No real surprises here except maybe that Williamson made it
3 guys were left out
So if I’m reading this right, there’s two debates, each with a mix of those high and low in the polls? This sounds like it’ll be a mess. And those who get in the first debate will probably get a bigger boost.
It’s one debate split across two evenings.
Well, that’s what they’re calling it.
Assigned to nights by random selection. We could see Biden and Sanders who are the two leaders in the polls not debate each other. You could also see the second night being skewed toward those leading in the polls and everybody ignores the first night.
It’s a tough problem. The GOP with a wide field in 2016 used straight up poll averages to rank order candidates. The debates were on the same night with the early round conflicting with a lot of meal times being those behind. The problem was that there wasn’t really a statistically significant difference between the last candidate in the main debate and most of those on the undercard. They put the frontrunners in one debate and then pretended that the meaningless differences in poll averages meant something. There was a strong element of randomness hidden behind the supposedly non-random metric they used. A candidate that couldn’t make the main debate was mostly screwed. The DNC is taking a different tack. In effect, they are giving more voice to those with lower initial name recognition and less money to juice polling to still get an early audience on the big stage. It’s a technique. It’s one that has issues. The GOP approach has issues too. I’m not sure there’s a clearly better option that makes sense.
Not completely random. Those polling 2% or higher will be split between the two nights.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/24/democrats-undercard-june-1344368
Not impossible to have four one night include none of Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg. But at least Harris would have to be on the other card and that draw is highly unlikely. Also very unlikely to be Biden and no other of the pack aiming to be his challenger.
Having just read the article, I see the selection is not actually fully random. The top 10 and lower 10will be separately assigned to the two nights, thereby guaranteeing top 10s on both nights.
Thanks. I missed that around the stories that mostly focused on rules changes for inclusion in the third debate. That certainly helps the DNC intent compared to what the initial announcements were.
I’m happy to drop Bullock, Messam, & Moulton. Hickenlooper, Ryan, & Bennet wouldn’t really be missed either.
I think I’d be down for dropping all the boys but five. You can keep, say, Sanders, Inslee, Castro, Yang & DeBlasio. Tell the others to go home, and nothing of value would be lost.
I’ve been ninja’d many times but for some ungraspable reason this felt different.
The top of my head calculation is there’s a 40% chance that the top 2 candidates are together, 12% chance of the top 3 being on the same night and a 2.4% chance of the top four directly facing off. So it should be mixed up pretty good.
foolsguinea, are you seriously suggesting to drop the front-runner? And leave Yang in in his place?
Yang’s got “vision”. :rolleyes:
Yang is more interesting than Biden, let’s be honest. Yang would almost certainly be a *far *worse president than Biden, but it’s not like either of them are really going all the way, whatever they say.
But fine, you can have Biden as a sixth.
Sanders, Biden and Harris in night 2 along with Yang and Mayor Pete
lineups here
Well, what do you know. If Warren had been night 2 it would have been all the top five there but now she is kind of stuck on the night filled solely with people polling 3% and less. It could be turned into an advantage but I have fear she’ll have trouble shining surrounded by yahoos swinging for the fences.
It’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t. The loud whining from the Bernie Bros has caused the DNC to do everything possible to try to avoid bias. I think the Republicans has it right with the kiddie table debates.
But, it’s still just the end of June. Hopefully some of the vanity candidates will start dropping out and a few should be looking at the Senate.
the lower polling people could drop out if they look bad in the debates. or if they run out of money as well.
The only yahoo on night 1 is Gabbard; the rest are either weak or under-performing. I thinks she’s better off going first instead of getting crowded out by the other front runners.
IMHO the first candidates to drop out should be those who didn’t make the debate. Next should be the low polling candidates who perform poorly during the debates. I think the ideal situation would be that by the time the Iowa caucus gets here the field will be in the high single digits, then around 4 or 5 by Super Tuesday and 2 or 3 after that.
Well it depends on what the rating numbers look like. There is a chance that a lot of people won’t watch Night 1 because Warren is the only one polling over 3% there. Whereas Night 2 has Biden, Sanders, Harris, and Buttigieg.