DNC gets the debate lineups right — mostly

[BloombergOpinion]( [Early Returns]( [Jonathan Bernstein]( It appears that the next Democratic presidential nomination debate lineup is set. Andrew Yang hit 4% in a fourth qualifying poll on Tuesday, and that means he’ll get the seventh and probably final invitation. Tulsi Gabbard remains on the bubble, needing a fourth poll by Thursday. She could still get it, but it’s looking less likely; for whatever it’s worth, she’s also said that she’s not planning to attend either way, although last time she said that she was just bluffing. Yang has been boosted throughout the process by the debate rules. In previous cycles, he might well have never appeared in a debate at all. After all, lots of non-politicians run for president every four years without managing to get anyone to take them seriously enough to even include them in lists of real candidates, let alone get welcomed into debates. That he’s made it this far is in part a tribute to his hard work and in part a consequence that media outlets tend to treat rich people well (Yang isn’t fabulously wealthy, but he was able to run as a success in business, which was enough to get treated as a major candidate). He also probably benefited from the huge candidate field, even as a lot of those with conventional qualifications got lost in the shuffle. If there had been 13 initial candidates, it’s easy to imagine Yang having been squeezed out of a 12-candidate initial debate, and never really winning the legitimacy that goes with it. Instead, once he passed that threshold, he’s proven himself different enough from the rest of the field that he’s been able to win a small but persistent group of followers. It’s not clear whether having a small number of strong supporters will be better for ultimately winning the nomination this cycle than being broadly acceptable to everyone without having locked-in voters, but it’s certainly been better for qualifying for debates. Put it this way: Yang and Tom Steyer, who also has qualified for the Dec. 19 debate, are polling [better overall]( than Cory Booker and Julian Castro, both nationally and in the early states. But I strongly suspect that a survey of Democratic voters would choose Booker and Castro over Yang and Steyer for the last two debate invitations, and by a very large margin. Indeed, if the party had decided to commission surveys asking which candidates people wanted in the debates rather than using first-choice information from existing polls, it’s likely that Yang wouldn’t have had a spot in any debate, not to mention any system that gave points for endorsements from party leaders or for serving in elective office. My general sense of things is that the Democratic National Committee has done a pretty good job overall in setting up the debates during this cycle. Yes, a bunch of potentially solid candidates were knocked out early in large part because of the debate rules, but winnowing such a large field was worthwhile even if it was also pretty arbitrary — as long as several solid candidates remained. But yes, rules that reward two candidates with no governing experience at all and minimal-at-best support from party actors while Booker and Castro sit home at this point seems like a real botch.  1. Carrie A. Lee at the Monkey Cage on [Trump and the Navy SEAL](. 2. David Karpf on [digital disinformation](. 3. Brendan Nyhan on [Steyer’s reforms]( and why they won’t work the way he says they will. 4. Adam Serwer on the [inspector general’s report](. 5. Julian Sanchez on the [inspector general’s report](. 6. Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux on [women in the Democratic presidential race](. 7. Ramesh Ponnuru on [the new Nafta](. 8. And my Bloomberg Opinion colleague James Gibney on [how the U.S. is seen in the world](. Bloomberg L.P. ● 731 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022 [Web]( ● [Facebook]( ● [Twitter]( [Feedback]( ● [Unsubscribe](