Marianne Williamson now has 65,000 unique donors

[Anthony_270 947]

Title says it. Williamson is my long shot favourite (if I were to bet a small amount of $ for a large potential payoff if they won, she would be my choice) for the Dem nominee, as she has a unique skill set which differentiates her from the rest of the field. In many ways, she's the opposite of Trump, despite both of them not having political experience before running for President. This adds another person for the debates.

[Actinguy 862]

21 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Title says it. Williamson is my long shot favourite (if I were to bet a small amount of $ for a large potential payoff if they won, she would be my choice) for the Dem nominee, as she has a unique skill set which differentiates her from the rest of the field. In many ways, she's the opposite of Trump, despite both of them not having political experience before running for President. This adds another person for the debates.

How many have qualified for the debates so far?

[Actinguy 862]

Found it.  Looks like 18 so far.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/09/politics/democratic-primary-debates-tracking-qualifications-polling-fundraising/index.html

[Actinguy 862]

18 so far, but Democrat Party says they're cutting the line at 20. 

If more than 20 meet the stated requirements (65k unique donors, OR at least 1% in 3 national polls), they will first include everyone who meets BOTH requirements.  That's currently Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Warren, Beto, Yang, Biden, Booker, Castro, Gabbard, and Klobuchar (11 people).

Notably absent from that "meets both requirements" list: Gillibrand, Inslee, Hickenlooper, most of the Representatives.  And Williamson.

After that, the remaining nine slots would be filled by those averaging highest in the national polls, with tie breaker being those who have the most unique donors.

 

[Guest]

Already changing the rules. This is a trend we will see more of. 

[Actinguy 862]

Being left out would be especially devastating to Gillibrand's campaign, I would think, as she was supposed to be one of the mainstream, "real" candidates.

Imagine being the sitting Senator from New York and losing her slot on the debate stage to, say, Yang or Williamson or Buttigieg or Delaney.  

I'm not complaining, the rules are the rules.  In fact, as a Buttigieg supporter, I'm thrilled.  But I've got to think that would be a killing blow to her campaign to be locked out of the debates (if that happens).

[Herbert Hoover 199]

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Being left out would be especially devastating to Gillibrand's campaign, I would think, as she was supposed to be one of the mainstream, "real" candidates.

Imagine being the sitting Senator from New York and losing her slot on the debate stage to, say, Yang or Williamson or Buttigieg or Delaney.  

I'm not complaining, the rules are the rules.  In fact, as a Buttigieg supporter, I'm thrilled.  But I've got to think that would be a killing blow to her campaign to be locked out of the debates (if that happens).

I personally believe that Gillibrand would make a fine president. She's easily in my top 5. However, I find it difficult to believe that she's too many people's top choice. She was mine before Beto, Buttigieg, and Inslee jumped in. She's presidential, but bland and lacking in oratorical ability. 

If 2020 wasn't the chaotic mess it is, I think she'd be polling much better. With a field this large, there are so many candidates who just stick out far more. 

[Actinguy 862]

9 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

I personally believe that Gillibrand would make a fine president. She's easily in my top 5. However, I find it difficult to believe that she's too many people's top choice. She was mine before Beto, Buttigieg, and Inslee jumped in. She's presidential, but bland and lacking in oratorical ability. 

If 2020 wasn't the chaotic mess it is, I think she'd be polling much better. With a field this large, there are so many candidates who just stick out far more. 

Agreed.  Gillibrand is perfectly acceptable, I have no qualms about standing in a line and voting for her (even if you ignore my "Anyone but Trump" stance).  But there's nothing in particular to be excited about with her, that can't be found elsewhere in the field.

[Anthony_270 947]

Wonder which pollsters are on the DNC's approved list. 

That CNN link says Williamson has 1% or above in 1 national poll so far. Looking at the Wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#March_2019–present

she has made 1% in at least 3, so I assume 2 of those aren't approved by the DNC.

[Anthony_270 947]

 

1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

But I've got to think that would be a killing blow to her campaign to be locked out of the debates (if that happens).

If so, I think not making the debates would be a symptom, not a cause.

[Patine 511]

2 hours ago, HonestAbe said:

Already changing the rules. This is a trend we will see more of. 

Of course rules change, and SHOULD change, over time, to adapt to evolving circumstances. Otherwise, we'd still be living under Hammurabi's Code.

[SilentLiberty 224]

30 minutes ago, Patine said:

Of course rules change, and SHOULD change, over time, to adapt to evolving circumstances. Otherwise, we'd still be living under Hammurabi's Code.

It makes it hard to play the game properly if the rules change rapidly. Not saying I disagree, I think laws and rules and such should change over time too, but in this instance, they just set the rules fairly recently. I think it was Gabbard's campaign I saw that sent out a tweet encouraging more people to donate in case they increase the needed amount of unique donations prior to the debates. 

Keep in mind though that nobody liked it as a kid, when playing a made up game, someone kept constantly changing the rules for their own benefit. So changing of rules can be manipulated rather than being an actual proper rule that is needed. 

[Patine 511]

16 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

It makes it hard to play the game properly if the rules change rapidly. Not saying I disagree, I think laws and rules and such should change over time too, but in this instance, they just set the rules fairly recently. I think it was Gabbard's campaign I saw that sent out a tweet encouraging more people to donate in case they increase the needed amount of unique donations prior to the debates. 

Keep in mind though that nobody liked it as a kid, when playing a made up game, someone kept constantly changing the rules for their own benefit. So changing of rules can be manipulated rather than being an actual proper rule that is needed. 

The old horses who can't keep up with the track rules should be sent out to pasture, not accomodated with "handicaps" in the horse races to artificially keep them competitive.

[Guest]

Changing rules mid game is nothing more than cheating. But ignore you’re good with cheating more power to you. 

[Patine 511]

9 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Changing rules mid game is nothing more than cheating. But ignore you’re good with cheating more power to you. 

Not to me. I'm not a Democrat. I'm personally ambivalent on this specific change on a personal level.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

Not to me. I'm not a Democrat. I'm personally ambivalent on this specific change on a personal level.

Then maybe you aren’t in a position of relevance to the topic. 

[Patine 511]

Just now, HonestAbe said:

Then maybe you aren’t in a position of relevance to the topic. 

I'm speaking as someone interested in the political process, political events, and current affairs. Basically, no one on these forums has any power or sway over Democratic or Republican Primary Delegate rules, do we?

[SilentLiberty 224]

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm speaking as someone interested in the political process, political events, and current affairs. Basically, no one on these forums has any power or sway over Democratic or Republican Primary Delegate rules, do we?

Is that perhaps for better, or for worse? haha

[vcczar 1,226]

7 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Title says it. Williamson is my long shot favourite (if I were to bet a small amount of $ for a large potential payoff if they won, she would be my choice) for the Dem nominee, as she has a unique skill set which differentiates her from the rest of the field. In many ways, she's the opposite of Trump, despite both of them not having political experience before running for President. This adds another person for the debates.

What’s odd is that, except for you and Wikipedia, I wouldn’t even know she was campaigning, and I check 2020 election news hourly. This isn’t to say she isn’t a great candidate. It’s odd she doesn’t generate as much news as Yang or Gravel, who are mentioned at least weekly on major news outlets. 

[Reagan04 658]

13 minutes ago, vcczar said:

What’s odd is that, except for you and Wikipedia, I wouldn’t even know she was campaigning, and I check 2020 election news hourly. This isn’t to say she isn’t a great candidate. It’s odd she doesn’t generate as much news as Yang or Gravel, who are mentioned at least weekly on major news outlets. 

I had heard of her in passing for a few months but I wasn't truly introduced to her candidacy until the May 1st publication of the 538 piece on her:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-marianne-williamson-could-win-the-2020-democratic-primary/

[SilentLiberty 224]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

What’s odd is that, except for you and Wikipedia, I wouldn’t even know she was campaigning, and I check 2020 election news hourly. This isn’t to say she isn’t a great candidate. It’s odd she doesn’t generate as much news as Yang or Gravel, who are mentioned at least weekly on major news outlets. 

I don't even hear anything about Gravel, sometimes his picture is included with other candidates but that's about it. Yang is actually pretty mainstream at this point in comparison. I think Yang and Williamson will both surprise people with how they poll, but especially Yang.

[jnewt 37]

11 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I don't even hear anything about Gravel, sometimes his picture is included with other candidates but that's about it. Yang is actually pretty mainstream at this point in comparison. I think Yang and Williamson will both surprise people with how they poll, but especially Yang.

I also don't hear anything about Gravel. I hardly ever watch the (mainstream) nightly news though. The only time I've seen Gravel mentioned is on Vice News on HBO when they ran a piece on the teenagers running his campaign.

[Actinguy 862]

12 hours ago, vcczar said:

What’s odd is that, except for you and Wikipedia, I wouldn’t even know she was campaigning, and I check 2020 election news hourly. This isn’t to say she isn’t a great candidate. It’s odd she doesn’t generate as much news as Yang or Gravel, who are mentioned at least weekly on major news outlets. 

I never hear about Gravel and almost never about Yang, outside of this forum.  

Then again, I don't think I'd particularly heard of Buttigieg either until I started playing the game you made, but when I looked into who he was, I was immediately intrigued and eventually he became my top pick.  Now I've convinced others outside of this forum to support him as well.  

The power of the internet! ;c)

[Actinguy 862]

Also, Mike Gravel would be literally 90 years old at inauguration.  At some point, I think we need to say "this is a person who is really running to be President of the United States" and "this is a person who is not really running to be President of the United States."

[SilentLiberty 224]

48 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Also, Mike Gravel would be literally 90 years old at inauguration.  At some point, I think we need to say "this is a person who is really running to be President of the United States" and "this is a person who is not really running to be President of the United States."

According to his wiki he has said "The goal will not be to win, but to bring a critique of American imperialism to the Democratic debate stage." So that right there already marks the latter option. However in that same paragraph it's noted that on "April 29, Gravel said he was running to win, not just to participate in debates." Which of course is really hard to buy into it.

I think there is already some who will bring a critique of 'American imperialism' as it is anyway. Gabbard immediately comes to mind.