%2Fm%2F06p430,%2Fm%2F09mhnm,%2Fm%2F0cnyrfq

[PaperKooper]

Predict now has markets for debate participation:
https://www.predictit.org/markets/search?query=debate
Moulton 68%
Williamson 58%
Gravel 11%
Messam 7%
The markets are new so they're still pretty illiquid, but they will be interesting to follow. 

Additionally, Williamson hit 60,000
https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1124339552418717696

[Mr. Morden]

Castro says he has 65,000 donors:

https://twitter.com/JulianCastro/status/1124336973316009984

Predict now has markets for debate participation:
https://www.predictit.org/markets/search?query=debate
Moulton 68%
Williamson 58%
Gravel 11%
Messam 7%

That seems too high on Moulton and too low on Williamson.  Moulton still doesn't have 1% in a single qualifying poll.  Of course, he just got in the race, so that isn't as alarming as it might sound, but I'd say that he's got to be under 50/50 to make it on polling within the next six weeks.  And if Castro is just reaching 65,000 donors now, then I don't see Moulton making it there in time.

Williamson, OTOH, is on the cusp of making it in on donors.  She could still get bounced if there are more than 20 candidates qualifying and she loses on tiebreakers, but I continue to think that probably won't happen for the June debate, though it's not out of the question.

[Mr. Morden]

So there are 17 candidates currently qualified.  

Bullock will immediately qualify if he runs and Williamson should qualify on fundraising.  The candidates who have yet to qualify are Gravel, Messam, and Moulton.  The potential candidates who have yet to qualify are Abrams, Bennet, de Blasio, and Sanberg.  

I guess my current best guess is that Bullock will run (and already qualifies), and that Williamson qualifies on fundraising.  So that's 19.

Abrams isn't going to announce anything before the deadline, nor will Sanberg.  Maybe one of Bennet or Moulton gets in on polls, but I doubt that both do.  If one of them gets in, then that's 20.  And then, I also doubt that Gravel or Messam make it.

So then the only other contender left, if the above plays out as I described, would be de Blasio.  Who could certainly get in on polling if he actually enters the race, but my guess is that he doesn't run.  If I'm wrong on that though, and he does enter the race this month, then maybe Williamson gets bounced because she'd probably end up as the weakest on polls (though that's not certain....I'm not sure how they're going to do polling averages for polls that don't include a candidate's name as an option).

[Mr. Morden]

https://twitter.com/DavidWright_CNN/status/1124402795308888064

Re: that graphic: As noted upthread, I believe Bullock should actually be at 3 polls.

[Farmlands]

Is it still the plan for a 20 person debate be divided in two parts with a random selection of the candidates for each one?That should make it interesting to see how they differ from each other in terms of themes and ideological clashes. I am hoping to see the continuation of the previous Warren-Biden dispute.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's looking like the limit of 20 might actually matter.  They say they will prioritize those who meet both the donors and the 3 polls, but that will likely be less than 20. So the question is how they'd handle people who met only 1 of them.

[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.

[Filinovich]

It's looking like the limit of 20 might actually matter.  They say they will prioritize those who meet both the donors and the 3 polls, but that will likely be less than 20. So the question is how they'd handle people who met only 1 of them.

The DNC first gives preferences to those meeting both criteria, then it goes by polling average, then by donor counts.

[PaperKooper]

Update on PredicIt Debate participation markets:
84% Bennet
62% Williamson
27% Moulton
21% De Blasio
11% Gravel
7% Messam

[PaperKooper]

Williamson's campaign added a counter to her website.  She currently is at 62,600 donors.

Gravel's campaign removed the ActBlue widget so we can't get direct updates on his number of donors.  However, he's teasing an announcement (possibly of 30,000 donors?):

https://twitter.com/MikeGravel/status/1125226174055981056

[Mr. Morden]

Update on PredicIt Debate participation markets:
84% Bennet
62% Williamson
27% Moulton
21% De Blasio
11% Gravel
7% Messam

As I noted in the Tea Leaves thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=316215.msg6786140#msg6786140

de Blasio is denying the NY Daily News report that he’s already decided to run, and says that he’s not going to announce anything this week.  PredictIt’s market thus now has de Blasio’s chances of running in the first place dropping quite a bit, and now below 50%.

If de Blasio *doesn’t* run, then Williamson is very very likely to make it into the debate, since it looks like she’s poised to reach 65,000 donors, and Moulton, Gravel, and Messam all look like longshots to qualify at this point.  Moulton seems like he should be the most likely of those three, but he doesn’t have time to catch up to Williamson in number of donors.  I guess he might make it on polling, but he’s still at zero qualifying polls at 1%, so he’d have to get really lucky on polling in the next month.

[Mr. Morden]

The new Monmouth poll of NH only adds to the polls for people who've already qualified.  Candidates like Bennet, Messam, and Williamson failed to reach 1% again, and so still aren't qualified:

Biden 10
Booker 10
Buttigieg 10
Harris 10
Klobuchar 10
O’Rourke 10
Sanders 10
Warren 10
Yang 8
Castro 7
Gillibrand 6
Hickenlooper 5
Inslee 4
Ryan 4
Bullock 3
Delaney 3
Gabbard 3
Swalwell 3
———qualification line———
de Blasio 2
Bennet 1
Kerry 1
Messam 1
Williamson 1

[Tender Branson]

The new Monmouth poll of NH only adds to the polls for people who've already qualified.  Candidates like Bennet, Messam, and Williamson failed to reach 1% again, and so still aren't qualified:

Biden 10
Booker 10
Buttigieg 10
Harris 10
Klobuchar 10
O’Rourke 10
Sanders 10
Warren 10
Yang 8
Castro 7
Gillibrand 6
Hickenlooper 5
Inslee 4
Ryan 4
Bullock 3
Delaney 3
Gabbard 3
Swalwell 3
———qualification line———
de Blasio 2
Bennet 1
Kerry 1
Messam 1
Williamson 1

Please drop Kerry from the list and include Moulton, Abrams, Gravel & Sandberg guy with 0 polls.

[AN63093]

Gillibrand never caught on for two reasons:

1.  What Adam said- she subliminally reminds people of Hillary.  Now this may be unfair, but it's happening, even if perhaps it's mostly on a subconscious level.  She looks sorta like Hillary.  She's positioned herself as the "women's issues" candidate, which also reminds people of Hillary (again, fair or not).  Every other female candidate has something that makes people not think of Hillary.  For example, with Harris, she's black.  With Warren, she's focused on economics and you also have the whole Pocahontas thing (which again, fair or not, people think about when her name comes up and it makes people think about things other than Hillary).

2.  She doesn't have a base of support.  The "women's vote", to the extent that it exists, is not a tribal voting block that is singularly looking for a female candidate, and even if it was, there are better options out there that check more boxes (Harris, etc.). 

It's as simple as that.  I don't think the whole Franken thing really matters that much.  The timing was just never right for Gillibrand.  Let's say Clinton exited politics and never ran in '16 and instead Biden ran/lost to Trump, or maybe Clinton ran but lost to Biden.. something along those lines.  Gillibrand could very well be the frontrunner right now.

[Former Crackhead Mike Lindell]

Is Abrams really at zero qualifying polls? Every time I've seen her name in a poll, it's been over 1% - though I'm not sure if any of those qualify.

[Mr. Morden]

Please drop Kerry from the list and include Moulton, Abrams, Gravel & Sandberg guy with 0 polls.

Kerry hasn't ruled out a run, and everyone not listed is either at zero or has explicitly said they're not running.

Is Abrams really at zero qualifying polls? Every time I've seen her name in a poll, it's been over 1% - though I'm not sure if any of those qualify.

The only pollster who includes her as an option is Change Research, which isn't counted by the DNC.

[The Other Castro]

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