Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Actinguy

The criteria has been announced for the November Debate

Recommended Posts

(Accidentally posted this to the wrong subforum earlier)

The criteria for the next (October) debate has been long known.  Notably, Steyer recently qualified for that debate (his first), and Gabbard is currently just one poll away from qualifying as well (after missing September's debate).

But the DNC has now announced the criteria to qualify for the November debate.  While both the polling and fundraising measures have increased once again, they've only increased moderately (compared to the August to September leap that kicked half the team off the field).

Candidates must...

POLLING

* Receive 3% or more support in at least four national or single-state polls (single state for Iowa, NH, Nevada, or South Carolina).  Must be four different qualifying pollsters -- it can't be four polls from a single polling organization (unless it's for different geographical areas, such as one national poll and one Nevada poll).

OR

* Receive 5% in two single-state polls in Iowa, NH, Nevada, and/or South Carolina.  These CAN be from the same polling organization, even if they're both for the same state.

Either way, the polls must be published between September 13 and at least 7 days before the debate (although the debate date is not yet set).

AND

Need 165,000 unique donors, with 600 unique donors per state in at least 20 states. (This is not significantly higher than the previous cutoff, so many candidates have already surpassed it).


----

With these new criteria now known, here's the current standings:

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris ("The Top Five") all have enough donors, but are currently just one poll shy of qualifying.

Cory Booker is two polls away, but has not met the fundraising standard yet.  

Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke, and Andrew Yang have all met the fundraising standard, but are three polls away.

Julian Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, and Tom Steyer have all met the fundraising standard, but don't have a single poll yet.

The rest of the candidates have no polls AND have not met the fundraising requirement.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

* Receive 5% in two single-state polls in Iowa, NH, Nevada, and/or South Carolina.  These CAN be from the same polling organization, even if they're both for the same state.

Just noticed the posting mistake so here is my posting once again.

I call this ''doing a Klobuchar''. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

(Accidentally posted this to the wrong subforum earlier)

The criteria for the next (October) debate has been long known.  Notably, Steyer recently qualified for that debate (his first), and Gabbard is currently just one poll away from qualifying as well (after missing September's debate).

But the DNC has now announced the criteria to qualify for the November debate.  While both the polling and fundraising measures have increased once again, they've only increased moderately (compared to the August to September leap that kicked half the team off the field).

Candidates must...

POLLING

* Receive 3% or more support in at least four national or single-state polls (single state for Iowa, NH, Nevada, or South Carolina).  Must be four different qualifying pollsters -- it can't be four polls from a single polling organization (unless it's for different geographical areas, such as one national poll and one Nevada poll).

OR

* Receive 5% in two single-state polls in Iowa, NH, Nevada, and/or South Carolina.  These CAN be from the same polling organization, even if they're both for the same state.

Either way, the polls must be published between September 13 and at least 7 days before the debate (although the debate date is not yet set).

AND

Need 165,000 unique donors, with 600 unique donors per state in at least 20 states. (This is not significantly higher than the previous cutoff, so many candidates have already surpassed it).


----

With these new criteria now known, here's the current standings:

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris ("The Top Five") all have enough donors, but are currently just one poll shy of qualifying.

Cory Booker is two polls away, but has not met the fundraising standard yet.  

Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke, and Andrew Yang have all met the fundraising standard, but are three polls away.

Julian Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, and Tom Steyer have all met the fundraising standard, but don't have a single poll yet.

The rest of the candidates have no polls AND have not met the fundraising requirement.
 

So let's say it's Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Booker, and either Klobuchar or O'Rourke. 

Well talk about an uninspired lineup. None of them really jump out to me as the person who could beat Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SilentLiberty said:

So let's say it's Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Booker, and either Klobuchar or O'Rourke. 

Well talk about an uninspired lineup. None of them really jump out to me as the person who could beat Trump.

Incidentally they’re the only people with a chance of winning the nomination. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

So let's say it's Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Booker, and either Klobuchar or O'Rourke. 

Well talk about an uninspired lineup. None of them really jump out to me as the person who could beat Trump.

 

3 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Incidentally they’re the only people with a chance of winning the nomination. 

I've been pessimistic about beating Trump no matter who the nominee is -- mostly because I was so optimistic in 2016 and was dead wrong and am largely broken inside now.

But IF anybody can beat Trump, I'd put my money on Biden, Buttigieg, and potentially Booker.

And of that list, I'd be most excited to have Buttigieg as President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Just noticed the posting mistake so here is my posting once again.

I call this ''doing a Klobuchar''. :D 

Not yet.  She's polling at 3% among approved pollsters in Iowa.  She needs 5%.

She did get 8% once, but not on an approved poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

Not yet.  She's polling at 3% among approved pollsters in Iowa.  She needs 5%.

She did get 8% once, but not on an approved poll.

True, but I guess she can do it once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

So let's say it's Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Booker, and either Klobuchar or O'Rourke. 

 

I expect Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Booker, and O'Rourke.

I think that's a pretty solid list, not missing anyone of substance with any shot at this thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope for Yang. I don't really care about the others who have a chance. I like hearing them when they get the chance, but I won't be angry if they are not present there. 

Delaney won't be on the stage I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Incidentally they’re the only people with a chance of winning the nomination. 

I know, and it's "Sad!"

 

But no really none of those candidates jump out to me as being 'it', I know Warren is really really trying though, so at least she had that to her credit.

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

 

I've been pessimistic about beating Trump no matter who the nominee is -- mostly because I was so optimistic in 2016 and was dead wrong and am largely broken inside now.

But IF anybody can beat Trump, I'd put my money on Biden, Buttigieg, and potentially Booker.

And of that list, I'd be most excited to have Buttigieg as President.

I know a lot of Republicans and people with views that are more on the right have been saying they'd vote for Biden and such, but Trump would absolutely crush Biden in the general. Everything that just brushes off Trump will stick to Biden. Biden v Trump is basically Clinton v Trump 2.  Buttigieg I know that we have very fundamental different views on. Booker I think you might be on to something though. 

 

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

I expect Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Booker, and O'Rourke.

I think that's a pretty solid list, not missing anyone of substance with any shot at this thing.

I also guess like beauty, it's the eye of the beholder who can make judgement. I think Castro and Gabbard would be the two biggest loses for missing that debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I hope for Yang. I don't really care about the others who have a chance. I like hearing them when they get the chance, but I won't be angry if they are not present there. 

Delaney won't be on the stage I guess.

I used to kind of like Yang, but I just, he's just so, gimmicky. So gameshow salesman like and trying way to hard to be 'hip and cool.' At one point he had tweeted that he'd be a boring President and the media wouldn't cover him much, but I feel like a Yang Presidency would actually be the opposite. It's as though Yang and O'Rourke are running to be social media influencers rather than the President of the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my take: It was a lot of fun having a lot of candidates, but I welcome narrowing it down to those with a shot at winning the nomination. 10 people in a debate is too much. I think 8 is as well. I'd like to see about 5 people. Ideally, I'd like to see four debates during the week, each with 5 candidates (top 20 candidates). The ones earlier in the week will be those with the lowest polls numbers and those with the best poll numbers would be on Thursday. Basically 4 levels of undercard debates. This may or may not help them. But it's better exposure than not being included at all. While most debate watchers will likely watch only the Thursday debate, there will be a portion of debate watchers that watch all of them. Additionally, the debates can be less than 3 hours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I hope for Yang. I don't really care about the others who have a chance. I like hearing them when they get the chance, but I won't be angry if they are not present there.

Yang now 4th place in poll of national voters.

S8QkWFc1RMiqMzxG3mpo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jayavarman said:

Yang now 4th place in poll of national voters.

S8QkWFc1RMiqMzxG3mpo

Great! That's the way I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jayavarman said:

Yang now 4th place in poll of national voters.

S8QkWFc1RMiqMzxG3mpo

Extreme outlier for now -- but of course would be interesting (or weird) if it continued into a trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it as very unlikely anyone outside of Sanders, Warren, or Biden wins the nod. (Buttigieg and Harris are outsiders looking in)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be surprised if Yang didn't qualify

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

I see it as very unlikely anyone outside of Sanders, Warren, or Biden wins the nod. (Buttigieg and Harris are outsiders looking in)

I think Buttigieg is more likely than Sanders.

Theres no questioning the passion of Sanders supporters — but he doesn’t have a coalition.  He doesn’t have the broad appeal.  Look at his polling numbers since he declared a year ago.  They dont go up.

As long as Elizabeth Warren is alive, Bernie doesn’t have a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jayavarman said:

Yes and I'd be surprised if he didn't get them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 10:44 AM, Actinguy said:

(Accidentally posted this to the wrong subforum earlier)

The criteria for the next (October) debate has been long known.  Notably, Steyer recently qualified for that debate (his first), and Gabbard is currently just one poll away from qualifying as well (after missing September's debate).

But the DNC has now announced the criteria to qualify for the November debate.  While both the polling and fundraising measures have increased once again, they've only increased moderately (compared to the August to September leap that kicked half the team off the field).

Candidates must...

POLLING

* Receive 3% or more support in at least four national or single-state polls (single state for Iowa, NH, Nevada, or South Carolina).  Must be four different qualifying pollsters -- it can't be four polls from a single polling organization (unless it's for different geographical areas, such as one national poll and one Nevada poll).

OR

* Receive 5% in two single-state polls in Iowa, NH, Nevada, and/or South Carolina.  These CAN be from the same polling organization, even if they're both for the same state.

Either way, the polls must be published between September 13 and at least 7 days before the debate (although the debate date is not yet set).

AND

Need 165,000 unique donors, with 600 unique donors per state in at least 20 states. (This is not significantly higher than the previous cutoff, so many candidates have already surpassed it).


----

With these new criteria now known, here's the current standings:

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris ("The Top Five") all have enough donors, but are currently just one poll shy of qualifying.

Cory Booker is two polls away, but has not met the fundraising standard yet.  

Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke, and Andrew Yang have all met the fundraising standard, but are three polls away.

Julian Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, and Tom Steyer have all met the fundraising standard, but don't have a single poll yet.


The rest of the candidates have no polls AND have not met the fundraising requirement.
 

I know Yang has a strong online community, but I'm curious to the explanation for how some candidates have fairly good donation numbers, yet fail to hit the polling threshold. Is this a cumulative total of donations since the candidate announced? I can imagine Julian getting a huge donation boost after the first debate(and spar with Beto). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

I know Yang has a strong online community, but I'm curious to the explanation for how some candidates have fairly good donation numbers, yet fail to hit the polling threshold. Is this a cumulative total of donations since the candidate announced? I can imagine Julian getting a huge donation boost after the first debate(and spar with Beto). 

Yes, it’s cumulative.  

Theres also a difference between “I will give you one dollar” and “Here are the keys to the White House, have fun!”

For example, Buttigieg is my top pick and I’ve donated significantly to him.

But I’ve also made a token donation to Julian Castro to help him qualify, as I think he brings an important perspective on the immigration debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Yes, it’s cumulative.  

Theres also a difference between “I will give you one dollar” and “Here are the keys to the White House, have fun!”

For example, Buttigieg is my top pick and I’ve donated significantly to him.

But I’ve also made a token donation to Julian Castro to help him qualify, as I think he brings an important perspective on the immigration debate.

That makes sense, since I doubt there are significant donations to the Castro campaign currently. I will admit  I gave him some money after the first debate, but stopped immediately after that one donation. 

This might sound controversial. At lot has been placed on current polling, but why nothing on current fundraising since it shows grassroots support. I know you dont know, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

That makes sense, since I doubt there are significant donations to the Castro campaign currently. I will admit  I gave him some money after the first debate, but stopped immediately after that one donation. 

This might sound controversial. At lot has been placed on current polling, but why nothing on current fundraising since it shows grassroots support. I know you dont know, lol

There has been -- they actually do check fundraising for grassroots support as one of the debate qualifiers.

There's just not as much in the news because campaigns only report fundraising totals publicly once per quarter, whereas there could be multiple new polls out every day.  So there's new things to say about the polls, but nothing new to say about fundraising until the end of the next quarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...