Tom Steyer internal NV polling...

[brooklynite]

Link to tweet

[hlthe2b]

1. So did he qualify for the next debate?

[brooklynite]

2. Not at present.

[StevieM]

3. It's wrong to keep him out of the Nevada debate.

He has worked hard to get to this point. And his campaign always centered around potential breakthrough moments in Nevada and South Carolina. He deserves to be on the stage.

The DNC is harming him for real like the way Bernie pretends they hurt his chances in 2016.

[brooklynite]

4. When DOES he deserve to be kept out of the debates?

[StevieM]

5. Maybe we can take another look after the Nevada and South Carolina.

But given the progress he has made in those states it is unfair to keep him out of the next two debates, the ones that are taking place in NV and SC in advance of those contests.

[CalFione]

6. He hasn't won a single delegate and got less than 6% in both of the first two states

He frankly hasn't done any better than Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang at this point. Heck, he has done WORSE than Yang to this point.



An "internal" poll is not a qualifying poll either.

[StevieM]

8. There have been multiple polls showing him making tremendous progress in NV and SC.

He deserves the same opportunity to break through in those places that Gabbard and Yang were given in New Hampshire.

It would be wrong to keep him out. You would be short circuiting his campaign and essentially saying that IA and NH can shut down the process in the later, more diverse states. He belongs on that debate stage for the next two debates.

[CalFione]

9. If he gets qualifying polls in NV and SC, he'll be in those debates.

[StevieM]

11. The requirements that were recently set for those debates are compoletely unreasonable.

They represent a dramatic increase in the requirements to gain entrance. They represent a much higher threshold than we have seen up until this point.

That higher threshold should not take hold until after NV and SC are over. A candidate who has had Steyer's success in NV and SC should not be shut down by the DNC.

This is especially true given that there aren't nearly as many polls taken in NV and SC as there are in IA and NH. That means that the acceptable outlets are not necessarily performing the polls that would get him in. But there have been enough polls from various organizations to let us know that he has been making strong progress.

[CalFione]

12. As the race moves on, the threshold SHOULD continually get harder to meet

If you can't get 10% in a qualifying poll at this point, you're not viable.

[StevieM]

13. The issue is the EXTENT of the increase.

We have seen the threshold go up throughout the debates. But this is a huge increase when compared to previous increases.

It isn't fair to implement that huge increase until the first 4 states have gone. It is especially unfair to do it after IA and NH but before NV and SC. You are essentially giving more power to the non-diverse states than they already have.

Steyer has crossed 10 percent in several NV and SC polls. But the DNC doesn't count most of them, and the media outlets that do count don't do nearly as much polling in NV and SC as they do in IA and NH.

Steyer has earned his way into those debates. The DNC is screwing him for real in 2020 like the way that Bernie likes to pretend that they screwed him in 2016

[customerserviceguy]

10. Steyer has spent a LOT of money in SC

For the last 3-4 months, you can't watch a half-hour of commercial TV without seeing one. They've been very targeted at the African-American vote. If black voters have lost faith in Joe Biden's ability to win the nomination, and they doubt Bernie's chances of winning in November, then Steyer looks like an alternative, especially since Amy's done zero advertising here, and Bloomie is not on the ballot.

If Steyer outperforms Biden in Nevada, I look for him to do well here in SC. And, he has the money to go the distance, too.

[Mike 03]

7. Biden's numbers look very respectable. nt