Read on Twitter
I still remember when presidential candidates like Gabbard and Yang were denied from the debate stage because of a fraction of a percentage of a single poll by a single pollster.
If we can agree polls have failed us, lets look at how the DNC used polls to revoke candidates.
If we can agree polls have failed us, lets look at how the DNC used polls to revoke candidates.
And yes, a spot on the debate stage is life or death for a candidate.
I've heard from many voters who did not vote for their preferred candidate because "they thought he/she dropped out" when they did not see them on the debate stage--even if they were on the ballot.
I've heard from many voters who did not vote for their preferred candidate because "they thought he/she dropped out" when they did not see them on the debate stage--even if they were on the ballot.
In the case of Gabbard, she was actually denied twice from the debate stage--one because of the way the DNC decided to interpret a qualifying poll for the 3rd debate.
For the last debate, they outright changed their rules after Gabbard secured delegates to qualify for the stage.
For the last debate, they outright changed their rules after Gabbard secured delegates to qualify for the stage.
For the third debate, Gabbard had heavily secured the donor requirements and 3/4 polls. A final qualifying WaPo poll reported two toplines--one which qualified Gabbard.
But the DNC decided to interpret the second topline as the "qualifying" topline for no particular reason.
But the DNC decided to interpret the second topline as the "qualifying" topline for no particular reason.
Here's the poll in question.
Almost every poll's topline (the qualifying question) uses "registered voters" rather than "all". Gabbard qualified under Topline #1--registered voters, but not Topline #2--all.
DNC went against their norms to use #2 topline https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/sept-2-5-2019-washington-post-abc-news-poll/d4e18b36-79bf-492d-91e3-d1c7a49d37e2/
Almost every poll's topline (the qualifying question) uses "registered voters" rather than "all". Gabbard qualified under Topline #1--registered voters, but not Topline #2--all.
DNC went against their norms to use #2 topline https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/sept-2-5-2019-washington-post-abc-news-poll/d4e18b36-79bf-492d-91e3-d1c7a49d37e2/
So yes, even when the DNC used the "registered voter" topline in almost every other qualifying poll, they decided that in this case, they'll interpret the "all" topline as their qualifying topline
The DNC literally went against their own norms to make sure Gabbard didn't qualify
The DNC literally went against their own norms to make sure Gabbard didn't qualify
So here's the takeaway:
Polling can be wildly inaccurate, so the DNC clinging to each percentage point as some means test to qualify and disqualify candidates is wildly ridiculous.
And the DNC gets to pick and choose candidates at their whim under the mere guise of fairness.
Polling can be wildly inaccurate, so the DNC clinging to each percentage point as some means test to qualify and disqualify candidates is wildly ridiculous.
And the DNC gets to pick and choose candidates at their whim under the mere guise of fairness.
Also remember when the DNC then scrapped all of these requirements—along with the blood sweat and tears of grassroots work done to get there—to let Michael Fucking Bloomberg debate?
Classic. Good times. Well done.
Classic. Good times. Well done.
Don’t get me started on the role that media, media allies, and high-profile donors & connection play on whether a candidate sinks or swims.
Just break down media/party allies of a candidate, the resulting media coverage, and then the polling spike & donations that follow.
Just break down media/party allies of a candidate, the resulting media coverage, and then the polling spike & donations that follow.
Of course, more favorable coverage, more donations, and better polling mean even more coverage, a slot on the debate stage, more money to campaign with, more outreach, etc etc.
One of these days I’ll put something together to highlight this. Maybe closer to the 2024 Dem primary.
One of these days I’ll put something together to highlight this. Maybe closer to the 2024 Dem primary.
Rehashing the 2020 Dem primary may not feel relevant now.
But it’s absolutely relevant to how we got here.
And it will absolutely, absolutely be relevant two years from now. Especially among progressives or candidates that plan on bucking the Democratic Party.
But it’s absolutely relevant to how we got here.
And it will absolutely, absolutely be relevant two years from now. Especially among progressives or candidates that plan on bucking the Democratic Party.
