DNC releases the qualifying rules for the November Debate

[BrotherFease]

DNC Announces Qualification Criteria For Fifth Presidential Primary Debate - Democrats

See above for more details, but here's the basics: The candidate must get at least 165k individual donors AND register at least 3% in four different major polls between September 14th and a week before the November debate.

They can also qualify if they get at least 165k individual donors AND hit at least 5% in 2 major early battleground state polls in Iowa, NH, Nevada, and South Carolina.

Same polls are qualified as before, only the NBC News poll must be paired up with the Marist poll. I guess they didn't like the fact that NBC News teamed up with an online poll called SurveyMonkey.

These rules will significantly decrease the number of candidates. We will not see more than 10 candidates qualifying.

Already qualified: Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, and Harris

As for the others:

Booker - CNN/DMR Iowa, Fox News National
O'Rourke - Fox News National,
Klobuchar - CNN/DRM Iowa,
Yang - Monmouth NV, NBC/WSJ National
Steyer - Monmouth NV

 

[3leftsdoo]

Thanks for posting.

They're excluding Gabbard.

Smart/sleazy move.

Democrats...

 

[BrotherFease]

Thanks for posting.

They're excluding Gabbard.

Smart/sleazy move.

Democrats...

What, how?

 

[3leftsdoo]

What, how?

She can't meet the threshold, nor can Yang.

The whole thing is insane, corrupt and money-driven though, so no surprise.

Rational, decent voices will always be marginalized.

:shrug:

 

[BrotherFease]

She can't meet the threshold, nor can Yang.

The whole thing is insane, corrupt and money-driven though, so no surprise.

Rational, decent voices will always be marginalized.

:shrug:

I think it's perfectly fair. We're talking about a November debate, not a summer debate. If your campaign cannot hit at least 3% in four different polls from Iowa, NH, NV, SC, and nationally within a two month window, they shouldn't be on the debate stage.

For Team Gabbard, they need to hit a homerun in October and hope they improve in the polls. Right now, she's not polling very well.

 

[3leftsdoo]

I think it's perfectly fair. We're talking about a November debate, not a summer debate. If your campaign cannot hit at least 3% in four different polls from Iowa, NH, NV, SC, and nationally within a two month window, they shouldn't be on the debate stage.

For Team Gabbard, they need to hit a homerun in October and hope they improve in the polls. Right now, she's not polling very well.

If one feels that money - which buys everything else - should dictate political inclusion, it may seem fair.

But I have no bone to pick with you - thanks for the info.

 

[BrotherFease]

If one feels that money - which buys everything else - should dictate political inclusion, it may seem fair.

But I have no bone to pick with you - thanks for the info.

No problem. To me, I think the DNC/Tom Perez improved the debate process significantly. Under previous system, they would simply take the five most recent major national polls, average them together, and take the top 10 finishers with at least 1% polling. Perez/DNC created a system where individual counts toward debate qualification, not how much money the donor gave out. For example, somebody could donate a 1 dollar and this would count the same as somebody donating 3k dollars. Both help to get their candidate more national press. On the polling front, they started out by giving them a window of January 1st to two weeks before the next debate, and could use polling both nationally and in the early battleground states. The DNC started out by allowing up to 20 people, and they could qualify through polling OR through individual donors. For September and October, they raised the bar a little. You had to get another 65k individual donors (130k total) and register at least 2% in four major polls between June 28th and two weeks before the next debate, and those polls could come from national polls or statewide polls.

So basically the DNC hit on the concept of individual donors, not big money donors, allowed candidates a longer timeline, and could pick polls from a larger pool.

 

[3leftsdoo]

No problem. To me, I think the DNC/Tom Perez improved the debate process significantly. Under previous system, they would simply take the five most recent major national polls, average them together, and take the top 10 finishers with at least 1% polling. Perez/DNC created a system where individual counts toward debate qualification, not how much money the donor gave out. For example, somebody could donate a 1 dollar and this would count the same as somebody donating 3k dollars. Both help to get their candidate more national press. On the polling front, they started out by giving them a window of January 1st to two weeks before the next debate, and could use polling both nationally and in the early battleground states. The DNC started out by allowing up to 20 people, and they could qualify through polling OR through individual donors. For September and October, they raised the bar a little. You had to get another 65k individual donors (130k total) and register at least 2% in four major polls between June 28th and two weeks before the next debate, and those polls could come from national polls or statewide polls.

So basically the DNC hit on the concept of individual donors, not big money donors, allowed candidates a longer timeline, and could pick polls from a larger pool.

Incremental change...

...is better than no change.

But the entire process!

:hm