Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Mayor Pete seems to be very well liked by pretty much everyone that gets to know him. His problem atm is that not many people know him yet, but that should be fixed after some time of campaigning and the debates. I truly think he has a chance of being the democratic candidate, and honestly, I think he's one of the most likely to win against Trump.



G O O D B O I

Around the Network

OK, so the DNC-criteria have been clarified on what happens, if more than 20 people qualify. This is pretty interesting.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-how-the-democrats-will-limit-the-debate-field-if-too-many-people-qualify/

So, currently 18 candidates qualify, which means going over 20 might be possible.

First on the chopping block are the one that ONLY qualify via the donors. That is currently only Marianne Williamson. If it has to be decided between multiple candidates qualifying only via donors, than the one with more unique donors gets to the debates.

If that is not enough to reduce the field to 20, than candidates qualifying only via polls are endangered. Meeting both qualifiers currently seem pretty safe, which explains why Delaney offers to pay $2 to charity from his own money for each unique donor he gets. Anyways, to decide between them, the average betweeen the three highest polls is used (not the most recent). If that is not enough, than the number of polls count where the candidate reached 1%.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Mnementh said:

OK, so the DNC-criteria have been clarified on what happens, if more than 20 people qualify. This is pretty interesting.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-how-the-democrats-will-limit-the-debate-field-if-too-many-people-qualify/

So, currently 18 candidates qualify, which means going over 20 might be possible.

First on the chopping block are the one that ONLY qualify via the donors. That is currently only Marianne Williamson. If it has to be decided between multiple candidates qualifying only via donors, than the one with more unique donors gets to the debates.

If that is not enough to reduce the field to 20, than candidates qualifying only via polls are endangered. Meeting both qualifiers currently seem pretty safe, which explains why Delaney offers to pay $2 to charity from his own money for each unique donor he gets. Anyways, to decide between them, the average betweeen the three highest polls is used (not the most recent). If that is not enough, than the number of polls count where the candidate reached 1%.

That's rather odd.  Why not the more recent polls to begin with?  This suggests a candidate could have entered really early, got a jump on some poll numbers but have fallen off the radar now but would still be eligible for the debate.  In fact, that could push out a candidate that is currently doing better.

Candidate A: Qualifies
Early polls - 8% average on 3 highest polls.
Current polls - 1% average now.

Candidate B: Doesn't qualify.
Early polls - not a candidate yet.
Current polls - 7% average now.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
Mnementh said:

OK, so the DNC-criteria have been clarified on what happens, if more than 20 people qualify. This is pretty interesting.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-how-the-democrats-will-limit-the-debate-field-if-too-many-people-qualify/

So, currently 18 candidates qualify, which means going over 20 might be possible.

First on the chopping block are the one that ONLY qualify via the donors. That is currently only Marianne Williamson. If it has to be decided between multiple candidates qualifying only via donors, than the one with more unique donors gets to the debates.

If that is not enough to reduce the field to 20, than candidates qualifying only via polls are endangered. Meeting both qualifiers currently seem pretty safe, which explains why Delaney offers to pay $2 to charity from his own money for each unique donor he gets. Anyways, to decide between them, the average betweeen the three highest polls is used (not the most recent). If that is not enough, than the number of polls count where the candidate reached 1%.

That's rather odd.  Why not the more recent polls to begin with?  This suggests a candidate could have entered really early, got a jump on some poll numbers but have fallen off the radar now but would still be eligible for the debate.  In fact, that could push out a candidate that is currently doing better.

Candidate A: Qualifies
Early polls - 8% average on 3 highest polls.
Current polls - 1% average now.

Candidate B: Doesn't qualify.
Early polls - not a candidate yet.
Current polls - 7% average now.

Well, that's why I explicitly said it, that not the most recent are used. Strange, but it is what the DNC decided. And it get's more relevant by the minute, because... tada!!!

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-steve-bullock-could-win-the-2020-democratic-primary/

Steve Bullock is running and apparently instantly qualifies via the poll criteria, as many past polls already included him. That means 19 have already qualified.

Bennet, Moulton, Messam and Gravel are currently trying to qualify. You have Bill de Blasio with an announcement of an announcement. And I think Stacey Abrams would be able to qualify, if she decides to run. That means six possible candidates might or might not qualify in the future. One more is no problem. With two more qualifying candidates Marianne Williamson is currently out. And also at this point is isn't enough anymore to qualify via donors alone. The third candidate who qualifies now triggers above rules. Currently Kirsten Gillibrand, John Delaney, Jay Inslee, Tim Ryan and Eric Swalwell look like the ones that could be endangered - if they not also meet the donor-requirement and therefore reach safety (for now at least).

I really thought it is too late for so many candidates to still qualify, and I thought 20 seats in the debate would be enough. But now it seems very possible, only one open spot left.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

With so many people on stage, the debate could risk devolving into some cacophony at some point.



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:
With so many people on stage, the debate could risk devolving into some cacophony at some point.

There are 10 people on each debate stage, split over two nights.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Mnementh said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:
With so many people on stage, the debate could risk devolving into some cacophony at some point.

There are 10 people on each debate stage, split over two nights.

Ah okay. Yes that's easier to handle than having 20+ at once.



Ah, another thing. I just saw this interview from The Humanist Report with Mike Gravel. It's pretty long, I've only watched the first half so far and do not have time at the moment and watch the rest later, but so far it has been pretty interesting. His idea to bring the power of lawmaking to the people is pretty good and I like it. Well, watchfor yourself:



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Mnementh said:
SpokenTruth said:

That's rather odd.  Why not the more recent polls to begin with?  This suggests a candidate could have entered really early, got a jump on some poll numbers but have fallen off the radar now but would still be eligible for the debate.  In fact, that could push out a candidate that is currently doing better.

Candidate A: Qualifies
Early polls - 8% average on 3 highest polls.
Current polls - 1% average now.

Candidate B: Doesn't qualify.
Early polls - not a candidate yet.
Current polls - 7% average now.

Well, that's why I explicitly said it, that not the most recent are used. Strange, but it is what the DNC decided. And it get's more relevant by the minute, because... tada!!!

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-steve-bullock-could-win-the-2020-democratic-primary/

Steve Bullock is running and apparently instantly qualifies via the poll criteria, as many past polls already included him. That means 19 have already qualified.

Bennet, Moulton, Messam and Gravel are currently trying to qualify. You have Bill de Blasio with an announcement of an announcement. And I think Stacey Abrams would be able to qualify, if she decides to run. That means six possible candidates might or might not qualify in the future. One more is no problem. With two more qualifying candidates Marianne Williamson is currently out. And also at this point is isn't enough anymore to qualify via donors alone. The third candidate who qualifies now triggers above rules. Currently Kirsten Gillibrand, John Delaney, Jay Inslee, Tim Ryan and Eric Swalwell look like the ones that could be endangered - if they not also meet the donor-requirement and therefore reach safety (for now at least).

I really thought it is too late for so many candidates to still qualify, and I thought 20 seats in the debate would be enough. But now it seems very possible, only one open spot left.

I was really hoping he wouldn't run.  I spent over an hour just getting the new tables to look somewhat decent last night and now a new candidate pops up to ruin it....and he possibly gets immediate debate qualifications?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
Mnementh said:

Well, that's why I explicitly said it, that not the most recent are used. Strange, but it is what the DNC decided. And it get's more relevant by the minute, because... tada!!!

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-steve-bullock-could-win-the-2020-democratic-primary/

Steve Bullock is running and apparently instantly qualifies via the poll criteria, as many past polls already included him. That means 19 have already qualified.

Bennet, Moulton, Messam and Gravel are currently trying to qualify. You have Bill de Blasio with an announcement of an announcement. And I think Stacey Abrams would be able to qualify, if she decides to run. That means six possible candidates might or might not qualify in the future. One more is no problem. With two more qualifying candidates Marianne Williamson is currently out. And also at this point is isn't enough anymore to qualify via donors alone. The third candidate who qualifies now triggers above rules. Currently Kirsten Gillibrand, John Delaney, Jay Inslee, Tim Ryan and Eric Swalwell look like the ones that could be endangered - if they not also meet the donor-requirement and therefore reach safety (for now at least).

I really thought it is too late for so many candidates to still qualify, and I thought 20 seats in the debate would be enough. But now it seems very possible, only one open spot left.

I was really hoping he wouldn't run.  I spent over an hour just getting the new tables to look somewhat decent last night and now a new candidate pops up to ruin it....and he possibly gets immediate debate qualifications?

Nice that you spent the time to accomodate the table to include Bullock. Now you can remake them, because Bill de Blasio announced his candidacy.

EDIT: And on another note... maybe this is my bias speaking, but does this opinion piece sound like a person thinking about candidacy staking out policy positions?

Last edited by Mnementh - on 16 May 2019

3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter