Who's going to qualify for the Democratic debates?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Gillibrand hit 65k donors.

[The Other Castro]

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?

I'd probably chalk that up to The Hill being garbage, and not reading the rules carefully. It's almost the same though, as the top 9 (as you mentioned, now Julian Castro included) = those at 2%+. Btw, Castro's three 2% polls are indeed all different.

[Blue3]

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.

They're being too inclusive.

This congressman and governor should have declared earlier, or run a better campaign, to meet the thresh-hold.

[John Dule]

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.

Including Kirsten Gillibrand in a serious debate between potential presidents is far more embarrassing, believe me.

[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.

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

It's so arbitrary hat those you named, who really aren't any more popular than Bullock or Moulton, just polling randomness, get to have some name recognition next week while Bullock and Moulton don't.

They would've set the limit to 24 if they'd known there would be 24 serious candidates. If anything, Moulton, Bullock, and I guess Messam (and even Gravel if he promises to behave) should set up their own private "debate" on the third night and get the networks to cover it. Or the Democratic Party should do the right thing and not humiliate our own politicians like this unnecessarily, especially over something that's not necessarily true on a statistically significant level.

[Rookie Yinzer]

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.

They knew the rules and should have planned accordingly. This isn't little league baseball where everyone gets a participation trophy. It's best we start ridding ourselves of the mediocre folks who have no business running anyway. All of the exceptional candidates have made the debates. Hopefully the next wave of requirements wipes out even more of the people crowding this field.

[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.

They knew the rules and should have planned accordingly. This isn't little league baseball where everyone gets a participation trophy. It's best we start ridding ourselves of the mediocre folks who have no business running anyway. All of the exceptional candidates have made the debates. Hopefully the next wave of requirements wipes out even more of the people crowding this field.

The people should get the chance to decide who is exceptional, not random noise in the polls. I'm fine with limiting to 10 or less later, but right now to take all but just a couple is a slap in the face.

I'd also be fine with it if everyone were polling 3-4% in the top 20 and then Moulton and Bullock were regularly below 1, but that's not the case either. It's all completely non-statistically-valid random noise. It could just as easily be those two in the top 20 and two other ones randomly not.

[henster]

Just having a kiddie debate (which for some reason the DNC hates) would've solved all of this. Have all the top candidates polling above 2% & 75K+ donors, which should be about 8 or so people. And the rest can debate on the second night with like a 25K donor requirement or something.

[The Other Castro]

Quinnipiac national poll coming at 2pm today, may be Bullock’s last chance.

[Mr. Morden]

Quinnipiac national poll coming at 2pm today, may be Bullock’s last chance.

I'll also note that in the previous three Quinnipiac polls, none of the four candidates Bullock is vying with for the last spot (Bennet, de Blasio, Delaney, and Swalwell) got 1%, so if any of them does in this poll, it pretty much guarantees their debate participation even if Bullock also gets 1%.

[The Other Castro]

ANOTHER ONE (dabs)

https://twitter.com/monmouthpoll/status/1138461150037905409?s=21

This the first Monmouth Nevada poll, so it’s eligible for everyone.

[Tender Branson]

Quinnipiac and Monmouth ?

Told you so:

Here is a look at the final polls that might come out (and they have to come out over the next 5 days (Saturday-Wednesday) in order to be used for the June debate qualification. On Thursday, the DNC will already decide which candidates have qualified and who are going to miss the first debate):

A) polls that are used as criteria: Associated Press, ABC News, CBS News, CNN (national), The Des Moines Register/CNN Iowa Poll, Fox News, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Monmouth University, NBC News, The New York Times, National Public Radio/Marist, Quinnipiac University, Reuters, the University of New Hampshire, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and Winthrop University.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

B) the outlook:

* The new Des Moines Register/CNN Iowa Poll will be released today

* NPR/Marist might release a new one (they did yesterday, on abortion etc.)

* FOX, Monmouth and Quinnipiac might, because their last polls are a month ago

* the red ones are disqualified by the DNC (ABC/WaPo) or have already released polls less than a month ago

* the brown ones are unlikely to release a new poll in the coming days, or at least it hasn't been announced that they will

[The Other Castro]

Quinnipiac poll is in....and basically no change. 1% for Ryan and Yang, but that doesn’t really matter.

[Mr. Morden]

Tomorrow's Nevada poll is probably Bullock's last hope for debate inclusion.  And even if he gets 1% in that one, he still has to win on tiebreakers.  (Though if he gets 2% in that one, he's in good shape.)

[Mr. Morden]

I guess this means the Monmouth poll will be dropping imminently:

https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1138798534118072320

[Mr. Morden]

Monmouth poll is out, and Bullock is at 0%, so no debate for him (unless one more qualifying poll surprisingly comes out in the next few hours and he's at 1% in that poll, plus wins tiebreakers).

[Tender Branson]

Too bad Bullock is not in ...

But I agree with this

https://www.twitter.com/GovernorBullock/status/1138853852369838081

Even better would have been the 3x8 debate format ...

[7,052,770]

Trump is going to roast the Democratic party as anti-troops for excluding Moulton. Why the party wants to play with fire like that when they could just slide him in makes no sense.

He'll also roast the party for excluding a red state governor and say it's because Dems hate the red states.

There's no drawback to expanding the field. We are walking into a self-created trap on willingly.

[The Other Castro]

Trump is going to roast the Democratic party as anti-troops for excluding Moulton. Why the party wants to play with fire like that when they could just slide him in makes no sense.

He'll also roast the party for excluding a red state governor and say it's because Dems hate the red states.

There's no drawback to expanding the field. We are walking into a self-created trap on willingly.

Moulton, who got 0% in 14 straight polls and is likely far below 65K donors? Btw the debates also include Buttigieg and Gabbard, who both served.

[NYSforKennedy2024]

Trump is going to roast the Democratic party as anti-troops for excluding Moulton. Why the party wants to play with fire like that when they could just slide him in makes no sense.

He'll also roast the party for excluding a red state governor and say it's because Dems hate the red states.

There's no drawback to expanding the field. We are walking into a self-created trap on willingly.

Moulton, who got 0% in 14 straight polls and is likely far below 65K donors? Btw the debates also include Buttigieg and Gabbard, who both served.

Mike Gravel served as well, although he also won't make it.

Trump might have something to say about it, but if you fail to reach 1% a few times within several months of polling, one must ask if you really deserve a spot on the stage.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Trump is going to roast the Democratic party as anti-troops for excluding Moulton. Why the party wants to play with fire like that when they could just slide him in makes no sense.

He'll also roast the party for excluding a red state governor and say it's because Dems hate the red states.

There's no drawback to expanding the field. We are walking into a self-created trap on willingly.

Trump is more likely to join in and ridicule Moulton: "Loser Seth Moulton failed to qualify for a debate that even Kooky Kirsten got into. What a loser!"

 His first instinct is to do something like that instead of feign respect for veterans. Nobody has insulted more veterans and gold star families than Trump.

[brucejoel99]

Welp, it's the 13th now, so there you have it.

RIP Bullock, Messam, Gravel, & Moulton.

At least we don't have to deal with tiebreakers coming into play (well, for now, anyway... July's another story).

[Mr. Morden]

Here's my update, post-Quinnipiac and Monmouth:

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

bold = in bad shape on tiebreakers
For the candidates with polls from 3 pollsters, I included the number of individual polls they have, even if they're from the same pollster.  (Just in case that's how the DNC breaks ties.)

So this same leaderboard is relevant for the July debate, so I guess these candidates have another month to go to jockey for position.  Do we think any of the candidates in bold will either (1) reach the donor threshold, or (2) get at least one poll at 2% or more?  If so, then their chances of getting into the July debate are pretty good.

[Mr. Morden]

CBS and YouGov will have a "Battleground Tracker" poll coming out on Sunday, which polls Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina:

https://mailchi.mp/cbsnews/cbs-news-will-debut-its-2020-battleground-tracker-on-face-the-nation-sunday-547733

There will be separate results for each of the three aforementioned early states.  I assume this then counts as three separate polls?  If so, then this could be a big chance for candidates to get new polls to qualify for the July debate.

[The Other Castro]

CBS and YouGov will have a "Battleground Tracker" poll coming out on Sunday, which polls Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina:

https://mailchi.mp/cbsnews/cbs-news-will-debut-its-2020-battleground-tracker-on-face-the-nation-sunday-547733

There will be separate results for each of the three aforementioned early states.  I assume this then counts as three separate polls?  If so, then this could be a big chance for candidates to get new polls to qualify for the July debate.

This would be pretty funny if Bullock gets 1 or 2% in some of these, right after the June debate cutoff closed. This is important to note, however:

https://twitter.com/ZachMontellaro/status/1139552842824527872

Fox and NBC/WSJ will also be coming out with new polls soon.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9Bi-PrXoAE1LbV.jpg:large

So that's like... 5 polls on Sunday? Big day.