Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential debates/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
major forum with multiple candidates to be added
On Friday Nov.8th, there will be a Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice: “Moving Vulnerable Communities from Surviving to Thriving,” with several candidates (Warren, Booker, Steyer, Williamson, Delany, Sestak) attending. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! and former EPA official Mustafa Ali will co-host as moderators. A few of the more than two dozen organizations involved include the National Black Caucus of Legislators, South Carolina State University, Children's Environmental Health Network, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Mom's Clean Air Force, National Children's Campaign, the National Wildlife Federation, and leaders from frontline and tribal communities. Lead media partners include Grist, Democracy Now, and Gizmodo. It will be live streamed on DemocracyNow.org. Could someone please add it to the list? https://www.democracynow.org/events/2019/11/amy_goodman_comoderates_first_ever_presidential_forum_on_environmental_justice_1535 https://freespeech.org/announcements/tune-in-nov-8th-6pm-et-to-watch-the-2019-presidential-forum-on-environmental-justice-live/ https://ejpresforum.org/press/ WordwizardW (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Table Fontsize
Recent good faith edits have been made expanding the size of the tables for forum participation on the basis of MOS: font-size. However, for a typical monitor/zoom level, this means both participation tables cannot be easily viewed at the same time. IMO the former form of presentation was worthy of the smaller table size. If there are no objections, I'll revert this. PutItOnAMap (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Dropped out
Bullock and Sestak have both dropped out, but I don't know how to change the charts to indicate that. Someone please help? WordwizardW (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Bloomberg's in. Time to add him, like Deval Patrick.
Bloomberg's in. Time to add him, like Deval Patrick. WordwizardW (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nope. "While Bloomberg's team filed a statement with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday creating a presidential campaign committee, aides to Bloomberg say the move should not be viewed as a final decision or announcement." [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- He's been added to the list of major Democratic candidates running in the "2020 United States presidential election" article (with unexplained yellow shading). He has an exploratory committee, whatever his aides say. He's exploring. Consistency requires that we add him to this article as well. WordwizardW (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- The "unexplained yellow shading" is explained right above that table: "Candidate not officially announced but formed a presidential committee." He's not in the race yet, so he doesn't get added. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- In today's NYT Bloomberg Prepares Huge TV Blitz, Reserving $30 Million in Ads https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/bloomberg-ads-2020-race.html?campaign_id=60&instance_id=0&segment_id=19030&user_id=03a496f46b039488926bd566ccfa5eaa®i_id=63129314ing-news — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordwizardW (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- "Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, bought at least $30 million in television ads on Friday ahead of an expected Democratic run for president, a formidable show of financial force in presidential politics. … earlier this week, he filed a formal “statement of candidacy” with the Federal Election Commission." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordwizardW (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing says "I'm running" like filing a formal statement of candidacy and spending $30 million of your own personal fortune in ads.
- Nothing, except stating "I'm running", which he hasn't done yet. "In the latest sign Michael Bloomberg is prepared to spend freely on a prospective presidential bid." (Emphasis on prospective). [2]. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with David O. Johnson. Until a declaration that he is running is made, he shouldn't be on the page. I would maybe reconsider if he gets a qualifying poll, though, which, insofar as I am aware, he has not yet. WittyRecluse (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing, except stating "I'm running", which he hasn't done yet. "In the latest sign Michael Bloomberg is prepared to spend freely on a prospective presidential bid." (Emphasis on prospective). [2]. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing says "I'm running" like filing a formal statement of candidacy and spending $30 million of your own personal fortune in ads.
- The "unexplained yellow shading" is explained right above that table: "Candidate not officially announced but formed a presidential committee." He's not in the race yet, so he doesn't get added. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- He's been added to the list of major Democratic candidates running in the "2020 United States presidential election" article (with unexplained yellow shading). He has an exploratory committee, whatever his aides say. He's exploring. Consistency requires that we add him to this article as well. WordwizardW (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Qualification for sixth debate
A new qualifying poll (USA Today/Suffolk) doesn't seem to change the status of anyone for the fifth debate, but should give Gabbard one more National qualifying poll for the sixth debate (to go with the NH "early state" poll she already had). Quote from the article: ″The Democratic field now has a top tier of four candidates – Biden, Warren, Sanders and now Buttigieg, whose standing rose four points from the August poll. They were followed by Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard at 4%"
Link: <https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/10/30/poll-biden-slips-warren-rises-sanders-buttigieg-top-tier/4096461002/> 199.167.121.198 (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Effects from this poll for both fifth and sixth debate qualification have been added. Some confusion was created from an attempt to assert a different poll (from the non-qualifying organization Post and Courier) should alter the qualification totals, but this appears resolved now. Gambling8nt (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Is the Sienna College/New York Times poll going to count? If so Klobuchar has another qualifying early state poll for the sixth debate! (as do Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg an Warren). 139.18.243.147 (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This Nevada Independent article says it's a qualifying poll for the debates (https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/poll-biden-holds-significant-lead-over-warren-sanders-in-nevada-top-issue-is-electing-someone-who-can-beat-trump), in which case it is Steyer's second qualifying poll for the sixth debate; it's actually already been included in its total. However, it isn't listed in the source as a qualifying pollster. Is there any clarification on this issue? 128.252.173.99 (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Seems Gabbard has met the state polling criteria and Yang has one more for the 4% criteria with the latest Quinnipiac NH poll: <https://poll.qu.edu/new-hampshire/release-detail?ReleaseID=3648> 71.174.162.137 (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- I thought that too, but see the last two posts under the New Poll heading. WordwizardW (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I believe that Gabbard doesn't actually have a fourth qualifying poll right now. The new New Hampshire poll by Suffolg University was with Boston Globe and not USA Today but the DNC only cares about the USA Today/Suffolk polls. 2A02:810A:14BF:9DF6:F071:82D6:9CE:FA87 (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Qualification for sixth debate - Declined Value
The value "declined" for Gabbard in the "Qualified for debate" column does not answer the question ('has the candidate qualified'), so it's not optimally informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.96.90.147 (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, we should add a note that she will not attend even if she qualifies, and keep the value of "pending". Then, if she qualifies, I think we should put a slightly less dark green and keep the note that she will not be attending. I also think we should do the same for the master table at the top of the page, but if she qualifies leave it as invited. WittyRecluse (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders' and Tulsi Gabbard's supporters' #BoycottMSNBC Participation
In the article, one of the issues mentioned in the Controversies section is the "Yang Disputes with MSNBC". It should be noted that there is also a large support among the Bernie Sanders' and Tulsi Gabbard's bases in favor of this movement, and more minor support among Donald Trump's and Pete Buttigieg's. Should this also be added? TXephy (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for this support? I did some preliminary searching and couldn't find anything but it's likely I just don't know where to look. WittyRecluse (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Primarily via looking for "#BoycottMSNBC bernie" and "#BoycottMSNBC tulsi" on twitter. There are a lot of people pointing out the unfair coverage of Yang, Bernie, and Tulsi by the news network. However, I also couldn't find any major news sources that mention this. Also this (post from the Tulsi Gabbard subreddit) and this (post from the Andrew Yang subreddit about Bernie Sanders' voter base support) TXephy (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- The problem if no major news source reports it, then it starts to leak into WP:OR. WittyRecluse (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- When I enter "MSNBC unfair Sanders" or "MSNBC unfair Yang" into DDG, I get results. WordwizardW (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Could you link some of the sources, then? WittyRecluse (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sources: Fox, Inquisitor, Daily Wire, Daily Mail. Xenagoras (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well the sources definately mention Bernie, but I don't see anything about Tulsi. So I'm in all in for including the support for Bernie as well. WittyRecluse (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Considering some Tulsi supporters such as Youtuber Kim Iversen, who has almost 200k subscribers, say that Tulsi should sue MSNBC, I think calling it a "boycott" is actually an understatement. I don't see why she shouldn't be included. Tulsi has been excluded from MSNBC graphics as well, and they smear her constantly and baselessly, particularly Joy Reid. [3] piratetales (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- The ramblings of an irrelevant youtuber are not good enough sources to merit inclusion in this article. Something like a news article would be needed. Devonian Wombat talk 20:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Iversen is on WP:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Journalists#United_States (because I added her) with a d:Q6408835 imported from Kim Iverson (deleted after an undisputed PROD 2016). She won some award for journalists, no idea how relevant that is, but I found it on enwiki. –84.46.53.211 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- She was on WIR, Kim Iversen exists now. –84.46.53.91 (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- The ramblings of an irrelevant youtuber are not good enough sources to merit inclusion in this article. Something like a news article would be needed. Devonian Wombat talk 20:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Considering some Tulsi supporters such as Youtuber Kim Iversen, who has almost 200k subscribers, say that Tulsi should sue MSNBC, I think calling it a "boycott" is actually an understatement. I don't see why she shouldn't be included. Tulsi has been excluded from MSNBC graphics as well, and they smear her constantly and baselessly, particularly Joy Reid. [3] piratetales (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well the sources definately mention Bernie, but I don't see anything about Tulsi. So I'm in all in for including the support for Bernie as well. WittyRecluse (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sources: Fox, Inquisitor, Daily Wire, Daily Mail. Xenagoras (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Could you link some of the sources, then? WittyRecluse (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- When I enter "MSNBC unfair Sanders" or "MSNBC unfair Yang" into DDG, I get results. WordwizardW (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- The problem if no major news source reports it, then it starts to leak into WP:OR. WittyRecluse (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Primarily via looking for "#BoycottMSNBC bernie" and "#BoycottMSNBC tulsi" on twitter. There are a lot of people pointing out the unfair coverage of Yang, Bernie, and Tulsi by the news network. However, I also couldn't find any major news sources that mention this. Also this (post from the Tulsi Gabbard subreddit) and this (post from the Andrew Yang subreddit about Bernie Sanders' voter base support) TXephy (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Vice
Recently a section on moving the debate to include Bloomberg was added, and the source is Vice. I cannot corroborate this Bloomberg inclusion anywhere else. I guess my question is, is Vice considered a reliable source? If it is, why??? WittyRecluse (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Some Googling ("Tom Perez on Bloomberg", was the phrase specifically) on that took me to the the New York Post: [4], which linked to a tweet from Dave Weigel of the Washington Post (linked here:[5]). Do we just cite the tweet? David O. Johnson (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'd think we just cite the tweet. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- The tweet is cited; I changed the wording a bit to match the ref, too. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'd think we just cite the tweet. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- WP:RS/P#V yellow: no consensus, not good (green), not bad (red), okay for lifestyle topics, same idea as the yellow Daily Beast, but odd for political topics. –84.46.53.211 (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Second Step Presidential Justice Forum award
That section is interesting, but completely off topic here, Trump vs. Harris has nothing to do with the Democratic Party presidential debates. –84.46.53.211 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E30:3170:968:2492:516A:E2DE (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Trump vs. Harris. –84.46.53.211 (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
ResolvedBloomberg is not "Pending" since he isn't seeking contributions, so he should be marked "No" in the Dec. debate chart.
Bloomberg is not "Pending" since he isn't seeking contributions, so he should be marked "No" in the Dec. debate chart for donors and for the debate. See note(j)Candidate is not collecting donations and thus cannot meet criterion.[157] WordwizardW (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Purchasing merchandise from the campaign counts as a contribution. WMSR (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I wanted to put that purchasing merchandise from the campaign counts as a contribution somewhere on the page, but I can't find a source that backs that up. WittyRecluse (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is actually mentioned in the Politico source that's already being linked for the current footnote. "Short of ending the donor threshold, Bloomberg would have only one other, long-shot chance at making the debate: His campaign is selling branded merchandise — at cost, the campaign says — and each purchaser would count as a donor." Gambling8nt (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- You all have to show me how you navigate the internet becuase I am trash at it. Thanks! WittyRecluse (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is actually mentioned in the Politico source that's already being linked for the current footnote. "Short of ending the donor threshold, Bloomberg would have only one other, long-shot chance at making the debate: His campaign is selling branded merchandise — at cost, the campaign says — and each purchaser would count as a donor." Gambling8nt (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I wanted to put that purchasing merchandise from the campaign counts as a contribution somewhere on the page, but I can't find a source that backs that up. WittyRecluse (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
"Attending" table header for Qualification table for sixth debate
Should we include it? I think we should, in order to have clarity.David O. Johnson (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- If we do, I do not think marking "declined" would be quite accurate. It sounds like all seven would only skip it if the labor dispute remains unresolved, and they would go ahead and attend the debate if the workers agree to a deal. "Declined" would imply they would skip the debate no matter what happens. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)