Who's going to qualify for the Democratic debates?

[America Needs R'hllor]

I'm gonna say this- whoever is turned down by the Franken thing is a horrible person. If that's what sank her, seems like many Democrats are assholes. But I don't believe it was- her campaign just didn't find its niche and didn't rise up.

Gillibrand deserves to be, and will be, humiliated for what she did during that controversy.

Imagine wanting someone humiliated for standing up against sexual assault. No excuse for a decent human being to do that.

I eagerly await any and all evidence that Al Franken committed sexual assault.

He literally admitted that he committed sexual harrassment by resigning lol. Plus there are some uh... Pretty obvious pictures

You see, sexual harrassment is pretty horrible too. I should've said harrassment earlier but it doesn't really change the point (plus Gillibrand has a commendable history of standing up against sexual assault in the military). Congratulations, you just wasted two posts on a samantic point completely moot to the discussion

[John Dule]

I'm gonna say this- whoever is turned down by the Franken thing is a horrible person. If that's what sank her, seems like many Democrats are assholes. But I don't believe it was- her campaign just didn't find its niche and didn't rise up.

Gillibrand deserves to be, and will be, humiliated for what she did during that controversy.

Imagine wanting someone humiliated for standing up against sexual assault. No excuse for a decent human being to do that.

I eagerly await any and all evidence that Al Franken committed sexual assault.

He literally admitted that he committed sexual harrassment by resigning lol. Plus there are some uh... Pretty obvious pictures

You see, sexual harrassment is pretty horrible too. I should've said harrassment earlier but it doesn't really change the point (plus Gillibrand has a commendable history of standing up against sexual assault in the military). Congratulations, you just wasted two posts on a samantic point completely moot to the discussion

I would also note that his resignation does not equal an admission of guilt; it's merely buckling under pressure. And the photo you're referring to is not in itself proof of sexual harassment.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I'm gonna say this- whoever is turned down by the Franken thing is a horrible person. If that's what sank her, seems like many Democrats are assholes. But I don't believe it was- her campaign just didn't find its niche and didn't rise up.

Gillibrand deserves to be, and will be, humiliated for what she did during that controversy.

Imagine wanting someone humiliated for standing up against sexual assault. No excuse for a decent human being to do that.

I eagerly await any and all evidence that Al Franken committed sexual assault.

He literally admitted that he committed sexual harrassment by resigning lol. Plus there are some uh... Pretty obvious pictures

You see, sexual harrassment is pretty horrible too. I should've said harrassment earlier but it doesn't really change the point (plus Gillibrand has a commendable history of standing up against sexual assault in the military). Congratulations, you just wasted two posts on a samantic point completely moot to the discussion

I would also note that his resignation does not equal an admission of guilt; it's merely buckling under pressure. And the photo you're referring to is not in itself proof of sexual harassment.

Lol. You can be willfully ignorant all you want; I, for one, will applaud Gillibrand for leading the charge and saying that "enough is enough" as the accusations piled on, despite the backlash.

[Gustaf]

My impression is that there are 2 problems.

1. She seems too calculated in going for the presidency. I think this might be the main thing in the Clinton connection. And, yes, that's obviously gendered because no one seems to really think in those terms of someone like Biden or Beto, but still.

2. Lack of a niche. Her thing is running for women, but women isn't an identity politics group and with Trump in the White House, everyone, including Biden looks like a women's rights champion anyway.

[Stranger in a strange land]

She should really just drop out instead of continuing to embarrass herself. The longer she keeps at it, the more vulnerable she becomes to a primary challenge.

[Crumpets]

History will absolve her.

[JG]

History will absolve her.

[Mr. Smith]

She should really just drop out instead of continuing to embarrass herself.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm gonna say this- whoever is turned down by the Franken thing is a horrible person. If that's what sank her, seems like many Democrats are assholes. But I don't believe it was- her campaign just didn't find its niche and didn't rise up.

Gillibrand deserves to be, and will be, humiliated for what she did during that controversy.

Imagine wanting someone humiliated for standing up against sexual assault. No excuse for a decent human being to do that.

I eagerly await any and all evidence that Al Franken committed sexual assault.

He literally admitted that he committed sexual harrassment by resigning lol. Plus there are some uh... Pretty obvious pictures

You see, sexual harrassment is pretty horrible too. I should've said harrassment earlier but it doesn't really change the point (plus Gillibrand has a commendable history of standing up against sexual assault in the military). Congratulations, you just wasted two posts on a samantic point completely moot to the discussion

I would also note that his resignation does not equal an admission of guilt; it's merely buckling under pressure. And the photo you're referring to is not in itself proof of sexual harassment.

Lol. You can be willfully ignorant all you want; I, for one, will applaud Gillibrand for leading the charge and saying that "enough is enough" as the accusations piled on, despite the backlash.

At the very least Franken deserved to be given a hearing in front of the ethics committee. Due Process is very important and should not be undermined.


If the ethics committee had found something or that he lied about it and then if Gillibrand led the charge of getting him to resign, it would be a different story .

[Pericles]

Franken doesn't seem like the biggest issue for her, yes that stand was polarizing but polarizing candidates should attract at least some support. She seems to have gotten little media coverage and focus, and her 'lanes' have been taken by other candidates that are better fits for them. Her similarity with Hillary could weigh down her candidacy. She seems inauthentic and her flip-flopping is a big concern, I'm not sure how much of a negative impression she has made vs making no impression at all on most voters but she hasn't yet managed to make much of a positive impression on many people.

[Cory]

She should really just drop out instead of continuing to embarrass herself.

[Filinovich]

Bullock 2

Bullock is at 3 polls.

https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/washington-post-abc-news-poll-jan-21-24/2355/
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/11/9830/9740/2019%20Reuters%20Democratic%20Primary%20Horserace%2004%2023%202019.pdf
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/03/09/rel1_ia1.pdf

[izixs]

On the why she hasn't caught on question, the answer is not anything to do with Franken or being from New York or the shadow of Hillary. These are, at best, things to get the unreliable fringe of the party to not like her who one shouldn't count on as supporters any way if one wants to actually win due to their fickle nature. It is way simpler than all that. Her base is the same as Biden's (moderate, main stream white democrat that on paper seems 'electable' to the people that think they know what is electable (they don't)), and Biden, by being in and having a stronger primacy in people's minds, eats up her core support and keeps people from even looking for an alternative who might be of interest. After all, if you're sure Biden's going to be your choice, why even look at the other options? Why even research who else is running?

Still, this fraction is still perhaps only 5%, but that's still 5% that she's not getting to be even a second tier candidate.

[Heebie Jeebie]

On the why she hasn't caught on question, the answer is not anything to do with Franken or being from New York or the shadow of Hillary. These are, at best, things to get the unreliable fringe of the party to not like her who one shouldn't count on as supporters any way if one wants to actually win due to their fickle nature. It is way simpler than all that. Her base is the same as Biden's (moderate, main stream white democrat that on paper seems 'electable' to the people that think they know what is electable (they don't)), and Biden, by being in and having a stronger primacy in people's minds, eats up her core support and keeps people from even looking for an alternative who might be of interest. After all, if you're sure Biden's going to be your choice, why even look at the other options? Why even research who else is running?

Still, this fraction is still perhaps only 5%, but that's still 5% that she's not getting to be even a second tier candidate.

There's some truth to this, but I don't think it's entirely right.  I think Gillibrand has always been tying to position herself halfway between the Biden wing and the Sanders wing with the hope of eventually becoming the compromise choice for both groups in the case that neither is able to gain a clear majority (and with O'Rourke and Warren pulling votes from Biden and Sanders respectively, that's hardly unlikely).  All the while, she's trusting that her buddy Cory Booker can keep Harris or Castro or whomever from fully consolidating that third wing of the party.  It's a strategy that will require a lot of things to go just right, but it's not impossible.  I'd say, despite her dismal polling, she's still well positioned.

[Mr. Morden]

Bullock 2

Bullock is at 3 polls.

https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/washington-post-abc-news-poll-jan-21-24/2355/
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/11/9830/9740/2019%20Reuters%20Democratic%20Primary%20Horserace%2004%2023%202019.pdf
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/03/09/rel1_ia1.pdf

You're right.  I missed that he was in that earlier ABC/WaPo poll.  So Bullock's preemptively qualified in the event that he decides to run.

We also have a new CNN poll, which bumps up the people who didn't get 1% in their previous poll, which I believe would be: Gabbard, Swalwell, Williamson, Yang.  That means that Swalwell has qualified:

Biden 9
Booker 9
Buttigieg 9
Harris 9
Klobuchar 9
O’Rourke 9
Sanders 9
Warren 9
Castro 7
Gillibrand 6
Yang 6
Hickenlooper 4
Bullock 3
Delaney 3
Gabbard 3
Inslee 3
Ryan 3
Swalwell 3
———qualification line———
de Blasio 2
Bennet 1
Kerry 1
Messam 1
Williamson 1

[PaperKooper]

https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1123144571066519553

Williamson only got 4,000 donors in the last week.  She'll probably qualify in roughly 2 weeks. 

[Mr. Morden]

Inslee and Yang got 1% in the new Quinnipiac poll, but didn't in the previous one, so they move up:

Biden 9
Booker 9
Buttigieg 9
Harris 9
Klobuchar 9
O’Rourke 9
Sanders 9
Warren 9
Castro 7
Yang 7
Gillibrand 6
Hickenlooper 4
Inslee 4
Bullock 3
Delaney 3
Gabbard 3
Ryan 3
Swalwell 3
———qualification line———
de Blasio 2
Bennet 1
Kerry 1
Messam 1
Williamson 1

[S019]

So, if Williamson qualifies due to fundraising, that would leave Messam and Bennett, as the only declared candidates, who have not qualified, Bennet has a legitimate reason, Messam should just drop out, if deBlasio actually runs, he would qualify, I have no doubt, and he would probably be a potent fundraiser. Kerry is not running, but it would be hilarious if he qualified anyway, and Messam didn't

[Mr. Morden]

So, if Williamson qualifies due to fundraising, that would leave Messam and Bennett, as the only declared candidates, who have not qualified

Bennet hasn't actually declared yet.  He did say he intended to run if his cancer treatment was successful, and his cancer treatment was successful, but he hasn't actually gone the extra step of confirming that he will now run for president.

[Tender Branson]

So, if Williamson qualifies due to fundraising, that would leave Messam and Bennett, as the only declared candidates, who have not qualified

Bennet hasn't actually declared yet.  He did say he intended to run if his cancer treatment was successful, and his cancer treatment was successful, but he hasn't actually gone the extra step of confirming that he will now run for president.

He also forgot Moulton, who could still qualify with polls and/or fundraising as well ...

+ Gravel, if you want to count him as well.

[Reluctant Republican]

One of the people who runs Gravel's twitter reports that he's "coming up" on 30k donors:

https://twitter.com/humford/status/1123346123383627776

As a side note, I don't know why I find the Gravel campaign and its quest to reach the debate stage so fascinating, but for some reason I do. Meme magic, perhaps.

[Sestak]

I believe Gravel was at 1% in either gravis, emerson, or both. Are those polls not counted? Can't blame them if they aren't, but...

[Tender Branson]

I believe Gravel was at 1% in either gravis, emerson, or both. Are those polls not counted? Can't blame them if they aren't, but...

Gravis, Emerson, PPP, Suffolk, HarrisX (= Scott Rasmussen), rest-Rasmussen, Morning Consult etc.

... none of them count for the debates.

[Tender Branson]

Moulton has set an online fundraising goal of 200.000$ for April, that's 9 days since launching his campaign.

Until the debates, there are ca. 56 days left - so 65 in total. So, if he meets the online goal and the trend continues, he'll get some 1.4-1.5 million $ in online donations until the debates.

Not sure if this is enough to get the 65.000 donations as well to qualify ... (It's a bit less than what Gabbard or Yang raised through the total 1st quarter and roughly what Williamson raised. It really depends on the number of donors though, because both Yang and Gabbard have qualified on donors, while Williamson has not).

Anyway, it seems that if Bullock and Bennet jump in and qualify via polls/donations, that Moulton and Williamson will fight out the last debate slot (but with the advantage for Williamson for now).

[Mr. Morden]

Until the debates, there are ca. 56 days left - so 65 in total. So, if he meets the online goal and the trend continues, he'll get some 1.4-1.5 million $ in online donations until the debates.

From the DNC's original press release:

https://democrats.org/press/dnc-announces-details-for-the-first-two-presidential-primary-debates/

it looks like to qualify via polls, it has to be polls released at least 14 days prior to the debate.  However, there's no similar window explicitly mentioned for the fundraising method.  But I figure there kind of has to be.  They can't still be deciding who's going to be on the debate stage just a couple of hours before it starts.  That's impractical.  And in fact, a time window for fundraising seems more necessary than for polls, since the fundraising totals have to be vetted by the DNC for accuracy, whereas the polls are just public releases, where they can plug the numbers into a formula.

So, bottom line, I don't know that the candidates can really count on not making it to 65,000 as late as the day of the debate.