Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential debates/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Criteria for inclusion in the list of Forums

This is generally a very good section, but I think it would benefit from some criteria for inclusion. I don't think the AJC Global Forum should be included for several reasons. None of the candidates were present at the event, they only supplied the event with pre-recorded videos. The longest video submitted by a candidate was about 6 minutes long, far shorter than a typical forum segment. Obviously this does not allow for candidates to interact with the audience or forum moderators. The event itself was not designed to be solely or even primarily a presidential candidates forum; it merely featured several candidates in addition to other types of speakers.

I propose that in order for a forum to be included on this page, it should:

• not be a town hall or debate
• feature multiple presidential candidates at the same physical location, on stage at separate times
• feature at least one moderator who remains on stage to interact with the candidates by asking questions and guiding the conversation
• feature a live audience
• be either a standalone event designed specifically as a forum for presidential candidates, or part of a larger event where the forum part has been designed specifically as a forum for presidential candidates (e.g. a 3-hour presidential candidates forum scheduled as part of a weekend-long labor union conference)
• not feature an excessive number of speakers who are neither presidential candidates nor moderators

All of the forums on the list that have taken place so far meet the above criteria, except for the AJC Global Forum. I propose the AJC Global Forum be removed from the list. --USPrezDebates (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson: See above. Let's work together here. I'm not trying to dictate arbitrary criteria, I'm trying to collaborate on establishing a set of standards. Make whatever justifiable changes you want. Just realize that if the standards that end up agreed upon here do qualify the AJC Global Forum and/or the Iowa Democratic Party Hall of Fame dinner, then I can think of several more events off the top of my head that should be on the list as well. There are probably dozens if not hundreds of small town events in Iowa and New Hampshire alone where several candidates will show up at the same time and place to deliver their remarks; I just don't think that in and of itself qualifies as a "forum".

The Iowa Democratic Party Hall of Fame dinner fails to meet the moderation criteria above, as well as the specificity criteria. According to Politico, the event is "designed to honor Iowa Democrats in a Hall of Fame dinner." Various presidential candidates tend to show up to this event, but I would argue it is neither a forum in and of itself, nor a multifaceted event featuring a purpose-built forum timeslot. Not to mention that the 19 candidates present had only five minutes each to speak, which barely afforded them the opportunity to get out a condensed stump speech before being kicked off stage. There was no time for interaction with a moderator or the audience, and there was no time to answer questions. Like the AJC Global Forum, this looks to me a lot more like a collection of short speeches than a presidential candidates forum. --USPrezDebates (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Debate numbering

I'd like to start a discussion on how the debates should be numbered. User:Mélencron made some good points in this revision here: [1], which I do agree with. User:Tomdoan made some edits here [2] and here [3], changing the section titles back to what they were. How should we proceed? Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@SCC California, Danish Expert, A. Randomdude0000, Arglebargle79, Only699WordsToGo, USPrezDebates, Metropolitan90, and Commieowl: I'd like to get input on a discussion about the numbering of the 2020 Democratic Party debates article. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What's happening over the first two nights is being described as the "first debate"; the two nights in July, the "second debate". That's why I'm in favor of that kind of numbering or at least a variant of it – not to mention the fact that the DNC explicitly indicated that there would be twelve debates (i.e., they're not double-counting each night). Mélencron (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Mélencron. Most of the news coverage also seems to refer to it as two nights of one debate, rather than two debates. SCC California (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mélencron as well. We should follow suit with the type of numbering being used by the DNC and the major news sources. --A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

After closer examination of the source material, I realize I misread the edit. The rules do apply to multiple debates (not just the back-to-back ones) e.g. the qualifications in the 2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums#First_and_second_debates section apply to both the June and July dates; while the ones here 2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums#Third_and_fourth_debates apply to the September and October dates. I also went ahead and added back a table that SCC California had added recently for the second debate that is still useful. In short, I've got egg on my face. Maybe I'll just take a break from this article for a few days. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The way it is now is totally fine. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Open-ended polls

I think it would be peculiar for open-ended polls not to count in terms of determining whether a candidate has reached 1% in three polls. It's more difficult for a candidate to garner the same level of support in an open-ended poll compared to one where the candidate's name is read by the pollster, because in an open-ended poll the respondent has to remember the candidate's name on their own. So getting 1% in an open-ended poll is a greater achievement than getting 1% in a closed-ended poll.

That said, I understand that we have to rely on what the sources say, and if the sources are doubtful that open-ended polls will count, we have to take that into consideration. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• I still think it's peculiar, but the DNC has indeed announced that they aren't going to count open-ended polls at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90: Yep, the fact that our qualification table introduced a yellow "Maybe qualified status" for Bullock (because CNN in opposition to 4 other sources did not count him qualified - due to his third poll being an open-ended type), turned out to be a perfect editorial choice.

The DNC argument for not including open-ended polls could be, that they believe these polls will have results more skewed towards a first thought name-recognition rather than a preferred reflected choise between all options (which will only happen if the interviewed has considered all the candidate choises presented by the interviewer in a normal closed-ended poll).

Another reason why only closed-ended polls have been accepted, could also be that this method more acurately simulates the situation when a voter votes (as ballot papers never are open-ended but instead list all candidate names to choose from). Yet, its fair to criticize DNC for not making their ban of open-ended polls public already back on Feb.14 when qualification rules were announced (or at least they should have gone public with this info as soon as they informed Bullock about it in March; keeping it secret for the public until June 6 is unacceptable!). Danish Expert (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If open-ended polls were included, Donald Trump would be a candidate for the Democratic nomination. Although he and other non-Democrats could be excluded after the fact by fiat. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep first debate qualification table?

Now that the participants of the first debate are known, I wonder if it is really necessary to keep the qualification table for it. If not, it could be replaced by a short paragraph (as well as keeping the final qualifications). Thoughts? SCC California (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to scrap the table and just integrate the participants into the short paragraph that currently exists (First debate in Florida (June 2019)). David O. Johnson (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

that's a good idea. The "instant polls" should be added when the time comes. Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Not good. That way information gets lost. We don't see anymore which candidates did meet both criteria and who only met one criterion. We also don't have information about the candidates who failed to qualify anymore. Also it was a much nicer overview of the qualifiers. In my opinion the table should get restored. - Ich bin es einfach (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Ich bin es einfach. Hence, I just restored the old chapter structure and content. Removal of qualification tables will remove too much valuable qualification data, hence its way better to keep the old structure of first having a dedicated "qualification chapter" followed by "debate chapters" focusing on the details of what happened before+in+after each debate. Danish Expert (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ich bin es einfach what valuable information is lost? To me, the dates on which the donor criterion was met seems like excessive detail, and the polling result (the date on which it was met already isn't there) is still kept in the small table. SCC California (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Ich bin es einfach and Danish Expert. I think details about debate qualification are too important to discard. But the rest of you have a point about the relevancy of that information in this moment. The focus has shifted to qualification into the second debate, and the article should feature that information most prominently. Moving forward, I recommend keeping all of the qualification criteria, and introducing a Show/Hide function whereby only the most currently relevant data is displayed by default. --USPrezDebates (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Forum tables

What would be your thoughts in making the display of candidates attending forums more visual by using tables similar to the debates, like this:

  Past forums

Name	Issues	Date	Place	Sponsors	Ref
Heartland Forum	Economic issues affecting rural Americans	March 30, 2019	Buena Vista University, Storm Lake, Iowa	Open Markets Institute Action HuffPost Storm Lake Times Iowa Farmers Union	(refs removed in talk page for simplicity)
We the People Membership Summit	Democracy reform	April 1, 2019	Warner Theatre, Washington, D.C.	Center for Popular Democracy Action Communications Workers of America Planned Parenthood Action Fund Service Employees International Union SEIU 32BJ Sierra Club
She the People Presidential Forum	Issues affecting women of color	April 24, 2019	Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas	She the People
National Forum on Wages and Working People: Creating an Economy that Works for All	Economic issues affecting low-income Americans	April 27, 2019	Las Vegas, Nevada	Service Employees International Union Center for American Progress Action Fund
Unity and Freedom Forum	Immigration reform and issues affecting Hispanic and Latino Americans	May 31, 2019	Pasadena, California	FIRM Action Community Change Action CHIRLA Action Fund
Big Ideas Forum	One idea that can inspire voters and transform the country	June 1, 2019	San Francisco, California	MoveOn
Presidential Candidates Forum	Expanding economic opportunity for Black Americans	June 15, 2019	Charleston, South Carolina	Black Economic Alliance
Poor People's Moral Action Congress Forum	Issues affecting low-income Americans	June 17, 2019	Washington, D.C.	Poor People's Campaign
We Decide: 2020 Election Membership Forum	Abortion, reproductive health care, and contraception	June 22, 2019	Columbia, South Carolina	Planned Parenthood Action Fund
Strong Public Schools Forum	Issues affecting students, educators, and neighborhood public schools	July 5, 2019	Houston, Texas	National Education Association
Asian American Pacific Islanders Progressive Democratic Presidential Forum	Issues affecting Asian Pacific Americans	September 8, 2019	Orange County, California	AAPI Victory Fund Asian Americans Rising
N/A	LGBT rights	October 10, 2019	University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California	Human Rights Campaign University of California, Los Angeles

Participating candidates in the forums

Candidate
	P  Present  A  Absent  I  Plans to attend  N  Plans not to attend  O  Out of race  W  Withdrawn
	Heartland	We the People	She the People	Wages and Working People	Unity and Freedom	Big Ideas	Black Economic Alliance	Poor People's Moral Action	We Decide	Strong Public Schools	AAPI Progressive Democrats	Human Rights Campaign
Bennet	O	O	O	O	A	A	A	I	N	N	N	N
Biden	O	O	O	A	A	A	A	I	I	N	N	N
Booker	A	P	P	A	A	P	P	N	I	N	N	N
Bullock	O	O	O	O	A	A	A	N	N	N	N	N
Buttigieg	O	O	A	A	A	A	P	N	I	N	N	N
Castro	P	P	P	P	P	P	A	I	I	I	N	N
de Blasio	O	O	O	O	A	A	A	N	N	N	N	N
Delaney	P	A	A	A	A	A	A	N	N	N	N	N
Gabbard	A	A	P	A	A	A	A	N	N	N	N	N
Gillibrand	A	P	A	A	A	P	A	N	I	N	N	N
Gravel	O	O	A	A	A	A	A	N	N	N	N	N
Harris	A	A	P	P	P	P	A	I	I	I	N	N
Hickenlooper	A	A	A	P	A	A	A	N	I	N	N	N
Inslee	A	P	A	A	P	A	A	N	I	I	N	N
Klobuchar	P	P	P	P	A	P	A	N	N	I	N	N
Messam	A	A	A	A	A	A	A	I	N	N	N	N
Moulton	O	O	A	A	A	A	A	N	N	N	N	N
O'Rourke	A	P	P	P	A	P	P	N	N	I	N	N
Ryan	P	O	A	A	A	A	A	N	I	N	N	N
Sanders	A	P	P	A	P	P	A	I	I	I	N	N
Swalwell	O	O	A	A	A	A	A	I	I	N	N	N
Warren	P	P	P	P	A	P	P	I	I	I	N	N
Williamson	A	A	A	A	A	A	A	I	N	N	N	N
Yang	A	A	A	A	A	A	A	I	N	N	N	N

SCC California (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've also thought about doing this before and am open to the idea. It should be noted when a candidate was not actively campaigning for the nomination as a forum was being held (ex. instead of listing Bennet as "absent" for the Heartland Forum, it'd be better to list him as "exploring" or something similar). Otherwise, I think this would be useful. - EditDude (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I've made some changes to this effect above. One question: Tim Ryan declared his candidacy on April 4, so he would be marked as out of race for forums before that. However, he attended the Heartland Forum on March 30. I have currently marked him as present there but out of race for the next forum on April 4 - this seems to be the best but still imperfect. Do you see any better alternative? SCC California (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

My thinking is that we should add a note next to Ryan's entry for the Heartland Forum noting that he hadn't formally declared his candidacy at the time. I've added a note to the table to demonstrate, let me know what you think. - EditDude (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I like it (though the "along with several other candidates" part may not be necessary). SCC California (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe something else (like TBA) should be added to the legend for the second table? Right now, it looks like no one is planning to attend the last two forums (which probably isn't the case). David O. Johnson (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Was just coming here to say this very thing Nevermore27 (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried adding "TBA" to the table yesterday, but it looks like the "TBA" needs to be added to a template (which I don't know how to do). I got a red link when I previewed it. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

To me, the best thing to do would be to change "plans not to attend" to "doesn't plan to attend" - it is true that (at least publicly), no candidates are planning to attend. Otherwise, the distinction between N and TBD seems hard to place (it's unclear to the public when it's too late for candidates to sign up). I have made this change for now. SCC California (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there no "unknown"? Nevermore27 (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nevermore27 my concern with using something like "unknown" is that there is no clear threshold for when it should switch from that to not planning to attend. The time at which candidates must have made up their mind for each forum is not available to the public. SCC California (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@SCC California: The easy (to my mind) solution is that you say "Unknown" until the forum passes, and by then you know. It's more accurate than putting "planning not to attend". Nevermore27 (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nevermore27 and SCC California: I love the new table, good work everyone. Relieves strain on the first table and creates a valuable visualization of how many forums each individual candidate has attended vs. missed. Agree that in some cases it's desirable to wait until during/after the forum to confirm candidate attendance. In the case of the recent PPC Forum, everyone had Castro listed as a confirmed attendee until his flight got canceled last minute and he couldn't attend. I also agree the legend could use some further clarification. We editors here understand it perfectly, but looking at it through the lens of Wikipedia as a primer for many readers: "Out of race" and "Withdrawn" may sound the same, and in some sense they are (not yet a candidate --> not a candidate <-- no longer a candidate). I might suggest combining these or at least clarifying "Out of race" to something more like "Not yet a candidate." "I" for "Plans to attend" may be confusing. "Has not announced intent to attend" is not the same as "Has announced intent to NOT attend," and shouldn't be combined into a single thing. Instead of separating these items in the legend, why not just leave the upcoming forum cells blank until a candidate (or the forum sponsor, or a credible news outlet) announces his/her intent one way or the other? --USPrezDebates (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I think those are good suggestions. I have combined the out of race and withdrawn into one category (stilled called "out of race") and took away the NIs (they can be replaced for those that have confirmed that they will not be attending, but I don't think there are any in that category now). SCC California (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

ref

References

Hey Dave, when I correct someone's mistake, don't revert back to the mistake, PLEASE

Joe Sestak announced his candidacy the other day, which was too late to get into the first debate even if he had magically managed to qualify. Thus, he wasn't invited (N). An (O) means that the person WAS invited to a debate, but since it's two days' long, s/he was only in one of the two parts. Therefore O means s/he's in the other one. Whether or not Sestak will be in the second debate is not yet known (I very much doubt it), we cannot say that he's going to be excluded here. Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not a correct reading of the legend. As you can see here: [4], "O with a gray background" means that the candidate is out of the race, while "O with a blue background" means that they were invited to the other debate. BTW, your recent edits broke the legend in the "Participating candidates in the DNC-sanctioned debates" table; now "N" is undefined in the legend. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed - Sestak should be listed as out of race to reflect his status at the time of the debate qualifications, just like a withdrawn candidate would show as out of race rather than just not invited. That said, different letters for "out of race" and "invited to other debate" are better. What do people think of changing the latter to IO?SCC California (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe an asterisk would do for "invited to other debate" such that "O" could be used for "out of race"? "IO" seems a bit unintuitive, IMO. I also agree that Sestak should be listed as "out of race", as it's a correct description of his status at the time. (It would maybe also be possible to simply grey out his row for the first debate instead of adding any text, but that would also seem rather unintuitive.) Mélencron (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

We should not keep having two O ctegories:  O  O , as this is confusing (despite of a different background color)! I suggest we keep using the  W  for withdrawn candidates, and the red-colored  N  for all Not Invited candidates (incl. for Sestak who was not invited for the first debate; which is supported by the argument that we are not listing him as "Not qualified" in the "qualification table" but only as "Not Invited" in the overall "participation table" which simply maps participation and not qualification - and hence it would indeed be correct to give him the "not invited" status as he was in the race ahead of the first debate but not invited because he entered the race after the qualification deadline - nothing is factual wrong about that). To say it short, if Sestak is listed in the "first debate qualification table" further below in the chapter, it would be correct in such place to give him "out of race" or "N/A" status here. But up in the participation table, the "not invited status" has nothing to do with qualification or qualification deadlines but simply maps whether or not he was invited (so the N for "not invited" can be used in that table). If you disagree with my N status proposal for Sestak, and think its important to have an extra category created for Sestak's first debate status, then I propose we simply only at this place in the table write  N/A  (abbreviation for Not Available). As a third alternative, which I will only support as a third priority, we can also give Sestak the O status for "out of race" while converting the "Other debate" O to an  *  as proposed by Mélencron. Danish Expert (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Combine the A and B parts of debates into a single column instead of two columns. Thus "O" for other part would be unnecessary. Just add a subscript "a" or "b" to indicate which part where appropriate. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm also fine with the asterisk. Danish Expert - by your logic ("But up in the participation table, the "not invited status" has nothing to do with qualification or qualification deadlines but simply maps whether or not he was invited"), there should be no withdrawn category - everything would be marked as invited or not, regardless of their status. SCC California (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@SCC California: You have a valid point that my above argument was a bit flawed. I guess my mind got dizzy, because of the current heatwave in Denmark (31C=88F). I accept the table display more info than "participated" or "did not participate".

The proposal by JRSpriggs to merge 1A+1B columns into 1 (while using subscripted participation symbols:  P_A  and  P_B ), might cause more harm than good. Problem is, that we can not in a similair way merge the 1A+1B rows in the above "debate schedule" table (because they need a seperate row for date+viewers), and hence I think its less confusing and more consistent if we also keep having 1A+1B columns in the "participation table" below.

Meanwhile, another editor changed the  O  to  OR  for "out of race", as a proposed alternative solution (which we can use as status for both withdrawn candidates and candidates like Sestak who did not announce candidacy ahead of the qualification deadline for the first debate). I guess the definition for using "absent"  A , is supposed to be "invited to debate - but for whatever reason did not show up - and hence was absent"), which is fine with me. The term  N  "not invited" is a bit broad, and could perhaps be more precise if we changed it to  DNQ .

I still have no objection to replace  O  with  *  for those who were "Invited to the Other debate". Question however is, if we still prefer the asterisk over the "O"? Because in theory I guess this "O" is now less of a problem, after the other "Out of race" status changed symbol from "O" to "OR"? What is your preference about this last detail? Danish Expert (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ojeda inclusion/exclusion

I think that Richard Ojeda should be included in the debate table because he was considered a major candidate (represented with a W just like others after they will drop out). JFG removed him from the table, so I am hoping others will weigh in as well. Thanks SCC California (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that all major candidates (including Ojeda) should be included in the table. Perhaps there could be a designation in the table like "campaign suspended," to make clear that the reason that Ojeda, and any future major candidate to drop out, did not participate in the debate was that they were no longer actively running. Jacoby531 (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ninja edit: When I first looked at the table I did not see the W for withdrawn. In that case, the table is fine as it is. Apologies for double posting :). Jacoby531 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to include him in the debate table because he dropped out long before debates were even a thing. But I'm open to getting convinced by other editors, if consensus develops this way. — JFG ^talk 18:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer to leave him out of the debate table. If people want to know why he wasn't in the debates, there are ample opportunities for them to learn that in this very article. In the second paragraph of the lead, it says, "so far only one (Ojeda) opted to withdraw before the first official debates". The next time his name comes up is in the "Withdrawn candidates" section, which states that he suspended his campaign January 25, 2019. The timeline graph shows his candidacy ending well before the first debate line, and the timeline section mentions him three times, the third of which is his dropping out of the race. In the "Campaign finance" table, his row is grayed out to indicate that he is a withdrawn candidate. And if they are still baffled by Ojeda's exclusion from the debates, they can refer to the first paragraph of the Richard Ojeda article or the second paragraph of the Richard Ojeda 2020 presidential campaign. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree he should not be in the table. He dropped out way too early to be included in the table. I think you should have to be an active candidate at the time the debate invitees are announced to be included there. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

An IP editor has now removed him from the table,[5] and it does not look like we are moving to consensus to include him again. — JFG ^talk 14:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. To me, the reason to include him wouldn't be because, as Metropolitan90 suggests, readers wouldn't be able to figure out why he isn't in the table - it is more for consistency. Because he was considered a major candidate by Wikipedia, he is included in these various other tables, and I see little reason to make a difference in this one. Plus, how long in advance of the first debate must "long before" (JFG), "way too early" (Rreagan007), or "well before" (165.189.65.43) be? These seem to be wholly subjective measures. As Danish Expert pointed out, he withdrew after the preliminary debate schedule was announced. SCC California (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It could be argued that the primary race only really started in January 2019, as everybody and their dog announced their candidacies. Ojeda decided at this time that he wouldn't join that crowd, so his candidacy was never really pitted against any other entrant. All the others have pressed on, and are striving to get a spot in the debates; Ojeda doesn't, so he should not be included in that particular table. — JFG ^talk 18:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is exactly as SCC California described above. As a major candidate, Ojeda should be included in the debate overview table for consistency throughout the article, with a W displayed for all 12 debates. If another major candidate (i.e. Messam/Moulton) decides to withdraw on June 15, due to realising he had no realistic path to qualify for future debates and did not qualify for "debate 1", this extra 2nd withdrawn major candidate shall likewise not be entirely excluded from the debate table, but just like Ojeda be listed with a W for all 12 debates.

The consistency argument for including Ojedea in the debate table, is that all major candidates (incl. Ojeda) are also listed in the campaign finance table, and we have a line in the lead of the article saying: "As of May 2019, a total of 25 major candidates have entered the race to be elected as the Democratic Party presidential nominee, of which so far only one (Ojeda) opted to withdraw before the first official debates.".

Ojeda had an active campaign from Nov.11-2018 to Jan.25-2019, and the preliminary schedule for the 12 DNC debates (along with info that qulification to these would be decided by a polling criteria and fundraising criteria to be specified in January) was announced on Dec.20-2018. DNC subsequently only specified its debate criteria on Feb.14-2019.

I think it would be wrong (incorrect) and confusing, if we decide status for major candidates in the debate table would only be listed for those who were active on/after the date of either "when the first debate was held" (June 26) or "when DNC specified its debate criteria" (Feb.14). What is the argument/need for excluding the withdrawn status for the 1 or 2 major candidates who withdrew before the date of the first debate? The argument for inclusion is consistency, plus you then also get a complete (and not incomplete) overview of the status for all major candidates by a stand alone look at the debate table itself. Danish Expert (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the difference is simple: Ojeda withdrew his candidacy even before there was a path to getting into the debates. All other candidates so far are in the race trying to get a spot on the scene. Even if somebody else withdraws prior to a debate, for example because they did not make the cut and are giving up, they should still be listed. Ojeda is for all intents and purposes a non-candidate; he campaigned for a couple months, including the inactive holiday season, and bowed out. That's the end of the story. — JFG ^talk 20:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Your argumentation is bad. Ojeda comply with the article criteria of being a "major candidate", and should therefore be treated as such along with a W letter to note that he has now withdrawn. Just like we will do for all the 23 other major candidates who will eventually also withdraw at a later point in the race.

The article has not defined your now proposed extra criteria for candidates to be deemed major, saying that candidates now also "need to have been active for min. 3 months (and only counting after the christmas holiday)" or "need to have been active after there was a path to getting into the debates (which I presume you refer to then should be the Feb.14-2019 date when DNC specified their debate quallification criteria)". Such extra criteria for candidates to meet before being deemed major candidates (who deserve their status mentioned in the tables), does not make any sence from a scientific/logic point of view. If Ojeda as an active candidate met the wikipedia article's definition of being Major in Jan.2019, then based on a scientific/logic argument he was also one of the major candidates in the "2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries" as of Jan.2019, and should be treated as such also after the day he decided to withdraw on Jan.2 (changing his status from an "active major candidate" to a "withdrawn major candidate"). Danish Expert (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree that the treatment of major candidates needs to be identical in each section of the article. The purpose of the Candidates section is different from the purpose of the Debates section. A row consisting entirely of W's seems unnecessary. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Danish Expert: Nowhere did I allege that Richard Ojeda should not be considered a major candidate; neither did I suggest any "proposed extra criteria". I only pointed out that his candidacy expired long before the debates, and as he never tried to, or had a chance of, being present in the debates, his name has no legitimacy in a table summarizing information about the debates. — JFG ^talk 15:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG I think that the core of your argument against including Ojeda - "It could be argued that the primary race only really started in January 2019, as everybody and their dog announced their candidacies." - is false. The start of the primary race began when John Delaney announced his candidacy, just like the article recounts; the fact that several candidates declared after he dropped out is frankly irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that he was treated no differently by Wikipedia than any other major candidate, and there seems no reason for this to change now simply because he dropped out a long time ago. Thanks for sharing your opinion. SCC California (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've got another argument that does not depend on anybody's opinion, but is fully in line with WP:RS and WP:V policies: there is no source that talks about Ojeda potentially joining the debates. — JFG ^talk 21:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

So you've made it clear that you are more interested in the outcome being your favored one than it being what makes most sense (which could be either way), seemingly in complete contrast to your earlier statement that you were "open to getting convinced by other editors." As to your new justification: nowhere in the article (this one or the old one) does it mention talk about the possibilities of various candidates getting into the debates. The table is a compilation of information from a collection of reliable sources sharing, for each candidate, their status regarding each debate: present, absent, invited, invited to other debate, not invited, or withdrawn. SCC California (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Remember, the fellow WITHDREW from the race before the debates were scheduled. Hew is no longer a candidate and therefore shouldn’t be included. Arglebargle79 (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@SCC California: I was indeed "open to getting convinced by other editors", and the more I read arguments in this thread, the less I was convinced. It's that simple. Regarding the outcome of the discussion, we both want "what makes sense", but what makes sense to you is the opposite of what makes sense to me. We're done here, just agree to disagree. — JFG ^talk 06:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: As per your previous reply you agreed Ojeda should be defined and treated as one and the same as all other major candidates participating in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. The argument from me and SCC California, is that for consistency reasons all of the article's overview tables should list all major candidates (with a denoted W or special color, to note those who withdrew). All those 25 major candidates having launched a campaign in the 2020 cycle were potential participants for the debates, from the very moment they launched their active campaign. If they withdrew before the first debate, this is also valuable information for a "debate overview table" to show.

DNC scheduled the 12 debates on Dec.20-2018, then Ojeda withdrew as a candidate Jan.25-2019, and DNC specified its qualification criteria for its first 2 debates on Feb.14-2019. Your argument that Ojeda should not be included by the "overview debate table" because he withdrew before Feb.14-2019, does not make any sence from a logic point of view. Excluding Ojeda to be listed in the "qualification table for the first debate", is however a point where your argument makes a lot more sence, and here I agree (which is also so far undisputed and supported by the current version of the article´s qualification table).

In contrast to the more detailed "qualification table for the first debate" (which only cover a more narrow time span ahead of each debate), the more general "debate overview table" however sums up the debate status for all major candidates participating in the 2020 primary race (covering the entire time scope of the 2020 primary race, meaning 2017-2020). Excluding Ojeda from this overview table would be wrong and inconsistent compared to how the rest of the wikipedia article has handled all other overview tables for the major candidates, because this "debate overview table" simply is expected to provide an overview for the entire time span of the race, and readers will only find it helpful and informative to see that Ojeda withdrew before the first debate, as he has a W noted for all 12 debates.

So including the W status for Ojeda only in the "debate overview table" is both helpful and consistent. FYI a few articles were also published elaborating on the chance for Ojeda to participate in the debates, i.e. I found this 538 article from Jan.15-2019. But to which degree articles have written about the debate participating prospects for Ojeda is really besides the point of my argument. My argument goes, that as official DNC debates (just like collecting campaign finances is) are an integrated part of the 2020 election event, then all overview tables for these elements of the election event, should also include the names/status of all major candidates taking part in the election event - irrespectively of the date they opted to withdraw. Danish Expert (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point of view perfectly, no need to expound on it. I just disagree, for reasons explained above by me and others, and I won't expound further. Open an RfC if you think this is particularly important. — JFG ^talk 15:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that might actually be called for given there has been significant edit-warring even during this discussion (eg: [6] [7]) SCC California (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to this new, more appropriate page. Pinging other contributors: JFG Jacoby531 Metropolitan90 Rreagan007 Danish Expert Spiffy sperry

• Instead of devoting a separate row to Ojeda, it would be preferable to add a note below the table to say that Ojeda withdrew before the debates began. This would avoid cluttering the table any more than it already will be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ojeda needs to be included There is no mention on him elsewhere on the page, and as a major candidate he needs to be included in the article somewhere. Candidates such as Messam are unlikely to make the debate, but I doubt anybody considers it wasted space. Ojeda needs to be included so readers know that he had already withdrawn prior to the debates. It may not look good, but the job of Wikipedia is to make information accessible, not aesthetic. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I would understand including him if the topic was about the 2020 Democratic Candidates as a whole. The name of this article is "2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums". Why include someone who has nothing to do with? -Npnunda

He withdrew barely after the debates were even announced, he doesn't have a place in this particular article. He is included in the main article, so it's not like we're burying him. But he's just not relevant to debates/forums side of the race. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Updating links to debates

Hi,

If someone changes the names of the sections for the debates (e.g. changing "First debates (June 26–27, 2019)" to something else, please make sure that the other sections in the article linking to it are also updated. As it is, the D1 link in the inset map doesn't go anywhere, because it links to the non-existent section named "First debate (June 2019)". The same goes for the schedule; none of the links in the first table there currently work.

Thank you. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I've updated them for now, but just keep it in mind for the future.David O. Johnson (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Qualification of candidates

Hi all, the qualification of candidates section is really bulky and confusing. A few questions: 1) is it's inclusion necessary and 2) if so, can we cut it down? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunda7 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, we place qualification of candidates in the individual debate summaries? So under Debate 1, we have qualification of candidates and the debate summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunda7 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits on the Qualification sections. The article looks a lot cleaner now. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

They aren't cleaner at all, the criteria for the second debate is a copy and paste of the first debate, the second should be the same as the third (130,000 unique donors, 2% in 4 polls, etc.). Also, the table of qualified candidates in the 2nd debate section is actually from the 1st. Can't do it myself but thought I'd point it out.Persistent Corvid (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The criteria for the first and second debates are the same (so the fact that it's currently a copy/paste doesn't really matter; it can be changed easily). The first and second should match, while the third and fourth debates are where the threshold increases. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

538 stated the 130,000 unique donors, 2% in 4 polls, etc. was for 2nd debate also. Could you double check the facts? Not trying to be pushy. Persistent Corvid (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's the DNC stating 1% in three polls, 65,000 donors is for the first and second debate: [8] and a later statement indicating that the third and fourth debates thresholds are 2% in at least four polls and 130,000 donors [9]. Do you have a source on the 538 ref? David O. Johnson (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You're completely right, sorry for the mixup. 538 showed it the way I said a few weeks ago. It must have been an error . No harm done lolPersistent Corvid (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Gender discrimination in debate 1A?

Each of the three women in debate 1A received less airtime than some men who had lower polling numbers. This is especially noticeable for Elizabeth Warren who had much higher polling numbers than Booker and O'Rourke while receiving less air time than they did. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

By contrast, no man received less airtime than a woman who had lower polling numbers. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This pattern is broken in debate 1B by Kamala Harris. So maybe this was just a coincidence? JRSpriggs (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this your own observation or are there reliable sources that confirm this and state there is a case for gender discrimination? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It is my observation based on the table of airtime and poll numbers in this article.

Warren got 9.3 minutes, which is less than Booker 10.9 and O'Rourke 10.3 . But Booker had 2.3% and O'Rourke 3.3%, both much less than Warren's 12.8%.

Klobuchar got 8.5 minutes, which is less than Castro 8.8 . But Castro had 0.8%, less than Klobuchar's 0.9%.

Gabbard got 6.6 minutes, which is less Ryan's 7.7 . But Ryan had 0.6%, less than Gabbard's 0.8%.

The reverse did not occur in debate 1A.

It was the responsibility of NBC/MSNBC to ensure that the women received their fair share of airtime. It appeared that they failed.

If I had a source, I would have put it into the article. I was hoping someone else had seen one. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The polling numbers used above were originally in the table of air times (and came from Real Clear Politics). Someone removed them from that table. However a similar result can be obtained from the remaining tables which I copy below (minus references). JRSpriggs (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Candidates drawn for the June 26 debate	Polling criterion result
Warren	16.3% (23 polls)
O'Rourke	10.3% (23 polls)
Booker	4.0% (23 polls)
Klobuchar	3.7% (23 polls)
Castro	2.0% (16 polls)
Gabbard	1.3% (11 polls)
Ryan	1.3% (9 polls)
Inslee	1.0% (9 polls)
de Blasio	1.0% (6 polls)
Delaney	1.0% (5 polls)

Night one airtime
Candidate	Airtime (min.)
Booker	10.9
O'Rourke	10.3
Warren	9.3
Castro	8.8
Klobuchar	8.5
Ryan	7.7
Gabbard	6.6
Delaney	6.6
de Blasio	5.6
Inslee	5.0

"Q" for "Qualified" in table

Hi, I think it's premature to include candidates as "Qualified" (as it's currently set up) in the table named "Participating candidates in the DNC-sanctioned debates" in the Schedule section. The DNC is the organization who ultimately determines whether a candidate is qualified or not. (See what happened to Bullock in the first debate as an example). I think that it should go back to just being blank. Thoughts? David O. Johnson (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

yes, i think we should mark them as "Pending Ratification" until the DNC confirms their qualification, for lack of a better term. --Habst (talk)

No, that adds unnecessary confusion when there is no legitimate doubt around who will be in the debates. —-Devonian Wombat —Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding "W" to two tables

Hi,

What do you all think of adding a "W" for "Withdrawn" to the "Participating candidates in the DNC-sanctioned debates" table and the Forum participation table? As it stands, both Sestak and Swalwell have the same notation (either OR or O) attached to their names in the aforementioned tables (even though their campaigns are at very different stages). It's too inexact, in my opinion. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I definitely think that's a good idea. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've done it for both, though there's a color mismatch between the legend and the table for "O" for the Forum participation table. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Zeddawg: Hi, what's your reasoning for removing the "Withdrawn" section from the table on this article: 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums in this edit: [10]? David O. Johnson (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC) @David O. Johnson: I'm just consolidating it with "Out of race" to include both exploring and withdrawn candidates. Zeddawg (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense, though. Sestak and Swalwell both have "out of the race" designators in the forum table, but they were not at the same stage in their campaigns. It's too imprecise. I propose adding it back. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

7 Polls for the third debate

The five "Frontrunners" have now "7 polls" according to the "met polling criterion"-column in the chart for the third debate, but I can't find anywhere more then four polls for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.202.18.207 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Addition of Gravel as "Qualified but not invited" on the Schedule Table

There does not seem to be any justification to do this, nor consensus to make the stage. As has been pointed out in other talk threads the DNC is the one who decides in the end who is qualified for a spot on that stage in the end, and they seem to have decided Gravel was not. Political Vacuum (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. He met one part of the qualification but not enough, thus he was not qualified. SCC California (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Only use DNC approved polls

Just because 538 lists a poll doesn't mean it will count for debate qualification. The DNC has specified the pollsters whose polls will count for qualification. Do not add polls from sources not on the DNC's list. Conveniently Politico has been compiling approved polls here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dHSFg0jrAeIAqDlFZqAu-5N2x-wk8PT-6H4DbCendUM/edit#gid=1699107941 Aliiqve (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

In that list, Mike Gravel did actually get a poll over 1% in the CBS South Carolina poll, so even if the New Hampshire one doesn’t count, that poll should count for his total. JoeyRuss (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Yang has 2% in 1 qualifying poll for the third debate, as made very clear in the citation (which is the politico spreadsheet mentioned above). However, someone keeps changing it the chart to >2% in 2 qualifying polls. As of July 20, he has only gotten 2% in one poll, which is the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from July 7-9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.96.211 (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's because of this poll (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6206543-NBC-News-SurveyMonkey-National-Poll-Toplines.html) by NBC/SurveyMonkey from July 2-16. The DNC has not clarified whether it is a qualifying poll or not yet. You can see from this tweet from the author of the Politico spreadsheet that they might add this poll to the spreadsheet (https://twitter.com/ZachMontellaro/status/1152199979194343424). Of course, until it is confirmed Yang and Castro should only have 1 qualifying poll each. Seismologist76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Having Yang listed on the wiki as having 2 qualifying polls is very confusing until the DNC approved both polls. My guess is that the DNC will not count 2 NBC News Polls as the results were from within the same time period (July 2-16/July 7-9), but who knows with the DNC. And notice that users were only changing Yang's stats and not Castro's, so seems they would be overzealous Yang supporters.

Inclusion of 2 polls for Julian Castro and Andrew Yang

There seems to be debate about whether to count Castro and Yang at two polls, namely over whether an NBC/Survey monkey poll will count. I think we should err on the side of including the poll in the candidates' numbers but with a note about the dispute of the NBC/Survey monkey polls, as was done with Steeve Bullock on this page when it wasn't clear whether open ended polls were included. Political Vacuum (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Devonian Wombat 10:35, 21 July (UTC)

I'm in agreement here, though it should also be noted that the issue is different for Castro and Yang since for Castro it's just a question of whether the poll counts, whereas for Yang it's whether or not the poll counts as being distinct poll from the NBC/WSJ poll. Also whether and how this poll counts affects the >2% poll tally and averages for other candidates, but this is more trivial.Aliiqve (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone's changed my note to state that Yang's pulling average would be different without this poll. I'm fine with this addition, but everything on the chart is currently assuming this poll counts (iirc Beto, Pete, and Castro would also have their average affected by whether this poll counts). So if we note Yang's pulling average otherwise, we should also have notes for other candidates. Aliiqve (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

DropOutDelaney

The section does not look relevant at the moment. I could see a broader section on Gravel's lack of inclusion in the debate being productive, but as it stands just focusing on this social media campaign does not seem to add much to this page. Further this quote, "There are reports Delaney's staff are abandoning him and urging him to drop out, though Delaney denied it," definitely isn't appropriate. The given source does not mention staff "abandoning him" and it does not say they're asking him to drop out before the debate. Aliiqve (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think a hashtag and unconfirmed rumors merit a section in this article. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I also agree. The issue is minor and not fully related to the debates. If anywhere, it should probably be covered at Mike Gravel 2020 presidential campaign. SCC California (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it should probably also be covered on Delaney’s campaign page Devonian Wombat 5:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonian Wombat (talk • contribs)

I concur with the majority here. The Drop Out Delaney, and I'd argue even Gravel's non-inclusion are not major issues. Somebody be they from the Gravel campaign or a fan has been making these useless edits for a while, such as the addition of an unnecessary "qualified but not invited" category for him on the debate schedule table, and improperly moving Gravel AHEAD of candidates who met the polling criteria, despite that decision making no logical sense. Political Vacuum (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Debate table restructure

Because we are considering the two nights of one debate, one debate (rather than two debates), I propose we change the debate table to the below. This would make it easier to spot which candidates were not invited to debates than having to look through the "invited to other debate"s. SCC California (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Participating candidates in the DNC-sanctioned debates

Candidate
	P  Present  A  Absent  I  Invited  O  Invited to other debate  N  Not invited  Out  Not yet entered race  W  Withdrawn
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Bennet	P (night 2)	TBA
Biden	P (night 2)
Booker	P (night 1)
Bullock	N
Buttigieg	P (night 2)
Castro	P (night 1)
de Blasio	P (night 1)
Delaney	P (night 1)
Gabbard	P (night 1)
Gillibrand	P (night 2)
Gravel	N
Harris	P (night 2)
Hickenlooper	P (night 2)
Inslee	P (night 1)
Klobuchar	P (night 1)
Messam	N
Moulton	N
O'Rourke	P (night 1)
Ryan	P (night 1)
Sanders	P (night 2)
Sestak	Out
Steyer	Out
Swalwell	P (night 2)	W
Warren	P (night 1)	TBA
Williamson	P (night 2)
Yang	P (night 2)

I agree that looks better. I say that’s a good idea. JoeyRuss (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I find the current format more readable, and readers can sort candidates in each evening. — JFG ^talk 23:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

And to spot which candidates were not invited to debates, they are labeled with a red-background "Not invited"; your proposal does not improve this labeling, nor does it need to be improved. — JFG ^talk 23:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

To your first concern - the table is still sortable by which night (I gave night 1 attendees a sort value of 0 and night 2 attendees a sort value of 1). To your second (addressing mine) - it is easy to see who was not invited in so far, but after other debates are added, it will be harder. Take a look at my sandbox (the likely lineup to be announced tomorrow, but the actual details don't matter in this context). In my opinion, it is much easier to pick out who were and weren't invited, and the changes in these between debates (eg. Bullock wasn't invited to the first debate but probably will be to the second one) without having to look through the lavender Os. SCC California (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have added a version of the chart with hypothetical (random) placements for the second debate to my sandbox for comparison. SCC California (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I was just looking at Wikipedia to make sense of that table. I like the condensed version better. - Lissa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.49.30 (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree that this works better. With the original, you can easily look at the columns to quickly see everyone on one particular night. With this one, you have to painstakingly sift through and check the corresponding row for each individual candidate. I agree with all the points made by JFG, including the one about readability; this version is too cluttered I find the wall of text visually unappealing. I also disagree that the original version is too complicated, it seems perfectly understandable to me if you just read the legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E30:3170:1840:81E5:366C:875E (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I definitely prefer the original table. It is much easier to read, and the 1s/2s here can easily be mixed up if you're not reading closely. I think everything just looks much more discombobulated in this version. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

So one thing to note: the table is still sortable. If you click the small arrows in the column header, you will see the night 1 candidates before the night 2 candidates (then not invited, then withdrawn). SCC California (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth I prefer this to the current table. Political Vacuum (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

More experienced editors, would you please help out here and let me know what we do here? Of people who have participated in this discussion, there is a slight majority to change but no strong consensus either way. SCC California (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the original which I believe now makes it even. I think that replacing a visual distinction with a solely text based distinction makes it much harder to read. Particularly when the numbers get so lost in the text. However if you can tweak this design to address that, I would drop my objections. For example replacing "P (night 1)" with "P-1", etc and assigning different colors to nights 1 and 2 could address that. Aliiqve (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Aliiqve's concerns. I think the original table is a much better option than this one proposed because solely distinguishing through text is painful to look at. Color-coding may be a simple fix. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 08:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Ref

References

Polling averages for September Debates

A few days ago I added a citation needed note to the claim that polling averages for the 4th debate would be calculated with the top 4 qualifying polls, and the claim has now been removed from the article. The closest thing I can find to a source is Politico has been using this method to calculate averages on the spreadsheet we're using as poll source, but only for candidates who've met the polling requirement. Though I can't find anything from Politico or tweets from the spreadsheet's authors indicating this method is approved by the DNC. Given that we can't find a reliable source on how polling average will be calculated, I think it should raise doubts about whether we should include polling averages in our table. I see a few ways forward:

1. Remove polling average from the table.
2. Use the fact that Politico has been using top 4 polls as a good enough endorsement to continue using this method for all candidates.
3. Only show polling averages as calculated by Politico for qualifying candidates. This should also involve reversing course on using the NBC/SurveyMonkey poll since Politico has not decided to use it in their average calculations yet.
4. Calculate average over all qualifying polls. Even if this isn't sourced as a DNC approved method, it's the definition of average.

I'm leaning towards 1 with 3 being a viable alternative. 2 does not seem appealing since it shouldn't be our business to speculate about about why Politico has used the method. 4 also seems unappealing since it is again speculative. Aliiqve (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

As we can see from the second debate lineup, the DNC seems to be using the Number of qualifying polls rather than the polling average as deciding postitions among qualified candidates, and as for debates after the second the DNC has set no limits on qualifying candidates, I think options 1 or 4 seem like the best choice. Devonian Wombat 23:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Have we been able to find any sources specific to the tiebreaker criteria for spots in the debate? It seems unfortunate to suffer information loss with respect to the averages, but if the actual results of each poll don't matter as long as they've polled above 2%, then it may not be relevant to include averages in the table as the table is concerned with who qualifies, not how they're performing. I thought I had read that they were using the average of their highest four polls as a tiebreaker criteria, but can't find a reliable source. entropyandvodka (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The DNC has made no indication that there will be a tiebreaker for these debates and they haven't even set a limit on qualifying candidates. There's no reason to include information on polling averages on this page, unless it's relevant to the debates. And the the DNC has made indication yet that they will be relevant. While polling averages are important, there are plenty of places to find that information. Aliiqve (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Number of polls in debate table

Andrew Yang now has 4 qualifying polls ≥2% of which only 3 are counting, because 2 of them were sponsored by NBC News. For the first two debates, every qualifying poll, even from the same sponsor in the same region, got counted in the tables (e.g. the candidates that have all 23 respectively 37 polls counting). What is the best solution, keep Yang at 4 polls with pending or change it for all debate tables? Rogl94 (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It is my belief that this rule was introduced for the third debate and afterwards, and if that is incorrect, then the other two tables should be changed. Devonian Wombat 22:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It was introduced for this debate, so we don't have to worry about consistency with the other debate. However, we do have to worry about consistency just within the third debate table. For example, if we list Yang at 3 polls, we need to list Biden at 12 (since he currently has 2 national NBC polls and 2 national Quinnipiac polls counting towards his total of 14). So I think we need to decide: are we counting number of qualifying polls ≥2% (like the table currently indicates), or are we counting number of qualifying polling organizations that have shown a particular candidate getting ≥2% in a qualifying region? Aliiqve (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The rules for the first two debates also state that you can only count one poll by the same pollster within each region, so I don't think the rules changed. Rogl94 (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

So they do, then we definitely need to stay consistent between debates.Aliiqve (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

So in that case, the other debates need to be corrected. Declaring that Yang has 4 polls is not only confusing, it just makes the article look biased towards him. Taking the path of least resistance is not wise in this case Devonian Wombat 3:55 31 July 2019 (UTC)

If we follow this route, should we change "polls ≥2%" to "qualifying polls"? Aliiqve (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a more accurate descriptor. Devonian Wombat 4:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

As the other commenter said, the rules have changed, which is why it isn't consistent between the debates. I honestly don't see why this is up for debate. The DNC says it doesn't count. Keeping Yang at 4 polls with pending serves no purpose but to confuse readers.

As it turns out the rules did not change, the first debate say Any candidate’s three qualifying polls must be conducted by different organizations, or if by the same organization, must be in different geographical areas.. And in response to your statement directed at me in your edit comment (which per WP:REVTALK really should go here): as I indicated above I was not reverting based on inconsistencies between this debate and previous but inconsistencies within the September debate chart. No one had responded as to how this should be handled and thus there definitely wasn't a consensus on how to handle it. I've seen the chart appear in three different forms

1. Show a count of all polls including duplicates from the same org&region (I'll this has flaws but at least it's consistent)
2. Count duplicates, but not for Yang
3. Count duplicate Quinnipiac polls, but not duplicate NBC polls

I admit 1 has flaws, but it was only way the table has appeared that is consistent so I reverted back to it. Aliiqve (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added versions of each debate's qualification table, which do not count multiple polls from a single org&region, to my sandbox. (I'm not copying them here to avoid cluttering this page.) Here's the spreadsheet where I rearranged the polls on Politico's spreadsheet by organization to calculate this. If we want to avoid listing Yang at 4 polls, this is the only consistent way to do so I can think of. However, I do have some concern over whether this complies with WP:OR. While I feel okay rearranging sourced data and counting the polls, I did have to make assumptions about what polls counted as from the same org. For example, I counted CNN New Hampshire poll conducted by UNH separately from other polls conducted by UNH, even though the DNC says qualifying polls must be conducted by different organizations. I did this since the DNC has seemingly been counting polls as distinct if they had different sponsoring organizations regardless of who conducted them. It seems like a reasonable assumption, but is there a source that says so concretely? No. But regardless, the current state of affairs needs to change. Right now the 3rd debate table counts Quinnipiac polls as distinct from eachother (but not NBC polls), isn't consistent with the first 2 debates's tables, and counts Booker with 9 polls for some inexplicable reason. Either we can go back to the last table which had Yang at 4 polls and pending (and maybe adding a note saying why he hasn't qualified), we could go with the tables I left my sandbox WP:OR concerns be damned (or something similar if I made any errors or logical errors), or some other consistent way that I didn't think of. Aliiqve (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ref

References

Politico spreadsheet

Should the Politico spreadsheet be added back as a source? I know it isn't entirely accurate, but as it stands we have no source for the # of qualifying polls for each candidate. It seems like we should either: 1. Add back the spreadsheet as a source 2. Find a new source 3. Remove the # of qualifying polls entirely I don't think we can leave the qualification table in its current state.

It is being used a source. It is at the top of the number of polls column, it’s just that it being there is better than it being beside the candidates names as literally every candidate has that citation number next to their name, which is unnecessary. Devonian Wombat 09:46, 2 August 2019

Agreed. Also, do you know if there if it is acceptable to cite another part of the page as a source? In the hidden first debates qualification section, the approved pollsters are listed. SCC California (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@2600:1700:9E30:3170:38D9:CAD0:F941:D465: please do not try to remove this talk page discussion. Per WP:TPO, there are only few cases in which it is acceptable to do so. SCC California (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Can Someone Update The Forum List?

Can someone update the fifteenth forum to include the fact that Tim Ryan and Bill De Blasio did not attend despite being scheduled to? (This was a result of logistical and scheduling problems.) I can't do it myself due to inexperience with editing charts. PoliticalBoi (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Harris performance in last debate

Hi,

Both an IP address (Special:Contributions/2600:1005:B029:AC6E:DD16:8326:9948:A6F1) and DaCashman have gone against what the cited source states in this section: 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums#Second debates (July 30–31, 2019) regarding Kamala Harris' performance in the July 31st debate (DaCashman in his edit here: [11], stating "Accurate description of the night is not vandalism. Harris went from consistently ~15% to consistently around ~8%, destroying her top tier contender status, and the vast majority of commentators linked this to Gabbard's comments. FYI I hate both of them.") and the IP address in their edit here: [12], stating: "Corrected biased and erroneous info." The Politico ref states: "What Wednesday made clear is that Harris, as a top-tier contender, is in for commensurate treatment from her rivals and the media." [13]. What I had put in was :"Harris' cementing her status as a top tier contender", which is backed by the cited ref. How should this be resolved? David O. Johnson (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe leave in the line about cementing her top-tier status, but add in something like "in spite of small drop in polling performance afterwards". Also for the record, Harris's polling numbers began to slide from 15% well before the debate. Her drop off since the debate is in the range of 2-3%, at least according RCP average. Aliiqve (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there a semantics problem going on? I went into this assuming that in order for somebody to be cemented as a top tier contender, they wouldn't have fallen so low that they would risk losing their #4 spot to Pete Butt-edge. But if the idea of "cementing top tier status" is "despite the bad performance, she is still well above most candidates" then that's fine I guess. (Honestly I didn't even think her performance was so terrible, but what I saw through the polls and all over social media says otherwise.) DaCashman (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Number column

Gemofadeal added a number column to the third debate qualification table which ranked candidates from 1 to 24 in order of number of qualifying polls, then alphabetical. To me, this seems useless at best (it is already the table's default order) and misleading at worst (at first glace it looks like a ranking of how well candidates are doing but puts, for example, Buttigieg above Sanders). @Gemofadeal and other, what are your thoughts? SCC California (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, a number column implies some sort of ranking, which we don't need. Aliiqve (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It is hard to keep track of how many are in --how many qualified--I was just trying to add some numbers so I did not have to count each time and it was not intended to be a raning and that is why I said NUMBER not rank.Gemofadeal (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Well perhaps we could say how many are in the top introduction bit, but numbering them like that does have the unfortunate side effect of making a ranking appear. WittyRecluse (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Right. Best not introduce arbitrary numbers here. — JFG ^talk 08:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Forum Attendance - Video Message and Video Link

Do we count video-link presence at a forum as attendance? And regarding 'video messages', assuming these are not video-links but prerecorded messages (we will need to check if we consider the two different for the purposes of registering attendance at forums on this page), do we consider candidates who've appeared by video-message as having attended a given forum? At the moment, I am marking both cases with 'P', but if there is any disagreement, it would be wise to work this out before future forums occur. PutItOnAMap (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Excessive updates of Williamson's contributor count

I have noticed that a large fraction of the edits to this article are just updates of the number of contributors to Williamson's campaign. Please, can we limit this to no more than once per day? JRSpriggs (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter that much. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with David O. Johnson, there's no reason not to be as updated as possible and in any case Williamson is going to hit 130000 in a few days if she keeps current pace anyway. WittyRecluse (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This has some effects similar to an edit-war: it wastes the time of editors checking the revision history for vandalism or looking for who is responsible for certain texts; it increases the burden on the Wikipedia servers which have to keep many more copies of old revisions; and it is unseemly for an encyclopedia to emulate news media with "breaking news". Surely you can wait 24 hours to see the next version of the counter, can you not?

I recommend that those who are considering making such an update refrain from doing so unless either: (1) they can also update the day of the month (of the count) in the same edit; (2) the number newly surpasses some critical value (such as 130.000); (3) the number (or associated date) have been corrupted by vandalism (or accidentally damaged by someone changing something else) and they are fixing it; or (4) they are updating the counts for other candidates in the same edit. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with frequent updates if reliable sources are frequently updating the donor count. The same was done with Gravel and when Gabbard was updating her donor count publicly everyday. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

References for the third debate

In the table for third debate qualifications, should we put references for polls not included in the Politico spreadsheet? We give more polls than they have in the spreadsheet, so until they are added to the spreadsheet should we give supplemental links for new polls? WittyRecluse (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

We should only do this if we actually check the poll is approved. Bear in mind that polls are usually sent to news agencies under embargo, so it's pretty unlikely that we might have caught a poll before Politico did. If you think you have found one they've missed, use extra due diligence in vetting it. Aliiqve (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Should we indicate bipartisan/nonpartisan forums?

In some of these forums, Republicans have been invited as well. I know for the Frank LaMere Native American Presidential Forum, President Trump and his primary challenger William Weld were invited but neither showed up. Trump and Weld are obviously not Democrats and this page is made to cover 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums, so should we indicate this somehow? Would it be confusing? Does anyone have thoughts on this? Independent candidate Mark Charles did schedule to be at the forum after being invited.

Thanks,

-TenorTwelve (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

If several Democratic candidates for president showed up, then it would be of interest to Democratic voters. So I would say it should be included. (But I am not a Democrat.) JRSpriggs (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Ref

References

Withdrawn Candidates

Someone has been deleting candidates entirely from the debate criteria tables once they’ve withdrawn. Like, within seconds of them withdrawing. Is there a reason why they aren’t simply being marked as withdrawn? Isn’t it valuable to retain their numbers for the donor/polling criteria? Especially when trying to understand why they dropped out? Brash (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I undid my edit so that Inslee is back in the debate criteria table. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Might it make sense to only include candidates who had withdrawn after the previous debate? Right now that might seem pedantic since Swalwell is the person who dropped out before the second debate, but once we get to February, it won't make much sense for the table to (presumably) be mostly candidates who dropped out.Aliiqve (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; Swalwell should not be in the third debate qualification table, and no one who has currently withdrawn should be in the fourth debate qualification table. Cookieo131 (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I added him back in for now since he dropped out after the first debate, as was listed as the criteria on the graph. If he's to not be on the graph, that's fine, but then the criteria should read differently.entropyandvodka (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Swalwell is already included as a withdrawn candidate in the table for the second debate. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the only reason the criteria stated that was becuase Swalwell was added, Swalwell was *not* added because the criteria stated that. So the criteria should be dictated by who is in the table, not the other way around. WittyRecluse (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to include any candidate who was in the race at any time during the qualification period for the debate in question, since those are the candidates who in theory could have qualified. Since the qualification period for the third debate started on the 28th of June, Swalwell should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.187.102.165 (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Conversely, I believe we should only include candidates who were in the race for the previous debate. Swalwell was out before the 2nd debate qualification period ended and thus did not qualify for the 2nd debate. Clearly if he was unable to qualify for the 2nd debate, he will be unable to qualify for any other debate, so there's no reason to include him in the 3rd debate table becuase it goes without saying he was not going to make it. WittyRecluse (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Dropping out before a debate doesn't in and of itself mean that a candidate didn't qualify for it, although it does make it very likely. Swalwell, by being in the race during the qualification period for the third debate, had an opportunity to qualify for it, so I think it makes more sense to include him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.187.102.165 (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Ordering of qualification of debate tables Why are the ones who have dropped out not at the bottom of the list/chart? Inslee is listed ahead of Williamson, who has gotten 130K donors, and at least theoretically, if she gets 4 qualifying polls, has a chance to be in the 3rd or 4th debate(s). How could he merit being listed before her? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:1D30:DDE5:FAC1:134D (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I meant to say, Re: i.e. Ordering of Third Debate Qualification Tables (above) 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:1D30:DDE5:FAC1:134D (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to start a new section, click the "New section" option (it's right next to the edit button) and move your comments to the new section.David O. Johnson (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't. My comment was relevant to two pre-existing sections, so I pointed to the other one. But thanks anyway! 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:E103:DE87:9A4A:9BBA (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

First and Second Debate Tables

In the First and Second Debate tables dont have the headers activated for some reason. Theyre in the table, this is the code for the second table:

|- ! Candidate ! Met donor criterion
(3rd tiebreak priority) ! Met polling criterion
(2nd tiebreak priority) ! Met both criteria
(1st tiebreak priority) ! class="unsortable"| Additional
Ref(s)

It just isnt appearing, and I am unaware how to fix it. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

On my computer, these tables appear correctly on a Chrome browser, but those rows are missing on an Internet Explorer browser. Also in IE, the rows appear correctly in the preview mode when editing just those sections. I don't recall seeing this behavior on IE before. It may be a temporary bug. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

References

It does not appear for me on Chrome. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

How about now? --Spiffy sperry (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for fixing it :) WittyRecluse (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. To summarize for others, each table had two header rows, the first header row was visible when the table was collapsed, and the second header row was sometimes invisible even with the table un-collapsed. I changed the first row to a normal row, and added bolding so it looks the same. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ordering of third debate qualification tables

It seems like a good idea to me for us to organize the candidates who have 0 polls based on the donor numbers, rather than alphabetically, just like how a candidate with two qualifying polls is listed above one with just one qualifying poll. We don't have numbers for all candidates, although I believe those numbers at least an of Q2 2019 can be found on the FEC's website. But it seems more intuitive to me to list the candidates with more donors above the ones with less, and for candidates who haven't publicly displayed their numbers we can sort them alphabetically Political Vacuum (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea Devonian Wombat 10:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the donor data is so incomplete. Gillibrand's latest donor count is from over a month ago. Several candidates just report their donor count every month or so, and some report it just once. Organizing the candidates who have reported their donor count would result in an inaccurate and very outdated ranking, and it wouldn't really tell you very much about how close the candidates are to each other or to reaching 130,000. Bobody24 16:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Dude, it's better than just leaving them in alphabetical order. It makes it look like Williamson has the least chances of getting in the debates when she's less than 13,000 donors away from meeting one of the requirements that like a dozen of these blokes have no chance of meeting. Same problem with Inslee. DaCashman (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Bobody, we know (generally) how close Williamson, Gillibrand, and Inslee are, but we have no clue where the rest are. Certainly we could guess based on previous trajectories, but previous trajectories aren't anything but speculation, and for candidates like Sestak and Steyer, there's no history to base a previous trajectory on. You could validly argue that it's more likely Williamson, Gillibrand, and Inslee are the closest to the goal, but I don't think "more likely" is good enough, only actual data from the same day would be sufficient to order the candidates by donor amount. WittyRecluse (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Why are the ones who have dropped out not at the bottom of the list? Inslee is listed ahead of Williamson, who has gotten 130K donors, and at least theoretically, if she gets 4 qualifying polls, has a chance to be in the 3rd or 4th debate(s). How could he merit being listed before her? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:4157:BCF9:E4C7:CBCD (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it makes sense to put Inslee behind Williamson, but it doesn't make sense to but him behind Bennet, de Blasio, Delaney, et al. He has still met one of the qualifications, and they haven't met any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.187.102.165 (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been suggested to use date of qualification in our ranking, and I want to explain why I don't think that is a good idea. First of all, it isn't a meaningful way to distinguish candidates. At this date, why is it relevant that Yang hit 4 polls before Castro? From June 28th to today, they've both managed to reach 2% with the same frequency, and I don't see why anything else is relevent. Second, I don't think we should be adding an excessive amount of ranking criteria, particularly not ones which are left opaque by the information we are displaying. In the event that others decide we should introduce this criteria, I would request that the change also be made to the other 3 debate tables, and that we add qualification date to the information we give on the table (with sources). Aliiqve (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who has dropped out will definitely not qualify for/be in future debates, so their having met one of the qualifications is irrelevant. They are still a definite NO in the third column. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:58FF:3ABF:F061:D247 (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Table drop out color

Why is the dropped out-distinguishing color in the debate tables that migraine-inducing orange? It clashes with the red of the "No", and is a bit painful to look at. I suggest  lavender  be a suitable alternative. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 08:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed the gold-like color is a bit weird for a drop-out color? Maybe a Periwinkle? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Any periwinkle/lavender-esque color I'd be okay with. That's what I would have expected to be used in the first place. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 09:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Here are the options that I think would be more suitable:

Lavender (web) (#E6E6FA)
#E6E6FA

Periwinkle (#CCCCFF)
#CCCCFF

• I think they both look good. The lavender is a little more subtle which is why it'd be my top choice, but either are better than what it is now. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the lavender, but the current drop out color is the same as the withdrawn color in the Participation table. I wouldn't want to change the drop color in the debate table unless we also change the withdrawn color in the Participation table, but that would clash with the TBA color and also possibly the Invited to other debate color. WittyRecluse (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Candidates who withdraw after qualification deadline

As qualification for 3rd debates draws to a close and we're likely about to have a wave of dropouts, I think there's a few questions to consider.

1. Do we mix the order of the dropped out candidates with the failed-to-qualify candidates again? I'd felt the logic in moving the dropped out candidates to the bottom was that it didn't make sense to put a a candidate who was still trying to qualify (however unlikely their qualification was) below one who had given up; ie "pending" means there's a chance, "No" means there's no chance. Now that the other candidates are about to also be listed as "No", it might make sense to reorder them all based on how close they came to qualifying.
2. Should the deadline for treating a candidate as "withdrawn" (giving them the withdrawn color and potentially moving them to the bottom of the table) be the qualification deadline or the debate itself? In other words, if, for example, Tulsi drops out tomorrow, should we mark leave her as is on 3rd debate table and mark her as withdrawn on the 4th debate table, or should we mark her as withdrawn on the 3rd debate table and remove her from the 4th debate table? Personally I'd prefer the former solution since we're focusing on qualification on these tables. This will also affect whether we give these candidates an "N" rather than "W" on the participation table.
3. In the event that we use debate qualification as our cutoff date on the previous question, I think it would be worth treating Gillibrand with those who dropped out after qualification ended. The media is reporting her dropping out with language like "having failed to qualify" rather than "likely not able to qualify", implying that they feel, for all practical purposes, the deadline had passed before she dropped out. Aliiqve (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

1. I have no strong feelings either way.
2. The former; I think the deadline for qualification makes more sense, as the table is for debate qualification.
3. Gillibrand dropped out before the debate qualification period ended. No invites were sent out yet to any candidates, so it is more accurate to say that she withdrew before being not invited. Cookieo131 (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

1. I think we should keep them apart because of the 4th debate. Anyone who missed the 3rd debate but did not withdraw is (presumably) trying to get into the 4th debate, while those who have dropped out are not, obviously. I think that adds a level of hope for those candidates who missed the 3rd debate but were close, where those who dropped out before the 3rd debate clearly are done with thier campaigns.
2. I agree with the former.
3. I actually disagree, I do not see why we should treat someone like Inslee differently than Gillibrand. WittyRecluse (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

On the third: I believe we are on the same page. I think that Gillibrand and Inslee should be classified in the exact same way. Cookieo131 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we agree. I meant with resoect to Aliiqve's comment and not yours, although I can see that wasn't clearly worded. WittyRecluse (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2019

1. I think they should be kept apart, as several candidates have said they are staying in the race to potentially qualify for the fourth debate.

2. The former seems better.

3. Gillibrand withdrew before the qualification deadline, so she should be put with someone like Inslee or Hickenlooper. Devonian Wombat 22:05, 29 August 2019

Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Those who have dropped out should be so marked, and listed below those who failed to qualify who are hanging in in hopes of getting into the 4th debate. Those who have gotten enough donors and 2% or more in one or more qualifying polls should go above those who have not. Why haven't the figures for how many independent donors those who have not yet qualified have been updated, for the 4th debate, if not the 3rd. Figures for August 28th should be available. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:709A:774F:D70C:6067 (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The figures for how many independent donors those who have not yet qualified is as recent as information allows. WittyRecluse (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Vox

I read the Vox article and jotted some notes on that in User:Humanengr/critique_of_Vox.

I don’t believe I violated any WP policies in so doing or in inviting any and all to look there on the chance it might prompt thoughts for article improvement. Humanengr (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with that article, the only thing I can see is that the opinions expressed in it do not concur with your own. Devonian Wombat 13:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

If you care to indicate where you see the largest disagreement, perhaps the place to do that would be on User talk:Humanengr/critique of Vox. I'm a bit curious. Humanengr (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

User spaces generally shouldn't be used for stuff that is unrelated to Wikipedia. I'm not going to raise a complaint about it as long as it stays there, but someone else might delete it at some point. Nblund ^talk 14:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

If you think it crosses that line, I’ll remove it. But as I wrote, my intent was to prompt thoughts of article improvement. Humanengr (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Could someone help update the Forums table?

According to this LA Times article, "Marianne Williamson was expected to attend but canceled because of a scheduling conflict, organizers said." Could someone update the table to reflect this? And possibly replace the original source as well, since it leads to a dead page. Thanks. Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's the citation for convenience: Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Just update that. Thanks Bobbychan193. SCC California (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Could we keep the number of entries in any one of the forum tables as large as possible without exceeding or expanding the page margin, please? There are almost going to be a lot more forums, and we may as well try to keep the section as compact as practically possible. In the absence of any objections, I'll make the change now. PutItOnAMap (talk) 1:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC + 1)

References

Viewers/Viewership (TV/Online livestream) in the third debate

According to the official Tumblr post posted by ABC News mentioned in a USA TODAY article, the Democratic debate totaled 14.04 million Total Viewers [in both ABC and Univision]. This may include both TV and livestream viewers.

But, the post also stated ABC News’ Democratic Debate coverage drew 2.9 million unique visitors and 11 million video views (ABC News Live and VOD) across ABC News’ digital properties and distributed partners . . . Univision News’ stream of the LIVE debate on Facebook reached over 21 million users and generated more than 5 million videos views.

Are we counting online visitors/users or views? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

We counted them for the first two debates, so naturally we should count them for this one too. Devonian Wombat 02:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I think he meant which one are we counting WittyRecluse (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I meant are we counting the people or the views? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

People seems like the better option, as that’s the one which decides how many actually different people saw the debate. Devonian Wombat 09:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Why have the number of donors to the 7 candidates still pending not been updated?

Why have the number of donors to the 7 candidates still "Met donor criterion—Pending" not been updated? The numbers are dated June 30th or July 12th or no number or date at all. They should have been updated to August 28th, at the least, the deadline for qualifying for the third debate, if not more currently. My previous inquiry has been deleted. If these candidates are still running in any serious manner, they should still be trying to qualify to get 130K donors, and they should be letting people know that they are having success approaching the goal. Otherwise, they have simply not bothered to announce that they have stopped trying, and no one will take them seriously. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:CF6:F8B5:F8DC:4868 (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not a forum to complain about what you think campaigns ought to be reporting. Filinovich (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about what campaigns ought to be reporting; I'm talking about what I'm sure they must have reported on August 28th that has not been updated in this article. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:6D1B:3BC4:ED0:1AA6 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

They report when they reach the threshold. The candidates who haven't reached it are not shown as such. Most of the numbers shown from June 30 are not self-reported, but based on analysis by the New York Times. WMSR (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Those numbers are the most recent numbers with any basis in fact we can put in the table. If anyone had any better information on the donor counts, then it would be in the table. WittyRecluse (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove Yang 3rd Debate anecdote

I think it's too much of a triviality to be included in this article because it didn't effect Yang's qualification for the 3rd debate. pbp 01:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It still was relevant at the time the DNC decision was made WittyRecluse (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

A controversy is a controversy, this has received substantial media coverage and is therefore permanently notable. Devonian Wombat 04:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC) Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Philadelphia Council AFL–CIO conference

Is the Philadelphia Council AFL–CIO conference notable enough to be included in the list/table of forums? Multiple candidates, including Yang, Biden, etc. have participated.

• News article
• Full video

If it is notable enough, if someone could add it, that'd be great. Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to include it. WittyRecluse (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Added. I'd appreciate it if anyone can double check for formatting or other errors. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The video of the livestream was up yesterday, but it doesn't seem to work anymore, so I didn't include it as a citation. If the full video gets published on YouTube or somewhere, feel free to add it. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked up the name of the conference and got a video of Yang speaking but couldnt find anyone else. I've put the link here. I don't think it is fair to only include Yang, though, so until further notice I say we wait until it gets uploaded in full. WittyRecluse (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The article I cited is enough for proof that those six candidates attended. I agree that we should not add a video source that only includes Yang. Also, that video was uploaded by a third party, which might not be ideal for citation purposes. Bobbychan193 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Forum participation table transposition

I propose to transpose rows and columns of the forum participation tables because there will be many more forums to add to the tables and transposing the tables allows to merge them into one table that will be able to contain all future forums. Xenagoras (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, would make formatting easier to see. WittyRecluse (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard controversy

Tulsi Gabbard published a statement accusing the DNC of unfairness in which polls they consider to be major, and called on the DNC to ensure transparency. Its been reported on by media outlets such as The Hill and ABC News, while Michael Bennet has also raised similar concerns following Gabbard's statement. I feel like this should be mentioned in the "Controversies" section. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Maybe it should be named something like "Poll inclusion controversy"? David O. Johnson (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

A controversy should actually be a controversy, not a candidate throwing a temper tantrum (again) because they did not make the criteria. That sort of thing has been constantly happening since the criteria were announced, and always from those who didn’t make the cut. To be a controversy, something actually controversial has to happen. Devonian Wombat 21:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Well to be fair "controversial" just means it causes public disagreement, and all the candidates are public figures by default so if there is a disagreement between them, then there is a controversy. Additionally, if there were polling rules that benifited some and were detrimental to others, of course the uproar would primarily come from those it was detrimental to. Lastly, if the entire controversy is just candidates who do not have the notoriety to meet all the criterea complaining after they failed to complete a task they knew of well in advance, which is an opinion that I think is easily defensable for good reason but not neccessarily objective fact, then anyone reading it is going to see it as exactly that. We should report on candidate temper tantrums just as much as well founded candidate complaints with the DNC, and I think controversy is an acceptably neutral word between temper tantrum and well founded complaint, and thus should be included as is.WittyRecluse (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there a website on wiki or other that lists all the qualifying polls? I have not found one yet and would like to do so. Thank you in advance.Gemofadeal (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• The official sources for which polls qualify can be found in announcements from the DNC at [14] (for the first two debates) and [15] (for the third and fourth debates). (After the first two debates, the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Reuters were dropped from the list of qualifying polls.) This information is reiterated in this article in the boxes with titles such as "Qualification requirements for the third debate(s)" (click "show" to see the actual requirements, which are in show/hide boxes). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you Metropolitan90, but I have the criteria, but is there an actual list of the polls that have been counted?Gemofadeal (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gemofadeal:the list of the qualifying and the non-qualifying polls that have Gabbard above 2% and the two lists for all national and statewide polls, with the qualifying polls having a different background color. Xenagoras (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a ridiculous idea to include this as a controversy, because it isnt a real controversy. The DNC's rules were clear cut and there was no ambiguity about her meeting the rules as written. A candidate making a stink about something because they didn't benifit from the rules is far from a controversy Political Vacuum (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The amount of differing opinions on this page should be proof enough this is controversial. WittyRecluse (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not the criteria for qualifying for the debates; it's the criteria for selecting the polling organizations sponsoring organizations/institutions as well as transparency in the process of developing criteria for that selection. And, importantly, it's the stark reduction in frequency of polling after the second debate.

FN: Thx, Nblund for reminding me w your edit summary re publishers/sponsors; from the DNC: "Qualifying polls will be limited to those sponsored by one or more of the following organizations/institutions: Associated Press, …" DNC rules Humanengr (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Thank you for explaining this for everyone who was not understanding. Gabbard has never complained about not being informed of what the criteria was or that the criteria was unclear. Her complaints are regarding why the DNC certified the pollsters that they did and why these certified pollsters are not releasing new polls that would help qualify candidates like herself. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jjj1238: We have only a single piece of info why only one qualifying statewide poll was released between the July and September debates: The University of New Hampshire Survey Center (UNH) polls are being sponsored by the certified sponsor CNN and because CNN does not give the UNH money to conduct a poll, the UNH does not conduct a poll. Even if someone else would pay the UNH to conduct a poll, it would not be qualifying in the eyes of the DNC because that poll would not have been paid by CNN, as is explained here. Short summary: Whether a poll is qualifying depends on who pays for that poll.Xenagoras (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Further re sponsoring organization/institutions vs pollsters: I see the 538 analysis (credit & thx, Xenagoras) speaks in terms of "polling organizations". Is there anything on why the DNC rules are in terms of the former? Humanengr (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Not in the public knowledge. That's why Gabbard inquiries for transparency. See also my comment above. Xenagoras (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xenagoras, good cmt above; I should’ve been clearer — I meant commentary analysis, etc., on why. Humanengr (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is Gabbard listed as having 3 qualifying polls today, when she had only 2 before, and they are all supposed to be as of August 26th? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:95E0:7C2F:6433:56D4 (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard clearly made the debate. 1. CBS-NH 7/9-7/18 | 2% 2. CNN-National 8/15-8/18 | 2% 3. WaPo-National 9/2-9/5 | 2% 4. DesMoines Register- Iowa 9/2-9/5 | 2% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.226.220.254 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

New qualification thresholds are out

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/us/politics/democratic-debate-criteria.html?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

If someone wants to update the article that’d be great. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Drop down tables don't work

Hi,

The "Qualification requirements for the first debates" and the "Qualified candidates for the first debate" (going through to the third debate) no longer work. They're supposed to drop down and show more details, but they're not expandable at all. Can someone fix them?

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like it's been fixed. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

My mistake - I was attempting to provide information about candidates who'd withdrawn before that point as per the other debate tables. I have now re-implemented that with correct formatting. (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2019

Notes in forum participation table

Would people object if I removed the notes on the forum participation table that say which day a certain candidate appeared or give candidates' reasons for not appearing at a given forum? I think that information is better suited for the individual campaign pages and definitely does not belong in the table. The notes have also, at least on my screen, extended the table to the right of the margin. WMSR (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No objections here. Bobbychan193 (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard

I made a somewhat WP:BOLD (though I hope uncontroversial) edit to reflect the results of the most recent Iowa poll (which was DNC sanctioned). Tulsi Gabbard reached 2% so she is now in the "3 or 4" territory. Her entries in the qualification table now use {{Maybe}} for the polling criterion as well as overall qualification. I assume news will come out soon enough clarifying the matter, but I hope this is a reasonable compromise until that time. I am open to alternative wording (such as "Unclear") in the interim. WMSR (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

the Washington Post/ABC poll,clearly says that based on the survey of all Voters,Gabbard got only 1%,and that is DNC rules,so no she doesn't qualify,unless she gets one more poll in the next 9 days.Alhanuty (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The poll WMSR is discussing is this one here [16], I believe. It is not the contested poll from a week ago or so. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson: Correct. The contested one is still contested, hence the whole "3 or 4" thing. It was less of an issue before because regardless of whether she had 2 or 3 polls, she still would not have qualified. The issue arises from the fact that now, if she has 4 polls, she qualifies for the debate. I tend to agree that the WaPo poll does not count for Gabbard, but there is no consensus on the matter here. WMSR (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

According to POLITICO 1 Gabbard only has 3 qualifying polls, but neither the Gabbard campaign nor the DNC have address the issue with what could be Gabbard’s fourth qualifying poll Davidmejoradas (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard's definitely in the fourth debate now: [17]. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.^[18] –84.46.52.161 (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This may just be a simple mistake. But is there any reason why the Politico spreadsheet has updated with the Monmouth poll but is still claiming Gabbard hasn't qualified? I know she has judging by other reliable sources, but such a glaring error that has gone unfixed all day makes you wonder about the spreadsheet's legitimacy going forward. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

You can contact the two people in charge. Zach Montellaro, for example, uses Twitter. Also feel free to fact-check that spreadsheet, or make your own. Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

What names do pollsters ask?

Since the DNC deliberately nixed accepting polls where people volunteer who their favorite candidate is, the question arises, are any of the accredited pollsters even asking about Williamson any more? Does anyone know? Real Clear Politics does not list her even at zero. If the pollsters do not mention her name, then she can't get any percentage, regardless of support. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:D042:3CF:3405:A751 (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a pollsters decision who to list in their polls. If one were to go to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries they would find that Williamson is in the polls. Devonian Wombat 23:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I followed the link, but did not see her name. However, you are saying that it is each pollster's decision, so any can leave her out. If it does not list her results even at 0%, is there any evidence that that particular poll was asking about her? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:1092:3E74:A14B:BD5A (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

She is included in the "Other" column, where the names and numbers can be seen footnotes (or by hovering the mouse over the footnote link, if your browser allows that). Her name appears over 100 times in the Notes section, including nearly all of the latest polls. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Devonian and Spiffy are correct to say that Williamson continues to be listed in most polls. In addition, Real Clear Politics continues to list her in their polling averages, albeit currently at 0.4%. See here for RCP's national polling data. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Ordering edit and reversion

@Devonian Wombat and Wikipedical: re DW's revert of Wikipedical's edit, I vote for W's version. Alphabetical is a natural order and more suited reader's expectation, contra DW's cmt that alphabetical order "decreases the usefulness of the list towards a reader." No reason to bias, especially since the participant list can change for the October debate. Humanengr (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that ordering by the criteria that the other tables were ordered by helps distinguish who was in by a mile and who barely made it, information I think is important. If the list changes for the October debate, we can update that following the order used previously when the list changes. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I vote for ordering by criteria, as I feel that that information is more useful to a reader than an alphabetical sort, as well as the fact that the lone green boxes when sorting alphabetically is not aesthetically pleasing. Devonian Wombat 10:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should be by criteria. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:95E0:7C2F:6433:56D4 (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't Harris be listed above Buttiegieg in the chart for the 5th debate, since Harris has three early-state qualifying polls, while Buttiegieg has only two? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:3433:47D6:4F16:9317 (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add time of Oct. 15, 2019 debate to table

In the time I have available today, I couldn't decipher the formatting of the table. Could someone please add the time of the Oct. 15, 2019 debate? It starts at 8 p.m. ET per one of the sponsors, CNN <https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/democratic-debate-october-one-night/index.html>. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.180.51.155 (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added it. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Petition to add Tulsi Gabbard Bullcrap to Lamest Edit Wars List

I have no idea how to do this, but I am absolutely floored that a bunch of anti-American RussiaBots are this freaking concerned about whether or not Tulsi Gabbard has four or five qualifying polls. Your dictator-loving homophobe sweetheart has already qualified and will likely have another stand out moment like when she pwned Harris, probably getting at Steyer since he's also a rising star associated with richer interests. My point is that the number 4 or 5 has no practical importance, yet I have seen it change several times well after it has already become clear that she has qualified for the debate and has been officially invited by the DNC. The marginal benefit that her candidacy would gain from having an additional qualifying poll of 2% listed on a Wikipedia article that only political junkies visit (junkies usually have their mind made up, especially about such a divisive figure) is so minimal that it shows how much of her fan base is either obsessed to the point of mental disorder or so bored with their useless internet trolling lives that they make my edits look casual. Considering this candidate's future is almost inevitably dropping out and endorsing Bernie (if he does not drop out and endorse Warren himself), and for other reasons stated, I would like to nominate this particular era in this particular page for placement on Wikipedia's official edit war list, including my insanely ironic rant which I now conclude. DaCashman (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

As someone who participated in this pointless argument, I support this motion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I also support this, because seriously? WMSR (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Biden on center stage

Fourth debate says Biden was on center stage. Technically, Biden and Warren shared center stage because there were an even number of candidates.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it.David O. Johnson (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Qualification for fifth debate

it looks like Gabbard and Klobuchar have gotten an additional qualifying poll (USA Today/Suffolk) based on the text of the article ″Three other candidates also reached 3% because of rounding: Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Harris and Klobuchar."

Link: <https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/10/21/iowa-caucuses-pete-buttigieg-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-top-poll/4025797002/>

68.15.38.86 (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

--Shouldn't we be able to update the donors now that the Oct 15 mandatory reporting period has passed? Some candidates have numbers from June yet.Gemofadeal (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Those numbers that need to be reported are dollar amounts, not donor counts. WMSR (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

New poll results

New Polls on Sept 11th Based on the following information, I feel it is safe to indicate that Gabbard has at least 3 qualifying polls. 1) The Sept 11 CNN national poll shows Gabbard at 2%. 2) 8 Sept ABC shows Gabbard at 2%. 3) 20 Aug, CNN has Gabbbard at 2%. This list only goes back to Late July. . Roblomo (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Both CNN polls are national, which means only one can count, and the ABC poll is disputed. You missed the CBS poll, which, in conjunction with one of the CNN polls, brings Gabbard to at least 2. WittyRecluse (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

New poll results as of September 8th—

Today Gabbard got an ABC/WaPo poll of 2%, and Steyer got 2% in two CBS polls in different parts of the country, Iowa and Nevada. Gabbard has been given an additional poll on Wikipedia's chart, while Steyer has not been updated as he should to show that he now fully qualifies for the 4th debate, with 5 polls. The label at the top of the column still reads "(as of August 26)" instead of "(as of September 8)". Various other candidates that already qualified before now have more qualifying polls. Could someone please fix this? https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:F935:85B7:BC30:EC1A (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

There is actually dispute over whether she has qualified or not, due to the poll conducting one sample of all Americans and one among democratic voters, and the news organisations who conducted the poll are divided as to which one takes precedence. I believe the DNC has declared that she did not get a third qualifying poll, but as I cannot quickly find a source for that I proposed that the new poll should be included, with a note explaining the controversy, as was done with Castro, Yang and Bullock previously. Devonian Wombat 22:54, 8 September 2019 Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Scratch that, the poll can be proved as not giving Gabbard and extra poll; as evidenced here: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/08/tom-steyer-2020-democrats-debates-1485202 Therefore, Gabbard should remain at two polls. Devonian Wombat 23:44, 8 September, 2019

People keep adding that Gabbard has a third poll (I counted at least five); should we just add a comment to that section of the wikicode? David O. Johnson (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I see WMSR has taken care of it. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Steyer and others from today's poll releases, the numbers reflect unique polling organizations/locations rather than total polls at 2 percent, since that's the qualifying criteria. For the leaders, this means the only change was the CBS/YouGov poll of Nevada (since it wasn't included in the previous CBS/YouGov early state results); there were a few more changes for those further down, but I believe I got them all (see my edits earlier today). Of note, Steyer is at four rather than five polls since he already had a 2% result from the previous CBS/YouGov poll of Iowa, and can't count both.47.7.12.233 (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should have admins block IP addresses from editing the article? David O. Johnson (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Devonian Wombat After reading the Politico article, I've come to the conclusion that today's poll does, in fact, give Gabbard a third poll. Per the article [19]: "Shortly after publication, the DNC told POLITICO that the sample with all adults will count toward qualification." The sample with all adults is used in the ABC News poll, which has Gabbard at 2 percent; "Two candidates, Tulsi Gabbard and Amy Klobuchar, inch to 2 percent." [20]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

And including the previous sentence, from your link we have "Narrowing to registered voters -- although there’s plenty of time to register -- shows similar results, with Biden-Sanders-Warren at 29-19-18 percent and Harris again at 7 percent. Two candidates, Tulsi Gabbard and Amy Klobuchar, inch to 2 percent." That is, the 2 percent result is from the registered voter numbers rather than the "all adults" that the DNC has evidently decided to take as the topline. Gambling8nt (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Thanks for the correction. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson: @Gambling8nt: The "all adults" poll (the one that counts), has both Gabbard and Klobuchar at 1%. The RV poll, which does not count, is the one that had them at 2%. Nobody but Yang gained from that particular poll. Gabbard remains at 2 qualifying polls. WMSR (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

After the reports by Politico [21] and fivethirtyeight [22] (which both sourced their claims via "DNC" without naming a person in the DNC as source), the press secretary of Tulsi Gabbard's campaign Cullen Tiernan published a campaign press release that says Gabbard has received her third qualifying poll. [23] [24] [25] In a seperate tweet, Gabbard's press secretary dismissed the claims from Politico and fivethirtyeight because they do not name an authorized person in the DNC as source. [26] Therefore I propose to update the number of Gabbard's qualifying polls to 3 (until an authorized person of the DNC makes a contrary statement). Tulsi Gabbard herself made the statement of having 3 qualifying polls one day before the press release. [27] Xenagoras (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It'd be better to stick with how RSes report it than how a campaign does. Filinovich (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Why not both ;) wbm1058 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The press release from Gabbard's campaign has not been challenged by an RS since its publication. Information from both Gabbard's campaign and the preceding fivethirtyeight article are contained in the RS which I provided. [28] The poll was sponsored by Washington Post which does report 2% for Gabbard. [29] [30] Here is the data table provided by WaPo. [31] [32] Xenagoras (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The poll was sponsored by the Washington Post, but it was Conducted by ABC news, who reported the all-Americans study. In a previous poll sponsored by these two organisations, the DNC only counted the sample of all-Americans. Even the sources that reported on Tulsi Gabbard’s claim that she had three polls do not say she has three polls, just that she claims she does. Considering the fact that the Gabbard campaign has been incredibly outspoken against the polling, I do not think it is outside the realm of possibility she may have been either capitalising on it to cause outrage on media attention or she may have simply just been mistaken. I do not think we should take their word over credible sources like Fivethirtyeight and Politico. That said, since there is a precedent in cases like this, we should say the Gabbard campaign has three polls with a note explaining the controversy until the DNC issues a public statement on the matter. Devonian Wombat 21:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I know precedent says otherwise, but I think we should leave it as "2 or 3" as it currently appears as of the publishing of this post. Having it as exactly "2" or "3" creates a major edit war problem that is counterproductive to constructive editing. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Source assessment: The poll was conducted by Abt Associates of Rockville, Md.[33] They did the sampling and data collection. The result was then delivered via subcontractor chain to the Washington Post which is the only news organization to present summary[34], analysis[35] and full data set[36] to the public. Question Q8 is "whom would you vote for in your primary or caucus?" As can be seen in WaPo's full dataset, this question Q8 is only asked towards "democratic leaning registered voters". There is not even a question towards "adults" whom they would vote for. WaPo is the only sponsoring news organization quoting the dataset correctly. In additional to this source assessment, I recommend we should adhere to WP:NOTFALSE which recommends to

be true to the facts – If five reliable sources repeat an incorrect fact, then that does not justify repeating a known falsehood. This often occurs when later news reports have corrected the early versions of events, which appeared in "5" major newspapers. An article should not repeat the now-known incorrect versions of events. and

be true to the present – Editors should not be allowed to claim out-dated facts, such as: "The R.M.S. Titanic is a ship which sails weekly between the U.S. and England" or state, "The NYC World Trade Center has two large skyscrapers standing in lower Manhattan" (not after September 2001). Quoting from outdated sources is not acceptable.

Recommendation: Since Washington Post's summary and analysis are true to the facts (the full data set) and Gabbard's campaign press release is the the newest fact available and in agreement with WaPo, I recommend setting Gabbard's count of qualifying polls to 3 with an accompanying note+link to the controversy in news reports and a link to this talk page segment. Additionally, measures against edit warring editors should be taken as vandalism has already occured (Enabling WP:1RR rule could mitigate edit warring a lot? Content (semi-)protection maybe also? Disciplinary action against edit warring editors, e.g warning?). Xenagoras (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I can get on board with everything above, i.e. changing Gabbard to 3 polls with a note and a link to this talk page, but I also think we should have a summary of the events in the controversies section which we also link, or use instead of the note. WittyRecluse (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that a description of the dispute around this poll is important to have in the article, and the "controversies" section is best suited for this and should be linked towards from within the table. Would you also advocate to enable the WP:1RR rule to calm down the editing frequency? Xenagoras (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to say, why are we assuming that ABC news made the mistake, and not the Washington Post? It is not outside the realm of possibility that the Post messed up. Nevertheless, we should provide a proper note summarising the controversy after the statement in the table that Gabbard has three polls, not a simple link to the talk page. Devonian Wombat 00:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"why are we assuming that ABC news made the mistake, and not the Washington Post?"

Because the Washington Post is the only news outlet publishing the full data set of the poll and their summary and analysis match the data set. The question "whom would you vote for in your primary or caucus?" is not asked towards "adults" but only towards "democratic leaning registered voters". Xenagoras (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is true, then what are the numbers reported by the ABC representing? It would certainly be odd if an entire new data set appeared out of nowhere. Devonian Wombat 02:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The voter sampling and questioning was conducted by Abt Associates of Rockville, Md.[37] Abt Associates handed the resulting data set over to Langer Research Associates which did some analysis on the data, then Langer Research Associates handed their analysis to ABC which produced an article from it. I conclude that Washington Post did their own analysis on the data from Abt Associates because they do not mention Langer Research Associates or any other 3rd party involved. To me it seems that Langer Research Associates did some "black magic" (read: data mining / extrapolation) on the data which resulted in ABC reporting 1% for Gabbard and Klobuchar, whereas the original data contains 2% for Gabbard and Klobuchar. Xenagoras (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, we can’t really claim that without evidence, using this as a reason to declare Gabbard as having three polls would be violating WP:No original research. I think we should just keep the 2-3 polls with the disputed tag, since I don’t think we can reach a consensus on what to do, so we should probably just wait for the DNC to say something, or better yet for the fourth debate lineup to be announced. Devonian Wombat 05:52 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is this as "disputed"? There is nothing to dispute. The DNC has already made a ruling. The ABC WaPo poll doesn't count. We can't give in to people vandalizing the page Political Vacuum (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm seeing claims about an edit war, the problem is sometimes one group is acting in bad faith with an edit war. A decision was made already by the DNC and so Tulsi Gabbard only has 2 polls Political Vacuum (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I am unable to find any ruling made on this topic by the DNC, unless you mean the one by some unnamed DNC person mentioned by Xenagoras at 14:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC). It's certainly possible I'm just not putting in the correct keywords for google's algorithms though, so could you, or someone else, provide the link to this DNC ruling on the WaPo poll? WittyRecluse (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It’s in the politico source provided at the top of the current dispute, further info can be found in this 538 article; https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/at-least-11-candidates-will-make-the-fourth-democratic-debate/ it should be noted that the Gabbard campaign has disputed these articles. Devonian Wombat 00:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no press release or interview from an authorized DNC person on this issue and neither Politico nor fivethirtyeight have named an authorized DNC person as source of their claims, therefore the Gabbard campaign has published a press release [38] on their own and dismissed the claims from Politico and fivethirtyeight. Xenagoras (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a precedent though, in a previous case like this the DNC counted the all-adults sample. As also said, the Gabbard campaign has not named a source either, and considering there is precedent against what the Gabbard campaign is claiming we should note. We should not give Gabbard’s statement more credibility than news reports. I believe we should keep a note over the controversy, and this note should be neutral, while the one you have proposed seems politically biased towards the Gabbard campaign. At this point, the facts are not conclusive, and we should not treat them as if they are. Devonian Wombat 00:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard's campaign cites the Washington Post as source. [39] I agree with you as I wrote above at 00:24, 11 September 2019, that it's important to describe the controversy around this poll and the "Incidents and controversy" section is best suited to do that and the table should link to it. I would recommend keeping an eye on news on this issue, e.g. a possible future DNC press release or interview from an authorized DNC person (e.g. Tom Perez or his press secretary) would create a new status and require updating the article's table. What do you mean with "my proposed note seems politically biased towards the Gabbard campaign"? What part of it is biased? How would you like to change it? Please make a proposal. Xenagoras (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Where even is the consensus to list the poll as disputed? It seems like all but one person here has agreed we should not be listing any dispute. There seems to be no consensus to do something like that after all. Especially after the DNC made their final determination, and as we said about Bullock, they're the ones who get to decide who qualified in the end Political Vacuum (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

In the end my Recommendation is this: The DNC made the call already. They said to Politico it doesn't count. It would be completely inconsistent with how we handled any of these matters in the past to include any note that there is a dispute, and we should not allow biased editors and vandalism to make the final call Political Vacuum (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

According to Tulsi Gabbard 1 the Washington Post/ABC News poll does count as a "qualifying poll" for the 4th debate Davidmejoradas (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There is currently no consensus to list the poll as disputed, but there also is not a concensus to list it as either 2 or 3. Listing it as either 2 or 3 creates an edit war, so the disputed "2 or 3" was done by someone as a compromise and as of the writing of this comment, it has stopped the edit war. Thus, we are in the talk page to determine concensus.

Additionally, Politico does not name thier source, they claim that they "got confirmation from DNC [sic] that ... Gabbard is still at two qualifying polls for October" . Gabbard claims that she "made an announcement through her campaign recognizing the 3rd 'qualifying' poll for the October debate" using the raw data posted by the Post, which has her at 2% .

Therefore, my Recommendation is as follows: as I consider both the Politico article with the DNC quote and the Gabbard interpretation of the WaPo's post as Reliable Sources, we should leave the poll count as "2 or 3", as opposed to only 3 as I previously stated, as there are multiple Reliable Sources giving conflicting information. We should create a section in the "Controversies" section detailing the Gabbard/WaPo incident, which should be linked in the table next to the "2 or 3" so anyone reading can jump to the controversy. When, hopefully, the DNC makes an official statement with an official ruling, that should supercede both the Politico article and the Gabbard announcement, and should be taken as the correct interpretation of the poll, and the poll count and Controversy section should be updated as such. Until the DNC ruling comes out, the article should be put under WP:1RR to prevent further edit wars. WittyRecluse (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

References

I think this is the best solution, I personally support it. Devonian Wombat 09:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with that. Xenagoras (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just because there's an edit war does not mean we should mark a dispute. If there's no consensus to list a dispute then we shouldn't list a dispute. The DNC made a determination they confirmed to Politico, the end. There is absolutely no argument that the poll will be counted because the DNC has made a call already. The poll won't count so she does not have three qualifying polls. This is how we handled the situation with both Yang and Bullock Political Vacuum (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless and until Gabbard gets another qualifying poll, it hardly matters. She needs four to get into the 4th debate, and by the time she gets another, if she does, the DNC will make it abundantly clear whether she has qualified or not. Until then, "2 or 3" should suffice. In the mean time, why doesn't someone ask what DNC official has said whatever, if it's crucial that we need to know? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:F033:E56:6DEA:D95B (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The DNC's determination may be final, but that does not mean that it is necessarily right. Perhaps they are misinterpreting their own rule in order to slant the election? They did that to nominate Hilary Clinton over Bernie Sanders last time, did they not? JRSpriggs (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Even if the DNC literally came out and said “we have rigged the polls to ensure only the candidates we like qualify” that would not change the amount of qualifying polls a candidate has. Devonian Wombat 05:36 11 September 2019 (UTC)

In regards to Political Vacuum's comment, my concern that that what do we do if theres not consensus to list a dispute? We can't list 2 polls, becuase theres no consensus, we can't list 3 polls, becuase theres no consensus, we can't list anything else becuase that would be factually inaccurate, and we have to list something, so even though theres no consensus, listing the dispute is the most neutral option possible that still has Reliable Sources backing it up. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard has 2% in new CNN. She should be at "3 or 4" now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C000:F900:8921:6B2:93E6:C795 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Note to everyone before the biased Tulsi editors come in: CNN/SSRS sponsored one of Tulsi's current qualifying polls. She can not use two CNN polls so she remains at 2 polls. This is even less debatable than the ABC/WaPo poll the DNC already commented on Political Vacuum (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's a reference backing up what Political Vacuum says: "While Wednesday’s survey does meet the Democratic National Committee’s qualifying guidelines for the party’s primary debates, it holds no implications for next month’s debate because everyone meeting the 2 percent threshold has either already qualified or has reached 2 percent in an earlier CNN poll."[40]. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Also we can list two polls like people have said. This is not a hard issue. The people arguing for listing three polls are WRONG the DNC's decision was made and is final Political Vacuum (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, politico and 538 do, in fact name their source, which is the DNC, they don't have to name names if the DNC doesn't dispute it. Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason the DNC hasn't disputed it yet cannot simply be assumed to be becuase the DNC agrees with the Politico and 538 interpretation of events. While claiming that agreement is the most plausable and thus most likely answer is a valid and defensible argument, it is also very possible that the DNC members themselves disagree on how to best handle the Gabbard poll decision and that is why they have not made an official statement. For such reasons, until a named DNC official is cited as a source, the DNC publishes an official statement, or the lineup for the October debate is released, I'm going to consider everything else insufficiently substantiated, and thus disputed. WittyRecluse (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. There is clearly a dispute here. Both sides of the issue here are stating they have DNC-approval, and the DNC has said nothing about it. Keep it the way it is now unless A) The DNC makes a statement B) Gabbard qualifies with other polls or C) The October lineup is released. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

General from an interested Eu-IP watching the Gabbard YT-channel with tons of disgusting "rigged" conspiracy theories, where "silly rules" should be enough to explain what happens. 2 or 3 based on your RS at the moment is slightly odd, but the discussion here explains it, thanks. –84.46.53.233 (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Apart from whether Gabbard has 2 or 3 qualifying polls, are the total numbers for other candidates higher up in the listing being properly updated? It seems to me that they stay frozen the same despite new polls (such as yesterday's) coming out. While the exact number of qualifying polls might not matter now, for anything 4 or above, it WILL matter when the DNC issues new qualifications for the November debates. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:E415:7D0E:43B5:4A74 (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they're being updated. Polls from the same source can't count twice for any candidate. Klobuchar gained a qualifying poll in the NBC/WSJ poll, but everyone else had already achieved a 2% result in a previous NBC poll. WMSR (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You mean that a poll from the same source can not ever count again for the same person, at a later date, so that since there are 16 sources being counted, 16 polls is the maximum a candidate can get? I didn't realize. Thank you, WMSR, for making that clear to me. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:7D93:B0A9:A6B8:50B5 (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Correct, though geographic area also plays a role. For example, a CBS nationwide poll and a CBS poll of Iowa would count separately, and the only statewide polls that count are those from DNC-sanctioned pollsters of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. But a single candidate cannot count two CBS polls from Iowa. This info is pretty clearly stated in the article. Best, WMSR (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Then any candidate could get up to 5 polls (national, IO, NH, NV, and SC) counted by any single pollster of the 16 DNC-sanctioned pollsters. It seems odd that the highest polling candidates don't have more than 16 polls each, since getting a mere 2% would seem easy for them. That leaves me still perplexed. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:4933:BF02:C1CA:8F5C (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Not every sanctioned pollster has actually conducted polls, and certainly not of every state. If you click on the ref, you can see a complete list of all polls taken by sanctioned pollsters. Again, all of this information is in the article and the refs.

Also, please try to thread your replies and consider making an account so that you can be tagged in replies from others. Best, WMSR (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

AS OF SUNDAY 22 SEPT CNN IOWA POLL— Now that Gabbard has one more poll, it should be obvious that the previous number was only two (as the DNC had already said, removing all genuine controversy), and she now has three. If she had four, and had actually qualified for the 4th debate, or even if it were thought she might have, it would have been trumpeted. The "disputed" should be removed. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:1C52:7197:BFB0:C755 (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Monmouth New Hampshire Poll, Gabbard 2% Qualification regardless of ABC/WaPo poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.141.3 (talk • contribs) 24 September 2019 (UTC)

New Poll Results as of Oct 1st—

Shouldn't Harris be listed above Buttiegieg in the chart for the 5th debate, since Harris has three early-state qualifying polls, while Buttiegieg has only two? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:3433:47D6:4F16:9317 (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to ask on two different threads. Buttiegieg is listed above Harris because his polling average is higher. Please consider making a new thread for new topics, and creating an account so you can more easily see (and be pinged in) replies. Best, WMSR (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a technical reason I don't understand that O'Rourke (as well as the top 5) has not been updated as having another qualifying poll as of today (Friday Oct 11th)? I also noticed that Real Clear Politics listed today's polls late in the evening but before midnight ET on Thursday. Anyone know how that happened? Can we update for a poll that is dated tomorrow? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:391F:B560:A271:4D7A (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

O'Rourke should be updated to having 2 qualifying polls for November debate as he got 3% nationally in the new Fox News Poll. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.28.45 (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Two polls from the same pollster (in this case, Fox News) cannot count towards the total for the same candidate. WMSR (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Why are the new notes e-n on the 5th debate chart? What do they actually add? WordwizardW (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

They do help nullify the inevitable confusion that occurs everytime a candidate gets two qualifying polls from the same pollster in the same region. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Today's Quinnipiac NH poll should affect numbers in both the 5th and 6th debate charts, but both charts are only updated as of Nov.6th. I don't think everything could be a duplicate poll, since some candidates have higher percentages (which are needed for the 6th debate) than they had had before. Could someone who is keeping track of qualifying polls to identify duplications check this out, to update appropriately, please? WordwizardW (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The Quinnipiac poll of New Hampshire had already been added to the charts, but people (Slinkyo initially adding the poll, and myself cleaning up loose ends) neglected to change the dates on the column headings (and the listed access date for the spreadsheet being used as the ref at the column heads). The column headings have now been fixed; the numbers in the chart should already have been correct. Thank you for spotting this oversight.Gambling8nt (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Tom Steyer sent out an email today saying that there was a Fox poll released today which showed him at 5% in Nevada, which puts him one qualifying poll closer to qualifying for the 6th debate. I didn't see it listed in RealClearPolitics, but he's unlikely to have invented it. Could someone please check this out? WordwizardW (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)