Where do you got your information from? Because I have relied on this article, and it has different lists. And they source their information on the information gave by the campaigns.

So, they probably include the state levels, but additional to what you said (they do have Delaney and Gillibrand qualified per polls, but not Gabbard) they have Biden, Inslee and Ryan qualify per polls and Inslee NOT meeting the fundraising one. Actually his website says: "Jay needs 65,000 grassroots donors to make it to the debate stage.", which indicates he has not yet. If you have different information, I would like to update my spreadsheet.

So all this talk of presidents, but what about down ballot races? Any interest in that? 2020 is about more than just electing the next president, there's the entire House of Representatives again and 1/3 of the Senate, mostly Republican this time but that still leaves Dem challengers to discuss. Also some state governors. Should there be a separate thread for that or is there not enough interest to warrant it?

Dunno. Probably still early, the midterms aren't that far in the past. Aren't some special elections before 2020?

EDIT: Well, why don't I answer my own question: https://ballotpedia.org/Special_elections_to_the_116th_United_States_Congress_(2019-2020)

3 house seats and one senate seat (the one of John McCain) are scheduled for special elections in 2019 so far.

"Sanders has pointed out the growing ring of right-wing authoritarian leaders that all work together"

we have sanders on tape saying that people having to line up in bread lines for food(central distribution of food) is what he wants

do you think that is authoritarian?

regardless you mean like trump and putin?

"but everyone in this thread refuses to listen to that and instead worships Gabbard as she boosts the authoritarians with legitimacy and recognition."

which authoritarians is she boosting?

The problem is Bernie wants to have his cake and eat it too and it doesn't work that way.

He says things like criminals in jail should be aloud to vote because it's their human right and they are paying for their crimes by doing time. He also seems to agree that some of the people put behind bars are innocent or to harshly penalized. What about allowing those poor people to use their second amendment right to be able to fight this crooked tyrannical system that has incorrectly accused or penalized them? No? Let's not allow them to directly fight for their freedom and rights, let's instead allow them to indirectly get their hands on a political weapon to do their bidding instead. How convenient for Bernie. If you want to allow them their rights, then they get all of them of none, not just the one's that benefit you.

Bernie also likes to use slippery slope logic as well, but more often in his favor, like not allowing bad people the right to vote. Who exactly are the 'bad' people and how far does that extend until it actually starts effecting fairly decent people, who are seen as 'bad' simply because they're the worst of the remaining 'good' people? Bernie actually argued this. Bread lines could certainly fall under slippery slopes based on his own logic.

Oh yeah you're right. The linked site is for special elections 2019-2020

There's a reason I don't ask for poison for my birthday, because odds are it would kill me. That's why I ask for things like cash, because they would benefit me. Running for President and pushing for criminals to vote, thinking it will be detrimental to you or your party, would just flat out be dumb. Unless your goal is to purposely hinder yourself or your party, in which case anything you say shouldn't be taken seriously.

I agree there's a difference, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't lead to the same or worse results. I mean just look at it from a Democrats point of view. The free and innocent voted for Trump, and Bernie wants to let the guilty help pick? If the guilty would do a similar job of selecting if not better, why are they behind bars with such a logical mindset? I also don't find it coincidence the left really hate guns and Trump, especially considering how often the msm points out how Trump weaponizes things, like his words.

he's saying directly that he wants centralised control and distribution of food (and obviously resources in general) 

how on earth could you ever draw any other type of interpretation from what he said?

"He is saying that it is a good thing that the country is taking care of its worst off"

so why didn't he make that statement? instead he advocated for centrally regulating food and used resources (hypothetically) being funneled down to the poor to justify it

does this mean therefore that you are ok with an authoritarian once that authoritarian claims to want to help the poor or dispossessed? (all authoritarians do this, this is how they trick morons into giving up their rights to begin with)

"The fact that Faux News and Company have spun "bread lines > death" in such a way, says more about them, than it does about Sanders.  "

its not bread lines specifically that is the problem its the central control of resources by someone who often turns out to be a tyrant or as hyrule would ironically say "an authoritarian"

that's how germany got hitler, how russia got stalin and so on and so forth

they used the same appeals that you are now celebrating from sanders

the other thing is that if sanders cares so much for the poor how can he be a multimillionaire?

why hasn't he taken all of the money he doesn't require to survive and invested it into programs for the poor? 

jesus a greater humanitarian than any of us owned only a few rags to hide his nakedness, a few pairs of sandals and possibly some rudimentary type of walking stick or staff

jesus didn't need millions in the bank to to exacerbate wealth inequality as sanders does

"I'm going to answer this question and if you continue to misconstrue the facts"

i have done no such thing

" He didn't say centralized food distribution is a good thing in itself."

his argument is that the rich hoarded the resources can we agree on this to begin with?

then he states that a solution to this("it's a good thing") is to centralise distribution, do we agree on that secondly?

"He's saying it's better than no bread at all."

because without centralised distribution the rich hoard the wealth, this is the obvious conclusion of his argument

"You can take the rest of your Sanders rant to the Official US Politics Thread or make one just for Sanders."

sanders isn't worth that effort, he's pretty much done since we also have him on the sexual abuse scandals within his campaigns to add to him hypocritically having millions of dollars in wealth now while demonising millionaires

my last reply for clarification

"There's nothing wrong with being rich."

even though sanders rails against income inequality? seriously?

""That is a good thing! In other countries, people don’t line up for food. The rich get the food and the poor starve to death.” and turn it into "centralised control and distribution of food""

you are being dishonest you know full well that he is saying the problem is the rich hoarding the wealth and the solution is to take their wealth and distribute resources "collectively"

"Which had nothing to do with what Sanders was talking about.  "

he was talking about how resources are distributed, that is a fact

"So you say that rich people can't care about the poor?"

this is sanders' argument

"Because 1 person can't do enough to help a problem.  "

he wouldn't be able to help every single poor person obviously but he'd be able to help many, but of course then he wouldn't be rich which would be a problem for him