Who's going to qualify for the Democratic debates?

[The Other Castro]

DNC has sent out a clarifying memo, confirming earlier assumptions that those who qualify by polls only are given preference over those that qualify by fundraising only.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016a-9e3d-d399-afef-9ebdc4370001

So, a Bennet candidacy with three 1% polls would get in before Williamson.

[Mr. Morden]

DNC has sent out a clarifying memo, confirming earlier assumptions that those who qualify by polls only are given preference over those that qualify by fundraising only.

For me, the more interesting thing here is that they're defining "polling average" as the average of the top three polls the candidate was in, regardless of how many they were in.  So if you have three polls at 5% then you won't be hurt if a fourth poll has you at just 1%.

[The Other Castro]

DNC has sent out a clarifying memo, confirming earlier assumptions that those who qualify by polls only are given preference over those that qualify by fundraising only.

For me, the more interesting thing here is that they're defining "polling average" as the average of the top three polls the candidate was in, regardless of how many they were in.  So if you have three polls at 5% then you won't be hurt if a fourth poll has you at just 1%.

What about this: One particular candidate gets exactly 1% in many polls, and another gets enough in just 3 polls, but the 3rd gives that person 2%, making his or her avg higher than the first candidate. The first would be kicked out even though he or she had more qualifying polls (in the event where 20+ meet the polling requirement). I guess we need to be tracking these top 3 averages as well, and not just number of qualifying polls.

[Filinovich]

I've updated my tracker to exclude irrelevant information, calculate the polling average by top 3 polls, and to sort candidates by the order they'll qualify.

[Mr. Morden]

I've updated my tracker to exclude irrelevant information, calculate the polling average by top 3 polls, and to sort candidates by the order they'll qualify.

Wait, looking at your spreadsheet, it looks like you have Ryan, Delaney, and Swalwell with a 0.3% polling average?  How is that possible, if they each have three polls at 1%?  Shouldn't they have a 1% average?  Or am I misunderstanding the numbers?

[Filinovich]

Wait, looking at your spreadsheet, it looks like you have Ryan, Delaney, and Swalwell with a 0.3% polling average?  How is that possible, if they each have three polls at 1%?  Shouldn't they have a 1% average?  Or am I misunderstanding the numbers?

You're right. I had forgotten to remove the bit of code only include national polls as part of the average. It's been fixed now.

[Mr. Morden]

Wait, looking at your spreadsheet, it looks like you have Ryan, Delaney, and Swalwell with a 0.3% polling average?  How is that possible, if they each have three polls at 1%?  Shouldn't they have a 1% average?  Or am I misunderstanding the numbers?

You're right. I had forgotten to remove the bit of code only include national polls as part of the average. It's been fixed now.

OK, thanks.  So it looks like, while I can't imagine this coming into play for the June debate, for the July debate, if we imagine a scenario where someone other than Williamson who's already qualified gets bumped out on tiebreakers, the next most vulnerable after her at the moment are Delaney, Inslee, and Swalwell, all of whom have only qualified on polls and not fundraising, and all of whom have just a 1% polling average.

[PaperKooper]

https://twitter.com/MikeGravel/status/1127692558849708032
Gravel is at 32,500.  It took him 34 days to reach that figure so if he maintains the same pace he will hit 65,000 on June 15th.  However, it seems unlikely he'll qualify for either of the summer debates due to the preference for candidates qualifying on polling. 

[PaperKooper]

PredictIt debate chances:  (change since May 7)
83% (+21) Williamson
39% (-45) Bennet
29% (+2) Moulton
25% (+4) De Blasio
10% (-1) Gravel
6% (-1) Messam

[Tender Branson]

Gravel is at 32,500.  It took him 34 days to reach that figure so if he maintains the same pace he will hit 65,000 on June 15th.  However, it seems unlikely he'll qualify for either of the summer debates due to the preference for candidates qualifying on polling.  

Another 34 days (June 15th) would be too long though, because the DNC's cutoff date for donors will likely be June 12th (2 weeks before the June 26 debate).

So, Gravel would have to pick up speed with his donations and then there are still Bennet and Moulton. Considering there are already 19 qualified candidates (with Bullock and Williamson), this looks like a longshot.

[jimrtex]

Wait, looking at your spreadsheet, it looks like you have Ryan, Delaney, and Swalwell with a 0.3% polling average?  How is that possible, if they each have three polls at 1%?  Shouldn't they have a 1% average?  Or am I misunderstanding the numbers?

You're right. I had forgotten to remove the bit of code only include national polls as part of the average. It's been fixed now.

There is a bias in your assignment of debates.

What you are doing is equivalent to having each candidate flipping a coin for each candidate until either group is filled up, and then assigning the remainder to the other group.

This makes assignment of latter candidates dependent on earlier assignments.

The odds of Biden and Sanders being in the same group under your method is 1/2 (Sanders matches Biden's flip). In actuality, the odds of two candidates being in the same group should be 9/19. 10 of a candidate's 19 opponents will be in the other group, only 9 in his own.

Moreover, one group or the other will tend to fill up, forcing the last candidates into the same group. For example if you flip 16 coins, the probability of 10 or more landing the same way is 45.4%. Thus, the final four have 45.4% chance of all being placed in the same group, making it a de facto undercard.

A better approach would be to have 20 balls with candidate names, and 20 balls with debate number and podium position (A1, ..., A10) (B1, ..., B10). For simplicity, we could eliminate the podium position.

The a formula like:

H_n =IF(RANDBETWEEN(COUNTIF(H$1:H_n-1,1)+1, 20-COUNTIF(H$1:H_n-1,2)<=10, 1, 2)

Adjust parentheses and commas to mae a valid formula.

That is, Biden would draw a number between 1 and 20, and be assigned to Group 1 if his number is 10 or less, and Group 2 if it is 11 or more.

If Biden is in Group 1, then Sanders would draw a number between 2 and 20; if Biden is in Group 2, then draw a number between 1 and 19.

That is we reduce the chances to draw into a group as it fills up.

The above assumes 20 candidates, make adjustments for fewer numbers. Replace 20 with number of candidates, Replace 10 with CEIL(number of candidates/2). This would make Group 1 the larger group if there is an odd number.

[Mr. Morden]

There’s a new Reuters poll out, but most of the candidates who got 1% or more in this one already got 1% or more in the previous one, so are unaffected.  Two candidates who move up though are Bennet (now with 2 qualifying polls, and one away from qualification) and Inslee (who was already qualified anyway).

But then there’s de Blasio.  de Blasio is at 1% in this new poll if you look at the sample of adults, but not if you look at the sample of RVs.  If you count the former, then that gives him a 3rd qualifying poll, and he’s in (assuming he runs).  But if you look at RVs, then he’s at 0%, so isn’t yet qualified.  I don’t know how the DNC is going to handle such an issue, so I’m putting an asterisk by his name.

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 5
Ryan 4
Bullock 3
Delaney 3
Gabbard 3
Swalwell 3
de Blasio 3*
———qualification line———
Bennet 2
Kerry 1
Messam 1
Williamson 1

[One of de Blasio’s polls might not actually count, depending on how the DNC handles the adults/RV question.]

[Tender Branson]

There’s another 4 weeks left for polls, which means De Blasio and Bennet will likely make it to the debates as 19th and 20th, while Williamson and Moulton will fail as 21st and 22nd.

Gravel and Messam have no chance.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's looks like the whole 65k donor thing might not be enough, and donors are only used as a tiebreaker. Most pollsters had been excluding Gravel and Williamson, so they would have a hard time being the top 20 with polls.

[Mr. Morden]

I would also note that Wikipedia says that various news outlets disagree on whether *Bullock* qualifies or not because of disagreement over whether open-ended polls like the ABC/WaPo one actually count:

link

I don't see any reason to believe they wouldn't though.  I think the adults/RV issue for de Blasio is a dicier question.

[7,052,770]

There’s another 4 weeks left for polls, which means De Blasio and Bennet will likely make it to the debates as 19th and 20th, while Williamson and Moulton will fail as 21st and 22nd.

Gravel and Messam have no chance.

Moulton is a sitting Congressman. The rules should be changed for him at least.

Ideally, they would go three nights of 8 and let all 24 in but it is unacceptable for Moulton to be excluded.

[brucejoel99]

There’s a new Reuters poll out, but most of the candidates who got 1% or more in this one already got 1% or more in the previous one, so are unaffected.  Two candidates who move up though are Bennet (now with 2 qualifying polls, and one away from qualification) and Inslee (who was already qualified anyway).

But then there’s de Blasio.  de Blasio is at 1% in this new poll if you look at the sample of adults, but not if you look at the sample of RVs.  If you count the former, then that gives him a 3rd qualifying poll, and he’s in (assuming he runs).  But if you look at RVs, then he’s at 0%, so isn’t yet qualified.  I don’t know how the DNC is going to handle such an issue, so I’m putting an asterisk by his name.

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 5
Ryan 4
Bullock 3
Delaney 3
Gabbard 3
Swalwell 3
de Blasio 3*
———qualification line———
Bennet 2
Kerry 1
Messam 1
Williamson 1

[One of de Blasio’s polls might not actually count, depending on how the DNC handles the adults/RV question.]

So, with De Blasio's entry & Bennet being very likely to get his 3rd qualifying poll over the course of the next 4 weeks (presuming the DNC provides confirmation that Bullock has indeed qualified on the basis of polls), that'll be 11 candidates meeting both criteria & 9 candidates meeting the polling criteria (& with Inslee presumably also being able to reach 65,000 donors by June 12th, considering he was already at 50,000 as of last week, that'll make it 12 candidates meeting both & 8 getting in via the polls). Funnily enough, this means it'll be exactly 20 candidates qualifying either via both criteria or the polls, so polling averages or number of polls won't have to come into play tiebreaker-wise (or number of donors as well, considering the donor-only candidates are screwed).

Of course, Abrams entering could screw someone who's currently qualified (or all-but-qualified) out of a spot, as she'd likely start being immediately included (& perform well enough) in enough DNC-sanctioned polls wherein she'd make the debates were she to announce, though I honestly think it's unlikely she runs at this point, let alone gets in by the deadline, at least imo... Joe Sandberg, though, won't be screwing anybody over if he enters lol

It's looks like the whole 65k donor thing might not be enough, and donors are only used as a tiebreaker. Most pollsters had been excluding Gravel and Williamson, so they would have a hard time being the top 20 with polls.

Yep. Williamson has already qualified via donors, & Gravel may or may not qualify by June 12th via donors (he's at 35,000 right now, & as already pointed out, based on trends alone, he'd probably qualify on June 15th, which is too late for the June debate, but I'd expect some sort of attempt at a fundraising push out of him in the lead-up to the qualifying deadline, so I'd say it's 50/50 or so for him at this point, imo -- Messam & Moulton are already pretty much screwed, though, because there's just seemingly no way that they're gonna meet either criteria). Regardless, even if Gravel meets the criteria, he & Williamson are both screwed, though, thanks to A) the 20 candidate limit, which was already exactly reached with the candidates getting in via both criteria or polls alone; & B) the fact that neither of them are gonna be polled enough, let alone do well enough in the polls, to able to qualify via both criteria.

There’s another 4 weeks left for polls, which means De Blasio and Bennet will likely make it to the debates as 19th and 20th, while Williamson and Moulton will fail as 21st and 22nd.

Gravel and Messam have no chance.

Yes & no... as of right now (presuming Abrams doesn't upend all of this), it looks like Bullock, De Blasio, & Bennet will make it to the debates (all via polls) as 18th, 19th & 20th, while Williamson & Gravel (both via donors) will fail as 21st & 22nd, with Messam & Moulton (just flat-out non qualifiers, with 1 poll & no polls at ≥1%, respectively) at 23rd & 24th.

There’s another 4 weeks left for polls, which means De Blasio and Bennet will likely make it to the debates as 19th and 20th, while Williamson and Moulton will fail as 21st and 22nd.

Gravel and Messam have no chance.

Moulton is a sitting Congressman. The rules should be changed for him at least.

Ideally, they would go three nights of 8 and let all 24 in but it is unacceptable for Moulton to be excluded.

Yeah, it's kinda crappy that a sitting Congressman (even if it is Moulton) & a former Senator (even if it is Gravel) are screwed by this system (not to mention Messam, who leads a larger city than Mayor Pete, for crying out loud), but all the candidates, congressman or not, knew what they were getting themselves into when they announced: they knew that it was up to them to make the debates via polling &/or donations, & that they couldn't just coast on their titles. These are the rules, the rules are the rules, & it'll just look bad if the DNC changes the rules in the middle of the game just to accommodate a candidate because of their title.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Yeah, it's kinda crappy that a sitting Congressman (even if it is Moulton) & a former Senator (even if it is Gravel) are screwed by this system (not to mention Messam, who leads a larger city than Mayor Pete, for crying out loud), but all the candidates, congressman or not, knew what they were getting themselves into when they announced: they knew that it was up to them to make the debates via polling &/or donations, & that they couldn't just coast on their titles. These are the rules, the rules are the rules, & it'll just look bad if the DNC changes the rules in the middle of the game just to accommodate a candidate because of their title.

I don't think so though? Messam is a ceremonial Mayor with literally no record and Moulton didn't really do anything that makes him more qualified. If they can't run a good campaign and get people to notice them enough to qualify, it's their problem.

Also, Gravel is a 90 year-old radical whose twitter is ran by edgy highschool teens whose hobby is to attack all the other candidates, if anyone deserves to be excluded it's him.

[Mr. Morden]

Moulton presumably would have made it in if he'd just declared a few months earlier (back when the debate rules were first announced).  He would have gotten more media attention if he'd been one of the first to declare, and he'd probably get 1% in three polls just by chance if he'd actually been listed as an option in the polls from the beginning.

[Tender Branson]

Why would an open-ended poll not count for Bullock ?

Open-ended polls are even more indicative of the support a candidate has, because voters have to volunteer a name rather than being offered a list of candidates ...

[Mr. Morden]

Why would an open-ended poll not count for Bullock ?

I don't see a good reason why it wouldn't.  I was just commenting that Wikipedia had a line speculating that CNN might not be counting him as having qualified because they don't think the DNC would count such polls.  But not sure why they wouldn't.

[Tender Branson]

I actually think that if by the deadline on June 12th there are still 24 announced candidates, they should do a 3-nighter with 8 candidates each, to remain fair.

They can tighten the rules for the July debate then.

[brucejoel99]

I actually think that if by the deadline on June 12th there are still 24 announced candidates, they should do a 3-nighter with 8 candidates each, to remain fair.

They can tighten the rules for the July debate then.

Yeah, this is probably the best solution, but for all we know, the Adrienne Arsht Center might not be able to accommodate an extra 3rd night of debate, so that could put an end to that idea.

[One Term Floridian]

Honestly Dems are taking these “but muh fairness” accommodations way too seriously. Voters are going to be so overwhelmed by the 69 or so candidates running for President that they’ll simply tune out until the field becomes narrower. The top 10 or so candidates who are doing the best in the polls should be given primetime and the others should be relegated to the kiddie table debates like the 2016 GOP debates

[Mr. Morden]

I actually think that if by the deadline on June 12th there are still 24 announced candidates, they should do a 3-nighter with 8 candidates each, to remain fair.

They can tighten the rules for the July debate then.

Yeah, this is probably the best solution, but for all we know, the Adrienne Arsht Center might not be able to accommodate an extra 3rd night of debate, so that could put an end to that idea.

I can't see it happening anyway.  Maybe if there was some big name being left out by a fluke they might bend on the rules, but they're not going to change the rules at the last minute to accommodate Marianne Williamson or a House member consistently polling at 0% (Moulton).  Not after they prompted the other 2nd/3rd tier candidates to change their campaign strategies in order to meet these thresholds.