How do you guys feel about the qualification rules for the Sept and Oct debates?

[beerftw]

Which polls did you want the DNC to include in their statistics? They have listed 16 news sources, all of which are considered major and the most accurate/credible. For the September debate, they got two months to chalk up 4 different polls with at least 2% support. For October, it's a 3 month window. This is an easier standard than simply looking at the major August polls. If anything, the system Perez sets up HELPS out the smaller candidates.

Considering the polls needed include national and local polls, the dnc excluding most local pollsters, it is easy to see the pol requirement favored name recognition over polling results, to favor those like biden.

I mean seriously she was trying to expose what wikileaks did before wikileaks, the dnc wants her gone, her winning the nomination could destroy the old order and the rank and file democrats would never allow that without resistance.

 

[BrotherFease]

Considering the polls needed include national and local polls, the dnc excluding most local pollsters, it is easy to see the pol requirement favored name recognition over polling results, to favor those like biden.

Between June 28th and August 28th, there were 21 polls taken and 8 different sources. Gabbard batted 2 out of 21 and hit 2 out of 8 sources. The problem is not the DNC, but the candidate itself. These rules were set in May.

 

[RAMOSS]

How do define "a rational candidate"?

'A right winged republican'

 

[beerftw]

Between June 28th and August 28th, there were 21 polls taken and 8 different sources. Gabbard batted 2 out of 21 and hit 2 out of 8 sources. The problem is not the DNC, but the candidate itself. These rules were set in May.

I beg to differ because she qualified in non msm polls quite easily, it seems to be the dnc's choice of polls, and even excluding pools like yougov which is left leaning, as well as internet polls and focusing on old fashioned msm polls through land line which has shown already to be innacurate vs internet polls and cellphone polls.

 

[BrotherFease]

I beg to differ because she qualified in non msm polls quite easily, it seems to be the dnc's choice of polls, and even excluding pools like yougov which is left leaning, as well as internet polls and focusing on old fashioned msm polls through land line which has shown already to be innacurate vs internet polls and cellphone polls.

You seem to be disagreeing with reality here. I stated the facts: There were 21 DNC approved polls and 8 different sources used. Gabbard only got 2 of them.

It's not the DNC's fault, she's a 1% candidate.

 

[beerftw]

You seem to be disagreeing with reality here. I stated the facts: There were 21 DNC approved polls and 8 different sources used. Gabbard only got 2 of them.

It's not the DNC's fault, she's a 1% candidate.

But she more than met the requirement with non dnc approved polls, some of which are far more accurate then the dnc chosen ones.

Many of the dnc chosen polls go by landline, and only reach to the retired population who still uses them. This is why internet polls have been more accurate despite pollsters constantly attacking their creds, it is because they represent the greater segment of the voter base rather than a single segment of the voter base.

 

[BrotherFease]

But she more than met the requirement with non dnc approved polls, some of which are far more accurate then the dnc chosen ones.

But the DNC runs the debates. They set the rules on who gets in. Which polls are more accurate then the ones the DNC approved of, and what makes a poll accurate?

FiveThirtyEight rated all the DNC approved polls in the B+ to A range.

 

[beerftw]

But the DNC runs the debates. They set the rules on who gets in. Which polls are more accurate then the ones the DNC approved of, and what makes a poll accurate?

FiveThirtyEight rated all the DNC approved polls in the B+ to A range.

The dnc does run the debate, however the rules they are setting already are showing signs of favoritism, which is bad because the screwed up 2016 the same way. In 2016 if bernie had lost fair and square no one would have made a fuss about it, but him losing by the party trying to rig the primary pissed off a large portion of their voter base.

Gabbard is part of the team that tried to uncover the corruption, and therefore has been deemed an enemy of the dnc rank and file since 2016. All they need to do is set the rules in a way that they favor one candidate and try to block others to destroy democrat voter confidence again and hand trump an election without a fight.

 

[Greenbeard]

The dnc does run the debate, however the rules they are setting already are showing signs of favoritism, which is bad because the screwed up 2016 the same way. In 2016 if bernie had lost fair and square no one would have made a fuss about it, but him losing by the party trying to rig the primary pissed off a large portion of their voter base.

Gabbard is part of the team that tried to uncover the corruption, and therefore has been deemed an enemy of the dnc rank and file since 2016. All they need to do is set the rules in a way that they favor one candidate and try to block others to destroy democrat voter confidence again and hand trump an election without a fight.

Dude, ten people made the next debate.

 

[TamleeB]

The DNC will decide who their nominee will be. Watch and see. Betting Biden and Sanders will not be there. No old white guys need apply.

 

[BrotherFease]

Dude, ten people made the next debate.

Right. It's rather silly to argue that the DNC/Perez is being too strict. Their rules are so loose and free, they allow each candidate to pick out 4 out of the 21 polls. If you simply took the August national polls and averaged them together, you get 8 candidates with at least 2%, and Castro with 1.2% and Gabbard and Klobuchar with exactly 1%.

 

[beerftw]

Dude, ten people made the next debate.

Ten did, however the rules set up are pretty garbage, like for example between the debate where gabbard tore up harris and the next one where the threshold increased to 2%, qualifying polls released in that timefra=me were next to non existent, I think only 4 qualifying polls were released in that timeframe.

Even now it took what almost a week for one poll to come out after the last debate, while there were 60 right after the first debate, it seems more or less like trying to freeze out the competition rather than playing fair.

 

[BrotherFease]

Ten did, however the rules set up are pretty garbage, like for example between the debate where gabbard tore up harris and the next one where the threshold increased to 2%, qualifying polls released in that timefra=me were next to non existent, I think only 4 qualifying polls were released in that timeframe.

Even now it took what almost a week for one poll to come out after the last debate, while there were 60 right after the first debate, it seems more or less like trying to freeze out the competition rather than playing fair.

There were 21 polls taken between June 28th and August 28th. That's plenty enough chances to squeak out 4 of them. You're asking the system to be even more easier.

The rules were setup on May 28th 2019. This predated the July debate. So again, any conspiracy theory is just bogus.

 

[beerftw]

There were 21 polls taken between June 28th and August 28th. That's plenty enough chances to squeak out 4 of them. You're asking the system to be even more easier.

The rules were setup on May 28th 2019. This predated the July debate. So again, any conspiracy theory is just bogus.

There were a much smaller number of polls that from the previous debate, the dnc also goes by released and not taken, meaning the polls could have been taken in july but released in august and they count. Do you not find it in the slightest odd how they chose their polls, or why the chose polls with a b- or lower rating by 538 and blocked higher rated and more accurate polls from their criteria? So far she has qualified quite well in polls that are known to be highly accurate, but done poorly in dnc approved polls which mostly use landline and mostly reach the 65+ age bracket for their audience, but the dnc denied much more accurate pollsters like yougov unless they use a sponsor and approved methods like phone interviews, and blocked out many other pollsters.

 

[BrotherFease]

There were a much smaller number of polls that from the previous debate, the dnc also goes by released and not taken, meaning the polls could have been taken in july but released in august and they count. Do you not find it in the slightest odd how they chose their polls, or why the chose polls with a b- or lower rating by 538 and blocked higher rated and more accurate polls from their criteria? So far she has qualified quite well in polls that are known to be highly accurate, but done poorly in dnc approved polls which mostly use landline and mostly reach the 65+ age bracket for their audience, but the dnc denied much more accurate pollsters like yougov unless they use a sponsor and approved methods like phone interviews, and blocked out many other pollsters.

Dude, there were 15 different qualifying polls and 21 polls all together. For August alone, there were 6 potential opportunity. The fact that Gabbard couldn't squeak out more than two is HER FAULT. It's a "you problem" so to speak.

Much more accurate? Pretty much all of the sources the DNC used has A range ratings.

You seem to be grasping for straws here.

 

[beerftw]

Dude, there were 15 different qualifying polls and 21 polls all together. For August alone, there were 6 potential opportunity. The fact that Gabbard couldn't squeak out more than two is HER FAULT. It's a "you problem" so to speak.

Much more accurate? Pretty much all of the sources the DNC used has A range ratings.

You seem to be grasping for straws here.

Wait 6 potential opportunities? if 15 qualifying polls and only 6 opportunities were present, that tells me it was the same pollsters over and over in which the dnc does not count the same pollster over as qualifying. So 6 opportunities is two more than what I said, vs 60 after the the first debate, and even now they just released a single qualifying poll after the last debate, it seems they want to slow polling to a crawl to lock in the already name recognized candidates.

Heck the dnc may want to watch how it conducts it's own business, if bernie and gabbard both ran as independents the dnc could kiss any chance of winning 2020 goodbye. But people like you are going full on defending the dnc actions, I bet you went full defense in 2016 of how the dnc rigged it for hillary, and if you do not remember bernie was likely to lose anyways what pissed off voters was not that he lost but how the dnc rigged it against him instead of letting him lose fair and square.

 

[BrotherFease]

Wait 6 potential opportunities? if 15 qualifying polls and only 6 opportunities were present, that tells me it was the same pollsters over and over in which the dnc does not count the same pollster over as qualifying. So 6 opportunities is two more than what I said, vs 60 after the the first debate, and even now they just released a single qualifying poll after the last debate, it seems they want to slow polling to a crawl to lock in the already name recognized candidates.

You didn't comprehend what I said. I was just talking about August polls, not all together.

All together there were 21 polls taken, and up to 15 potential qualifying polls. That means you need to get at least 4 out of the 15 to qualify.

The DNC allows you pick polls from Iowa, NH, NV, SC, and nationally. Lets say for example Fox News releases a national poll and a statewide poll for South Carolina. If both poll results show at least 2% support, that counts as 2 polls. If both Fox News polls were nationally, then only one of those counted.

You see the system allows you to pick from a large pool. It's an easier methodology, then simply taking the national average.

Gabbard only batted 2/15. She had 6 opportunities to get 4 polls for August alone.

I have to go to bed now. I am really really tired.

 

[beerftw]

You didn't comprehend what I said. I was just talking about August polls, not all together.

All together there were 21 polls taken, and up to 15 potential qualifying polls. That means you need to get at least 4 out of the 15 to qualify.

The DNC allows you pick polls from Iowa, NH, NV, SC, and nationally. Lets say for example Fox News releases a national poll and a statewide poll for South Carolina. If both poll results show at least 2% support, that counts as 2 polls. If both Fox News polls were nationally, then only one of those counted.

You see the system allows you to pick from a large pool. It's an easier methodology, then simply taking the national average.

Gabbard only batted 2/15. She had 6 opportunities to get 4 polls for August alone.

I have to go to bed now. I am really really tired.

How can there be 15 polls and 6 opportunities unless there were the same few pollsters repolling which the dnc does not count. You still do not address that they predominantly use landline which used mostly the 65+ population which is highly innacurate and has been in the last few elections or that the pollsters selected were all b- or lower by 538, meaning they blocked out more accurate pollsters and specifically chose less accurate ones, or the fact the pollsters for that timeframe almost exclusively chose nationwide polls while new hampshire an early battleground state had almost no dnc approved polls in that timeframe, yet unnapproved polls showed gabbard doing better than nationwide.

Really the question should be why did the dnc choose the worst performing pollsters and rely on mostly the 65+ age bracket as their criteria, are they now the party of old men and want no one below the 65+ bracket in their polls or something? They could have chose a bigger market using internet polling or even a bigger pool of pollsters using cellp[hones instead of landlines and they did not.

 

[SoCal]

...They could have chose a bigger market using internet polling or even a bigger pool of pollsters using cellp[hones instead of landlines and they did not.

Just curious, if by whatever circumstances Biden ends up being the Democratic nominee, will you be voting for him?

Did you vote for Hillary?

 

[beerftw]

Just curious, if by whatever circumstances Biden ends up being the Democratic nominee, will you be voting for him?

Did you vote for Hillary?

Truthfully biden is an old legacy candidate few would back but is winning name recognition in early polls where most voters have no clue on anything but name alone. Biden is an obama legacy candidate just like hillary was a bill clinton legacy just like jeb bush was a bush legacy candidate.

People are tired of the same crap, in the dnc bernie and gabbard are the only ones exciting to hear, everyone else is a copy paste identity politics or socialized medicine platform except biden who is vote for me I am obama 2.0. The mere fact the democrats are digging to copy paste politics and running legacy candidates says they are likely to lose 2020 unless they gett someone more genuine and runs on a platform different from everyone else in the room.

 

[SoCal]

Truthfully biden is an old legacy candidate few would back but is winning name recognition in early polls where most voters have no clue on anything but name alone. Biden is an obama legacy candidate just like hillary was a bill clinton legacy just like jeb bush was a bush legacy candidate.

People are tired of the same crap, in the dnc bernie and gabbard are the only ones exciting to hear, everyone else is a copy paste identity politics or socialized medicine platform except biden who is vote for me I am obama 2.0. The mere fact the democrats are digging to copy paste politics and running legacy candidates says they are likely to lose 2020 unless they gett someone more genuine and runs on a platform different from everyone else in the room.

Is that no and no then?

 

[beerftw]

Is that no and no then?

basically you got my answer correct, I wish warren had been more unique in her policy as had others, just not unique to the level of thinking love will solve everything. This primary season reminds me of 2004, where every candidate seems to be using the same platform and same attacks against the president while having little form or substance, with gabbard being the one off running in her own style and bernie doing what he has always done but the other candidates ripping off his platform.

 

[BrotherFease]

How can there be 15 polls and 6 opportunities unless there were the same few pollsters repolling which the dnc does not count....

That's not at all what I said.

For the last time:

Between June 28th and August 28th, there were 21 polls approved by the DNC. These approved polls came from the sources cited in the May 28th memo. No rules were changed in midstream. Candidates had 15 opportunities to get FOUR 2% or better polls. Arguing this is a harsh measure is rather silly and nobody with a straight face can possibly argue otherwise. Asking candidates to get at least 2% in 27% of the polls (4/15) taken within a two month period is pretty generous.

The sources themselves came from the major newspapers and television networks, and they threw in a couple of university polls from Quinnipiac and Monmouth. None of the sources the DNC-approved of, are by any means inaccurate or unworthy. As for your landline criticism, I ask yourself this: which demographic is the MOST reliable when it comes to voting? Is it college kids OR is it the elderly? Asking people who actually vote in elections is rather smart.

 

[beerftw]

That's not at all what I said.

For the last time:

Between June 28th and August 28th, there were 21 polls approved by the DNC. These approved polls came from the sources cited in the May 28th memo. No rules were changed in midstream. Candidates had 15 opportunities to get FOUR 2% or better polls. Arguing this is a harsh measure is rather silly and nobody with a straight face can possibly argue otherwise. Asking candidates to get at least 2% in 27% of the polls (4/15) taken within a two month period is pretty generous.

The sources themselves came from the major newspapers and television networks, and they threw in a couple of university polls from Quinnipiac and Monmouth. None of the sources the DNC-approved of, are by any means inaccurate or unworthy. As for your landline criticism, I ask yourself this: which demographic is the MOST reliable when it comes to voting? Is it college kids OR is it the elderly? Asking people who actually vote in elections is rather smart.

Well now it was 15 opportunities not 6? Also you do realize that you can not use the same pollster, so lets say if cnn released 14 polls and you qualified in all 14 it only counts as one.


Also yes the dnc approved list is innacurate, the chose lower rated msm pollsters and blocked out far more credible ones, and chose the mostly landline method which has proven bad since obama era as onyl an extreme tiny fragment of the population still uses them, basically the 65+ population, and even then most of the 65+ I deal with daily do not even have a landline.

 

[poweRob]

For the September and October debates, the DNC aka Tom Perez raised the bar a little as far as qualifications. In order to qualify for the September debate, you needed to poll at least 2% in four major polls between June 28th and August 28th AND get at least 130k individual donors. For the October debate, the same rules apply, except the polling deadline is at September 28th.

The DNC deems 16 polling sources as major: CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News, CNN, NPR, NYT, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Monmouth, Quinnipiac, Des Moines Register, University of New Hampshire, Wintrope, and the Associated Press. They recently discontinued Reuters and Las Vegas Review (which did not do any polling), before June 28th.

When I average together the five major national polls which came out in August, you have 11 candidates with at least 1% in the polls. You have in order: Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, Yang, Booker, O'Rourke, Castro, and Klobuchar and Gabbard tied with exactly 1%. That's 11. Williamson came close with 0.8% of the vote. 8/11 candidates mentioned polled at least 2% on average. Castro, Gabbard, and Klobuchar are barely hanging onto 1%.

I asked this question, because fans of Tulsi Gabbard seem to be outraged that she didn't make the debate stage. According to the rules, she met the individual donor amount, but only qualified in two major polls. She needs two more to qualify for the October debate.

My question to you guys is this: Is Perez/DNC setting the bar a little high for September and October, OR is he being too generous OR is the rules just right?

I'm sure everyone appreciates all your concern-trolling here.

In the GOP, primaries are being cancelled and trump vows not to debate any of the other republican candidates and you guys are going to feign concern about thresholds to debates in the dem party?

It's not like you're going to vote for any of them no matter what while your messiah lords over your party with the authoritarian tactics you are ignoring.