Who's going to qualify for the Democratic debates?

[The Other Castro]

So, apparently there’s a good chance that our understanding of tiebreaking polls may be slightly wrong. The original rules stated that you need three polls at 1%+ from three separate pollsters (or if from the same pollster, they need to be from different regions, such as Monmouth National+Monmouth Iowa) in order to initially qualify under the polling method. However, we assumed that these same rules would apply to the polls used for breaking ties, and this may not be the case.

Some orgs, like Politico, are saying that tiebreaks would use ALL polls where a candidate is 1%+, including polls where candidates got 1% from the same pollster in the same region. That means, when talking about tiebreakers, the polling averages are still the same, BUT the number of tiebreaking eligible polls are different for some candidates. For example, Delaney, Swalwell, de Blasio, and Bennet all have 1% from just three different pollsters. However, Delaney has a Fox duplicate poll, bringing him to four total polls, and de Blasio has a Reuters duplicate poll and two Monmouth National duplicate polls, bringing him to six total polls. Swalwell and Bennet are unchanged at three polls under this reading of the rules.

What’s the significance of this? Nothing right now, but it could be very important if Bullock gets a third poll before the June debate cutoff. Under the original reading, this would bring him to a tie with Delaney, Swalwell, de Blasio, and Bennet, but under this other reading, he would only be brought into a tie with Swalwell and Bennet, with Delaney being slightly safer and de Blasio having a decent buffer zone.

[Mr. Morden]

So, apparently there’s a good chance that our understanding of tiebreaking polls may be slightly wrong. The original rules stated that you need three polls at 1%+ from three separate pollsters (or if from the same pollster, they need to be from different regions, such as Monmouth National+Monmouth Iowa) in order to initially qualify under the polling method. However, we assumed that these same rules would apply to the polls used for breaking ties, and this may not be the case.

Some orgs, like Politico, are saying that tiebreaks would use ALL polls where a candidate is 1%+, including polls where candidates got 1% from the same pollster in the same region. That means, when talking about tiebreakers, the polling averages are still the same, BUT the number of tiebreaking eligible polls are different for some candidates. For example, Delaney, Swalwell, de Blasio, and Bennet all have 1% from just three different pollsters. However, Delaney has a Fox duplicate poll, bringing him to four total polls, and de Blasio has a Reuters duplicate poll and two Monmouth National duplicate polls, bringing him to six total polls. Swalwell and Bennet are unchanged at three polls under this reading of the rules.

What’s the significance of this? Nothing right now, but it could be very important if Bullock gets a third poll before the June debate cutoff. Under the original reading, this would bring him to a tie with Delaney, Swalwell, de Blasio, and Bennet, but under this other reading, he would only be brought into a tie with Swalwell and Bennet, with Delaney being slightly safer and de Blasio having a decent buffer zone.

At this point, I'd guess with so little time left, it's more likely that Bullock does *not* get a 3rd qualifying poll than that he does.  Which means that the tiebreakers wouldn't come into play for this debate, but would be very likely to come into play for the July debate.  Unfortunately, if the tiebreakers end up not becoming relevant for the June debate, my guess is that the DNC doesn't make any statement to clarify them, even though it would be really useful to know as we head towards the July debate.

[The Other Castro]

A conspiracy-minded person might suggest that the DNC announced this open-ended poll ban in order to avoid the need for tiebreakers so that they wouldn’t have to clarify/implement new rules...

[Mr. Morden]

Only Gabbard and Yang move up with the latest Selzer poll of Iowa, since everyone else who got 1% in it already got 1% in the previous poll:

Biden 9
Booker 9
Buttigieg 9
Harris 9
Klobuchar 9
O’Rourke 9
Sanders 9
Warren 9
Yang 9
Castro 7
Gillibrand 6
Ryan 6
Gabbard 5
Hickenlooper 5
Inslee 5
Williamson 3 (but also has 65,000 donors, so is in good shape on tiebreakers)
Bennet 3
de Blasio 3
Delaney 3
Swalwell 3
———qualification line———
Bullock 2
Kerry 1
Messam 1

Bold = in bad shape on tiebreakers, if it comes to that.

Under my reading of the tiebreaker rules, nobody on the bubble got any tiebreaker help from this one.  However, under the reading that Castro mentioned above, Bennet got tiebreaker help here by getting a second Selzer poll at 1%, which would make Swalwell the most at risk candidate of being bumped by Bullock among everyone above the qualification line.

[Senator Spiral]

A conspiracy-minded person might suggest that the DNC announced this open-ended poll ban in order to avoid the need for tiebreakers so that they wouldn’t have to clarify/implement new rules...

The real conspiracy would be that the DNC made this decision to pressure Bullock into dropping out and running for Senate instead.

[NyIndy]

A conspiracy-minded person might suggest that the DNC announced this open-ended poll ban in order to avoid the need for tiebreakers so that they wouldn’t have to clarify/implement new rules...

The real conspiracy would be that the DNC made this decision to pressure Bullock into dropping out and running for Senate instead.

I can actually see that

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A conspiracy-minded person might suggest that the DNC announced this open-ended poll ban in order to avoid the need for tiebreakers so that they wouldn’t have to clarify/implement new rules...

The real conspiracy would be that the DNC made this decision to pressure Bullock into dropping out and running for Senate instead.

I can actually see that

It doesn't seem sinister enough for the DNC.

[eric82oslo]

Only Gabbard and Yang move up with the latest Selzer poll of Iowa, since everyone else who got 1% in it already got 1% in the previous poll:

Biden 9
Booker 9
Buttigieg 9
Harris 9
Klobuchar 9
O’Rourke 9
Sanders 9
Warren 9
Yang 9

Yangmentum is continuing.

[eric82oslo]

I wish Delaney would not qualify for the debates. Literally noone, except monied interests perhaps, want him there.

[The Other Castro]

Under my reading of the tiebreaker rules, nobody on the bubble got any tiebreaker help from this one.  However, under the reading that Castro mentioned above, Bennet got tiebreaker help here by getting a second Selzer poll at 1%, which would make Swalwell the most at risk candidate of being bumped by Bullock among everyone above the qualification line.

Rereading the rules again, it does seem like the DNC is going for total polls, regardless of duplicates. I feel like I change this layout every day because of new DNC rule changes and reinterpretations lol



I've added Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, and Ryan to the Safe Zone.

[NyIndy]

Under my reading of the tiebreaker rules, nobody on the bubble got any tiebreaker help from this one.  However, under the reading that Castro mentioned above, Bennet got tiebreaker help here by getting a second Selzer poll at 1%, which would make Swalwell the most at risk candidate of being bumped by Bullock among everyone above the qualification line.

Rereading the rules again, it does seem like the DNC is going for total polls, regardless of duplicates. I feel like I change this layout every day because of new DNC rule changes and reinterpretations lol



I've added Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, and Ryan to the Safe Zone.

Did Gillibrand pass the Donor threshold? I know the campaign said they were close

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Under my reading of the tiebreaker rules, nobody on the bubble got any tiebreaker help from this one.  However, under the reading that Castro mentioned above, Bennet got tiebreaker help here by getting a second Selzer poll at 1%, which would make Swalwell the most at risk candidate of being bumped by Bullock among everyone above the qualification line.

Rereading the rules again, it does seem like the DNC is going for total polls, regardless of duplicates. I feel like I change this layout every day because of new DNC rule changes and reinterpretations lol



I've added Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, and Ryan to the Safe Zone.

Well, then looks like if Bullock bumps anyone it would be Swalwell. Of course there would be a tie if he just gets a new pollster with 1%.

[The Other Castro]

Did Gillibrand pass the Donor threshold? I know the campaign said they were close

Not yet, but she is probably very close. Anywhere between 60K and 65K.

[Mr. Morden]

Rereading the rules again, it does seem like the DNC is going for total polls, regardless of duplicates. I feel like I change this layout every day because of new DNC rule changes and reinterpretations lol

Well:

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

...candidates who are initially tied for the final qualifying spots will be ranked according to the total number of qualifying polls submitted by each candidate for purposes of determining who is in the top 20.

"Total number of qualifying polls submitted..."  My read is that because of the rule allowing only one poll per pollster, you can't "submit", say, two polls from Monmouth.  Therefore, if you're at 1% in two polls from Monmouth, only one of them is "submitted", and thus it only counts as one for this tiebreaker.  Whether the DNC itself intends for that to be the correct interpretation, I don't know.

[The Other Castro]

Yeah I mean it's definitely not clear-cut by any standard, and I agree that using total polls makes for lousy consistency, but that's what people from 538 and Politico seem to be going with. Still, it's useful to have every angle covered in order to be ready for whichever interpretation is used by the DNC.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah I mean it's definitely not clear-cut by any standard, and I agree that using total polls makes for lousy consistency, but that's what people from 538 and Politico seem to be going with. Still, it's useful to have every angle covered in order to be ready for whichever interpretation is used by the DNC.

It being the DNC there's about 50/50 odds that it's ambiguous because they're incompetent or because they want to choose the candidates they want.

[NyIndy]

Did Gillibrand pass the Donor threshold? I know the campaign said they were close

Not yet, but she is probably very close. Anywhere between 60K and 65K.

When is the deadline? And are any other candidates close to making it?

[Tender Branson]

Did Gillibrand pass the Donor threshold? I know the campaign said they were close

Not yet, but she is probably very close. Anywhere between 60K and 65K.

When is the deadline? And are any other candidates close to making it?

The deadline is Wednesday night.

So, just 3 days left for Bullock, Moulton, Gravel and Messam to get their 3 polls or the donation level.

As of right now, I don't see any new qualifying polls coming out until Wednesday - but maybe I'm wrong and Quinnipiac, Monmouth or FOX etc. will release something.

The DNC will then announce the qualified candidates on Thursday and draw lots on Friday in New York City to place candidates into each 10-tier debate.

[NyIndy]

Gillibrand has passed the donor threshold.

[NYSforKennedy2024]

Under my reading of the tiebreaker rules, nobody on the bubble got any tiebreaker help from this one.  However, under the reading that Castro mentioned above, Bennet got tiebreaker help here by getting a second Selzer poll at 1%, which would make Swalwell the most at risk candidate of being bumped by Bullock among everyone above the qualification line.

Rereading the rules again, it does seem like the DNC is going for total polls, regardless of duplicates. I feel like I change this layout every day because of new DNC rule changes and reinterpretations lol



I've added Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, and Ryan to the Safe Zone.

Well, then looks like if Bullock bumps anyone it would be Swalwell. Of course there would be a tie if he just gets a new pollster with 1%.

So given Gillibrand has qualified (with only two days left, wow.), it would seemingly be everyone in the green zone, and 4 of de Blasio, Bullock (my personal prediction as to who the DNC screws), Delaney, Bennet, and Swalwell - with Messam, Moulton, and Gravel virtually eliminated.

[Mr. Morden]

t would seemingly be everyone in the green zone, and 4 of de Blasio, Bullock (my personal prediction as to who the DNC screws), Delaney, Bennet, and Swalwell - with Messam, Moulton, and Gravel virtually eliminated.

If there are no more polls in the next two days that have Bullock at 1% or more, then Bullock is out and Bennet, de Blasio, Delaney, and Swalwell are all in.

OTOH, if there *is* a qualifying poll in the next two days that has Bullock at 1% or more, then any one of those five people (Bullock, Bennet, de Blasio, Delaney, and Swalwell) might be left out while the other four make it in.  Which one gets left out depends both on whether this hypothetical additional poll gives any of the five any tiebreaker help, and also how exactly the DNC is going to handle tiebreakers, given their ambiguous language.  According to the interpretation favored by many news outlets apparently, Swalwell is the most in danger of getting bumped by Bullock, but whether that's the correct interpretation of the rules, I don't know.

Given how little time there is left though, and the rate at which we get new polls, the most likely scenario is that Bullock *doesn't* get an additional poll at 1% in the next two days, and that the other 20 candidates are all in, and the tiebreakers don't come into play at all.  However, my guess is that the tiebreakers will probably come into play for the July debate, so I wish the DNC would clarify things now.

[7,052,770]

Leaving out a sitting governor and a sitting Congressman is a catastrophically bad look for the party.

They've gotta expand the field. They set up the 20 limit before they knew how many candidates there would be - there is cover to change the rules to be more inclusive.

[Mr. Morden]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447741-democratic-debate-lottery-to-be-held-at-nbcs-30-rock

A lottery to determine where candidates are placed on stage in the first Democratic presidential debate will take place Friday morning at NBC’s headquarters at 30 Rockefeller Plaza.

Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffers told representatives from the presidential campaigns of the plan to hold the lottery at NBC during a logistics call last week, according to three sources with knowledge of the call. The campaigns have been invited to send representatives to witness the drawing.
 
Results will be announced right after the drawing is held.

The story also says:

Those who qualify will be divided between two debates scheduled for June 26 and 27 in Miami. The 10 candidates with the highest polling averages will be divided between the two nights, as will the 10 candidates with the lowest polling averages, to avoid the appearance of a kid’s table debate.

This sounds slightly different from what we were previously told.  I thought the DNC previously said that those whose polling average is over 2% would be split between the two nights.  While there's an outside chance that this'll change in the next two days, at present, only 8 candidates have a 2% or more polling average, not 10 candidates.  Have they changed this?

[Mr. Morden]

Actually, an amendment to the above on only 8 candidates having a 2% polling average: According to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums#First_two_debates

Castro is the 9th candidate to have a 2% or more polling average, though I'd have to take a look to see if that's using the assumption that you can count two polls from the same pollster twice.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Leaving out a sitting governor and a sitting Congressman is a catastrophically bad look for the party.

They've gotta expand the field. They set up the 20 limit before they knew how many candidates there would be - there is cover to change the rules to be more inclusive.

Why exactly? Most people don't even know Bullock, Swalwell, Delaney, Ryan, et al are running.