Update: Tulsi Qualifies for November Debates with 4th Poll (Quinnipiac Iowa)!!!!

As of tonight, Tulsi is officially in the November debates, getting 3% in a Quinnipiac Iowa poll.

Quinnipiac Iowa Poll

For the December debates, where you need 4% or more in 4 qualified polls, she already has 2 within the allotted time period, so today's poll does not help her there. Tulsi also needs 200,000 unique donors for the December debate--her campaign has not updated her unique donor count since late-September, when she had 178,000.

Edit to add:

The full list of qualifying polls for Tulsi for the November debates are:

Quinnipiac (Iowa): 3%
USA Today (National): 4%
USA Today (Iowa): 3%
CNN/University of New Hampshire (New Hampshire): 5%

The 4% and 5% polls there also count towards her December debate qualification. Note that she cannot use those two pollsters in those two geographic regions to get additional qualifying polls for December. She needs either different pollsters or different regions.

Update: Details of the November debate have been released here. It seems that each candidate will be asked the same number of questions and will be allowed the same speaking time in order to even out candidate speaking times, with some moderator discretion. Rachael Maddow will be one of the moderators!

Share
up
28 users have voted.

Comments

From Tulsi's campaign that she has qualified for the Nov. debate and needs about 8900 donors to reach the 200,000 for Dec. debate.

up
9 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@pro left

it sounds like they're expecting to reach the 200K mark any day now. She's working hard on the campaign trail, making media appearances, etc., which means more and more people are learning about her.

up
6 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Maybe the DNC thought they were sufficiently effective in squelching Tulsi in the last debate, even though she, in my opinion, definitively exposed Buttigieg's warmonger aspect of the typical neoliberal. But, if she doesn't up her game, Warren could continue to slip by.

Speaking of Warren, if Sanders doesn't expose the deep problems with Warren's health care plan (especially, the head tax), he will be missing his biggest opportunity to end Warren's continued rise in the polls.

up
11 users have voted.

@tle

Agreed about Sanders calling out Warren's healthcare plan--although I suppose Tulsi could as well, if given the opportunity.

There will only be one fewer people at the debate--Beto O'Rourke won't be there--so there will still be 10 people up there, which although better than last time, still sucks. I'm hoping (perhaps falsely) that by December's debates one or two more will drop out due to lack of funding--Castro, Booker, and/or Klobuchar perhaps. Klobuchar seems to have burned through quite a bit of cash lately--in the last quarter she raised $4.8 million, but spent $7.8 million. Castro has shut down his New Hampshire and South Carolina operations and only has $672 thousand on hand (as of mid-October). Steyer has unlimited funds, as does Buttigieg, so little hope there. Harris doesn't have all that much compared to the top candidates, but she's buying a very large ad buy in Iowa, and I'm sure she will wait to see what happens in the caucus there before dropping out and telling her voters to get behind either Biden or Warren.

So, maybe for December Castro and either Klobuchar or Booker will be gone. Narrowing the field to 8 candidates for the December debate (assuming Tulsi qualifies!) would help her a lot.

up
7 users have voted.

Seems like Quinnipiac is in the midst of conducting a New Hampshire poll, which we should see results from in the next week or two. This could be another qualifying poll for Tulsi for the December debates if she scores 4% or more.

up
3 users have voted.

I doubt Tulsi would have made it, but for the Clinton Times interview.

up
1 user has voted.
Centaurea's picture

@Vex

everything Hillary Clinton does, she screws up.

up
3 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

gulfgal98's picture

but I still have problems with the use of polls to determine who gets into the debates. Candidates like Tulsi, who have little national name recognition and do not have an endless reservoir of money, must spent their time on the early primary states. This means that they will not be getting high polling numbers in the national polls. Further, I have a real problem with a poll that uses only 400-450 respondents and has a margin of error rate of 6% or even more, to be a valid indicator of the support a candidate has.

For example, 4% of a poll using a pool of only 450 respondents would require that no fewer than eighteen of those respondents name one candidate for that candidate to qualify. In a field of ten or more candidates, that is a lot to ask for a candidate to be in the debates.

up
3 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F Kennedy

Centaurea's picture

@gulfgal98

is reformulating the primary process. Instead of the nominee being chosen by the voters during the actual primaries and caucuses, it's now being done via cherry-picked, ultra-managed "polls" of a handful of people. And the way they're doing it is a work in progress. As the pre-primary season proceeds, they keep changing the rules.

In other words, the DNC is once again rigging the nomination.

Their new process is not set forth in the DNC Articles and By-Laws, but as the DNC's lawyer from Perkins Coie told the federal court in the DNC fraud lawsuit, the DNC is not required to follow its own governing documents. It can do whatever the heck it wants.

I'm thinking, why don't we extend the DNC's logic to all elections in the US? We could save a lot of money by not holding elections.

The general election rolls around. Instead of asking all citizens to go to the polls and vote, they could just say: "We called 400 people over the age of 50 who have landlines and who actually answer the phone when an unfamiliar number calls, and they chose Candidate X. So Candidate X will be our next POTUS."

I wonder how many Americans would object to that new system?

up
4 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

snoopydawg's picture

@Centaurea

It would save lots of money for the candidates and we wouldn't be bombarded with lies from them on how they will help us if only we let them play in government. Playing for dollars is what we should call it. After reading the article on dominion energy from the EBs I doubt that we were ever anything but an oligarchy. The robber barons never let go of their hold over government nor did the banks.

Corruption is legal here and voting is not going to change it.

up
1 user has voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery