Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Gabbard+?

Where are the results for Tulsi Gabbard and the other candidates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.145.253 (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It's here: [1] (there's a link in this article in the Results section).David O. Johnson (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ballot access table

At 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Ballot access, We have been removing columns for candidates who drop out of the race, which I believe has been the correct thing to do. However, I don't think we want to keep doing that after the caucuses and primaries actually start. Otherwise, by early June we might wind up with columns for only one candidate and "Other" to cover everyone else. I suggest we set a deadline that we will remove the column from the "Ballot access" table only if the person withdraws from the race before 7 PM Central Time, February 3, which is when the Iowa caucus begins. After that, we leave the column in place. (If we want to consider using a different symbol or color to indicate that the candidate is still on the ballot but has withdrawn, that should be fine with me.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest having the names of candidates italicized and moved to the right end of the table, sorted from right to left by order of dropping out (yellow arrows only used as placeholders, perhaps we can decide on a unique symbol/color later): — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Primaries and Caucuses

State/ Territory	Date	Biden	Bloomberg	Buttigieg	Sanders	Warren	Yang	Steyer	Klobuchar	Gabbard	Bennet	Patrick	Other	Ref
NH	Feb 11
NV	Feb 22
SC	Feb 29
AL	Mar 3
AR	Mar 3
CA	Mar 3

That looks excellent, I think it should be implemented. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this a great idea, one minor addition . . . if two candidates drop out before the same contest we should sort them by name rather than by date. So, for example, if two candiadates drop out between IA and NH, they'd be sorted by name.ObieGrad (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I'd just keep it sorted by date dropped out. There isn't really any reason to sort by name as opposed to date. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

We should replace the checkmarks with percentages, and turn it into a results chart. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that we should present detailed view of all candidates instead of "Other" Filippos (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That would result in way too many columns, most of them only for the NH primary which is already over. But I did think it might be good to split 'other' into two columns, one for 'major candidates who withdrew before February' and one for 'minor candidates'. Adam Dent (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

First alignment vote

Shouldn't we be using the first alignment vote for the candidates? Given that that's a more accurate representation of the popular vote, and that this is new information given to us by Iowa for the first time ever, I think that this is the best method to use. SDEs and national delegates will be decided and recorded anyway. TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. The winner of the Iowa caucuses is the winner on SDEs, according to those who hold the caucuses and how it's reported by nearly every media source and all previous primary season articles on Wikipedia. That's also how delegates are divided; nothing to do with popular votes. SDEs are the important metric in Iowa and while it's nice to have additional information this year, that's exactly what it is. Additional information for further down in the article. Omnibus (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Iowa's winner has always been traditionally reported as winner of SDEs, including in previous primaries on Wikipedia. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caveman Caveman Caveman (talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I also agree the first alignment vote is the most appropriate of the three results. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

We should put the first alignment, final alignment, and the SDEs in the article. All of that is relevant information. As for the map.. it says "first instance"; I'm not exactly sure what that means.. However, I think the final alignment popular vote is what matters most, and I think we should consider using that to determine the "popular vote winner". Prcc27 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, if we put the SDE it will only be confusing as they only exist in caucuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.140.137.80 (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Green papers use the second alignment as the basis for the "popular vote" I think the first should be. But the SDEs are what counts. But that's for the Iowa article, not this one. For this one we should just use the SDEs and briefly mention the popular vote. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You mean for this article we should just use the pledged national delegates and the popular vote and briefly mention SDEs? The only relevance Iowa SDEs have to who wins the presidential nomination is indirect via the affect of SDEs on the allocation of pledged national delegates from Iowa; I would say that the first alignment vote in caucuses like Iowa's is the best indicator of 'popular vote', the equivalent of first-choice votes on a ranked voting ballot. Final alignment and SDEs are both just intermediate steps between the relevant (to this article) pop vote and national delegates, for me. Adam Dent (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the fellow Adam above for the same reason. Ranked Choice articles often list first-preferences in the infobox as it often makes little sense to list later stages. Filinovich (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In Iowa, SDEs are considerably more important than first alignment votes. A candidate could get 99% first alignment vote and come last in SDEs, so lose the state. There is no way to lose the state with the majority of SDEs though.Wikiditm (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That's why the SDEs are the most important result of the Iowa caucuses. But my point was that they are less important than national delegates in the overall presidential primary for deciding who wins in the end (e.g. Buttigieg got two more SDEs than Sanders, but if they end up allocating the 41st national delegate to Sanders then they will both have the same number of national delegates so the SDEs won't matter any more), and they are also not as important as first alignment for comparing popular vote (which is always done for elections even though in many, it's not the direct way the winner is elected). Adam Dent (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Why hasn't the map been updated to show Buttigieg as the winner of Iowa?

Vandergay (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Because the major news agencies are not treating that result as necessarily credible. "The Associated Press and major broadcasters have yet to declare an official winner from Monday's caucuses due to confusion resulting from the vote-reporting process."[2] -- MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion. Since New Hampshire votes tonight, the map should be changed. If New Hampshire has a winner, but Iowa is the same color as every other state, it will look as though Iowa has not voted yet. Could we make Iowa a dark gray or black and label it “Results pending” or something similar? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Iowa's weird in that there's an estimated winner now, but the county/district/state conventions to go which actually determine the delegate count and that can change depending on people dropping out and organization at the conventions. For instance, in 2008 they estimated Obama would get 16 delegates and Clinton 15, Edwards 14, but it ended up Obama 36 Clinton 9. I'm also not sure why the caucus results are thrown in with the national popular vote on this page because it's apples and oranges.13:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That’s understandable, which is why there are several different maps on the 2016 page. But the current map in the 2020 infobox gives the impression that Iowa has not yet voted at all, so that is why I believe it should be changed. I don’t see a problem with a “results pending” or similar label, so I wanted to ask other editors if they would have a problem with that label before changing it. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that results pending is a descriptor sufficient for contests which have not yet been held, as while as contests which have been held but have not yet released results. Light grey already kind of means results pending anyway by default. There's no reason to add extra info there, especially as it's something so temporary. Cookieo131 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I really like the ideo of a results pending label for Iowa. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Realistically, we don't have a timeline for when (or if) major news networks will finally call Iowa. So I do think there needs to be a distinction between Iowa and the 48 other states that haven't voted after tonight. I think "results pending" or "results not finalized" are more NPOV rather than "results contested" or something similar. I'm open to other ideas about potential labels, though.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment As this talk section seems to relate to the unclear results of the Iowa caucus and how to display them, I'd like to invite any interested editors at this page to comment at Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#How many pledged delegates did Buttigieg win? 13 or 14? so we can hopefully get a consensus on the numbers as well  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Nevada is currently being called for Sanders despite the count not even being close to finished while Iowa still gets “pending” despite the state party and multiple media outlets declaring a winner and this page giving a popular vote win to Sanders is an absolute joke. This whole thing should be deleted if it can’t be unbiased. Hatramroany (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Multiple outlets have declared Nevada for Sanders: [AP. https://apnews.com/6dbc1adb1411f54831f8bbb8fcee4e6e], [NBC, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/nevada-caucuses-set-kick-amid-fears-plans-avoid-repeat-iowa-n1140896]. Iowa isn't even done yet, that's why it's pending; we're waiting on the results of the recanvass. We're not biased, we just go by what the sources say. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Except Iowa isn't pending on the map where it benefits Sanders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.32.41.218 (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Schedule and Results

When will the Schedule and Results section be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There is already a schedule section at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Primary and caucus calendar, and the results are at Results of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a See also section for the results, like the Republican party primaries article has.David O. Johnson (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that a see also section is a good idea. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I added it.David O. Johnson (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Why has the map been updated to show Sanders as the winner of NH?

The map should show a tie! Connor Lovatt (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

What we should do is create two maps, one for national pledged delegates and one for popular vote, as was done in the 2016 primaries page and was supposed to have happened here as well, but no-one has gotten around to it yet. Until someone does, the map should be left as status quo, since labelling Pete and Sanders as having tied would not be an accurate way of portraying the coverage of the New Hampshire primary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I edited the map earlier today to show Sanders as a winner, when I have a bit of time I'll make sure to add a second one to separate results by popular vote VS. pledged delegates. Antihorarios (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sanders was called as the winner of New Hampshire, although the delegate count was tied. If someone wants to make a map for popular vote finishes and a map for pledged delegate totals then that's fine. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That's what I meant to do, however it seems I can't actually edit the page as it's semi-protected. Even though I've contributed to the Spanish Wikipedia it seems that's not enough to let me edit the source. Antihorarios (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed 100% on two maps. Pledged delegate total is more important for the nomination since the Democratic Party's delegate system isn't winner-take-all. Especially after Super Tuesday we'll get into "cold, hard reality of the delegate math" being way more important.Froo (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have uploaded a map by first-instance vote over at Media:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_first_instance_vote,_2020.svg, if anyone would be so kind as to add it to the article I would appreciate it. Antihorarios (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I added it (not without a lot of confusion over how on my part), but the NH delegate total is still incorrect and I cannot figure out how to portray a tie so someone still has to do that. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is it first instance vote instead of popular vote? I believe it would convey itself better if the map says popular vote instead of first instance vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauldGOAT13 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The best solution for the pledged delegate map would probably to have alternating coloured stripes to indicate that NH was a tie between Sanders/Buttigieg, if we can figure out how to do that. I sure don't know how. Otherwise, listing it simply as a tie leaves the question of "who tied?".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Good work. I see this has now been done.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Buttigieg and Sanders have the same amount of pledged delegates according to Wikipedia article of 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary. Yet according to the map, first place by pledged delegates was given to Sanders. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashawindowless (talk • contribs) 10:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

The winner of the Iowa Caucus was a tie between Sanders and Pete. Can you add that to the map? Please. 2601:401:C401:9850:3981:7E1C:6624:4D12 (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The subsection above this one is currently discussing this topic. It will be done if a consensus is reached there.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Map

Sanders and Buttigieg tied for national delegates. Shouldn't the map reflect that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthwestChief90 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There should be two maps, one showing popular vote result and one showing pledged delegate results. Does anyone know how to color a state in as being striped to show a tie, ie NH in delegates? Cookieo131 (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a map for first instance vote and for delegate allocation, just like there is on the wiki page for the republican primaries of 2016. --HoxtonLyubov (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is it called "first instance vote" instead of "popular vote"? I believe it would be more clear about what the map is saying if it said "popular vote". — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauldGOAT13 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Because it's called "first-instance vote" in all previous articles. Antihorarios (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not a good reason. If it's more confusing, we should change it.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We need the map to be like the one on the 2016 page where it has the winner and the number of delegates they won, as well as colored circles with each of the other candidates to get delegates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauldGOAT13 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

the first instance vote should be determined by State Delegate Equivalents, which Buttigieg is presently leading and in line with past primaries. Therefore, while Sanders won the popular vote in Iowa, he is trailing Buttigieg in terms of first instance vote in Iowa. Pyruvate (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There should be two separate maps! One for first-instance vote and one for national delegates. Who keeps changing it back from something that makes a ton of sense?? Beccabecco (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a separate discussion going on in the template talk page. I can’t link because I am on mobile, but we should combine the discussions. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's a link to that discussion: Template_talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Maps.David O. Johnson (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

First instance voting refers to popular vote, it wouldn't make sense to show the winner of every state by popular vote but have Iowa (and I believe Nevada?) show popular vote differently. However if Buttigieg is declared the winner it should show up as such in a national delegate map. Antihorarios (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wording in Timeline section

Hello,

I was wondering why for Andrew Yang and Michael Bennet dropping out it says, "drops out of the race following poor performances in Iowa and New Hampshire." but for all other candidates (including Deval Patrick, who competed in both Iowa and New Hampshire) it says, "[Candidate X] dropped out of the race." Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosDanger2024 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The media coverage around Sanders and Bennet dropping out specified their poor performances in Iowa and New Hampshire as the reason for doing so, but you are right, the same sentence should be added to the bit about Deval Patrick dropping out. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

Please move the check mark in the Northern Mariana Islands row of the ballot access table from Sanders' column to Steyer's. This is consistent with the source and the alt-text, but I think someone accidentally misaligned it.

Also the row arguably gives the impression that Steyer will be the only candidate on the ballot in the CNMI, but I can't find an official source that lists the candidates there. Maybe a tweet from one campaign isn't a sufficient source? I don't know. 209.249.12.13 (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Done! WittyRecluse (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

What is the best way to represent a tie between candidates?

I thought the current method (using alternating green and yellow stripes to show that Sanders and Buttigieg won an equal number of national pledged delegates in New Hampshire) is kind of hard to see, and that it wouldn't work well if an even smaller state produced a tie, so I decided to come up with a few ideas for how else we can approach this. This isn't a huge issue right now, and the problem could solve itself if enough candidates drop out that we don't need to worry about other ties between other candidates, but as of right now the field is large enough that it's difficult to find a good way to display the ties. There's a lot of candidates with a lot of colors, and a lot of states aren't big enough for stripes. If anyone else has other suggestions, please do share them.

Here's an image with a few different suggestions:

1. The current version (alternating stripes)
2. Using new colors for ties which combine the candidates' colors
3. Displaying ties in gray
4. Changing the kind of map we use

Do any of these seem like they'd be worth consideration?

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Although I was pushing for the stripes, I admit that they are obviously very flawed in practice. What if we use a map more like this one from 2016? Tied states could be colored grey and all candidates receiving deleegates would have colored dots outstanding.

with that aside, here are my thoughts:

1. If a state (or any other contest) any smaller by area than NH has a tie, stripes won't work, but I think that stripes can be kept in place as long as there are not ties in smaller areas. I also suggest tilting the stripes at an angle rather than them being horizontal (for aesthetic reasons), but that doesn't solve the issue.
2. Does not really work imo, we would just have to add more colors to the key anyway. Also imagine if, say, Warren and Biden tie in a state; from the purple color produced, would it be immediately obvious that Bloomberg wasn't the sole winner? (The average color between Biden and Warren is #9155A3; Bloomberg's color is #8041DB. Distinct but still similar.) Many complimentary-colored ties could also end up producing vague browns.
3. With a footnote, this is reasonable, although I personally dislike it without having an indication on the map itself showing who the tie was between.
4. The cartogram is a cool idea, if anyone wants to work on it!

Wasn't this used to show the final delegate votes at the Republican convention? Since this includes unpledged delegates, it'd probably be very confusing to make such a map so far out from the convention since we have no idea how the unpledged delegates are going to vote. Antihorarios (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I also recognize that my opinions are probably bad, and I have been acting too aggressive on these talk pages lately only for it to work out great when my opinion is discarded. Cookieo131 (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the stripes work very well as long as the states are big enough to be seen. Is there a way we could have a map with a zoomed-in version of New England on the side? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that the stripes work very well and should be used until the problem is encountered with tiny states. 79.44.114.140 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I would support the map with colored dots, which was deemed useful and clear to read during the 2016 Republican primaries. — JFG ^talk 19:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Map in Infobox is incorrect

The map marked "first place by pledged delegates" shows New Hampshire being won by Sanders, but he tied with Buttigieg.Wikiditm (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC participation invitation

? : Please participate in the RfC about change proposal for infobox for caucus results. Xenagoras (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidate colors

Some candidate colors are too close to distinguish, especially on maps. See for example the New Hampshire results by town, where Bloomberg's light purple is easily confused with Klobuchar's pink.

In January there was extensive discussion among editors to settle on an appropriate color scheme, as follows. I see no later discussion to apply other colors, such as the ones currently in use. I would suggest switching to the consensus scheme and sticking to it for all relevant articles and maps. We could even create a template with color codes for each candidate linked to their name, so that if another color change is later agreed, there would be only one place to update the articles (the maps would still need work). — JFG ^talk 06:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden	Bernie Sanders	Elizabeth Warren	Pete Buttigieg	Michael Bloomberg	Andrew Yang	Amy Klobuchar	Tulsi Gabbard	Tom Steyer

I argued for the above color scheme extensively, as it strikes the perfect balance between giving each candidate a color related to their campaign, keeping the colors visually distinct so as to create as little confusion as possible, and being visible to those who are color blind. I would like to use this color scheme everywhere the candidates appear related to the 2020 election. That is, on this page, the Iowa and New Hampshire pages, the debates page, maybe even the polling page, etc. WittyRecluse (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m fine with changing the color scheme, with the suggestion that we not use red for Warren. We already have two shades of green (Sanders and Klobuchar), and that will make things too difficult for red-green colorblind readers. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Since Yang has already dropped out and didn’t win any delegates, we could use his light blue color for someone else. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe it would fit Warren rather well. I support this change and I'm willing to edit the Iowa and New Hampshire maps accordingly. Antihorarios (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I tried using the proposed colors in the map for Iowa's SDE results by county and if I'm honest, Biden's looks way too saturated and pops too much. I feel like the proposed colors work rather well *except* for Biden's and we should stick to the current shade of blue. Antihorarios (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I fully support making Klobuchar green (though possibly slightly bluish to better differentiate her from Sanders) and Gabbard pink. I suggested something similar at Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses/Archive 1#Colors revisited. Here's a couple of suggestions from that talk archive:

Version A from the talk archive

  Amy Klobuchar

  Tulsi Gabbard

Version B from the talk archive

  Amy Klobuchar

  Tulsi Gabbard

At the Iowa discussion we also had a lot of discussion about what to do with Warren, but with less agreement; that could be a discussion of its own. I do think, however, that we've got a a decent consensus to change Klobuchar to green and Gabbard to pink if anyone wants to go ahead and do it. I'm supportive of this change regardless of which shade we end up using, but if anyone thinks a particular shade would look the best on the map, then we can of course go with whatever the consensus leans in favor of.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Gabbard has been using this color   which for me is better as it doesn't fall within the same pattern of colors and it cannot be confused with other colors. I also suggest keeping Klobuchar pink as there’s no problem with that color hence don’t see why we should change it along with all the maps and graphics. Davidmejoradas (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

In general, we should stabilize the color assignments soon, to avoid having to redo maps. If needed, we can swap a color with Booker or Harris to get gray or orange. There was also some discussion about a darker blue for Biden. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have begun moving Klobuchar to LightGreen and Gabbard to HotPink. WittyRecluse (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I cannot edit the graphs for towns and delegates on the New Hampshire and Iowa pages becuase I lack the software neccessary to do so. Can someone either replace Klobouchar's pink with Light Green or show me an easier way to do it than downloading the images and trying to edit it myself? WittyRecluse (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the New Hampshire maps and page, I'll update the Iowa ones soon. Antihorarios (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion to fix the color issues would be to keep Amy pink but make Bloomberg orange. Then every major candidate has a pretty distinct color. Beccabecco (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Steyer is already Orange, though. WittyRecluse (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind a color change for Klobuchar as I'm not a huge fan of the bright pink either, but I'm not too sure about assigning a lighter shade of green to her despite being a color heavily associated with her campaign. After developing a gradient sample for maps showing each candidate's received vote share (like this one), I realized that using light green for Klobuchar would make the maps even more confusing to readers by being virtually identical to Sanders's green in lighter and darker shades. I think Vanilla Wizard's suggestion to use      a lighter shade of teal for Klobuchar is a good compromise, as it doesn't stray too far from the originally proposed green while remaining distinct from the other candidates' colors.

If Bloomberg's color is still an issue, I propose changing his color to      MediumPurple; other than that I would support maintaining the status quo for all the other candidates' colors as they have already been thoroughly discussed before and works well as is. I'm against changing Warren's color based on the original reason given at the Iowa talk page as assigning colors based on perceived ideological position constitutes WP:OR and was frowned upon in another previous discussion. Please let me know your thoughts on this color scheme. — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidate	Hex	In use?	Reason
Joe Biden			Exact shade used in his campaign logo; not too close to the "generic" shade of blue used for Democrats
Michael Bloomberg			More distinguishable from pink compared to his original color
Pete Buttigieg			Official campaign color according to his website
Tulsi Gabbard			Reassigning Klobuchar's old color
Amy Klobuchar			Compromise between color relation to campaign and display problems
Bernie Sanders			Keeping color consistent with 2016
Tom Steyer			Consensual decision (currently unused in any maps as he has yet to win any delegates)
Elizabeth Warren			Derived from one of the secondary colors used on her campaign website

I think this suggestion is much more reasonable. Light green doesn't work if we color code by margin of victory.—Naddruf

That's a good point, it seems like Klobuchar's current light green would clash too much with Sanders' in those maps. Antihorarios (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)(talk ~ contribs) 17:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I support this, a more turquoise green for Klobuchar stands out nicely and still fits with her campaign colors.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Support this color scheme. Let's get it done before the next vote. — JFG ^talk 08:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I support this color scheme. With Yang out, Klobuchar has no conflict with his light blue. WittyRecluse (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Since Yang has dropped out, to better represent campaign colors could we use light blue for Biden, dark blue for Sanders, light green for Warren, and dark green for Klobuchar? That’s all their campaign colors. Smith0124 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

When we do the margin of victory maps, it uses lighter colors for less votes and darker colors for more votes. This wouldn't work.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok Smith0124 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Klobuchar color change

Why did we go from pink to lime when all the primaries so far still have her represented by pink and the lime is simply un appealing Ncooksey12 (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion before creating a new talk section. This change was only made because several editors have suggested it in the past and agreed to it. Editors at the Iowa Caucus talk page criticized how bright the pink is, and Klobuchar's main campaign color is green.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverted back to pink. If we're to do a color change, all other articles need to be updated. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the colours need to be changed again, because Klobuchar's and Yang's lines in Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries are hard to distinguish. Maybe Yang's and Gabbard's colours could be swapped? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I changed Yang's color on that graph, Gabbard has no line, so no issue until she cracks 3% (if ever). — JFG ^talk 16:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Winner not yet declared

I started a discussion on the "winner not yet declared" color here. Prcc27 (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Economist aggregator?

It just disappeared from the list. It was highly skewed towards Bloomberg. Showing him at 21, while the avg of the other 3 is 16.3, and none of Economist polls show him at or above 21. Which would make it even strange to average at 21. Is there an official reason for its removal and whether it'll be included in the future? --ZombieZombi (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That table is simple reproduced from the Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries article. It seems one of the editors there was concerned about the methodology. I suggest you raise your concerns on the talk page there and discuss.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on February 19, 2020

The phrase "no-excuse, in-person absentee voting" is used ten times here and I was surprised to find no resource in this article explaining what, exactly, that means. I thought it meant that, if you failed to cast your absentee ballot by a deadline, no explanation would work and they would not allow you to cast it late. Turns out, that's wrong: it means you can request an absentee ballot without needing to provide a reason you can't cast your vote in person.

Obviously it wouldn't be appropriate to just add a sidebar explaining it but a link would help. The first use of that phrase is in the timeline entry for January 17, 2020; could someone add a pipe to "no-excuse" there with a link to Absentee ballot#United States please? 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724 (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I added the pipe.David O. Johnson (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson: You did! Thank you very much. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

IT's time

A month or two back, I made a suggestion stating that we should change the candidates' table from alphabetical to delegate returns. I have done so. The reason is obvious. The primaries have started, Nevada is tomorrow and Super Tuesday is only 11 days away. May I suggest another change for a week from Tuesday: We separate those who have one at least one primary/caucus from those who haven't. (THEN, not NOW, jeez!) If Biden loses SC, then he's toast. Klobuchar and Warren are well ahead in their home states, and Bloomberg is also ahead in a number of states, most notably Florida and Arkansas. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorting the table by delegates makes the most sense, and I support that edit; though shouldn't the candidates section just be transcluded from the Candidates page? I don't think there's any reason why the same edits should be made twice, once to each page. To your second suggestion: I don't think there's a real justification for separating the table into smaller tables based on number of contests won. Putting candidates with few delegates at the bottom of the table will have a similar effect anyway, without creating an arbitrary separation between those you got first within a state and those who have not. Either way, candidates who aren't bringing in wins will likely drop out anyway; but right now, at this stage of the race, it's not up to us if they are 'toast' or not. Cookieo131 (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I do support this change, although I think the relevant section in the candidates page should be transcluded from here, not vice versa, since this page gets substantially more traffic. I also do not think the sections pertaining to the date the campaign was announced should be removed from the table, since that is still pertinent information, and we should still order candidates who dropped out by the date they dropped out not by the amount of delegates they happened to recieve. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree about sorting the table of active candidates by delegate returns (with popular vote as secondary sort). To your 2nd suggestion: I disagree about breaking the table -- all active candidates should be included and the numbers can speak for themselves. 'Wins' mean very little as even a second place in California could outweigh many small wins.Davemoth (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Order of Candidates

After the much warranted addition of delegates to the candidate table, the candidates were ordered by number of contests won, then delegates won, then by alphabetical order. This seems weird to me, as contests won is less important than delegates won, and as such candidates should be ordered by delegates first (namely, Bernie should go under Buttigieg). I know edits of this nature tend to be rather contested so I've brought my concern here. WittyRecluse (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that delegates should be the preferred measure - as we all know, this is a country where delegate vote (or electoral college vote, in the presidential election) is what actually decides the winner, not the popular vote count. The popular vote count is really just a statistic secondary to the delegate vote which actually decides elections, and I think should only be used as a tie-breaker. I suspect that Sanders will have a clear delegate lead after tomorrow anyway, but that wouldn't solve the possibility of two candidates who aren't in first and second having a discrepancy in order of delegates vs popular vote. (reposted and shortened down from my comment on the template talk page) Cookieo131 (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it definitely shouldn't be contests won. Winning contests doesn't show anything meaningful. Delegates makes the most sense to me (given that's what the contest is decided by), followed by popular vote (which indicates popular support). Giving each state an equal weight in the ordering is wrong given that they aren't all given equal weight in the nominating process. Whiskeypriest 18:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that delegate order should be the preferred ordering. That's how the nomination is won (usually).David O. Johnson (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I also think candidates should be ordered by delegate counts, with popular vote serving as a tiebreaker. States won should, in my view, be removed completely since it is irrelevant to the contest. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

How should the candidates who don't have delegates, but are still active, be ordered? Alphabetically? David O. Johnson (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

They would have zero delegates, making them tied, so it goes to the tiebreaker, popular vote. Cookieo131 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

If we are tiebreaking by popular vote, we should probably include the popular vote somewhere in the article, since it isn't currently for candidates not in the infobox. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have the popular vote of all of the candidates included in this article. The result section links to this article which contains them.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it will be easier to maintain if we keep that information on a single page. - MrX 🖋 03:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Delegates for me as well. States won is pretty meaningless. - MrX 🖋 23:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. National delegates, with popular vote as a tiebreaker.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. As someone who has participated in this slow moving edit war. The delegate count is a pointless metric for determining who is in the lead, especially with the irregularities in Iowa. If you ask people who is in the lead, most people will say Senator Senators. The popular vote is generally the only thing that matters in the long term, and there has not been a single candidate in my lifetime that won their party's nomination without winning the popular vote. It shouldn't be more complicated than that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  I still kind of favor contests won tho per WP:ILIKEIT, but I know that isn't happening. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

most people is not a reliable source. --WMSR (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@WMSR: [3][4] :p –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I fully disagree, the delegate count is honestly the only metric that can determine who is in the lead because that's what the nomination is actually based on, not popular vote or contests won. The popular vote is not "the only thing that matters in the long term" and the fact the popular vote winner usually wins is irrelevant because if we applied that standard then we would have presidential contests sorted by the popular vote rather than the electoral college – the metric that actually decides that contest. LagsALot (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Should we put Bernie first? It's clear that he won about half of the Nevada delegates, so he would be in the lead for the delegate count. I know I'm jumping the gun a bit, so I don't mind waiting for the official count to be released before we take action on this.David O. Johnson (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Haven't we largely agreed that the order should be based on national delegates with popular vote as a tie breaker? This edit seem to be restoring it to alphabetical for the candidates without delegates (ignoring their popular vote). Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I would say we have. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Then should we display the popular vote total in a column to make that clear? As it is, the ordering of Steyer-Gabbard-Bloomberg is ambiguous by the information provided. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thought we always had them in surname alphabetical order. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

We did before anyone had voted, but now that there are results we should sort by delegates. LagsALot (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Maps

The "Maps" section of this article needs to have a legend near it to indicate which color belongs to which candidate. I realize that one can click on the map to see what color is for which candidate, but many users might not know that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Nevada called

The decision desk has called the Nevada caucuses for Bernie. Should we update the article, and do we know if this projection applies to the popular vote or just the delegate count? [5] [6] Prcc27 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait until a news organization calls it, and also make sure we properly cite it in the article. - MrX 🖋 00:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't update it. MrX, here's NBC calling it: [7]. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but the AP has called it as well. [8].David O. Johnson (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's moot now. I just wanted to make sure we could cite a source. - MrX 🖋 01:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit of a landslide, so to the guy reverting the colors, stop it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2020

The location of Gillibrand's NYC campaign launch rally on March 24 2020 was not outside Trump Tower (5th Avenue/Central Park East) but instead in front of the Trump International Hotel in Columbus Circle (Central Park West/8th Avenue). The article states the tower and links to it, which is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.169.134 (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Article preview photo inconsistency

So, before Bernie took the delegate lead, Biden was the article photo preview for some reason. Now that Bernie has the lead and is the first photo in the box, the map is shown as the picture preview. Any reason for these inconsistent shenanigans? --ZombieZombi (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You've asked this question a number of times now. We don't control the preview photo.Wikiditm (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Delegate and Contest Counts

These should be the AP counts, but they're currently the Green Papers estimates which have been rejected in each state article. The AP counts are more reliable, so should be used instead (with Sanders currently on 28 and Buttigieg on 22).Wikiditm (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding Primary election and Caucus links

I suggest to add primary and caucus links in this sentence : "The following primary and caucus dates have been [...]" (Primary and caucus calendar section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavoie.eric (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adjusting the links so it will read like so: "The following primary and caucus dates have been." Hope you don't mind. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020

Marianne Williamson recently endorsed Bernie Sanders and the page should include it in the timeline section. emkut7 00:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done (by another editor). And for this template, consensus is only needed for controversial edits . --Spiffy sperry (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Colorado voting in 2020 timeline

The timeline says that voting will start on the 24th of February, but I can't find any mention of it in the source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheto (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it began [9] earlier than that. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

That link didn't work for me, and I can only find a reference for the Boulder county voting centers opening. Anyway, the whole thing is a little murky, since Colorado has switched to mail-in ballots as the default. The ballots were mailed out earlier this month (by the 10th, I think) and people could send them in as soon as they received them. Voter service centers (where people can drop off ballots in person, replace lost or damaged ballots, etc.) opened today (Feb. 24th.) And March 3rd is the deadline to get ballots in. So what do you call the "start" of voting? Fcrary (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's a working link: [10]. A pipe was left in at the end of the URL originally. David O. Johnson (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Super Tuesday is in only 8 days!

For some reason, few have agreed with me on having a plan for how to do major updates, well, with only a week before Super Tuesday, I was thinking we should do the following a week from Wednesday, or possibly earlier:

• have a timeline for the Democratic primary article and replace it on this page with a narrative as they have on previous elections. The Invisible primary/debate season phase of the campaign is over. We should know if Bernie wins the nomination in a romp or there's going to be a slugfest all the way to the Convention by then.

• Totally revise the candidate charts. We can divide it into several groups:
  • Those who have won at least one contest (it is possible that Klobuchar and Warren may have won their home states)...
  • Those who have not, but remain viable...
  • ...and everyone else.

• Get rid of the debate chart. They should be mentioned, obviously, but what happened can be easily transferred into narrative form plus a link to the article.

• Get rid of the ballot access chart. We needed it last October and into early January in order to inform readers as to the state of the race. All the minor/withdrawn candidates will not be on the ballot anywhere after the middle of the month. So at least on this page, it's not necessary anymore and is just taking up bandwidth.

• Get rid of the Calender. We don't need it, anymore. Especially with the states that are now over. When they took place will be mentioned in the narrative.

The final debate of this phase is tomorrow. The results will inform what happens in the next ten days. Either the race will be over or it won't. If it is, we should plan for that contingency. If it ain't, then we should plan for that. there are things we can do NOW and there are things we should discuss NOW. Let's do itArglebargle79 (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything except revising the candidate charts. Let the numbers speak for themselves. Even if Sanders sweeps Super Tuesday this is premature. We should not make any artificial revision that could be seen as playing king maker. Wins also mean practically nothing (CA is more than the 20 smallest primaries).

Devil's advocate: I could maybe see making the split once a candidate has no mathematical possibility of reaching 1886 (threshold for contested convention) or 1990 (majority) pledged delegates (which might eventually eliminate all candidates.) Hmmm, maybe only make the split if a candidate reaches 1886 or 1990. We could also set a lower bar where the split occurs based on 1000 or 500 pledged delegates.Davemoth (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with most of what is said here, but I am also strongly opposed to making any changes to the candidate charts, I feel that throwing up divides in it serves no purpose other than to create confusion and conflict. I would also like to keep the ballot access chart, but I don’t feel very strongly about that. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• We already have a criterion for major candidates. I don't see any problem with keeping them all in a category and sorting them by delegate count. What Arglebargle79 is suggesting would turn readers away from supporting any candidates who you would consider to be unable to win. I don't know if this is your intention but it is not allowed within Wikipedia.

I would argue that we should sort dropped out candidates by number of delegates, not drop out date. For example, in the 2016 Republican primaries, Cruz dropped out before Kasich, but Cruz was much more important in the actual race.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Contests Won

Why are we basing the contests won on pledged delegates alone? I believe it should be determined based on who the Associated Press determines as the winner. Every news agency, including AP, is considering Bernie Sanders the winner of New Hampshire, so therefore it should show up under "Contests Won" in the Active Candidates section. --Bobtinin (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The 2016 primaries list the Contests Won criteria as "According to popular vote or pledged delegate count (not counting superdelegates); see below for detail." while 2020 primaries is "According to pledged delegate count (not counting superdelegates); see below for detail." This should be the same as 2016's method. For states where there were an even split of pledged delegates, there was a footnote added saying that delegates were split evenly, but the candidate with the highest popular vote was given that state in their table (see Wyoming and South Dakota in 2016 article). I suggest that we keep the criteria the same as 2016's, place NH in Sanders' row and add a footnote that pledged delegates were split evenly between Buttigieg and Sanders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CherryFIrewood (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's do it base it on delegates, and if there's a tie, let the popular vote decide. So Mayor Pete won iowa and Bernie won NH. Simple no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arglebargle79 (talk • contribs) 17:54, February 24, 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Arglebargle79. Delegates should be first (as that determines the nomination), then by popular vote if there's a tie in the delegate count. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I also support this method. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with that. It seems to be a sensible way to decide the issue. However, we need to be clear in the infobox that is what "contests won" means. Doing that with a footnote should be appropriate. Alternatively, we could count ties as a win to both (or neither) noting that in a footnote.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I support the idea of deciding through delegates, and then popular vote if there's a tie. --Bobtinin (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a sensible way to do it, yes, but it doesn't mean Buttigieg won Iowa yet. The final delegate could be doing to Sanders, at which point they tie on delegates and so Sanders won by popular vote, using this method. I lean more towards judging this on delegates alone - Buttigieg and Sanders tied New Hampshire, Sanders won Nevada, either Buttigieg won Iowa or tied it with Sanders.Wikiditm (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Even if we have new data regarding the popular vote from caucus states that we didn't have last cycle, the only number that matters is still the final expression of preference. This is defined in each state's delegate selection plan, but it boils down to SDE/CD in caucus states and the popular vote in primary states. Those are the numbers we should use. --WMSR (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Results?

Why isn't a table of the results by primary a prominent part of the article about primaries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.18.242 (talk) 20:04, February 7, 2020 (UTC)

Also why was the overall vote count removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashtagbluejay (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The results section is linked here: [11]. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The results are summarized in the infobox at the top of the page. The vote totals were removed pending completion of the count in Nevada (though I'm not sure that was necessary). --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Why was the popular vote removed from the infobox?

This metric has been included in the articles for all prior democratic presidential primaries: 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996... etc. I thought we had a consensus that it should be included. Omitting the popular vote is particularly odd, when we have a graphic in the infobox based on the popular vote.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The vote totals were removed from the infobox since it didn't have numbers from Nevada (though I'm not sure that was necessary). Here is the edit difference. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that was probably unnecessary. It is probably better practice going forward only to add votes from a state when the final results are available. There is no need to remove the votes from states we already have the numbers for. A note can be added saying that the votes from "insert state" have not yet been included in the popular vote numbers pending final results. That is preferable to removing the results altogether every time a state votes.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Undo unflattering candidate pictures

Unflattering candidate picture edits were made (in more places than just this article) for a few of the candidates. We should not be selecting a picture that

Some of the edits to 'Declared Candidates' by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick.mon in this time frame should be undone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries&type=revision&diff=920706122&oldid=920584165

The current candidate photos for this page are (opinion) less flattering as the candidates were not posed and not smiling nicely. This applies to at least the Klobuchar -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amy_Klobuchar_2019_(cropped).jpg, Gabbard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tulsi_Gabbard_August_2019.jpg, and Bloomberg - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Bloomberg_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg There may also have been a change relaed to Warren, but a photo edits were made by other editors during this timeframe.

The Bloomberg picture should probably use one of the headshots from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg_2020_presidential_campaign page.

Side note: I don't think this rises to the level of vandalism, but I have noted use of these alternate images even within this Talk page and other pages that excerpt this page. Davemoth (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. The Bloomberg photo used here is not the best. That said, the best option may be to source another headshot from the campaign trail. The "headshot" on his campaign article, is only there due to the box noting that that is an article in a series about Bloomberg. The photo appears connected to "Bloomberg Philanthropies" and from a flickr page associated with that, not with the campaign. It is probably better to have a photo from the campaign (ie a campaign event, debate etc.).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we should replace the Gabbard and Bloomberg photos, but we should keep the Klobuchar one, since her official photo is from too long ago and I don’t think the one we have now is unflattering. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the photos are alright as-is! (I think Klobuchar's and Gabbard's are fine, and Bloomberg's is alright.) I'd say it's better than using the "official Senator/Representative/etc. photos" with the awkward directly-to-the-camera forced smiles. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Klobuchar's and Gabbard's aren't that bad, nor really is Bloomberg's. Truth is finding non-copyrighted images often results in less flattering photos. Often they are taken by amateur photographers or regular folks, and not edited. If there are better pictures out there that someone wants to propose, I think we should consider it. But I agree, that we should not just use Senatorial/Congressional photos, or ones from Bloomberg's companies/organizations. This article is about the campaign, so where possible we should use photos on the stump (ie. at a campaign event, or on a debate stage etc).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg write-ins

Hello folks,

May be getting a bit ahead of myself here but how should we handle write-in votes for Bloomberg in New Hampshire & caucusers in Iowa if Bloomberg is added to the infobox after Super Tuesday? Should these votes be added to his popular vote total? Bandersenbrian (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to treat them the same as any other vote, yes.Wikiditm (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do not see any reason not to count them as votes. The people that wrote in those names wanted to vote for him. While the only thing that "really" matters in this contest is national delegates, popular vote is a measure of general support and if a brokered convention happens claims about popular support will certainly be made. Bloomberg's support in these states is relevant and encyclopedic information that should be included. We must make clear (as we are already doing) that he wasn't on the ballot though. That is also relevant context.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes

This is a two part RfC.

A. Prior to a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they are polling at an average of 5% or above on FiveThirtyEight.com?

B. After a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they have won delegates in that contest? - MrX 🖋 01:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The objective is to come up with an infobox inclusion guideline for 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary and caucus articles. I have posted notices at Wikiproject American politics, and on the talk pages of several of the early primaries.

Previous discussions: Talk:2020 Nevada Democratic caucuses#Only 6 out of 7 candidates are featured in the infobox and Talk:2020 South Carolina Democratic primary#Candidates featured in the infobox - MrX 🖋 01:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC), - MrX 🖋 02:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• A:Yes, B:No (Delegate or >5% of the popular vote) - We need to have some cutoff. 5% has been used in the past in various elections related articles. I think it is a good one for infoboxes, concerning elections that are yet to occur. Concerning elections that have already occurred, I would propose that candidates who receive a national delegate should be included in the infobox. I also think candidates who receive 5% of the popular vote should be included in the infobox, provided there are no more than six candidates in the infobox (for style and readability reasons). If more than six candidates receive over 5%, then after delegate receiving candidates, the remaining slots will be awarded to the candidates with the greatest popular vote. In Nevada, Warren received 12.8% of the vote. She shouldn't be erased from the infobox when showing that level of support. I would also suggest that it is appropriate that both Warren (9.2%) and Biden (8.4%) are included in the New Hampshire infobox. In Iowa, the only candidate to receive over 5% and not receive a delegate was Yang. He is not included in the infobox there. While I think it is far to include him, reasonable people could disagree about the percentage of the popular vote that warrants inclusion. If 5% is not enough to be included, I would suggest >8% and >12% sure is (particularly when we are talking about real votes not just polling numbers).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Concerning what average to use, I agree with Wikiditm below. We should use our average of the aggregators (RealClearPolitics, 270towin.com and FiveThirtyEight), not exclusively 538.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• A:No, B:Yes A: Show the top 9 candidates. Polls can be wrong, and excluding candidates that have passed the criteria to be included in a contest from the infobox takes them out of the view of voters who visit that article, potentially influencing the vote. Because of this influence, we should err on the side of inclusion. On the other hand, infoboxes do have limited space, and polls are a somewhat useful measure of relative ranking, so I would propose keeping up to the top 9 highest polling candidates in the infoboxes. 9 candidates, 3 rows of 3, is a format that is easy to scan and digest. B: The formats of these contests vary from state to state, but the one constant is candidates win delegates from these contests. To keep the infoboxes simple and consistent, only the candidates who win delegates should be included, and only the delegate counts should be listed. --Jiminyhcricket (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There's only 8 current candidates. In the SC primary there are only 7 major candidates on the ballots. Some will drop out before future primaries. Are you suggesting we include "minor candidates"?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I would include all the candidates mentioned by 538 as long as they remain in the race. TFD (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: Yes; B: No, per Darryl { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: Yes (but if more than 9 qualified by 5% polling average ahead of the election then we should limit the infobox to top9); B: No (criteria after election should instead be "Delegate or >5% of the popular vote").
  I largely agree with Darryl. The main argument for why the infobox should also include "no delegate candidates if they won >5% of the popular vote", is that their inclusion makes it fast and easy to learn which candidates came close to win delegates in the specific election (and when browsing through all 57 seasonal election infoboxes such info adds value).
  If Klobuchar in Iowa had not performed strong in CD4 where she won her sole 1 delegate, then she should still be included despite that her statewide 12.3% popular vote was not enough to win her statewide pledged national convention delegates.
  Another borderline example is Buttigieg in Nevada, who won 15.4% in popular vote (or 17.3% popular vote after 2nd realignment) but only 14.3% CCD's (the determining vote metric to decide national delegates); Buttigieg did not win any statewide pledged national convention delegates because of his 14.3% CCD being below 15% but he was lucky to win 3 national delegates via >15% CCD´s in three of the congressional districts. In the hypothetical case that Buttigieg had not won those national delegates through a strong performance in one or more of the congressional districts, then he would have won 0 national delegates, but still be damn close to have won a number of national delegates (as per his score of 15.4%=>17.3% popular vote translated to 14.3% CCD's); and therefor in this made up example where he scored 0 delegates (which is mathematical possible), it would be inappropriate to exclude him from the infobox as he still delivered a strong infobox notable performance.
  So the B criteria needs to be: "Delegate or >5% of the popular vote", because when we list a 12.3% vote (1 delegate) performance its equally important to list a potential 14% vote (0 delegate) performance or even a potential Buttigieg 15.4%=>17.3% vote (0 delegate) performance in Nevada. The cut-off inclusion criteria level for popular vote could appropriately be set to 5%, as it is close to mathematical impossible to win 1 national delegate in a congressional district with <5% statewide popular vote (i.e. if CD1=15%, CD2=1%, CD3=1%, CD4=1%; then the average statewide vote would be 18%/4 = 4.5%). Danish Expert (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: Yes; B: No. I believe that candidates should be polling at 5% to be included in the infobox before the primary, and should receive 5% of the vote, even if they have no delegates, to be included in the infobox after the election. Simple as that really, Darryl Kerrigan and Danish Expert have already provided fantastic arguments for why it should be the case. I would like to note, I believe that in caucuses we should use State Delegate Equivalent's and not popular vote to decide who got in the infobox, since we are ordering the candidates within the infobox by the SDE's that they had received. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to state, since I somehow missed this the first time, we should not be using 538 as the source for which candidates are polling at 5%. They are not the supreme arbiter of polling, we should be averaging out all the polling aggregators that are considered reliable, not cribbing off a single source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A. No (as written, Yes switched to average of aggregators); B. No, per Danish Expert. As things have stood for this primary season thus far, the standard seems to have been to use an average of available poll aggregators (270toWin, RealClearPolitics, and 538) rather than specifically privileging one aggregator over the others. While I think 538's more sophisticated model is probably more accurate, I don't think a polling threshold should specifically endorse one polling aggregator over others, and would prefer that the default be an average of notable aggregators available.

With regard to infobox inclusion after an election, I think it's relevant to note this rfc from 2018 seems quite related, although it is more geared toward general elections rather than primaries. I think it would be a mistake not to include any candidate who manages to get a delegate (even if their support is somehow concentrated enough that they don't meet a 5% vote threshold), and that a 5% popular vote threshold is the default standard.Gambling8nt (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• A: Yes; B: No. I have found Danish Expert's comment convincing for B. As above for A, prior to the vote the cutoff should be based on aggregate not just 538. The infobox should summarise the key facts and a 5% cutoff is low enough to ensure we aren't ruling out any significant candidates, while keeping it tidy.Wikiditm (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: Yes (I assume you mean polling average of all aggregators) B: No (delegate or >5%) I believe that the 5% threshold is a good way to limit the size of info boxes impartially. I also believe that the threshold should rise to 10% if there are 5 candidates or less and 20% if there are 3 candidates, but that’s a discussion for another day. As for B, 5% or a delegate works in my opinion. Otherwise the New Hampshire primary page wouldn’t include Biden or Warren, which would be misinformation. Smith0124 (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A:Only if it looks that there's going to be a brokered convention on the day after Super Tuesday. B. No. Anything less than 15% means they got no delegates. Like I said, if a contested convention is a possibilty a week from now, it might be worth discussing, but that's in a week. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: No; B: No (delegate or >5%) In the case where there are 9 or fewer active and eligible candidates they should all be included. We should not be playing kingmaker. Polls (and the Aggregates) are not always available, recent, or reliable. We should not start making judgement calls on what should be counted. Keep it simple and use a criteria that is less likely to be seen as manipulation or subject to abuse.Davemoth (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: No, B: No - In both cases, I think the most WP:NPOV compliant option is to simply display all of the candidates, or the top 9 according to the equally weighted average of the three polling aggregators (per Gambling8nt) prior to the contest; and then the top 9 by delegates; and then by popular vote after the contest. We do not "need" a cutoff, other than the limit imposed by the template (which could be extended if we wanted). 5% is arbitrary, and could distort the information in these times when candidates polling at less than 5% have shown that they can jump to the lead in subsequent polls or primaries. - MrX 🖋 19:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: No; B: Yes Who cares what a statistics website thinks? Delegates lead to the nomination which is the most important thing, aggregations are nice to look at but immaterial. ⌚️ (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer - Please note Jgstokes's comment on this topic below, if he doesn't comment in this section.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please get archiving going on this page

Please! Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Posts on this page are automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity. --WMSR (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There are 38 threads right now, maybe the inactivity period can be dropped to five days of inactivity? I really can’t load all of this. I get errors quickly. Just a suggestion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Popular vote totals for withdrawn candidates

Hello, Should we add a popular vote count to candidates who withdrew before the primaries but still recieved votes? I'm personally in favor as we did this for the 2016 Republican Primary. Bandersenbrian (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. They are already there on the results page. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidates with 0 delegates?

I thought we weren't putting them in the infobox? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

See the discussion above. There is an open RfC. A conclusion has not been reached yet, but myself and some others have suggested the cutoff should perhaps be a delegate or >5% of the popular vote.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean, while they RfC is open we should stick with the pre-RfC consensus of including only candidates with 5% of the vote in the infobox. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, we should maintain the status quo until the RfC is concluded. I didn't mean to suggest a premature close, just note that there was a discussion of this above. That said I think there was an inconsistent consensus on the articles related to the primaries. It seems like on some of the articles for the individual state primaries the 5% threshold was being used (and not in some others, ie Iowa). It seems like here, the consensus had been only to include candidates with national delegates.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, unless a candidate drops out of the race (which has not happened since February 11), whether or not they have received delegates is not as relevant as the fact that they are still in the race. At least, that would be my conclusion based on my current understanding of the Wikipedia policies that are at play on this page and others like it. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You may wish to comment in the RfC above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)