Let me begin this post by saying that I am morally opposed to everything I am about to write. That is because the subjects are all losers and I am 100 percent opposed to losing, which is the main reason why I spend Friday afternoons playing tag with blind kids. That said, the hottest markets on PredictIt right now are all about which Democratic presidential candidates are going to qualify for the first debate on June 26.
This is a big question because there are almost twice as many Democrats running for president (24) as there are slots on an NBA roster (15), which means that some of these candidates are either going to get cut or be the towel boy.
Because of this, the DNC had to get creative and rig-up a way to limit debate participants to 20. I personally think that this is awesome, because the DNC is one of the most creative organizations in the world when it comes to rigging things. The rules to qualify basically come down to this: you need to have at least three DNC-approved polls showing 1 percent support and/or 65,000 individual donors. But it is looking like more than 20 candidates are going to hit those benchmarks, so that means that DNC Chairman Tom Perez is finally going to get his chance to outshine his predecessor, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, when it comes to making bureaucratic decisions that bone outsiders so that party bosses get what they want. I.E., a tiebreaker for debate qualifiers is going to be bananas, so let’s talk about who is getting in no matter what. There are 16 of them:
|CANDIDATE||POLLS+ 65K DONORS||OTHER ADVANTAGES|
|Kirsten Gillibrand||X||2% polls, 7 polls|
|John Hickenlooper||X||2% poll, 6 polls|
|Jay Inslee||X||6 polls|
|Tim Ryan||X||5 polls, 2% poll|
|John Delaney||X||4 polls|
Underneath them is the losers bracket of bubble candidates, which is where most of the action is. Four of the following eight will advance.
|Steve Bullock||✓3 polls||Last poll was 4/23|
|Eric Swalwell||✓3 polls||Last poll 4/28|
|Marianne Williamson||2 polls||✓||*DNC rule cuck watch|
|Bill de Blasio||✓3 polls||Weak polls|
|Michael Bennet||2 polls||Weak polls|
|Wayne Messam||1 polls||Massive loser|
|Seth Moulton||0 polls||Massive loser|
|Mike Gravel||0 polls||Massive loser|
*in the event of a tie between candidates with 65k donors and candidates with three polls, the 65k donors candidates get cucked per DNC rules.
Here are the pros/cons for the bubble candidates. FYI, I don’t think any of them will come up with 65,000 donors if they haven’t already; and it probably is going to take four polls to qualify in a tiebreaker scenario.
Gov. Steve Bullock (MT)
Gov. Bullock looks like someone who Kevin Costner would play in a movie about an insurance salesman who has to save the town from Walmart while struggling to understand his gay son. If he gets a fourth poll then he is probably okay. He just announced his candidacy so he’ll be listed in more surveys, but the time left on the clock to do this is getting thinner than Kevin Costner’s hairline and his recent losing streak in the polls doesn’t give a lot confidence. Keendawg says: 65/35.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (CA) — Swalwell has three 1 percenters and a head start on fundraising. The only problem is that for the last few weeks, his polling numbers have been banging out more zeroes than Bernie Sanders in between wives. We’ll see if he can hold on. Keendawg days: 65/35. MAYBE.
Marianne Williamson (Author) – Marianne Williamson is the biggest question mark since she is qualified through the 65k donors rule — but is probably going to get bounced if she can’t get a third poll per DNC cuck rules. If you put a gun to my head, I would say Williamson gets her third poll and is safe due to the fact that she just nabbed her second one, and once these trains start moving, they usually keep on going. Keendawg says: 70/30. IN.
Mayor Bill de Blasio (NY) — Already qualified by polling. However, basically everyone on earth thinks de Blasio is a dope and I am pretty sure that the only donors he has left are (1) his relatives; and (2) aging hippies who make vagina hats for a living. De Blasio’s unfavorables are George W. Bush pre-Iraq surge bad, so if things go to a tie breaker he might get iced out by the DNC Counsel of Cucks. Also, he could be out of momentum in polls, which is no bueno. Keendawg says: 65/35. MAYBE.
Sen. Michael Bennet (CO) — I wrote that I like him to get into the debate, but Steve Bullock and Bill de Blasio’s campaigns have made that prediction look like total road kill. Bennet will get his third poll, but it might not be enough. The good news is that Bennet is popular AF with party insiders so maybe the DNC will rig the tie-breaker for him. Keendawg says: 55/45. ALIVE.
Wayne Messam (FL) — I didn’t even know there was a guy named Wayne Messam. Whoever he is, he has one poll and that is proof that there is such thing as “human error.” Keendawg says: 10/90. LOSER.
Rep. Seth Moulton (MA) — Rep. Seth Moulton running for president in 2020 is going to be a bigger disaster than what would have happened if Justin Bieber had released his first album before Usher discovered him on YouTube. Whatever talent this bro has is clearly not ready because 0% of Americans give a shit what he says, literally. He has no polls and doesn’t have enough time to get them. Keendawg says: 10/90. LOSER.
Mike Gravel (AK) — Zero polls, no donors. I am pretty sure that you can add former-Sen. Gravel to the list of ’70s trends that aren’t making a comeback, like ABBA and American invasions of Cambodia. Keendawg says: 0/100. BIGGEST LOSER.
MORAL OF THE STORY:
These are not markets where you can just set your positions and walk away. There is some savage competition to be the DNC’s biggest loser. Take your eye off the ball for a few days and you are at risk to get seriously hosed.