Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ordering of third debate qualification tables[edit]

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 Organizing the candidates who have reported their donor count would result in an inaccurate and very outdated ranking, and it wouldn't really tell you very much about how close the candidates are to each other or to reaching 130,000.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 (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)

Withdrawn Candidates[edit]

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 (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 (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)

Gabbard controversy[edit]

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)

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)

First and Second Debate Tables[edit]

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)[1] ! Met both criteria
(1st tiebreak priority) ! class="unsortable"| Additional

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)


  1. ^ Montellaro, Zach (July 15, 2019). "2020 Democratic polls, first and second debate (updated July 15)". Politico (Google Sheets). Retrieved July 31, 2019.
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)

Table drop out color[edit]

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)

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)

Periwinkle (#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[edit]

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)


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)

Ordering edit and reversion[edit]

@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)

New poll results[edit]

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. [1]. Roblomo (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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? 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: 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. (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 [3]: "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." [4]. 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 [5] and fivethirtyeight [6] (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. [7] [8] [9] 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. [10] 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. [11] 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. [12] The poll was sponsored by Washington Post which does report 2% for Gabbard. [13] [14] Here is the data table provided by WaPo. [15] [16] 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.[17] 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[18], analysis[19] and full data set[20] 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.[21] 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; 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 [22] 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. [23] 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" [2]. 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% [3].
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)
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."[24]. 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 ^.^b 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. – (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)

Could someone help update the Forums table?[edit]

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: [4] 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)


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

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

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[edit]

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)


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 [25], 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)