Who's going to qualify for the Democratic debates?

[Mr. Morden]

What are the chances that, assuming we don't have 20 qualify through the regular rules, that they waive the rules for current members of Congress to avoid embarrassing them?

Like I don't think they would bend the rules for Williamson, but they would probably give Delaney, Swalwell, or Moulton a spot if they have space for them.

I feel like changing the rules midstream like that would look worse than letting them in.  And would complicate the DNC's options for future debates, if it's established early on that the rules can be tossed out to include more people.

And I'm not convinced that they care about such things as avoiding embarrassment for said candidates.  E.g., Roemer and McCotter weren't invited to any GOP debates in 2012, and no one cared.  And that was when the criteria for inclusion were super ad hoc.  In this case, the criteria were announced months in advance, so it's kind of Swalwell's, Moulton's, etc. fault for waiting so long to get in that they don't have time to qualify.

[7,052,770]

What are the chances that, assuming we don't have 20 qualify through the regular rules, that they waive the rules for current members of Congress to avoid embarrassing them?

Like I don't think they would bend the rules for Williamson, but they would probably give Delaney, Swalwell, or Moulton a spot if they have space for them.

I feel like changing the rules midstream like that would look worse than letting them in.  And would complicate the DNC's options for future debates, if it's established early on that the rules can be tossed out to include more people.

And I'm not convinced that they care about such things as avoiding embarrassment for said candidates.  E.g., Roemer and McCotter weren't invited to any GOP debates in 2012, and no one cared.  And that was when the criteria for inclusion were super ad hoc.  In this case, the criteria were announced months in advance, so it's kind of Swalwell's, Moulton's, etc. fault for waiting so long to get in that they don't have time to qualify.

But the GOP did bend the rules in 2016 for Rand Paul, and Trump used his opening statement to say "Rand Paul shouldn't be here," so there is some precedent.

[Mr. Morden]

What are the chances that, assuming we don't have 20 qualify through the regular rules, that they waive the rules for current members of Congress to avoid embarrassing them?

Like I don't think they would bend the rules for Williamson, but they would probably give Delaney, Swalwell, or Moulton a spot if they have space for them.

I feel like changing the rules midstream like that would look worse than letting them in.  And would complicate the DNC's options for future debates, if it's established early on that the rules can be tossed out to include more people.

And I'm not convinced that they care about such things as avoiding embarrassment for said candidates.  E.g., Roemer and McCotter weren't invited to any GOP debates in 2012, and no one cared.  And that was when the criteria for inclusion were super ad hoc.  In this case, the criteria were announced months in advance, so it's kind of Swalwell's, Moulton's, etc. fault for waiting so long to get in that they don't have time to qualify.

But the GOP did bend the rules in 2016 for Rand Paul, and Trump used his opening statement to say "Rand Paul shouldn't be here," so there is some precedent.

They actually changed their rules to include Fiorina, because she clearly got a polling bump to the 1st tier after the 1st debate, but there just weren't enough qualifying national polls between the 1st and 2nd debates to move her up to the main debate stage if you strictly go by the rules.  So the RNC said fine, we'll just have 11 people then.  Paul was at the edge of qualification, but would have gotten in over Fiorina if you strictly go by the last 5 polls or whatever the # was, even though it was clear that he'd be in 11th place if you only used the post-1st debate polls.

So I think the precedent is that if someone who is currently polling well nonetheless doesn't get in under the rules as written because they rely too much on polls from months ago, then they bend the rules.  But if it's someone who is currently only polling at 0-2%, then I don't think they'll bend the rules to help them, and they're not really popular enough for the party to worry too much about offending their few supporters.

[Mr. Morden]

On my FB feed right now, I see a Gillibrand 2020 ad that says "Will you donate $1 to help me bring our people-first vision to the debate stage?", which I guess suggests that she doesn't have 65,000 donors yet.

[henster]

The criteria is a nice reality check for a lot of these candidates. If you can't meet the basic requirements to qualify for the debates why even continue running?

[Mr. Morden]

Updated with the CNN poll….Buttigieg, Castro, and Gillibrand now have the qualifying 3 polls, regardless of what happens with fundraising:

Biden 5
Harris 5
O’Rourke 5
Sanders 5
Warren 5
Booker 4
Klobuchar 4
Buttigieg 3
Castro 3
Gillibrand 3
———qualification line———
Gabbard 2
Hickenlooper 2
Inslee 2
Bennet 1
Bullock 1
de Blasio 1
Delaney 1
Kerry 1
Yang 1

[The Ex-Factor]

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.  

Is there a way to be able to categorize polls so that we know whether they count or not for the Democratic debate? I keep looking at threads in the primary polls forum and trying to remember if they count towards debate qualification or not, and gotta double-check this thread everytime.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gabbard is at 40k donors. Or she can just get 1% from a 3rd pollster.

https://twitter.com/JordanChariton/status/1108458119456346113

[Mr. Morden]

Again, I'm really skeptical about any of the House members not yet in the race actually being able to qualify for the first debate.  Gabbard's at ~40,000 donors after being in the race for just over two months.  I assume that with two months left, she'll be able to reach 65,000 donors in time (or get 1% in a 3rd qualifying poll).  But Eric Swalwell isn't in the race yet, so he has 0 donors.  Even if he launched his campaign tomorrow, is he really going to make it to 65,000 donors in two months?  Gabbard at least is a lightning rod, with a niche group of fans who will donate to her.  Who is going to donate to Eric Swalwell for president?  And same goes for Moulton and Ryan, who probably aren't going to declare their intentions for another month or so, giving them even less time to qualify.

I'm also curious about Delaney.  He only has 1 qualifying poll at 1% so far, and he hasn't yet announced that he has 65,000 donors.  If he's not there yet, after having been in the race for about two years or however long it's been, is he really going to make it in the next two months?  Yang made up a lot of ground quickly on the donor front, but I don't see Delaney having a viral surge like Yang did.

[Mr. Morden]

Update with the new Fox poll:

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

Inslee's now in.  Yang (reportedly already in from fundraising) and Delaney also move up to 2 qualifying polls, tying them with Gabbard and Hickenlooper.  And de Blasio is also up to 2 polls, despite not yet being in the race.  If he were to enter the race, he'd have a strong chance of qualifying in time for the June debate, unlike, say, Eric Swalwell, Seth Moulton, and Tim Ryan, who all have zero.

[Filinovich]

The spreadsheet
I've created a spreadsheet to track the polling of Democratic candidates and their qualifying for debates. For polling organizations which have already conducted a poll (Monmouth, UNH, Des Moines Register, CNN, Fox as of 24 Mar. 2019), new polls will be added automatically. Otherwise, I will need to code it so it joins the list. It uses polls collected by FiveThirtyEight and filters out polls for organizations that don't qualify for the DNC's rules. It also has some extremely basic methods for tracking grassroots fundraising.

FEC Candidates who have qualified (by number of methods then aggregate polling average, as of 11 Apr. 2019)

Candidate	Method	Polling
Sanders	Both	0.19
Harris	Both	0.08
O'Rourke	Both	0.07
Warren	Both	0.07
Yang	Both	0.01
Klobuchar	Polling	0.03
Booker	Polling	0.03
Castro	Polling	0.02
Gillibrand	Polling	0.01
Delaney	Polling	0.01
Hickenlooper	Polling	0.00
Inslee	Polling	0.00
Gabbard	Grassroots Fundraising	0.00

Adding polls
If there's a poll that ought to be added that isn't, don't tell me. Send an email to FiveThirtyEight with your source (and ideally add it to the Wikipedia page so I'm more likely to watch for it). If the poll does not meet the criteria set out by the DNC, it won't be added.

Adding candidates
The only candidates you'll see on the "Opinion polling" sheet are those with at least one percent in any of the approved polls or has qualified through grassroots fundraising and has not declined running (One or both of the first two must be true, the last one must be true). The spreadsheet is likely to mess up if a new candidate joins the fray.

Fundraising
If you find a bit of news about a candidate declaring they've reached the fundraising threshold, even if they already have met the polling requirement, please send it to me. It'll come in handy if more than 20 candidates "qualify".

Inacurracies and Feedback
If I've done something wrong, call me out on it. I'll likely fix it within 24 hours. Otherwise, if you have any criticism or questions, I'd be happy to receive and/or answer them!

[riceowl]

Buttigieg has qualified based on fundraising.

[PaperKooper]

Buttigieg has qualified based on fundraising.

He hasn't announced that he's running (still an exploratory committee) so he hasn't actually qualified yet.  He's met both the polls and fundraising factors though, so all he needs to do is announce. 

[Filinovich]

Buttigieg has qualified based on fundraising.

He hasn't announced that he's running (still an exploratory committee) so he hasn't actually qualified yet.  He's met both the polls and fundraising factors though, so all he needs to do is announce. 

Yep! I've also noted a source on the spreadsheet for Buttigieg reaching the fundraising goal. Once he declares, this will put him as the safest contender for the debates as he will have reached both goals.

[henster]

Gabbard is at 40k donors. Or she can just get 1% from a 3rd pollster.

https://twitter.com/JordanChariton/status/1108458119456346113

She has 45K according to her recent Insta post. So she'll probably get there but not really good news for her that Yang and Buttigieg have already beat her in a shorter amount of time. I think Yang has taken the alt left lane she was aiming for and Buttigieg has taken the viral moment lane she could've had.

[PaperKooper]

Mods, can we pin this thread?

[PaperKooper]

Buttigieg has qualified based on fundraising.

He hasn't announced that he's running (still an exploratory committee) so he hasn't actually qualified yet.  He's met both the polls and fundraising factors though, so all he needs to do is announce. 

Yep! I've also noted a source on the spreadsheet for Buttigieg reaching the fundraising goal. Once he declares, this will put him as the safest contender for the debates as he will have reached both goals.

Note that Sanders and O'Rourke also have met the fundraising threshold in addition to the polling standard. 

[PaperKooper]

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1110681578919874560

Gabbard is at over 48,000.

[Sestak]

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1110681578919874560

Gabbard is at over 48,000.

I fully expect Gabbard to make it in.

[Mr. Morden]

With the new Quinnipiac poll, Hickenlooper has now qualified, while Delaney and Gabbard are still stuck at 2 polls and looking for their 3rd:

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

[Filinovich]

Updated as of 28 Mar.

Quinnipiac University poll (21-25 Mar.) added. Former Gov. Hickenlooper has qualified through the polling method. Updated Sanders and O'Rourke's methods to include grassroots fundraising. No new candidates have been added.

[PaperKooper]

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1112571659742052352

Gabbard hit 57,000 on March 31st.  No further announcements so it's safe to say she hasn't qualified yet. 

[PaperKooper]

https://twitter.com/MikeGravel/status/1113258864714166275

Mike Gravel is on the board. 

[PaperKooper]

https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1113156755045752832

Marianne Williamson is up to 40,000 donors.  Since the Politico reported she was a third of the way to the goal in the first week of March, she's gotten about 20,000 donations in March and thus she's definitely on track to qualify for the debates. 

[Sestak]

https://twitter.com/mikegravel/status/1113464292593078272?s=21