Who's going to qualify for the Democratic debates?

[Tender Branson]

Sunday:

CBS News Elections and Surveys Director Anthony Salvanto (@SalvantoCBS) will join us to discuss a new CBS News poll about Americans' attitudes about the economy and how that might affect their vote in 2020.

Usually, CBS/FacetheNation releases early state polls as well, but this might just be a national poll. And it might not even ask for the Democratic race ...

[History505]

https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/1164613079625347073

Gillibrand is now up to 115,000 donors.

She would still need to get the required amount of 2% in polls.

[Tender Branson]

Monmouth:

Marianne gets her first 2% poll.

[They not like us]

Steyer and Gabbard both missed on the Monmouth poll. I guess this means Gabbard is out. Are there any other polls coming out that might count for Steyer in the next couple days?

[Tender Branson]

Steyer and Gabbard both missed on the Monmouth poll. I guess this means Gabbard is out. Are there any other polls coming out that might count for Steyer in the next couple days?

Not that I'm aware of ...

But WSJ/NBC is an option, or Quinnipiac.

Or ABC/WaPo, which has not released a poll in months. It would be funny if ABC did not conduct a poll for their own debate ...

[jimrtex]

Or ABC/WaPo, which has not released a poll in months. It would be funny if ABC did not conduct a poll for their own debate ...

They would probably get better ratings for a single debate, plus be able to run with their regular programming the other nights.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if candidates could only count the last donation from a given donor, or the DNC used PAV to choose the debaters.

[Mr. Morden]

Steyer and Gabbard both missed on the Monmouth poll. I guess this means Gabbard is out. Are there any other polls coming out that might count for Steyer in the next couple days?

Not that I'm aware of ...

But WSJ/NBC is an option, or Quinnipiac.

Or ABC/WaPo, which has not released a poll in months. It would be funny if ABC did not conduct a poll for their own debate ...

Steyer's strength is in the early states, so most relevant I think is whether any qualifying early state polls might be coming out soon.  I'm guessing no Monmouth polls of early states are imminent, since they just put out a national poll.  DMR/Selzer only releases their polls on weekends, and CBS/YouGov would also be on weekends.  What's left?  University of New Hampshire?  Fox News also did a South Carolina poll at one point, so maybe they'll do more early state polls?

[ElectionsGuy]

There are hardly any polls being done lately, and there are only two more days left. There's only been like one per week, which is breaking the qualification for multiple candidates.

[eric82oslo]

Gabbard makes a really strong case for why she should be included in the debate, since she's been at 2% or higher in no less than 26 national and early state polls since June 28th: https://www.tulsi2020.com/press/2019-08-23-tulsi-gabbards-campaign-calls-dnc-ensure-transparency-debate-requirements

The four conclusions by journalist Michael Tracey more or less drives the case home, embarrassing the DNC in process:

"Tulsi Gabbard is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.

1. Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates -- especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang.

2. But a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria.

3. A South Carolina poll published Aug. 14 by the Post and Courier placed Gabbard at 2%. One might have again vainly assumed that the newspaper with the largest circulation in a critical early primary state would be an “approved” sponsor per the dictates of the DNC, but it is not. Curious.

4. But Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in six additional YouGov polls -- except those polls are sponsored by The Economist, not CBS. Needless to say, The Economist is not a “sponsoring organization,” per the whims of the DNC. It may be one of the most vaunted news organizations in the world, and YouGov may be a “qualified” polling firm in other contexts, but the DNC has chosen to exclude The Economist’s results for reasons that appear less and less defensible."

Tracey's full-lenght article on RCP called "Gabbard Victimized by DNC's Dubious Debate Criteria" here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/21/gabbard_victimized_by_dncs_dubious_debate_criteria_141055.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The lack of polls is really ridiculous. They should really just let Gabbard and Steyer in. And possibly Williamson and Gillibrand (if she manages to get the donors).

[The Other Castro]

USA Today/Suffolk poll, most likely national, coming this week, possibly today or tomorrow.

[Gustaf]

Is Gabbard claiming that the DNC conspired to not use polls they knew in advance would qualify her?

[wbrocks67]

Gabbard is not making a case on why she should be there. She needs to stop. I thought she was going to active duty anyway?

[They not like us]

Is Gabbard claiming that the DNC conspired to not use polls they knew in advance would qualify her?

You see, when the DNC clearly lays out rules for getting into the debates and a candidate gets into 2 debates, gets time to spread their message, has their "moment", and still doesn't poll above 2% in 4 polls after those two debates, it's because the DNC is rigged and conspiring to keep that candidate off the debate stage.

[Slander and/or Libel]

“If you changed around the rules we all knew about beforehand, Tulsi would qualify” is not the compelling case that “journalist” Michael Tracey seems to think it is.

[Coldstream]

Personally I’d have an undercard for Steyer, Gabbard, Gillibrand and Williamson since they’ve got the donors and a qualifying poll. But I don’t think it’s a big deal they aren’t in - the rules have to winnow the field at some point. And I’d expect Steyer and Gabbard will qualify for the next one.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Q poll will drop tomorrow, meeting the deadline:

https://twitter.com/QuinnipiacPoll/status/1166411303436443648

[OneJ]

I will have to admit, part of me doesn't want Steyer to make the debates and, therefore, making the debate to be split into two nights because I'm worried about how the drawing will go. There's always that chance that Warren doesn't get to share the stage with Biden yet again (nor Harris, but she won't go after her) and that would be very unfortunate.

[Former Crackhead Mike Lindell]

Going to be a real treat to have Steyer strut in and make his debate debut in *October*.

[eric82oslo]

I will have to admit, part of me doesn't want Steyer to make the debates and, therefore, making the debate to be split into two nights because I'm worried about how the drawing will go. There's always that chance that Warren doesn't get to share the stage with Biden yet again (nor Harris, but she won't go after her) and that would be very unfortunate.

It's way to early in the race to even care about minutae like that.

[ElectionsGuy]

Gabbard and Steyer fail to qualify for both Quinnipiac and USA Today. Looks like they'll have to wait until October (or maybe never).

[Tender Branson]

SAD for Tulsi, don’t care about Steyrer.

[eric82oslo]

Sad for both to be honest, but mostly it's sad for the nine candidates on stage trying to take on Biden, as they're all gonna get a lot less time to plead their cases.

[IceSpear]

I'm looking forward to a single debate with all the major candidates, and Gabbard and Steyer suck anyway. Excellent news!

[Slander and/or Libel]

I only wish either one more or like four fewer had qualified. Debates with ten candidates on stage are the pits.