Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Can Jim Webb be added soon to the page?

As a Wikipedia contributer, it is perhaps here to be added that Jim Webb who is a former United States Senator of Virgina has started a exploratory committee om that he might consider running for President on the Democratic side. Nothing is offical as to his running, but I am wondering if there can be some slight mention of him on this page before he makes any announcement. --Riadse96 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to add Webb under the heading of "Exploratory Committee" or something similar, as he has taken a formal step in the direction of a campaign.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added Webb under a new section for exploratory committees. It seemed appropriate, as he has taken a formal step in the direction of a campaign.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Vermin Supreme and the Moron brigade

Okay, folks, it's less than a year away from the Iowa caucuses, and it's time to get a few things straightened out at the very beginning:

1st: Let's get the minor candidates, like Vermin Supreme, down in the bottom like they were last time. If you look at the '12 GOP primary results page, yo will notice that there's a list of minor candidates. There are about thirty of them, and only two got more than a thousand votes, TOTAL. These people don't expect to get anywhere, so we shouldn't treat them as if they're going to get more than they got last time.

2nd: Hillary Clinton. The pundits have already ceded it to Hillary Clinton, and if you remember last time, the Democratic primary was fixed. A couple of "joke candidates" (I remember trying to get an article on a couple of them to stay up, one of them, Jim Rogers, had been the Democratic nominee for Senator from Oklahoma—Jeez!) managed to get a goodly percentage of the vote against Obama, but they wouldn't let them get delegates. If Hillary runs, there might be one or two who might run. But we should acknowledge that She's the presumptive nominee already.

3rd: Do we have a schedule yet? If not, someone should steal it from the Green papers.

4th: we should model this page after the 2004 one, just out of hope that it might be interesting, although it will probably look more like last time. Any suggestions?Ericl (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe get consensus on this major/minor candidate thing before doing it? Ratemonth (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How to define a major candidate

I noticed that in this article, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are nowhere to be seen and that Vermin Supreme is being touted as a major candidate. un huh...So what's a major candidate and what's a joke? It's february of the previous year, let's get the rules down pat so we don't have to have edit wars like last time?Ericl (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

They're not being touted as a major candidate, only as a candidate. And if you'd look at the link to presidential candidates rather than primaries you'd see Clinton and Biden. This page is only for people who have filed for primaries. Ratemonth (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And there clearly are rules. If you don't like the rules then wait for other people to join the discussion and get consensus to change the rules. Ratemonth (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

no one has actually filed for primaries. They have filed as a candidate with the FEC, which is necessary, no one is on the ballot yet and won't be for months. If you look at the Vermin Supreme page, you will notice that HE HIMSELF says his candidacy is a joke. So why include him or anyone else at this stage if you're not going to have Hillary or Biden?Ericl (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Some people have said they're candidates, others haven't (but probably will eventually and we can be patient). Ratemonth (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine, let's be patient. I've taken ALL the potential candidates off the page for now, and have placed an explanation as to why there aren't going to be any fringe or joke candidates listed. The 2012 primary was fixed, and while some of the people I took off might actually get on the primary in New Hampshire, the party won't treat them any better than they did Randall Terry or John Wolfe. There is a candidates page, and for now, that's the only place where they belong.Ericl (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't me reverting you today, but I've got to agree with them, sorry. Please stop making major changes to these pages without consensus. Ratemonth (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, this topic was previously discussed, pertaining to this campaign cycle, and a consensus was reached. See this thread.--JayJasper (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln Chafee's status

So the Governor of Rhode Island announced he was running on CNN yesterday morning. I think this warrants updating the page. here. I also believe the page needs to be organized a bit more. Like instead of listing candidates by whose in the polls, list them by whose announced their official candidacy and whose still testing the waters. It's kind of hard to tell the difference with the current layout. 98.17.74.70 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Primaries Occurring After the Party Nominations

At least in MN, there is another primary August 9th (after we caucus for delegates and the party nomination at the convention).The August primary decides if the nominee or another challenger goes on the party ticket in the general election (MN has an open primary). Is there anything similar in other states? And should we include any post-nomination primaries? DougEMandy (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that's for Statewide and local offices, not the presidency.Ericl (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Pictures in the infobox

Of course things are going to change. However, we need the pictures there for asthetic reasons. Webb has said he was going to announce one way or another by the end of the month. As to Biden, who knows? When we get there we will change it. Notice the delegate count for everyone is ZERO? That's how it will remain until they choose the superdelegates in the fall. In the spring and summer the entire article will look NOTHING like it does now, so chill, okay?Ericl (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone please change the image to something more representative of the Democratic Party, NOT partial to a candidate. Anti intellect (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a good article

How do you have an article on the primary elections, and not have any information regarding the primaries? Why is there no indication that the primaries are even taking place? Did some idiot cabal decide that the information wasn't suitable for Wikipedia? Primaries start in January and February, yet this "encyclopedic" article has no information regarding any of that?

99.99.51.64 (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this is not a good article because it is limited to the Democratic Presidential primaries. Then it includes caucuses. But it remains restricted to Democratic Presidential candidates. A problem with that is that some (at least one, Nebraska) states have a caucus (Again, I am speaking of Nebraska, where there is a Democratic caucus, but the Republicans select their candidate by way of the primary election. Then the Democratic contenders for candidacy for other offices appear on the Democratic primary ballot.) So, this article mentions the Democratic presidential caucus, but not the Democratic primary election for the rest of the contenders. Besides, I am about 99% certain that the winner of the Democratic caucuses will appear on the Democratic primary ballot as well, although I have no idea why or what effect that would have on the convention. Maybe it is not this article that is a mess, more likely it is the system. Or maybe, as Will Rogers said around a hundred years ago, "I do not belong to any organized political party. I am a Democrat." What I think needs to be done is a combination of this article with its Republican counterpart and a new name like "Selection of candidates for the U.S. general election" or something. I also like the idea of putting the information into a table. And the combined article should deal with all elective offices. Anewcharliega (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not following. The campaigns in progress are not for general election, the campaigns in progress are to be elected to represent their respective political parties during the general election. I do not see how a combining of the Republican and Democratic primary articles is at all beneficial since they are in fact two different campaigns with two different results. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Also...is what you are proposing significantly different from this? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

They start in January/February 2016 or maybe in the end of this year! And if you're no idiot you may expand the article with your (sourced) information. --2A02:908:DB25:EB00:5D95:8D68:35C7:DE84 (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

U.S. Presidential Election News is out-of-date, not official, nor curated as an election calendar source. It is an unreliable reference. DougEMandy (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Information about Debate Schedule Controversy

Why doesn't this article include information about the massive debate schedule controversy? Per the Washington Post, currently the Democratic Party is on schedule to have so few debates it will be the "fewest the party has held in a year when there wasn’t a Democratic president seeking a second term since 1980. It would also match the fewest debates Republicans have held over that same time period."

The debate schedule has led to an intense controversy, such that "the party has been roiled by questions of whether six is enough and whether the relatively small number of debates is the latest attempt to insulate Clinton from intra-party criticism and strengthen (or preserve) her chances in a general election."

The controversy has gotten so intense that an audience of party insiders heckled the DNC chairwomen at the annual New Hampshire Democratic state convention yesterday. As per the NYTimes they, "...nearly drowned out Ms. Wasserman Schultz with 'More debates!' and 'We want debates,'". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijnhgf2A (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Wikijnhgf2A: The controversy is listed on the main debate page, Democratic_Party_presidential_debates,_2016#Criticism_and_controversy. This page is more about the actual primaries which, for the most part, occur after the debates. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

References

RFC: Suggestion for Primary Schedule

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the primary schedule, maybe we can have it placed within a table? Inside it, we could see the state, date of election, number of delegates, open/closed, winner-take-all/proportional. Any thoughts?

Maybe something like this;

Date	State	Delegates	Open/Closed	Winner-take-all/Proportional
February 9, 2016	New Hampshire	XX	Closed	Proportional

-Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that is much more readable than the current format, and it will help editors spot missing information. -- Forridean ^(T/C) 20:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I believe a column could be added for references, as there really ought to be multiple sources available for any given state's primary process and putting them inline would reduce readability. -- Forridean ^(T/C) 20:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Any other comments? Should we start transitioning it in? I would trust someone more experienced in making tables than myself to implement it. (I had to do that in my sandbox to make sure I didn't mess it up.) I realized one of the tabs should also show if its either a caucus or primary. Maybe also allow the information to be sortable, so the reader or editor can choose to organize it by either date or state name, delegates, etc. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. It should be implemented.David O. Johnson (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree – The table you proposed is much more easy to read. I see no reason why any users would oppose. Meatsgains (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

So do we go ahead with it? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely agree that a table would be a better option. Perhaps we can also add a section regarding whether or not the primary is binding to the delegates? --Stabila711 (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sample table

So I went ahead and created a sample table of what the whole thing might look like. Right now it is autocollapsed since it is actually quite long in its current form. Thoughts? --Stabila711 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Date	State/Territory	Delegates	Type	Winner-take-all/Proportional
February 1, 2016	Iowa	?	Semi-open caucus	?
February 9, 2016	New Hampshire	?	Semi-closed primary	?
February 20, 2016	Nevada	?	Closed caucus	?
February 27, 2016	South Carolina	?	Open primary	?
March 1, 2016	Alabama	?	Open primary	?
March 1, 2016	Arkansas	?	Open primary	?
March 1, 2016	Colorado	?	Closed caucus	?
March 1, 2016	Georgia	?	Open primary	?
March 1, 2016	Massachusetts	?	Semi-closed primary	?
March 1, 2016	Minnesota	?	Open caucus	?
March 1, 2016	North Carolina	?	Open primary	?
March 1, 2016	Oklahoma	?	Semi-closed primary	?
March 1, 2016	Tennessee	?	Open primary	?
March 1, 2016	Texas	?	Open primary	?
March 1, 2016	Vermont	?	Open primary	?
March 1, 2016	Virginia	?	Open primary	?
March 5, 2016	Louisiana	?	Closed primary	?
March 5, 2016	Nebraska	?	Closed caucus	?
March 5, 2016	Kansas	?	Closed primary	?
March 6, 2016	Maine	?	Closed caucus	?
March 8, 2016	Mississippi	?	Open primary	?
March 8, 2016	Michigan	?	Open primary	?
March 15, 2016	Florida	?	Closed primary	?
March 15, 2016	Illinois	?	Semi-closed primary	?
March 15, 2016	Missouri	?	Open primary	?
March 15, 2016	Ohio	?	Semi-open primary	?
March 22, 2016	Arizona	?	Closed primary	?
March 22, 2016	Utah	?	Semi-open caucus	?
March 26, 2016	Alaska	?	Closed caucus	?
March 26, 2016	Hawaii	?	Semi-closed caucus	?
March 26, 2016	Washington	?	Open caucus	?
April 5, 2016	Wisconsin	?	Open primary	?
April 9, 2016	Wyoming	?	Closed caucus	?
April 19, 2016	New York	?	Closed primary	?
April 26, 2016	Maryland	?	Closed primary	?
April 26, 2016	Connecticut	?	Closed primary	?
April 26, 2016	Delaware	?	Closed primary	?
April 26, 2016	Pennsylvania	?	Closed primary	?
April 26, 2016	Rhode Island	?	Semi-closed primary	?
May 3, 2016	Indiana	?	Open primary	?
May 10, 2016	West Virginia	?	Semi-closed primary	?
May 17, 2016	Kentucky	?	Closed primary	?
May 17, 2016	Oregon	?	Closed primary	?
June 5, 2016	Puerto Rico	?	Open primary	?
June 7, 2016	California	?	Semi-closed primary	?
June 7, 2016	Montana	?	Open primary	?
June 7, 2016	New Jersey	?	Closed primary	?
June 7, 2016	New Mexico	?	Closed primary	?
June 7, 2016	South Dakota	?	Semi-open primary	?
June 14, 2016	Washington, D.C.	?	Closed primary	?
TBA	North Dakota	?	Open primary	?
TBA	Idaho	?	Semi-closed primary	?

Looking good, do we know a RS for this information? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Xcuref1endx: Well, I pulled all the information so far from here since that was one of the first Google results for "Democratic primary information." I am not sure if that is a RS though (or a neutral source for that matter). Also, I am not sure where to get the other information from. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Just found this. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As long as we change "Delegates" to "Estimated Delegates" like that site has I don't see any glaring problems with it. Although, I don't see where he got his information from. Is he just guessing based on past allocations? --Stabila711 (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That looks good and very clear. It should work, and thank you. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• So I went ahead and made the change. I also removed the winner-take-all/proportional column since all Democratic primary elections are proportional. Only Republicans use the winner-take-all system anymore. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the same thing can be done for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 article? David O. Johnson (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• @David O. Johnson: I have already started pulling the information and placing it into a table. I should have it done and placed into the article sometime tomorrow. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. That's great. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pictures and charts are fun!!!

I saw a good one on the main election page and brought it here. Pictures and charts are preferable to mere lists.YoursT (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Lessig now "featured in major polls"

Lessig has now been included in five independent polls. He should now be listed with the other "major" candidates. --Geoffrey.mcgee (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

...where he's getting zero percent. He has been invited to the Movon.org forum.YoursT (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

C'mon, he's trending upward. http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/with-webb-out-of-race-chafee-surges-to-two-per-cent -hugeTim ^(talk) 00:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

He's out! the process is fixed for Hillary, so he had to get out. Bernie has too much support and O'Malley has too much status to be forced off the debates. YoursT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The big show is about to start!

So why doesn't the Iowa Caucuse have a page? Why did the NH '16 page get redirected as "premature?" Where is the results page? There is more than one major candidate running, unlike last time. In two months, this page should be unrecognizable. Let's get ready, hokay?70.107.133.97 (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I made some good revisions, but they got reverted. Go back a couple in the history section and tell me what you think. I don't want to start an edit war and we desperately need a consensus as to how to do the the HUGE amount of revisions we're going to have to do within the next three weeks.66.108.159.118 (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

An explanation

Also, as to Eli755's comment: "this gives the misleading impression that the primary elections are underway, and all these candidates have received zero delegates"

The primary elections are underway, and all these candidates have received zero delegates...no regular ones at any rate. There is already a article listing the superdelegates and whom they're supporting. 66.108.159.118 (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Auto-complete

I'd like to not have to type the entire name of this page OR settle for a related one and click around until I find it. But when I type "Democratic Party pr", it offers a number of pages, none of which are this one. For crying out loud, one of the offerings is the 2012 primary, which was basically uncontested. Really? That's more relevant than the one that's happening, oh, right now? Is there any way to fix this? --ShorinBJ (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

All those "dead links"

Those are for upcoming primaries. That's what the 2012 pages had. So when the primaries are held, we can make new pages easily and quickly65.88.88.71 (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

But they don't link to "primary" pages for each state. They link to general election pages for each state which won't have any information until November. Also, as mentioned in my edit summary, most states would not even have primary pages since the vast majority of primary contests in the states are non-notable and don't mean anything. Linking the general election pages for each state on the primary page is also a little pointless (in my opinion) since this page will be done and over with long before the general election in November.

I also have an issue with the inclusion of the two minor candidates in that chart. We have an "other" column for a reason. Having those two minor candidates causes issues with NPOV since the other minor candidates are excluded. We either have to include all the minor candidates or none of them. We can't pick and choose. --Majora (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As to the thing about the "dead links" I wish to calm your fears by asking you to go here, here and here you will notice that articles for the '12 cycle focus on the primaries, not the general, which means that there will be plenty of new articles by March 2nd. (two states already done by others!)

The point at this stage is to make everything easier in the weeks ahead, not harder.

HimiGrey removed minor candidates (Rocky De La Fuente and Willie Wilson), as both had not "qualified for reaching national polls" and most state polls. I'm putting them back in for the following reason: Ballot access. According to [1] some reports, Rocky is on more ballots than Martin O'Malley. Results (ballot access is results) trump everything else. Willie Wilson is on the ballot in eight (8) states. While the concerns by HimiGrey and Majora are valid ones, they are not warranted in this case. 155.229.209.58 (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming Contests

As we all know, the Iowa Caucuses are fast approaching, with New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada coming soon thereafter. As we know from previous years, multi-way races mean that we will likely have a map full of two, three colors to illustrate winners of respective states. In order to differentiate between them, colors are assigned to each candidate to be filled in on the map as the results are finalized state-by-state.

Since the first contest is soon to be upon us, it is prudent we establish a set of colors for each candidate that in the event of their acquisition of contest victories and delegate tallies, we have a uniform standard by which to base map making, so various editors (myself included) can create maps to keep the situation up-to-date. As such, I have created this table and assigned each candidate their own distinct color, chosen to have a wide array of colors that cannot be easily confused with one another, but which are not terribly unpleasing to the eye. Here they are:

Hillary Clinton	Martin O'Malley	Bernie Sanders

These colors are completely arbitrary, unlike the GOP field, these are a very limited amount of colors, and thus I've chosen distinct colors that are also appealing with one another.

Hopefully we can all abide by this standard, and I will endeavor to make the official maps as contests unfold to reflect them. Thanks!   Spartan7W §   18:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to see Hillary as a dark blue, Bernie as a light greenish blue and O'Malley as cream. pbp 02:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"Counties Carried" map?

For the 2012 Republican Primaries page, there is a county-by-county map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#Counties_carried

I found it really useful for seeing rural vs. urban vote differences and regional differences; I would suggest adding a section to both the Democratic and Republican Primaries pages for 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.88.18 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have created one here: File:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2016.svg (NOPE). Does anyone have any objections to me inserting it? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that you could add that to the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 article. The question is, do you also want to generate a map based on the delegate count for each county in IA on the Democratic side? Guy1890 (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Guy1890: I copied and pasted wrong. File:Democratic Party presidential primaries results by county, 2016.svg has them by local delegate total. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you adding that to this article here. Does anyone else have a problem with it? Thanx... Guy1890 (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Clinton delegates

Tables say 23, box says 26. Where do the 3+ come from? 174.22.231.208 (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The numbers appear to match as of right now. I think there may have been an issue earlier with some of the templates that were in use in the infobox here in this article. Guy1890 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151117021124/http://www.heraldonline.com/news/politics-government/article43492362.html to http://www.heraldonline.com/news/politics-government/article43492362.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006115515/http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cagayan-de-oro/opinion/2013/11/02/democratic-presidential-aspirant-lays-out-game-plan-us-311769 to http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cagayan-de-oro/opinion/2013/11/02/democratic-presidential-aspirant-lays-out-game-plan-us-311769

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

RE: PROCESS - Washington State

The current table shows Washington State with a May primary, which is correct, but... the Washington State Democratic Party also holds a caucus on March 26th (our GOP caucus is Feb 20th). This is obviously confusing duplication, but I guess what matters is which event delegates are actually drawn from.

The Washington state reference link you provide [2] states: "The political parties may choose to use the Primary results when determining the candidate each Washington State delegate supports at the national party convention."

In practice however, the 'party' can do whatever it wants, and if I'm not mistaken, the delegates are apportioned two months earlier at the March 26th caucus.

My purpose here is just a heads up to this page regarding this overlap, so the table could be corrected emphasizing the caucus date, or at least including it.

Thanks!--DDRobin (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This has now apparently been changed in the article. Guy1890 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Allocation method?

I noticed that the corresponding table in the article about the Republican primaries includes a useful column "allocation method" (and the related column "delegate breakdown") that has no analogous column in this table. Is there some reason this is missing? I'm afraid I don't really have the necessary knowledge to add it myself (which is a big part of why I'm asking about it, because it's something I'd like to know); would anyone else mind doing so? Thanks! Sniffnoy (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I was about to post this same comment. Please add this information to the article. Cecoppola (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

All of the caucuses & primaries on the Democratic side in 2016 allocate their delegates proportionally. The GOP has different rules for their schedule during this same cycle. Guy1890 (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see -- this is actually mentioned in the previous section. I didn't notice that. Thanks. Sniffnoy (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"Super delegates"

When would it be appropriate to start tallying up so-called "super delegate" counts for each of the candidates that are still running? I think there are some reliable sources out there that could be cited for who is supporting whom, at least at this early date. I guess those kinds of "pledges" could change after a particular state votes a certain way, but who knows...just asking. Guy1890 (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanx for adding some info on the "unpledged" delegates, but the numbers in the table for AL, American Samoa, MA, TX, VA, MI, FL, IL, NC, OH, AZ, WA, ND, CT, MD, WV, CA, MT & DC don't seem to add up properly when one tries to add the Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley & Uncommitted numbers in parentheses. Guy1890 (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The VT totals now look messed up as well. Guy1890 (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The GA totals now look messed up as well. Guy1890 (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

@Spartan7W: Why did you remove the infobox? --Bobtinin (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't. I moved it to a template like in 2012.   Spartan7W §   05:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, I don't use templates often, it's a smart idea though. --Bobtinin (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I added the requested citation to the infobox. Not sure if it is intuitive for many users to separate it out at this point but I guess following standard from previous article makes sense. Andwats (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it is wiser to avoid what seems to be an "edit war" (didn't see that before adding the source) to leave superdelegates out of the totals in the infobox since they can change. The Iowa precinct results are, however, now fixed. Andwats (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the Iowa results are projections and the Iowa delegates are technically "soft" until actually elected by a state convention.PotvinSux (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Unpledged Delegate Count Needs Validating

The state/territory listing showing dates of primaries or caucus and their calculated pledged and unpledged delegate counts appear to need some validation. The sum of what is listed in the calculated unpledged equals 724, but the total provided at the bottom of the table shows 713. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny51981 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The correct count (using the numbers in the table only) looks to be 722, but the text of the article says that it should be 704 (?). Guy1890 (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It should be 712, which is what it reflects now.PotvinSux (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Map

Adding per 2605:6000:54C2:1F00:9DDA:55A:2BDF:81FC (talk).

"(can someone please change this map? I am having difficulty telling the difference between the shades of blue and I don't know enough about html to fix it to make it more colorful to make it easier to read. Thanks a bunch. May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you for your time and effort in doing this):".

MB298 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

These shades of orange and green are not very colorblind-friendly. What about using more saturated hues? 128.148.231.12 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Lawrence Lessig's campaign

This line: "His campaign is unique for clearly prioritizing a single issue: restoring democracy via The Citizen Equality Act ..." seems to imply that democracy needs to be restored. I doubt if that is what this Wiki article wants to state. Perhaps someone familiar with his campaign could find a direct quotation, or rephrase it so that it is clear that this is what Lessig thinks, not Wikipedia. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Awesome Article!

I just wanted to say: Great Job Everyone! The article is beautiful, simple, and highly informative! Keep it up! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

At this point in time, Hillary has won 19 Nevada delegates and Bernie 14

As Hillary had 32 delegates heading into Nevada, winning 19 gives her 51. As Bernie had 36, winning 14 gives him 50. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

For those that are confused, if you uncheck the box in this source that says "count unpledged delegates" you'll see that Clinton won 19 pledged delegates. [3] Prcc27💋 (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

And with about 15% of the vote still out, there's a chance that Bernie actually retakes an overall delegate lead. Two delegates are still up for grabs. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Unpledge delegates not counted in infobox

Is there any reason why the delegate count in the infobox doesn't include the unpledged delegates? It should at least count those from the states that have voted so far.Geoffrey.mcgee (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that that info is displayed in this article via a template that's coming in from somewhere else. The so-called "super delegates" can actually switch their votes whenever & however they want to...regardless of how their state votes. Guy1890 (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The unpledged delegates called "superdelegates" have NOT voted yet. They don't vote til the convention at end of summer. They should not even be called "current delegates" in the long chart. They are loosely promised delegates. 24.120.53.69 (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC) dude

This discussion is being held elsewhere here. They are currently promised. Loose or not loose is our judgment about the future which violates WP:CRYSTAL.PotvinSux (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Iowa popular vote?

I came across this page by The Associated Press that seems to show the popular vote for the Iowa caucuses. If that's what it is it would solve the discussion above at #"Popular vote"?. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. I guess we can officially say Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in Iowa. I'll change the template if there are no objections. Prcc27 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The page has been taken down as of this point. Anyone have an archive? Otherwise, I don't see where the Iowa "popular vote" totals that are added in are from. Techgeekxp (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The table was copied to the Green Papers, citing the same link as I did: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IA-D the second table from the top Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not actually popular vote, though, is it? That just says County Delegate Equivalents x 100. I'm pretty sure the turnout was over 140k - it was something like 170...PotvinSux (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess not. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Tbh, I'm not sure what they're thinking with that. They do so much work to be a useful and accurate resource and then just make up pop. vote numbers almost out of thin air.PotvinSux (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well they didn't exactly conjure those numbers out of nowhere. They used AP as a source, but then AP took the table down. In any case it was probably an error on AP's part since many media outlets mention that the Democratic Party didn't release pop. vote count. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying they conjured them out of thin air because they say they're just County Convention delegates x100. Okay, that's not thin air - that's thinnish air, but the point remains.PotvinSux (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Dates don't sort

In the list by date at the bottom of the article, if the sort order is changed, it is not possible to get back to the original order without reloading the page. The date column sorts alphabetically, such that Feb comes between Apr and May.

Cstaffa (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 20:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Superdelegate count

First off, there is some question over whether to include a superdelegate count at all, though the vast majority of users seem to agree that they should be incorporated and it is worth noting that the versions of this article for elections past have included them. That being settled, we need a source on the basis of which to count Superdelegates. CNN has for whatever reason taken their count down (they seemed to be having programming issues on election night earlier this week) - it appears that the Times uses the AP count although it appeared to me previously that they were in conflict. The CNN count was about 5-10% higher for Clinton and 75% higher for Sanders. The AP count is the product of a survey they completed in November! The numbers without pledged delegates are 362 Clinton - 8 Sanders. These are the same numbers as November except Clinton has 3 more. Both candidates have received considerably more support in the interim - These figures are demonstrably outdated. This is not a product of people going back to "unpledged" and an equal amount of people deciding to support the candidates - you can look at individual states and figure out that it is the people who have endorsed in the intervening months who are missing...Just as one example out of many, Erin Bilbray of Nevada endorsed Sanders a month or so ago and AP lists his Nevada superdelegate supporters at "0." Another example: Boyd Brown of South Carolina switched from O'Malley to Clinton last week. The AP still lists her South Carolina supporters at "2" when this made them 3 (along with Kaye Koonce and Donald Fowler who are and have been vehement backers). The AP numbers are outdated and unreliable - we have a responsibility to choose among sources. Meanwhile, the 232 individual sources at List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016 are not less credible than AP in abstract and certainly not in less credible in practice. Wikipedia:No original research does not preclude simple counting as in the case of a list - reading the examples presented there, "and" is not a forbidden operation. In fact, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists explicitly foresees numbered lists (i.e., quantification) when "a need to refer to the elements by number may arise." Surely we have that need here. For all of these reasons, not least than that 232 sources each matched to the name of [an] individual superdelegate[s] is more easily verifiable than CNN's or AP's non-transparent projections (incidentally the reason that the editors of Democratic Party Presidential Primary, 2008 used the now-defunct Democratic Convention Watch Blog as opposed to the others for delegate counts), we should rely on List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016, which I have transcluded here. PotvinSux (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Where is that "vast majority"? 75.174.195.189 (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

See above, as well as practice for versions of this page in previous elections.PotvinSux (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

See nothing. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. 75.174.195.189 (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

First off, I apologize. "Vast majority" is inaccurate - I misread the two supporting comments in the above thread as agreeing with the competing position and I would have been less insistent with the changes had I not done that (I also would not have gone on so blithely to discuss a different topic - it is an honest error on my part). This discussion needs to continue though - we have no consensus and the treatment by analogous pages (the status quo) is the opposite of what we have. For example revisions of the analogous page for the 2008 primary [4] show that they tracked Superdelegates; the totals on Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 draw from the AP, which combines the two; Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 tracked both soft and hard delegates (which is somewhat similar though [emphatically] not the same as the distinction between pledged and unpledged delegates). This is secondary, but it seems like all or just about all major trackers including AP, Bloomberg, and CNN combine pledged and unpledged into their total. I just don't see any compelling argument for why this page out of all analogous pages on this site and in the world needs to cut against the grain. Until we reach consensus, I suggest we list both and sort by pledged as was done in 2008. This is something of a compromise (though I think it lacks a basis in logic because it relies on a subjective judgment about the worth or importance of a pledged delegate when they are objectively worth the same). I'm going to make the change to that effect. If you['ve] revert[ed], let's get back to substantive discussion either on the points I raised in the CRYSTAL thread and this comment.PotvinSux (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Showing the superdelegates violates the WP:CRYSTAL principle. Lets keep this discussion under the crystal thread in the talk page. JP16103 21:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case so does showing the pledged delegates. Both types of delegates are just estimates. Prcc27💋 (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the overall point of the article however. This article tracks the presidential primaries, therefore the infobox should reflect the outcome of presidential primaries and caucuses. Also, I think someone put it best when they said "allying "superdelegates" that are not allowed to cast a vote until the convention is very misleading and reeks of political bias". JP16103 21:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp16103 (talk • contribs)

See response back in above thread on the larger point. On the Superdelegate tally: The rationale for tallying delegates is explained in my previous comment in this section. In fewer words: There was a page devoted to this during the last competitive Democratic primary - it was not used as a source for the version of this page because there was an outside source that tracked individual delegates. That blog has gone defunct, meanwhile the AP hasn't updated their numbers since November and the CNN count is down (the two disagreed with each other - I'm not sure on what basis we would choose one over the other when we have a more thorough accounting). If you have a response to any of this that doesn't involve just calling me biased, I am entirely willing to hear it.PotvinSux (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Jp16103, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Second of all, the superdelegate count does violate WP:Crystal to some degree, and shouldn't be included until the primaries are over. MB298 (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

My response in the CRYSTAL thread, where we can [continue to] discuss the overall superdelegate issue, is presently dangling as the last comment in that thread and without an answer. This thread is for a slightly different topic. Please read my comment in the CRYSTAL thread and respond there if that is the issue which concerns you. If you have read it and your response is simply to insist that you are correct without providing any reasoning or response to particular arguments, this is not going to be a productive conversation.PotvinSux (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello PotvinSux, I only have time now to respond to your message that you left. Overall, I guess that I can agree with you and keep those numbers there. Many sites are showing different results for superdelegate tallies. I just find it will be weird once the media takes the AP numbers and we are showing COMPLETELY different tallies like, say, after Super Tuesday. Other than that, I just can't see any reason to change the numbers back to AP. I'm just wondering if you would know or not know any sort of a second survey by AP again or another media outlet so we could update the numbers and base it on their results. I just find it weird we will be reporting completely different numbers after Super Tuesday. Otherwise, I have faith in you and hope we can keep on updating those Superdelegate numbers efficiently. Thanks for your time and have a great day! Nike4564 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Just earlier this week AP finally did another survey. Now that they have done so, I am not opposed to using their figures. The CNN figures are also back up.PotvinSux (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Superdelegates don't vote until the convention. The entire column is misleading at this point. They should be preferred to as Promised Superdelegates, because they are empty promises until convention. In 2008, as soon as Obama got an uncatchable lead, almost all the previous Hillary promised supers switched to Obama. 24.120.53.69 (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)dude

This subject is being discussed in the above thread. But in short: Per WP:CRYSTAL we cannot quantify support based on our judgments about what the future will hold. We can only quantify current support. By the same logic, all media outlets and analogous versions of this page on Wikipedia track both pledged and unpledged delegates. I don't oppose sorting by pledged, but we can't be doing something different in this little corner of the universe based on our personal judgment about whether a promise is empty or not.PotvinSux (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you said that you are no longer opposed to the AP numbers, I have put them back up. You can go see on the page yourself and my little other edits. Other than that, I just wanted you to know about it and see if you're okay with it. Thanks! Nike4564 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I still think it's plain incorrect to list the superdelegate count in the infobox. Superdelegates generally announce their endorsement strategically to help the candidate they support, but they don't actually vote until the convention; that's why they're called unpledged because what they say now doesn't matter. One only needs to look back to 2008 to see how many superdelegates ended up going for Obama despite initially supporting Clinton. Rockhead126 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

So we should just include hard-delegates? At the time Obama clinched the nomination, he had about 1750 delegates. That would've not been enough. But we were able to project that he had won the nomination because of the superdelegates. That's we should also include the superdelegates here. They are a delegate like any number that also counts in the process. Most of them who pledged will support Sanders or Clinton for sure once they do pledge. Once a candidate wins the nomination, we can't say he/she can't because he doesn't have enough delegates. We have to say he/she has clinched the nomination because of superdelegates. Here's an example, (Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81hCFwsnfJI). Remember, look at the bottom of your screen. Obama only had 1748 hard delegates, but he clinches the nomination because of 366 superdelegates. Nike4564 (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rockhead126: my whole point is that just like with Pledged delegates who can under a number of circumstances vote for someone else and often enough do (e.g. if they are released by their candidate, if there is no choice on the first ballot, if they have a personal crisis) we are not predicting what will happen at the convention. That would be a fool's errand for one but also would violate WP:CRYSTAL. What we are quantifying is current support which comes in both Pledged and Super varieties.PotvinSux (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Superdelegates are worth keeping track of, sure, but, in my view, they definitely shouldn't be combined together into the candidates' total delegate count. Though pledged delegates can change their minds, as you pointed out, it's unlikely, as they have, by their very definition, officially pledged support to one of the candidates. To vote differently would violate their legal obligation and make them a faithless delegate. Superdelegates can respond to a poll and promise to support someone, but they aren't bound to anything, making such declarations meaningless. It could be argued that to do so would be arbitrary because there's no ramifications/penalties for faithless delegates, but the jurist in me sees the need to draw a distinction. If a count of unpledged delegates must go in the infobox, I can live with it, but I would insist on the addition of a note, clarifying that it's based on a preliminary poll. Rockhead126 (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Both types of delegates are speculative so both should be included. However, we need to add a note that these are only *projected delegates*. Prcc27💋 (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The wording and calculations under the "Candidates featured in major polls" heading is confusing and bias. It states, "A candidate needs 2,382 delegates to win the nomination. Currently, Hillary Clinton needs 1,880 more delegates to get the nomination while Bernie sanders needs 2,312 delegates." The Clinton number is the remaining number of delegates needed while the Sanders number is the total number of delegates needed. This is misleading and should be changed so that they are both compared in the same way. Officialhopsof (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This is really getting old, no superdelegates. It is a blatant violation of crystal ball. Also, whoever put the superdelegates in the infobox was very sneaky. That wasn't cool, we need to discuss this before we put superdelegates in the article. We obviously havent reached a conclusion. Jp16103 17:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"This is really getting old, no superdelegates. It is a blatant violation of crystal ball." That's not how this works. You cannot privilege your frustration that others don't share your judgment above the views of the community. Not only do the editors of analogous pages disagree with you en masse; about half of the editors here disagree with you. (This is not a vote, but it is worth noting that the count is about even with the way the majority falls depending on whether one includes editors without accounts) I support Rockhead126's suggested compromise that both Pledged and Unpledged delegates be listed but not combined not because it is ideal but rather as a way out of this impasse that lets readers judge for themselves about the value of pledged and unpledged delegates. In fact, I had the same idea when I inserted the Pledged and Unpledged delegates per Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building: "try making a compromise edit." I know compromise isn't cool, but obduracy is arguably less cool.PotvinSux (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Flagrant violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR

The infobox currently mixes the delegates already won (factual information) with speculations on how the superdelegates may vote (WP:CRYSTAL). The superdelegates can change their position, no candidate 'owns' them and including them in the infobox is rather obvious original research. The infobox should give the number of delegates won in the primaries, not try to predict how many future delegates there may be. Jeppiz (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not true, the number of delegates listed in the info box should be the TOTAL NUMBER OF DELEGATES (unplugged and pledged), as stated in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries page. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

Besides, no delegates have been won as factual information UNTIL the convention which they have voted, so ALL delegates are actually based on information available. Also, if you search "2016 democratic primaries" on google, results will come up and show AP's calculation of the current delegate which Hillary Clinton reaches almost 400 while Bernie Sanders has 42. Ryopus (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This is misleading however, this article is about the PRIMARIES not the convention. If we want to show the super delegates we should have a separate section in the infobox for them. -JP16103 17:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp16103 (talk • contribs)

Exactly. 97.117.162.211 (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Precisely, I couldn't agree more. Thanks for having corrected this. Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• This article is about the process for which the U.S. Democratic Party will pick its nominee for President of the USA, which includes a delegate contest that includes both pledged & unpledged (or "super") delegates. The winner of this nomination contest will have to accumulate enough delegates of all kinds to be the Party's nominee.

The infobox in the upper right-hand corner of this article does not currently include super delegates, and, as I stated above, it is apparently coming into this article from another template. In other words, this isn't the place to discuss how this template works on Wikipedia.

This article has also included tables that tally up current totals for pledged & unpledged delegates (based on reliable sources) for a long time, and it will continue to do so in the future. Guy1890 (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Tallying "superdelegates" that are not allowed to cast a vote until the convention is very misleading and reeks of political bias.67.240.188.1 (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This method has been used in Democratic Party politics for many cycles now, and none of the delegates (pledged or otherwise) can cast any votes for the nominee until the convection. Guy1890 (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Template comes from somewhere else and cannot be discussed here? So remove it. 97.117.162.211 (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The template is apparently what is driving the infobox in this article. Please go complain about it elsewhere. Guy1890 (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Guy1890: The only pages that include this infobox are this one and the Results page. Since this is the main article on the primaries I think it's very dishonest to dismiss criticism because the infobox was moved to a template. In fact, discussing it here will allow a much broader section of wikipedians to discuss the issue as not everyone will think of looking into the template's talk page. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not like the talk page for the template in question is overly cluttered in the first place, and any "consensus" that might be reached here about that template can be undone on that template's talk page. All that is putting aside the fact that the initial complaint in this thread here was bogus (there are no super delegates mentioned in the infobox in the first place). Guy1890 (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Template at time of initial complaint: Superdelegates included in count. 75.174.195.189 (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware template boxes had talk pages...Of course the total of the delegates should be included. Every major outlet tracks both and the vast majority combine them. That shouldn't be the controlling factor necessarily, but it seems to imply that it is common sense. What we use on this page is not based on conjecture or even third party projections but rather our own page that is sourced for each delegate....Meanwhile, just as we don't know for a fact that given the intervening time a superdelegate might not vote for someone else, we do not know for a fact that pledged delegates will vote for who they are pledged come convention time. The losers sometimes release their delegates to vote for the winner, as happened in 2008. In short, all votes at the convention are worth the same (except Democrats Abroad votes for some reason) however they are come by.PotvinSux (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia should follow reliable secondary sources, and reliable secondary sources like Bloomberg are tracking superdelegates, so I think the article should be doing the same in its infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue with that and part of the reason there was an elaborate effort in 2008 is that the trackers all disagree and there is no good reason to choose Bloomberg over CNN over the NY Times, etc.PotvinSux (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

We cannot use Superdelegates as they are not concrete, and can be switched around. In the case of hard delegates who are pledged, they are assumed to have gone with one candidate or another, but can be released by the candidate they are pledged to. But with Superdelegates, they go with the candidate based on opinion, not on vote count or what a precinct decided. For that reason, we should only include the hard delegates from this article, in the actual template. --Bobtinin (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "superdelegates" can more easily switch their vote generally speaking, but "pledged" delegates can as well under certain conditions. If your case rests on an assumption about comparative likelihoods in the future, it itself rests on a violation of CRYSTAL. The only thing we can quantify without violating this principle is current support. We are not making a prediction about who is going to have what support in five months - we are documenting who has what support now. (Note: this doesn't violate Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper because it is of obvious historical importance). To User:Jp16103: I think you might actually be missing the point of this article. This is an article about a months-long process, not an event. There is indeed an article about that discrete event in the future during which votes are cast by delegates: it is 2016 Democratic National Convention, not this one. It reflects a position of weakness to resort to accusing your fellow editors of "reek[ing] with political bias" - of bad faith, essentially - when you are the one arguing for a position that is completely at odds with common practice as reflected in the heft of other analogous pages on [5][6][7][8][9] and off of [10][11][12][13][14] this website.PotvinSux (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the point PotvinSux makes. Yes, superdelegates are hard to predict, but 'regular' delegates in both the Democratic and Republican race can change their support in various circumstances too. Ergo, I think we should include superdelegates, with appropriate caveats in footnotes and/or the article main text, but we should still include them. At the convention, they get to vote just like the other delegates, irrespective of Wikipedia infobox difficulties! Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I would add the caveat that we are not predicting - that's an important distinction. We are noting current support, which is verifiable.PotvinSux (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Superdelegates are not verifiable however, they can change their votes at their own discretion. Pledged delegates cannot, there is an understanding that pledged delegates will vote for who they are pledged to vote for. Jp16103 21:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the first sentence of the article: "The 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries and caucuses are taking place in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, as well as among U.S. citizens living all over the world,[1] prior to the 2016 general election to determine the Democratic Party's nominee for the Presidency of the United States.". The infobox should reflect the data from the primaries and caucuses, not the superdelegates. Jp16103 21:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

They are verifiable in the sense it is used at Wikipedia:Verifiability. The AP has surveyed current support, which is the only thing we can quantify here without violating WP:CRYSTAL. As far as there being an "understanding:" The reason virtually every other place in the universe sums Pledged and Superdelegates is because "there is an understanding" that Superdelegates will vote for who they say the will vote for. If there is a scenario where they will not, scenarios can also be drawn for Pledged delegates (as was the case in 2008 for example where the pledged delegates did not vote for the candidate they were pledged to). But, again, if we are debating the likelihood of certain scenarios we violate WP:CRYSTAL. On your last point, the first sentence of an article is just that - the first sentence - it does not outweigh the article itself and its analogs in defining scope. There is an article tracking the results of primaries: Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016.PotvinSux (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the incorporation of the superdelegate count into the infobox, given that they exert equal influence as pledged delegates, and also agree that their counts are verifiable. I also believe that there is no violation of the crystal ball principle, given that the counts gives the best currently known counts of what the current support rates are among the superdelegates, and that there is no intention here to predict how they will vote at convention - this would merely be reporting the current levels of support. However, I do wonder whether the pledged and unpledged delegate count should remain separate in the infobox, either by parentheses or explicitly labelling pledged and unpledged. --Sleepingstar (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Brain Fallon (Hillary guy) says Clinton has won the final delegate from NV-04, not seeing it anywhere else

It would put her up 52-51. https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/701866653181730816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Until multiple sources say this is true, we should not include this."Democratic Delegate Count". RealClearPolitics. Retrieved 23 February 2016. Jp16103 14:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Popular Vote Totals Need Updating!

The totals both in the summary box at the top of the page as well as in the detailed table are not correct. Discovery720266 (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The popular vote count is correct, caucuses do not count in popular vote since they're decided by county/state delegates. --Bobtinin (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggest not using Template but including infobox here

The talk threads for Template:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 discuss many of the same issues as discussed here and could plausibly reach different consensus. In the interest of a centralized discussion and consistency, I think we should not use the template but just put in the election box here.PotvinSux (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: What do you think? You're the one who added the template, so I think you should be the one to answer PotvinSux on this matter. --Bobtinin (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The template was used in 2012 and makes ease of editing easier, and control of vandalism easier. I have added first to GOP and just now to DNC templates, a navbar to make single-click viewing, talk, and editing accessible from wherever the template is.   Spartan7W §   21:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the benefits of having a template. It's just hard to come to consensus in two places at once with a rotating cast of characters. The template doesn't seem to go so many places that there is a major advantage (though there is still some and it should be noted) in terms of catching vandalism. Also, the needs of at least two pages where it goes - this one and Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 - might be different in that the latter article is about the results of individual primaries and this one has traditionally been about the primary process more generally. That seems particularly relevant to our Superdelegate issue - less so to the pop. vote issue.PotvinSux (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)PotvinSux (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I support getting rid of the template. It's been a little confusing having to use both talk pages for the same topics. Another possibility though is we could consolidate discussions by leaving a note on the template talk that discussions will take place on this talk page only. We'd have to get consensus at that talk page to move discussions to this one though. Prcc27💋 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who suggest or supports this is a partisan hack that needs to shut the fuck up (see above) 184.101.229.165 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• You need to calm down and abide by WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL. Prcc27💋 (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm quoting from above. Nice to know we agree. 184.101.229.165 (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Whom are you quoting..? Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I support having an infobox, as having a template is simply confusing and unnecessary. AvRand (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I support keeping the template, its much easier to handle vandalism and keep wikipedia consistent if we use a template. Infobox's are prone to anon vandalism, using a template will ward off a ton of potential vandals. Jp16103 17:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It makes no sense to not use the template here. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be consistent? We could potentially have conflicting information on different pages otherwise. Template talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 would be the appropriate place to discuss issues relating to the template. DylanLacey (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

1) I am not sure that a template is significantly helpful in warding off vandalism because the centralization cuts both ways - one can both more easily vandalize to more effect and more easily clean up the vandalism 2) Consistency is no virtue when pages have different needs. For example Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 is an article about the process of selecting a nominee - "Results of Presidential Primaries, 2016" Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 lists the results of primaries. The first has traditionally included Superdelegates in Delegate Count for contested elections because they are equally relevant in selecting a nominee. The second has no analog but could plausibly not include Superdelegates because it is an article about the results of individual primaries. There is nothing that can possibly be said on the talk page for the Template that will resolve this dilemma.PotvinSux (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, individuals unfamiliar with wikipedia have much more difficulty finding templates and editing them. Besides, the republican primary article has a template. This should as well. PLUS immediately after an infobox was created the whole superdelegate controversy started again. Let's keep the template, its safe, and keeps everything organized. Jp16103 19:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a reasonable point on vandalism, although it is also true that this limits users' ability to edit it in good faith. But the vandalism issue is I think sufficiently minor (the whole page is susceptible to vandalism after all) next to the question of consistency and the appropriateness of consistency. Per usual, if we are using analogous pages as support for our points then the template should include unpledged delegates (the GOP template totals rely on a source that sums pledged and unpledged). And this goes to my broader point: We cannot untangle these two issues from one another and it seems that the bulk of users want to have that discussion here as opposed to on the Template talk page (you're right fewer users think to look for the Template). So long as that is the case, I don't think it makes sense to rely on a Template that populates onto a page with potentially different criteria. The Superdelegate controversy did not restart after the Infobox was created - it has been ongoing.PotvinSux (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, when I said "restarted" I meant that there had been an understanding (at least I assumed that there was one) to not include the superdelegates until we come to a conclusion. I just don't want to see an edit war occur. I've been watching this article for sometime and it has been awhile since somebody included the superdelegates. My apologies for the confusion. I did not mean to imply the superdelegate issue is settled. Jp16103 21:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Spartan7W:'s intial decision to add the template. Sure, some inexperienced Wikipedians might have trouble finding it, but so did I. The way I cleared the confusion was by learning how to find and edit templates. I also agree with what @Jp16103: is saying, infoboxes are extremely prone to vandalism! I've seen many instances where that happens, and I think that a template would keep vandals away. --Bobtinin (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with all that you said. I think we should try to come to a resolution soon, especially with Super Tuesday around the corner. Jp16103 22:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Texas delegate count reduced

The number of unpledged "super delegates" from Texas has been reduced from 30 to 29 [15] giving the state a total of 251. The reduction is due to the realization that former Houston Mayor Annise Parker is not eligible to serve as an unpledged delegate as she no longer holds elected office nor is she a DNC member. Fortguy (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2016

Adding up the pledged delegates for Clinton does not equal 52. She won 23 from Iowa, 9 from New Hampshire and 19 from Nevada. That equals 51. The total unpledged delegates for Clinton equals 448, not 451. Clinton's total is then 499 and not 502. Sanders has 51 pledged (21 from Iowa, 15 from New Hampshire and 15 from Nevada. Sanders' unpledged totals 18 for a total of 69. Dsides12 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Neveda's final results are in, and she won 20 delegates – not 19. See Politico & The Green Papers. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you also update the results page with this information as well? It was very confusing to see two different totals. ~ Paul^T+/_C 21:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Article currently seems to be lacking

My two cents, but this article currently does not have a detailed prose section on the progress of these primary races like Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#Timeline of the race or even Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008#Chronicle. Trying to have it instead more resemble Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 is an unfair comparison since Obama (as the popular incumbent back then in 2012) was practically unopposed, and thus there was understandably not much content to cite. On the other hand, there seems to be some competition between Clinton and Sanders now in 2016 just like there was competition between her and Obama in 2008. Without such content, it gives the appearance of somewhat of a systemic bias when comparing this 2016 DEM article with either the 2016 GOP article or the 2008 DEM article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton photo

There seems to be some disagreement about which photo to use for Hillary Clinton. Please go here to discuss. Thanks! Prcc27💋 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Campaign Finance Section

Hello everyone, I added a neat little Campaign Finance section. I was looking at the Republican Primary article and thought it would be a great chart to add here. Tell me what you think, and if you find more updated information, absolutely add it to the chart. --Bobtinin (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Why was the running popular vote total removed from the article headings?

It has very obviously been removed. It was on this article last time I checked. Jmzap (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Go to the Talk Page on the template, a bunch of guys decided they would just remove it. --Bobtinin (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It was removed per WP:CONSENSUS, actually. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This guy is sat there wondering why it's gone. Take a look at the talk page like I said, I'm trying to seek a compromise to prevent people from wondering why the popular vote isn't there and randomly editing it in, or asking about it on the talk page. --Bobtinin (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well first of all, your characterisation of "a bunch of guys" "decided they would just remove it" obviously reads in a negative light. We had our reasons, and I'm sure just like you have yours, we genuinely believe in them → WP:AGF. Now, regarding the compromise – with respect, others, such as myself – are trying to prevent people from getting awfully confused when it comes to pop-votes; said votes do not determine the nomination – delegates do. Delegates are used in 50/50 states from my understanding – as another editor confirmed, pop-votes are only used in 2/3rd of states. An example: Hillary Clinton won more pop-votes than Barack Obama in 2008, yet lost to Obama who had more delegates; my question is to you: why confuse the reader, into thinking pop-votes determine who wins the nomination? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a little side note. Since AFAIK caucuses don't release their popular vote totals and Obama did well in those states. For all we know Hillary Clinton might not have even been the true popular vote winner. Yet people get that impression based on the results in primary states. Prcc27💋 (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Popular votes are completely misleading, as though were in 2008, and are now. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I answered the guy's question, and I always assume good faith, but I did not believe there was a consensus since there are several people within this talk page who would probably disagree based on their previous statements, on what happened to the template in regards to popular vote. Second of all, it's not 2/3 of states, it's actually 3/4 of states. Although the Popular Vote totals may confuse people, the entire point of an encyclopedia is to give people a comprehensive summary of information. The popular vote should be quite obviously a part of that prerequisite since many articles for primaries before this include popular vote, the Republican counterpart article for this includes it, and because many television networks broadcast this info to people for a reason. It is already clearly explained in this article that delegates are what matters. What I proposed was having the Popular Vote totals in the infobox from the 3/4 of states that do Primaries, and then add the State Delegate Estimates underneath that, rather than combining both of them and misleading people. --Bobtinin (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Our Republican counterpart does not have states which do not release their popular vote totals. Adding the SDEs of Iowa to the CD of NV which have no direct relation to each other whatsoever is a very bad idea. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point, but the SDEs are made clear that they're just estimates. To me the main thing that turns me off about ridding the popular vote is that it's out of place, and inconsistent with previous articles. I mean I know that just because it was done before, doesn't mean it should now, but the popular vote totals are a great indicator of how the people voted nationwide, but since it's only covered in 3/4 of states, we're forced to have SDEs to roughly estimate it (however wrong). So adding them, and making it clear that they're estimates, in a separate row is not too bad an idea, is it? --Bobtinin (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bobtinin: The SDEs are not estimates, they are inflated because some counties only have a fraction of a delegate. They should not be included in the template because they are not even close to being popular vote estimates. Prcc27💋 (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, is to provide information. So why is relevant information being removed? Look up the GOP primary in Wikipedia and you get a running popular vote and percentage for each candidate. Jmzap (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Jmzap: Like I said before, all states in the GOP race have popular vote totals so the national popular vote is (or at least will be) clear. This is not true for the Democratic race. Btw, this conversation does not belong here, it belongs on the Template talk page. Otherwise, if you get consensus here it won't actually count. Prcc27💋 (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

On the results page, some want to keep the Popular vote totals for the lesser candidates a secret. I guess that except for the two top candidates, they don't think the votes should be counted.66.108.159.118 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"Popular vote"?

From what I've read, the Democrats do not keep a tally of the statewide popular vote for Iowa, but rather the delegate count. Doesn't this mean that technically neither candidate can be colored for Iowa since we won't know who the real popular vote winner is..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

True. We could color by who wins the most delegates in that state. That would be the only logical thing to do (besides not coloring at all). --Majora (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Both are tied for Iowan delegates for the national convention but Clinton is slightly leading in Iowan delegates for the statewide convention. I'm sorry, but does the statewide convention even matter? If not, it would (as of now) be a tie between the candidates. The thing is, eventually there will be a delegate vote map and a popular vote map and well we just don't know who won the popular vote unfortunately... I don't know. Prcc27 (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, technically there is no result tonight. The caucuses selected delegates to county conventions in March (these numbers are never released), who will select delegates to district and state conventions in April (the reported 700-695 tie as of now are the estimated number of state convention delegates), where the eventual delegates to the Democratic National Convention will be selected. These 22-21 delegates is thus just a projection. I think we should somehow note that it is a projection (unlike primaries with actual voting if I'm correct?). SPQRobin (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"we just don't know who won the popular vote unfortunately". If you hover over the counties on this map the popular vote for each county should appear. Add the data for all the counties up, and you should get the statewide popular vote data. I don't know whether doing this would be a violation of WP:OR, though. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 09:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It's still not popular vote in the source you linked. From the clarification: "At the county level, The Associated Press inflates numbers by 100, as state delegate equivalent numbers for some candidates are often very small fractions." So it's (delegates × 100), not popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techgeekxp (talk • contribs) 09:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no arguement that the Democratic officials in Iowa have awarded Hillary the plurality of delegates, and thus that constitutes the carrying of a state.   Spartan7W §   21:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: The map says popular vote winner, not delegate winner. Please stop adding Iowa without consensus as it is veey disruptive! No delegates have been awarded to anyone as these are only projections. In fact, last I checked NBC was calling her the "appaerent winner" not the "projected winner". We either need to turn the map into a delegate map instead of a popular vote map or we need to figure something else out. But this edit-warring has got to stop. Discuss first, thanks! Prcc27 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Two cases that an be made are to make a "tied" color, or give it to Clinton, based on State Delegate Equivalents, which is supposed to be more based on popular vote than delegate numbers. "The Iowa Democratic Party reports only State Delegate Equivalents (SDEs), not vote counts. SDEs predict the share of Iowa’s national delegates that will be pledged to each candidate." This information can be found here. Hover over the question mark above the results. It cannot just be left blank, as this hides the result, and the Iowa Democratic Party will not release the pure popular vote. Or do what has happened in the 2008 maps, make a note explaining the Iowa situation.—SPESH531Other 21:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"Virtual tie" is what the media was calling it. Since the SDEs were so close that either candidate could have won the popular vote, striping Iowa just might work. Prcc27 (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27:I personally consider it a tie. But if you look at 2008, for example, they are listed, and map is colored, according to state delegate allocation. If Clinton got 100% of delegates, this logic would mean you still don't color the map because you don't know who won in the popular vote. In this case, where no popular vote will ever be available, we use the delegate allocation, by DNC officials, to determine the winner. In this case, by less than 4 delegates, Hillary Clinton has the plurality. Therefore she carries the state. Anything other than that is simple analysis or rounding. It may be appropriate and prudent reporting, but it is not an appropriate way to color this map from an objective sense. Objectively, mathematically, Hillary Clinton won with about 3.7 delegates over Sanders. That means the state is shaded gold.   Spartan7W §   21:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

We can color Iowa based on what we infer the popular vote count was. Considering many delegates were awarded to Clinton by coin tosses and thatcregardless the delegate count was so close the media called it a "virtual tie" I'd say it would be a little inappropriate to pretend Clinton won the popular vote when honestly we will never know who actually did win. If we stick with a popular vote map it should be striped. If we switch to a delegate vote map then Clinton wins (for now as these are only estimates for delegates). Prcc27 (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I changed the map qualifier on the template to "first place finishers". As we know from 2008, popular vote doesn't get you the nomination (Obama v. Clinton), delegates matter. This way, we avoid carving out a special thing just for Iowa and instead group all those who win the state.   Spartan7W §   00:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: If we are going to do a delegate vote map we need to keep in mind that states are subject to change and that there may be ties if they get an equal amount of delegates. Also, do we include super-delegates from the state or no? "First place finishers" is vague. It should either say "first place finishers for popular vote" or "first place finishers for delegates". Prcc27 (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how else to word it. There was no tie in Iowa. Hillary Clinton won Iowa. If there is ever an actual tie, we reflect that. I don't care how you word it. In Iowa, there is no such thing as popular vote. Thus winning it means plurality of delegates.   Spartan7W §   01:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I just said. If we declare Clinton the winner of Iowa due to delegate count, we can *not* have a popular vote map at all. So if Sanders wins the popular vote in NH and Clinton wins the delegate vote- we would have to color NH for her to be consistent with Iowa. I'm going to change it myself since there's no point in discussing this further. Prcc27 (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

And you didn't answer my question. Do we include super-delegates or no? It's not a hard question! Prcc27 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Where is there a reliable source that says that the Democratic Party of Iowa says that Clinton won the majority of county delegates at the 1 Feb precinct caucuses? Until there is a reliable source, I don’t think the map should be colored for either candidate, and I don’t think this article should say that Clinton carried Iowa. Info por favor (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I just found a primary source for what I said (note: primary sources are not acceptable reliable sources.). http://iowademocrats.org/statement-from-idp-chair-on-tonights-historically-close-caucus-results/ Info por favor (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• The 2016 Democratic Party nominee for President of the USA will need to win a majority of delegates in order to be on the ballot in November 2016. These contests are about delegates, not how many actual people actually come out to vote for whatever candidate. They way that many of the U.S. states select their delegates varies (and yes, it sometimes includes games of chance in IA), and the final delegate count may actually vary based on what happens in each state's convention process. The bottom line of what we really need to keep track of is the delegate count over time. If there is also available, reliably-sourced info about vote tallies, then that can be mentioned as well over time in this article here, but let's not take our eyes off of what really is in play here...and that's delegates, period.

Note: primary sources are just fine for non-controversial article content. Guy1890 (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We could have two maps like some of the other articles have. One for popular vote and one for delegate vote. But on the popular vote map Iowa should be colored for "popular vote not tallied". Prcc27 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The maps & tables at the last two contested, American Presidential nominee contests I think are illustrative for what could be eventually shown in this article here. Clinton won IA though, and there's really no credible claim otherwise at this early date.

FYI, I actively participated in shaping a lot of the content at the 2012 GOP nomination contest, and I will be watching this page until this contest is eventually decided. Guy1890 (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Except Clinton might not have won the delegate count if you count super delegates... From a user on the template talk page: "Iowa has 52 delegates, only 47 are accounted with a difference of 5 between the two candidates. That means that there is at least a potential for the remaining superdelegates to align in such a way as to force a tie." So if we are coloring the map based on delegates (including super delegates) it might be too early to say Clinton carried the state. Prcc27 (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Iowa has 52 delgates. 44 pledged and 8 unpledged (superdelegates). Clinton has 23 pledged vs 21 for Sanders. 6 of the 8 superdelegates are aligned with Clinton, zero aligned with Sanders and 2 uncommitted. So even if the 2 uncommitted superdelegates align with Sanders, Clinton carries the State Sgcosh (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The so-called "super-delegates" can vote pretty much however they want to, regardless of how a state's hard delegate count gets allocated. We're keeping a running total of both hard & "soft" (super-delegates) here on this page, regardless of what's going on on other pages or templates. Who won which state will be determined by who wins the hard delegate count for that state.

As I tried to state before, there is an off chance that the delegate count could get jumbled up as a state's county/regional/state convention process plays out, but, from what I've heard so far this cycle about IA, the chances for that happening are significantly lower than they were in 2012 for the GOP, which was quite a mess (and not just in that state alone). Clinton won IA, period. Guy1890 (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well I've been asking whether or not we should include super-delegates and nobody was answering me so that was really frustrating. How could we word it so readers know that we are not including super-delegates in our tally? I don't think anyone knows what hard vs. soft delegates means. Prcc27 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the table near the top of the article here, it's pretty clear that there's a separate tally for both hard & soft/super delegates, and in the table near the bottom of the page, it's also clear who has received which pledged/hard & unpledged/super delegates. I understand that these kind of issues can sometimes be hard to follow, but the major U.S. Parties have been doing things this way for quite some time now...although not in the same way in each Party. Guy1890 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hard/soft aren't terms used in the article (I think) and the readers won't be familiar with them. But the article does say pledged/non-pledged so could we say Clinton won pledged delegates for Iowa? Prcc27 (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've now added some uses of hard & soft delegates to the text of the article. Guy1890 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the hard and soft distinction from the top section because it was not used strictly correctly as applied to Iowa delegates (they're soft until the state convention) and this would make everything a lot more confusing and complicated. If we bother to use the arcane terminology then it should be used correctly. Otherwise it really doesn't have anything going for it. I don't see why we need to be more elaborate than a pledged/non-pledged distinction and that seems to be the prevailing view....Meanwhile, as far as map colorings - it makes sense to do it based on delegates because that is the common denominator among all states. I don't see any good reason to discriminate among pledged and unpledged delegates. As far as the nomination is concerned, all delegates are created equal (except the Democrats Abroad delegates who are created half equal).PotvinSux (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

In 2008 they made the maps based on popular vote. The guy responsible for making the maps is Spartan, so if you want to make any changes to it, go ask him. Also, we should NOT include superdelegates, since they make their decision at the DNC later this year. The pledged delegates are concrete and can't be changed unless the candidate they're pledged to releases them. For this reason, we cannot include superdelegates based on some ancient survey made by Associated Press last year. --Bobtinin (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Since this is a race for delegates and not popular vote, I feel like we could just do an estimate for the popular vote of each of the caucus states, which much better represents the current popular vote than just not including them at all. Here is my spreadsheet work that I feel is much better at representing the real current popular vote: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16zL6qvFyrq2ZdQNoRbV3qDWa9qJYg7tJPlgJJTEQVeQ/edit?usp=sharing It is easy to find estimates for the number of actual people who voted in each caucus, even if it isn't exact. Xacobi (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: per WP:OR. Prcc27💋 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I oppose as well. I agree with the impulse, but you'd probably have to round to the nearest hundred thousand when all was said and done and that's the sort of thing that would violate WP:OR.PotvinSux (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Questioning whether it's possible to meaningfully show popular vote count or percentage when there is no national popular vote in the primaries. Over a quarter of the voting states or territories have caucuses that produce much lower counts than a popular vote. Showing the candidates with only the popular vote numbers from NH at this point is misleading and gives the impression that the pledged delegate count is grossly unrepresentational. The first place (popular vote or delegate count) map may be as meaningful & accurate a representation as is possible here. Shwoodham (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There should be no listing of "Popular Vote." It's not an actual metric; there's no actual way to tabulate it. I keep seeing this number referenced and Wikipedia listed as the source. By listing a popular vote, this site is distorting the data. Timothy (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Popular Vote" is an information potentially interesting to the reader, even if it is not used as part of the nomination process. The purpose of the article is supposed to collect detailed information regarding the current primary, not to briefly summaries the most important data. It contains lots of information not relevant for the final nominee selection at the Democratic National Convention, for example "States carried". "Popular Vote" is potentially very interesting for the reader, I therefore think it should be included. Mteichm (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree that there should be no national tabulation of "Popular Vote" since there is no national popular vote in the primaries. Tabulating a national "Popular Vote" is a violation of WP:OR. "Popular Vote" results for states that have popular vote primaries should certainly be shown for those states individually.Shwoodham (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree that "Popular Vote" should be removed from infobox. Regardless of "potentially interesting to the reader", since the data isn't being released by a significant number of the states, the total does NOT exist. We can't make-up info just to fulfill reader interest. What is currently being shown is completely misleading to a reader. On the line directly above popular vote, a reader sees three states have been decided (which is seconded by the colorful map below), yet then sees a popular vote claiming Sanders has a huge lead. For the reader to find out that popular vote only reflects one state, s/he must actually bother to look two sections down to notes (which most readers will skip since they already got all the important numbers). I don't care if you create a table in this article showing popular vote by state & then total line at end, but it's current location is completely misleading and false. 15zulu (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggest as a compromise, adding lines for caucus results in the infobox via a template edit request. Lines would be "Caucus vote" and "Caucus %". A note would be added in the notes section giving number of states with caucuses vs popular votes. I would still maintain that any of this is a violation of WP:OR "analysis or synthesis of published material", and also that this does a disservice to readers in perpetuating the myth that a candidate can win a national popular vote in a primary the same way it is won in the general election. Shwoodham (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need much of a compromise here. Popular vote is neither measurable nor meaningful nationally. It only makes sense on a per state basis. I agree with the proposal of removing it from the infobox. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I spent some time researching this yesterday and found that it's an overwhelmingly common misconception that a candidate can win a national popular vote in the primaries. Every wikipedia page I've seen about US presidential primaries perpetuates this myth. A compromise here may be easier than rectifying all that. That said, I agree that the best option is to remove it from the infobox, if consensus can be reached. Shwoodham (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please put popular vote back! It's not fair that you are removing the facts in order to cover up what is really happening! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.227.101 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

A few here are saying popular vote doesn't matter. But a lot of people were sure interested in the popular vote for Bush v. Gore in 2000. It's a viable metric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadly Circus (talk • contribs) 06:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote needs to be re-inserted. Every single other party primary includes popular vote, and while it does technically mean little in terms of who wins the primary, it is still included due to having relevance going into the general election. By removing it for just 2016, for just the Democrats, you are removing the neutral point of view in this article. AndrewRayGorman (talk) 11:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me respond to the 3 messages above:

1. No one is "covering up what is really happening". What exactly do you think is being covered up?
2. Bush v. Gore was during the general election and popular vote counts were available, just like they will be in this year's election. However, for the primaries, the Democratic Party chose not to disclose popular vote for some states' caucuses. This invalidates your claim that it is a "viable metric".
3. What number do you suggest we add to the infobox? National popular vote for the Democratic primaries is simply not available. Any number we decide to include instead will either be WP:OR or completely misrepresent the situation by ignoring states such as Iowa and Nevada. The fact is that including a made-up or incomplete popular vote is actually the option that violates NPOV.

Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Estimated Delegates table

Instead of "Superdelegates", it should say "Unpledged Delegates", and instead of "Total" it should say "Projected Total at Convention". That would be more technically correct because Unpledged Delegates do not vote UNTIL the Convention and the DNC Chair herself has stated that they should not be reported as part of any total number. Chadlupkes (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. An uninformed reader coming here for a quick explanation would be totally misled by the progress bars showing superdelegate votes added in as if their votes had been taken yet. The supers do not vote until end of summer. in 2008 they massively switched. There is no real count of anything but empty promises and plans. Pledged delegates are a hard count who have actually voted and solidly promise to stick with their candidate. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hillary's won American Samoa, 73-27

Delegate split is 8-3.MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Everything I could find only shows the 5 superdelegates...

2A02:8108:6C0:50C:8B1:27C2:F276:4432 (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was a mistake or something intentional, but in the results, the blue mark has changed from total to pledged. It was on total this morning. 79.153.46.94 (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That was me. The table is titled "Schedule and results of primaries and caucuses" for a reason, the Superdelegate counts shouldn't be part of the table at all since they don't (directly) result from the primaries/caucuses and have nothing to do with the schedule. Until the table is complete and the (super-)delegates have actually voted at the convention, only the pledged delegates can be said to have been 'won' by a candidate. Also, this way the blue marks in the "Projected delegates" columns match up with those in the "Popular vote or delegate equivalent" columns.2A02:8108:6C0:50C:8B1:27C2:F276:4432 (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a big problem and needs to be stopped on this page. A consensus was reached (see above re: superdelegate resolution) whereby supers should not be mixed into a grand total. Supers have not yet voted, and in 2008 hundreds of them switched. A casual reader seeking info would be very misled by treating the supers loose plans the same as actually cast votes. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Schedule and results table

The superdelegates' endorsements do not result from the primaries & caucuses and they have nothing to do with the schedule. They do not fit into this table nor do they belong there! 2A02:8108:6C0:50C:8B1:27C2:F276:4432 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Bravo. An uninformed reader coming here for a quick explanation would be totally misled by the progress bars showing superdelegate votes added in as if their votes had been taken yet. The supers do not vote until end of summer. in 2008 they massively switched. There is no real count of anything but empty promises and plans. Pledged delegates are a hard count who have actually voted and solidly promise to stick with their candidate. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hillary map color

I didn't want to change it without consensus, but can we please change Hillary's color on the map to a different, or at least darker color. The yellowish color doesn't shows up too light sometimes. --75.168.137.45 (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think we should use a color which is similar to his campaign logo; for example this one:   Navy blue (#0047AB) -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I also support this. You can't even see the color on American Samoa right now. We need a different color. --Shadow (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Right now Sanders is colored green. If we change Clinton to blue, it will be the exact opposite of the colors used on the statewide polling map i.e. blue for Sanders, green for Clinton. This could cause confusion. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but we could upload a new version of the statewide polling map, maybe with the same colors used in the primary one. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You would have to get consensus at that talk page first. But if anything needs to be changed it's this map IMO. The polling map has had the same colors for several months and shouldn't be changed to accommodate this map. If anything, this map needs to accommodate that map. I would suggest having the colors match the polling map so that Clinton is green and Sanders is blue, but then people will get confused and mistake Sanders for green since that's what his current color is. I'm okay with a color change, but I do not support Clinton's color being changed to blue. Maybe it should be red since that's another color that appears on her campaign logo. Prcc27💋 (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, in my view, any other color is better than the one used now for Clinton. As you said, we could use red, maybe this one   (#F0003B); and for Sanders we can leave green or maybe use a shade of blue, which similar to his campaign logo, for example   (#0087DC). Anyway, let's wait for other opinions. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If multiple polling sites are using Blue for Sanders and Green for Clinton, then that would be a good scheme to follow. --Shadow (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Margin of Victory by County

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_county_%28percentages%29%2C_2012.png/1024px-Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_county_%28percentages%29%2C_2012.png?1457247190910

Please make a map like this Ciscorucinski (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Map: States by Election Methods

First, I am a total map nut. I love maps and have a youge collection of them. So it pains me greatly to ask, what is the use of the map in question? It is directly above the chart which explains what election method each state uses. And it does not correspond with the chart, which raises the question, map or chart, which is right? Also, the states names are not on the map, so only us map nuts know which state is which color. I voted in a closed caucus yesterday in the third state down from the top under the fourth state from the left along the top. which state is colored to indicate a semi-closed primary. The chart names that state, Nebraska, and says it is a closed caucus. Take it from me, a map nut who also is an enthusiastic participant in the democratic process, the chart is right and the map is wrong. But in conclusion, the map just takes up space in this article to no purpose other than to confuse people who are not serious map nuts. (I have been consulting this article very frequently since last year and I am humbly grateful to everybody who worked on it. I am also a Wikipedia supporter and occasional minor editor, and I want Wikipedia to be as near perfect as possible. Just so you know.) Anewcharliega (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Primary vs caucus

The Schedule and results of primaries and caucuses section explains the differences between open, closed, semi-open and semi-closed, but it doesn't explain the differences between a caucus and a primary. Can this omission be addressed, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.83.245 (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In a section before that called Process, there is a link to a full explanation 'united states presidential primary #process'. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Question on Kansas caucus

After I made a minor typo correction edit, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Kansas,_2016 I posted a question in talk, here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election_in_Kansas,_2016 but as no one will see it on that page (which surely has little Internet traffic) (and it is linked from this page), I'm reposting my question:

Question: By the way, how in the WORLD does Kansas closed caucuses work? I still don't know? How (and when) are delegates awarded? LOL Thanks for any thoughts.96.59.168.151 (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Caucuses are pretty confusing to me as well. Not helping is the fact that thegreenpapers, a website frequently cited for delegate counts, doesn't do a very good job of explaining delegate logistics. However, I will try to explain things the way I understand them from this page.

Kansas appears to elect delegates to Congressional District Conventions and the State Convention with their vote today. On the Democratic side, the District Conventions will convene on April 2 in order to pick 22 of Kansas' 33 pledged delegates to the DNC. At the State Convention on April 30, the 7 at-large delegates will be chosen, in addition to 4 bound Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates. 4 additional PLEO delegates will act as superdelegates at the DNC, remaining officially unpledged until then. I hope this made some degree of sense. RocioNadat 04:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That's about as good as answer as any, and probably more information than I actually need. Thank you, Rocio, for your efforts here to help clarify.96.59.188.49 (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Some discrepancies between sources and listed data

American Samoa Many discrepancies between wiki, inline source, AP delegate tracker. 11 or 10 total delegates? 4 or 3 unplugged for clinton?

Colorado AP shows both have 38 total delegates. Wiki says 38 vs 35.

-- AP delegate tracker left no., Wiki data right no. -- Georgia Clinton 83, not 81.

Mass. Clinton 63, not 62.

Michigan Clinton 58 not 57 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:180B:AF00:247A:FE6B:DD19:A074 (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Minn. Clinton 40 instead of 39.

Oklahoma Sanders 22, not 21.

Tenn Clinton 47, not 45

Texas Clinton 162, not 140 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.172.213.154 (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Superdelagate bars

This might come across as nitpicky, but why are there now 2 bars showing pledged superdelegates? You and I know this isn't going to change throughout the entire primary process, so practically the only purpose it will serve is to confuse the average reader that's only looking at the article for 25 seconds. Buffaboy ^talk 05:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The bars are there so we can visualize what percentage of superdelegates each candidate will get. I think we should keep it there. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I fear the visualizations will yield misconceptions on the size of the lead. One who doesn't understand the concept of pledged delegates will falsely believe Sec. Clinton has a >63% lead. Buffaboy ^talk 05:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

We should have a "Total Delegates" column, don't you think? I personally think that will get rid of confusion, but keep the differentiation. --Bobtinin (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind it, but there is already strong consensus against it per this section. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That was just for the infobox template though, right? --Bobtinin (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I think you're right. Then we can go ahead with a "total delegates" column if nobody objects. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would only apply to the template, but I personally am not opposed.PotvinSux (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I thought more about this: if we do end up having opposition, I would support that opposition because we did establish consensus. There is at least an argument that the bars and the potential for confusion because of them warrant a reopening of the conversation, but I think that is kind of a weak argument, frankly. Is there a way to adjust the length of the bars to the number of delegates in each category?PotvinSux (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There hasn't been opposition yet. This is meant to avoid confusion to the average viewer. I also changed it to "Projected Delegates" as some guy proposed earlier. --Bobtinin (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, good - I changed "projected" to "estimated" - this cannot be a forecast and is not a forecast. Even for soft delegates for caucus states who have not yet been elected by the state convention the number is based on electors elected to county level conventions, meaning there is a concrete basis for the number in the present.PotvinSux (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I do think that there needs to be a disclaimer like Google has, that says "Pledged delegates are based on state primary results, while superdelegates can support any candidate. Delegate results aren't final until the convention in July." Buffaboy ^talk 02:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Including the Super Delegates is no different from including polls for the remaining states. These people haven't voted yet, they've just promised to vote a certain way -- their word means nothing in terms of how they will in the end. These votes are unpledged and likely to change at the last minute -- they should at very lease be removed from the leading infobox to avoid confusion. OttselSpy25 (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with OttselSpy25 above. NO superdelegates have voted yet. They don't vote until the convention at the end of summer. There is no count to even report other than the (possibly empty) promises of how the supers *think* they may vote 5 months from now. This is as valid as if the page were to report polling numbers for the states that vote in June, into the current totals. The other delegate numbers are from people actually ticking a box or standing to be counted, delegates that promise to do the will of the voters in their neighborhood and state. In 2008, hundreds of supers switched their plans and totally voted differently than the loose polling that happens months ahead. You are all mistaken to even count and report them at this stage. Superdelegate possible future intentions are no more a statistic than endorsements, earned media, donations received etc... all interesting, but NOT part of the delegate count at this time. Dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're incorrect. Superdelegates count towards the totals. Even if delegates can change their minds up until the convention. If either HRC or BS reached the total delegate count of 2,383, they could rightly claim to be the Democratic nominee. By the end of March HRC will have almost 2,000 delegates and Sanders will have around 900. Still enough to stay in the race if he wishes, but during April with NY and Pennsylvania delegates, it should be wrapped up. It's probably better for the Democratic Party if Sanders stays in for awhile after that and makes his own decision. But there doesn't seem to be a path to victory for Sanders, especially with such little support from the African-American and Hispanic communities. Dave Dial (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, they'll count towards the total at the convention but while the pledged delegate counts are fixed (once the final primary/caucus results are in anyway), the superdelegate counts can change at any time. It's fine to keep track of the current standings but those numbers are not equivalent to the pledged delegate count and it's disingenuous to present them as if they were.

If a candidate had only reached the required 2383 when including a couple hundred superdelegates, they could by no means "rightly claim" to be the nominee! 2A02:8108:6C0:50C:8B1:27C2:F276:4432 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Dave Dial, I think you are not being unbiased. The pledged delegates have actually been written down by the party as allocated. They are not expected to switch from that formally recognized position unless their candidate has tanked. The supers have not been asked for their vote by anyone but the media and campaigns. It's no different than endorsements or polling for votes to take place in June or later. In 2008 almost all the superdelegates who gave Hillary empty promises, switched to Obama because they had not actually voted yet. it is not anything like a hard count, it is loose plans. Pledged delegates are hard plans with expectations to remain true. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone edit correctly the amount of actual pledge delegates for Hillary? The number is over 100. Which is truly misleading. Miggs18 (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Do it on the page talking about the democratic primaries. Unless it's a hill meat puppet doing it on purpose.

Miggs18 (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Colors for Hillary and Bernie

Hi, as some other users and me proposed some days ago, what do yout think about chaging the colors used in the primaries' map? There are many reasons, for example, right now, with Hillary's color you can't even see it on American Samoa. Moreover, in my view, we should use colors which are more similar to the ones used in their campaign logo, for example   (#F0003B) for Hillary and maybe   (#0087DC) for Sanders. What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Disagree: Sorry I have to disagree on this one, simply because both Hillary and Bernie have red and blue on their campaign logos and despite being slightly different shades, red is commonly associated to the republican party and blue with the democratic party. Using red and blue would simply be much too confusing for the average reader: I can already imagine some people mistaking this as Hillary being a Republican candidate. I support the status quo, given the current color scheme doesn't add to any confusion in this respect. Sleepingstar (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, my one was only a proposal, we can use other colors, for instance   (#0047AB) for Hillary and leave green for Sanders; or maybe we can use the ones used in statewide polling map. In my view, that shade of gold used for Hillary isn't the best color that we could select. Anyway this is only my personal opinion. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree that Clinton's color should be changed but that red/blue would be confusing. Maybe a more saturated gold would work? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind making the current colors more saturated. I do think we should avoid blue, if possible, simply because it is associated with the official color of the democrats, and I feel like this can be confusing to readers who may naturally associate blue with the nominee of the democratic party. But that's just my two cents. Sleepingstar (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As Shadow said in another section, we could use the colors of the statewide polling map; anyway you are probably right when you say that blue could make confusion, because it's Democrats' official color. Maybe a darker shade of gold could be better than the current one, but in my view a new color, different from gold, should be best choice :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I move that it should be changed to a more saturated gold; the same colour used for her in the 2008 primaries articles.   #D4AA00. Philip Terry Graham 06:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Philip, and change Sanders' color to 0087DC. MB298 (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not see any opposition to the saturated gold color and considering we all can agree that the other color was not good I'd say we stick with that saturated gold color. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with the current Green and Gold. I believe that neither candidate should be Blue or Red as those are the colors associated with the two main parties in the main election. AvRand (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The green and gold are fine because it keeps Hillary's color consistent with 2008. I also don't see how you could objectively make Hillary red (Republican) and Sanders blue (Democrat), it's very clearly a play at subconsciously affecting people and it has no place on wikipedia

Semi-open/Semi-Closed

This article uses Semi-open and Semi-closed without any useful definition of what these terms mean. - Davodd (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The definition is found when you hover over the footnote at the top of the column. But it is a legalistic defintion, and not very helpful.

Semi-open/Semi-closed legal difference is whether the primary is (semi-open) defined as Democrats only plus independents, or (semi-closed) defined as no Repbublicans.

See? It comes down to how the law or rules are phrased, but not functional difference.

I think it would be much more helpful to merge these as this category: Open Only for Non-affiliated Voters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1001:AF40:1DA5:C524:8CF0:A500 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Michigan and total delegate counts seem off, but I can't update/edit it...

Under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Schedule_and_results_of_primaries_and_caucuses I see that the Mar 8 MICHIGAN Democratic Primary had allegedly awarded 71 candidates to Clinton and only 69 to Sanders, even though he narrowly won the vote count. Earlier tonight right before going to church, I decided to check on this, and I recall other websites with slightly more updated information, which reflected an apparently more accurate delegate count, where Sanders had slightly more. So, upon returning from church, I decided to update this, but I see it is "protected."

I can not edit it.

The source, http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MI-D actually seems to confirm that the article here is correct, but https://www.google.com/search?q=delegate+count+michigan+primary+democratic seems to reflect a more current split of 67 for Sanders and 60 for Clinton.

Additionally, http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker disagrees slightly with the article, on total counts, listing 1,223-to-574 (Politico) versus 1,229-to-573 (Wikipedia article, here).

I can not find the other "delegate count websites" for Michigan, but I suspect that this article needs to be updated, and I wanted to give other editors a heads up to check into this. Thx.96.59.189.21 (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

More info found at: http://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/ confirms 1,223-to-574

But http://edition.cnn.com/election/ says 1,238-to-572 and WIKIPEDIA (above) said 1,229-to-573 ... I know some delegates are hard to count (based on the fact that their actual vote may only be a guess), but you all are experts here. I know you all can figure this out. The GREEN PAPERS http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/ lists 1,229-to-575 -- yet another different result. And http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president is a map with individual state results, but no totals? LOL 96.59.189.21 (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president lists 68-to-65 for Hillary, for MICHIGAN, yet another discrepancy.96.59.189.21 (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we write the popular vote margin?

Is there a plausible reason, or perhaps it's because Hillary is trouncing him? Maybe because she won Texas by almost 500,000 votes, and he won Oklahoma by only 40,000 votes? Remember, we wrote that in the 2008 primary entry. Archway (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would we write the vote margin? Is it done on the Republican article? Prcc27💋 (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, look (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016). So I understand Bernie's fans didn't want to write it in, from an obvious reasons, but I will not let them corrupt this entry. Archway (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any margins. When you said margin I was thinking something like "Trump +20,000 lead, Cruz -20,000 loss, Kasich -65,000 loss." But if you are talking about the popular vote total on the template we actually removed it when it said Sanders was beating Clinton in the popular vote by a wide margin even though that probably wasn't true since IA and NV didn't release their popular vote totals. We removed it when it benefited Sanders, we decided to keep it out even though it would benefit Clinton. We are complying with WP:NPOV while you might want to take a look at WP:AGF. Besides, this should be discussed at the template talk, not here. Thank you. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm a right-leaning republican, so I have no dog in the fight (except that I admit that I would prefer Sanders as president over Clinton if it came down to just the two of them, since I think he is more honest and sincere, and has better policies and track record, in my view, 'socialist' brand notwithstanding). So, I am not biased -- OK, now that I've gotten that out of the way, I would prefer that both the popular vote and the delegate vote (with a breakdown between pledged, unpledged, super, and whatever else there is in that regard) to be shown. In that sense, I am what you might call an 'inclusionist,' as I would prefer to have all sides of the story presented, no matter whom it benefits at the moment. (If this article were a sandwich, I'd say: "I want it all the way - with everything on it.") Does that help everyone figure out what readers would probably want?96.59.168.151 (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no national popular vote. Tallying up the popular vote yourself would be a violation of WP:OR. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case then every primary article, both Democratic and Republican, should be edited to remove the total primary vote. Personally, I think the popular vote should remain in those articles and included in this one.

I read the article you linked and it says for editors not to do original research which I agree with but what about http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D ? Also, some people have been arguing that the vote totals have nothing directly with who gets chosen but that's also true for Contests Won and yet that someone is important enough to keep on the article. There should be vote totals to keep this article with the template of past democratic nomination contests (republicans and every other election).68.35.230.20 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, if there was a national popular vote available there would be no question whether we should add it. The reason it's not on the infobox is because it's not available, not because popular vote is irrelevant for the nomination. The problem with the Green Papers popular vote figures is that, among other things, it seems to replace Iowa's popular vote with SDE × 100 which has nothing to do with the popular vote. As for past primaries, all I have to say is that past mistakes should not dictate how to do thing now. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It IS available! Please check the Green Papers. Yes I know some object, but it's the best we got, and it's quite accurate. If it's good enough for the people doing the GOP side, it should be good enough for us. The national vote totals in the General don't really matter as to who gets elected. Look at 2000.Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Green Papers figures you are linking to are wrong because they sum popular vote in some states with county delegates in other states. They are in fact not accurate. The reason the Republican primaries can show a national vote is because all Republican primaries, unlike the Democratic primaries, publish popular vote. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 06:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

agreed, the 2016 GOP one has it, as does the other primaries in history. Hillary is winning nearly 60% of the two-candidate vote in contests where popular votes are publicly tallied. I simply used Excel.

Total popular vote should be included like it has been in included in EVERY Democratic and Republican primary article since 1912. This is a purposeful hijacking of information because people don't like the results. Both the Democratic Party and Republican Party have states that do not included the popular vote. That has not stopped information from being presented before.

Superdelegate Resolution

@Guy1890, Prcc27, Bobtinin, Geoffrey.mcgee, Jeppiz, Ryopus, and Bondegezou:@Jp16103, Sleepingstar, MB298, Nike4564, Rockhead126, MAINEiac4434, and Officialhopsof:

All, you have participated at one turn or another in our electrifying discussion about whether or not to include Superdelegates in the delegate count in the template at the top of the page (apologies if I have mistakenly included or excluded anyone). Views seem to be split approximately down the middle and the discussion - split over the threads "Super delegates", Unpledge delegates not counted in infobox, Flagrant violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR, and to some extent Superdelegate count - seems to be going in circles. In the interest of bringing this to resolution, I am seeking consensus for a potential compromise independently raised by a few editors (myself being one): specifically, the idea of including both Pledged and Super delegates but not summing them (i.e., next to "Delegates:" the box would include "Pledged: X" "Unpledged: Y" for each candidate). It is highly unlikely that any of us will find this optimal, but I think it is the only realistic way that we can resolve this without moving to a resolution process. What are your thoughts on such a compromise?PotvinSux (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think that works. Bondegezou (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• I support the proposal detailed above as a good compromise on the issue. Sgcosh (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• I support this. Jp16103 14:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• I support your proposal. Sleepingstar (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• I support this, on the condition that we keep the Superdelegate count updated consistently. --Bobtinin (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Bobtinin, I support the inclusion of superdelegates contingent on consistent updates. Jp16103 22:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• I support this compromise as well. Nike4564 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support proposal. MB298 (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The supers might turn out to be crucial, and many sources, such as the New York Times, list them as part of the delegate breakdown. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thats a majority, so how do we go forward? Is it okay to include the superdelegates now? Jp16103 02:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can proceed. I will go forward and delete the total section for the delegates table, leaving superdelegates and pledged ones. Nike4564 (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sweet, sweet compromise.PotvinSux (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I am shocked at this at all. NO superdelegates have voted yet. They don't vote until the convention at the end of summer. There is no count to even report other than the (possibly empty) promises of how the supers *think* they may vote 5 months from now. This is as valid as if the page were to report polling numbers for the states that vote in June, into the current totals. The other delegate numbers are from people actually ticking a box or standing to be counted, delegates that promise to do the will of the voters in their neighborhood and state. In 2008, hundreds of supers switched their plans and totally voted differently than the loose polling that happens months ahead. You are all mistaken to even count and report them at this stage. Superdelegate possible future intentions are no more a statistic than endorsements, earned media, donations received etc... all interesting, but NOT part of the delegate count at this time. 50.34.102.73 (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC) dude

EXACTLY. It is also a problem that the numbers in the graphic include "superdelegates" and presume that those "superdelegates" will support Clinton. This is the practice followed by NPR, the NY Times, and other Hillary supporters. The solution is to omit the "superdelegates" from the count and then to give a separate count of "superdelegates". You could also say a few words explaining that the "superdelegates" are Democratic Party operatives who, at the outset, usually support the status quo candidate. In my opinion, the running counts that include "superdelegates" as Clinton delegates, are nearly as pernicious as the "superdelegate" system itself. ---Dagme (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I first apologize in advance for being away from the discussions here recently. Events IRL have taken precedence over Wikipedia issues recently for me.

Whether one likes it or not, the Democratic Party's superdelegate process has existed in some form or another since the 1980s. Some of the superdelegates from the 2008 Democratic Party process (which are, in many cases, literally the same, exact people in this process as in the 2008 process) did change their affiliation as that process moved forward. However, counting where those superdelegates currently stand (as shown in reliable sources) is not "political bias" or a violation of any of Wikipedia's guidelines at all...it's merely displaying verifiable facts, which is why Wikipedia exists in the first place. This article here should not be used by any side in this political fight to push a POV. We should merely be dedicated to compiling verifiable information about the topic of this article...nothing more, nothing less.

I support including both superdelegate and hard/pledged delegates in this article here and not summing their totals up as a compromise.

I'm also not sure if this has been done yet or not, but, at this late date, I feel that this article should be locked in order to prevent unregistered and/or IP editors from editing this article. Allowing those kind of edits will only allow for vandalism and obvious POV-pushing. Guy1890 (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy between tables

The upper table (in the section Candidates featured in major polls, lists the current delegate count as 495/405. Whereas the table in the section, Schedule and results of primaries and caucuses, lists the current count as 577/417. The table on the page, Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016, lists the current delegate count as 599/407. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonahmoosALD (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, none of the cited source links (AP, NYT, Bloomberg, ballotpedia pdf) for pledged & unpledged (super) delegates under projected (estimated) delegates in either table give a break down of pledged vs unpledged (super); they only give delegate totals. The column totals for pledged & unpledged delegates on the table Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries are not sums of their columns, nor do they match delegate totals on any other table here or on

Main article: Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

Only states with citations by the state name have projected pledged & unpledged delegate data that match the source (Green Papers).Shwoodham (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We've got 4 cited sources for the delegate counts in this article and none of them match:

Bloomberg: Clinton 601/457, Sanders 409/22

New York Times: Clinton 595/457, Sanders 405/22

Green Papers: Clinton 609/454, Sanders 412/19

CNN: Clinton 606/468, Sanders 405/21

The best way to keep an up-to-date count is probably to locate the most current source for each state and do the totals ourselves.

Failing that, we need to pick a single source for all counts and stick to it to avoid inconsistencies.

Green Papers seems to be the best source for the state-level delegate counts so I'd suggest we take their totals. I'll change all the totals to match the Green Papers numbers for now.2A02:8108:6C0:50C:8B1:27C2:F276:4432 (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The people claiming to run the Results page want as little information on the page as possible. That's why won't let 20,000 votes for minor candidates be displayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.125.33.54 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think I finally need to ask here why there is even a separate page on Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 in the first place...all of the info contained there should likely be merged into this article here. Guy1890 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for an WP:Editnotice

I suggest we place an edit notice on the following pages:

• Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
• Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
• Template:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
• Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016
• Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016
• Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016

With the following message:

Any comment/suggestion/opposition? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I second this. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone who edits during elections and made this mistake once on Super Tuesday, I concur. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree. I realize Wikipedia is not news, but if a reliable source makes a projection for a certain amount of delegates being awarded to someone why do we have to wait for the contest to be 100% done? Are we going to have to wait for 100% of Nebraska's electoral college votes to be called in the general election before updating despite what the reliable sources say? Prcc27🍀 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Many reliable sources don't show the complete amount of delegates until 100% of the vote is in. I second adding this edit notice since it's helpful. → Call me Razr Nation 02:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the sources listed above actually update the delegate totals before 100% of the vote is in. There are many occasions where the vote isn't 100% in for a few days even though 99% of precincts have reported. We should not ignore the projections that reliable sources make and should reflect them on the template when the projections are made. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but this isn't the purpose of the edit notice. The purpose is to mostly avoid constant edits of users updating the popular vote count every five minutes. Original delegate predictions can be placed, and then later updated with the final value once the count is complete. → Call me Razr Nation 04:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

We can also soften the language. As Razr Nation said, this is mostly to prevent pointless edits every five minutes during primary nights. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 06:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a sensible proposal to me. If several reliable sources call a state for someone, changing the shading in a table is probably fine, but I don't see the point of updating vote tallies until there's a full count. RocioNadat 04:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think an editnotice for popular vote is fine, but not for projected delegates. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Prcc27🍀 wholeheartedly. If enough reliable sources, especially the ones above, announces a projected winner the night of the primary, why should we wait? Is it better to give people reliable information now or later? This is not meant to be news, but there is a fine line between reporting breaking news and stating facts, and the Associated Press has a reputation for reporting facts, so we should state them. --Bobtinin (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• If this hasn't been done yet already, I support adding this notice to this page here. Guy1890 (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote

We should add the Popular vote, just as in 2008(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008). Same rules, but this page has Popular vote in the infobox. Look at this link(http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D), same source as 2008(infobox), so why not now? This are the full results http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/DGhostmen2 (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed above. Guy1890 (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment: Exclusion of popular vote

See Template talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Exclusion of popular vote. Oversteek (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

The Democrats Abroad row is missing a pipe link, shifting the row by one column. I believe there should be 13 pledged delegates in column 3 and 2 unpledged delegates in column 4 per results. -76.14.51.178 (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to make this request at this talk page, since the info that you apparently want changed is kept there. While you may have a point about the 13/8 pledged/unpledged (0.5 vote) delegates, it appears that any results of this primary appear to be preliminary at this time. I think the voting was supposed to take place through March 8th, but the results of that voting weren't supposed to be officially released until some time much later for some reason. Guy1890 (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Precedent for popular vote is absolutely clear

I realize that people have said that there is a consensus around not including the popular vote. But I think that's misguided. Sure, it's not the determining factor. But look at how Wikipedia covers other elections. They always include the popular vote even if seat counts are what matters. The idea that we shouldn't include the popular because it is 'confusing' doesn't make sense. It's not consistent with how Wikipedia covers elections generally. Past Democratic primary articles also have the popular vote. As well, while I imagine it will sound conspiratorial, people from the Clinton campaign probably will continue to have a vested interest in not showing the popular vote because it downplays the strength of Sanders support. In fact, I'd find it hard to believe that people from the Clinton campaign aren't editing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeneditor491 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 2 March 2016‎

I agree. We should include the popular vote count. If it is confusing, then that is the nature of the electoral system, but we cannot choose to withdraw a piece of information that gives a lot of context to this election. Let's include the popular vote and if people are confused, then we should explain how elections work in the USA. We don't withdraw so-called "confusing" information from any other article in Wikipedia. This isn't about conspiracies or anything, this is just the way elections work in this country and we should respect that. And this is great occasion to explain it to even more people, especially those outside of the USA. We are not reporting news here. It doesn't need to be digestible in 5 seconds. This is an encyclopedia. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. This is, after all, an election. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Although the popular vote alone does not decide the election due to the caucuses and superdelegates, it should still be included. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I invite you to join the discussion at Template talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Remove "Popular vote" from the infobox. It's no use having simultaneous discussions in several places. Most of your arguments have already been answered to over there. And, by the way, supporters of both Clinton's and Sanders's campaign have called it a conspiracy benefiting the opponent. I suggest you thoroughly read the debate at the link I provided and realize that everyone can edit Wikipedia, and that every decision is taken transparently. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The pop vote should be restored to article as that gore bush thing can happen at the primarys as well and this fact should be for the readers to know about not for the editors to cover up that possibility. 178.55.45.14 (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Darn right!!!!! We should have the votes for the top candidates here and ALL THE MINOR ONES TOO on the results page. Supressing results for anyone is totally wrong. 38.125.33.54 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• As has been stated on this talk page numerous times already, there really is nothing like a national popular vote that can be obtained from this state/territory primary/caucus process. While the individual state popular vote totals might be interesting to display for individual states that release that kind of info, this process will be determined by one thing & one thing only...and that's delegates. Guy1890 (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Then why are state wins included in the info box? When "this process will be determined by one thing & one thing only...and that's delegates." The popular vote is currently included on every other party's page and was included during the 2008 primaries. The ONLY reason it isn't included now is because it makes Sanders (and Trump apparently) look bad. It's incredibly biased to not include the current popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.111.82 (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Please take your attempt at POV-pushing somewhere else (preferably nowhere else) as these issues have been thoroughly discussed and settled at this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

and since you mention it, state totals are also not indicative of who is amassing more delegates, because the states are weighted differently, and have different populations, so listing so and so got 15 states is not a good reflection on the process. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Link superdelegates with: list of Democratic party superdelegates, 2016

The number of superdelegates mentioned in the sidebar seems to be off. According to the list of democratic party superdelegates, 2016 articke, Clinton has only 464 unpledged delegates and Sanders has 24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.117.151 (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually neither Hillary nor Bernie has any superdelegates at all. They don't vote until the convention. All there is right now is tentative empty promises about how they may vote 3 months from now. It is fallacious to include "totals" of superdelegate promises. n 2008, almost all Hillary superdelegates totally switched to Obama, so their advance promises are worthless as a statistic. If anything they would be on a list of endorsers, if such a list were added. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Should superdelegates be mentioned in the sidebar?

After all, they can change their vote at any point in time and are not actually votes for either candidate until the convention. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The same can be said of pledged delegates. - Davodd (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No, not really. Pledged delegates won't change unless their candidate drops out, while superdelegates can and often do change. Dustin (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the Superdelegates should be removed from the sidebar entirely. AvRand (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, urgent fix needed here. The superdelegates do not vote until the convention. There is no total. Nothing more than empty promises. It's like including poll data for an election 3 months away ...included into the already voted total. In 2008 the supers totally switched away from Hillary to Obama as soon as he got a majority of the pledged delegates. So a superdelegate is nothing more than a tentative endorsement. No such total should be included in an encyclopediac article, unless we include a whole endorsements, money raised, and other external factors. This article should be about the voting process of delegate allocation... which has not happened yet for the supers ! dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

None of the delegates vote until the Democratic Convention this summer. This issue has been discussed ad nauseam and is long since settled at this late date. The article does include info on money raised, and super delegate "pledges" are basically endorsements by another name. Guy1890 (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Missouri

Sanders and Clinton received the same number of delegates in Missouri. So, would it make sense to color Missouri both Yellow and Green on the map? They both will have the same number of delegates at the convention so I do not see why not. Jp16103 00:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose this as Clinton received the popular vote, also per the sources saying she won all five states. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

In this past however Wikipedia has done this. For example, in 1984 and 1984. Even though Clinton won the popular vote, the results are essentially the same. Jp16103 01:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Im trying to find what article you are referring to? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The initial premise is wrong, Missouri awards 71 pledged delegates, hence it's impossible that the two candidates would receive the same number for this state. The reference used in the article for the result (green papers) has Clinton with 36 and Sanders with 35 pledged delegates, but the table hasn't been updated to reflect the source. Sgcosh (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I updated the template based on the source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That is incorrect, AP says both Sanders and Clinton got 32 delegates Jp16103 02:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It must be outdated then because CNN is saying the same thing: [16] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Green papers and CNN are the only sources I am finding with 36 Clinton, 35 Sanders. If you can find more sources that back up that number that would be great, until then I think we need to call this a tie until further info is released. Btw, Fox, NYT, and many more are saying 32-32 with live updates.Jp16103 02:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

So Missouri would have a total of 64 pledged delegates? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Im not sure Jp16103 03:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If the totals are 32 to 32 then I would lean towards striping Missouri green, but we would have to make the map so it reflects only delegate leads then. Right now about 3 different reliable sources that I can see are saying different things so idk what to believe. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delegates or not: "Clinton wins Missouri Democratic primary as Sanders concedes". That ought to be reflected, not a green stripping, which would imply that Clinton/Sanders drawed. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, The Green Papers is our primary source for delegates, and it says that Clinton has one more delegate than Sanders. → Call me Razr Nation 06:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

We should have a separate map for lead by delegates. But so far we have not had a case where one candidate won the popular vote and the other candidate tied or won the delegate count. Once that happens we should make a separate map. Until then, it isn't really needed. For the record, I am against using the green papers as a source. They have been releasing inaccurate national popular votes by adding state delegate estimates. Luckily we don't include the popular vote in this article, but I don't really trust them. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see how there could be a tie in MO if there are an odd number of pledged delegates at stake there. Clinton seems pretty clearly to have narrowly won the delegate count in MO. In any event, this is another discussion that should be taking place at the template talk page, where these numbers are coming from in the first place. Guy1890 (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if they had tied delegates in a state with an even number of delegates (not the case in Missouri), it should be colored for the popular vote in such a case. In Missouri's case, Clinton won both by virtually all sources. Omnibus (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If that every happens I will propose a separate map based on delegates. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Will someone please shade in the Democrats Abroad icon on the map for Sanders? Because He won DA

Javert2016 (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Javert2016: Someone has done it so do you want to delete your section or keep it for historical reference? Nike4564 (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sam Sloan "chessmaster" ?

He's more of a chess commentator. 1894 FIDE rating isn't noteworthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.125.244 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

World map in the corner of the U.S. map at the top of the page

Why is there a world map coloured Sanders green in a box next to the U.S. map? 86.142.244.87 (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@86.142.244.87: Sanders won Democrats Abroad. MB298 (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for keeping this page up to date and having nice graphs and charts. It makes it very easy to follow and see who is winning what and all the history at each contest. Stoodpointt (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of popular vote?

I find it more than a little strange that the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 and Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008 articles have the popular vote numbers right at the top in the infobox, and this one doesn't. It doesn't seem right. Esn (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Esn: See the discussion at the top of this page. MB298 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Popular Vote

Where is POPULAR VOTE COUNTS? -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.113.103 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

They are in the article under each state that actually reports them. Guy1890 (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you make this article show the popular vote that each candidate has nationwide(as the republican article does)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rywilliams23 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Republicans release popular vote in all states. Democrats don't. Thus why a nationwide popular vote exists for Republicans but not Democrats. 15zulu (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither party releases nation popular votes but that has not stopped us from showing the national popular vote in every primary article since 1912. We should include it. Both parties have states that don't release popular votes. Again, that has not stopped us from including the popular vote in previous primary articles. I think we should change this now.Rick Evans (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

We can use these links for both parties. Democratic Popular Vote Republican Popular Vote Rick Evans (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)contribs) 22:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The Republican article is in error. There is also no national popular vote there; in fact there are 6 states and territories where there is no presidential preference vote. From the RNC: "American Samoa (9 delegates), Colorado (37 delegates), Guam (9 delegates), North Dakota (28 delegates), Wyoming (29 delegates), and the U.S. Virgin Islands (9 delegates) will not hold presidential preference votes in 2016." It's unclear to me whether there is a consistent method for when & how delegates are chosen in these areas, and whether they are pledged. See Denver Post Ballotpedia on CO, WY, etc. For more of the discussion on national popular vote totals, see Template talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Remove "Popular vote" from the infobox Shwoodham (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This → Template_talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Exclusion_of_popular_vote ← is the current discussion taking place regarding popular votes in the infobox. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I should've included that. Both are active. The first is a discussion; the second is a vote. Shwoodham (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Shwoodham: We're not going to change anything about the Republican infobox/pages by discussing it on Democrats infobox/pages. If you believe there is an issue with the Republican popular vote, you should take that discussion to those pages. A major difference between the issues: Democrats voted, Republicans did not. Popular vote, my definition, counts only those who voted. Cheers, 15zulu (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we should include the popular vote that is available and put a note stating that certain states do not report popular votes.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Metallurgist:I have a proposal which is basically what you said, vote for it if you want to see it in the infobox. --Bobtinin (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Map is misleading

Discussion has moved to Template talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Map is misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepingstar (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As opposed to the winner-takes-all republican primaries, the democratic primaries reward delegates proportionally. Therefore, I believe that a map highlighting the winner in each of the states seems wholly inappropriate and potentially misleading, regardless of whether or not this is mentioned in the caption or image description. This is a basic principle of good data visualization.

Wikipedia should have higher standards for data visualization, and I'm sure our users can come up with better alternatives, or a way to qualitatively capture the actual nature of the primary race and how the total number of delegates are distributed in terms of popular vote.

The other map used in the article, further down the page, is an attempt to address this. While it may be more complex to read (and embedded pie charts also have their own issues) it does a better job at representing the results. — LucasVB | LucasVB_Wikipedia | Talk

Support compromise. Both maps can be included in the infobox. MB298 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

And also, the Republican primaries have some winner-take-all states and some that appoint delegates proportionally. MB298 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll bring this up on the republican primary talk page then. — LucasVB | Talk 06:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The suggested map is shown later on the page. The infobox map should give an overview of each state and not be cluttered with extra data.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: I completely agree that Wikipedia should have higher standards for data visualization, which is precisely why we have the all the maps in the maps section of the article. The point of the infobox is to give an overview, and all the breakdown data should be detailed appropriately in the remained of the text, there seems to be little value in overcomplicating and cluttering the infobox with too much technical detail. Besides, even if we were to use another map it should be the final delegate count map (i.e. pledged + superdelegate) not the vote shares, since if anything it should be the final delegate counts that determine the nominee NOT the vote shares. Sleepingstar (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Links at top of article

Editors of this page may be interested in the discussion regarding the hatnote taking place at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#Links at top of page, which may apply to the hatnote of this article as well. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

I am rewriting the Timeline to make it look good and be as comprehensive as Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Timeline of the race. Not fair for us not to have a good Timeline section. However, as a Clinton supporter, my prose might be slightly biased towards her so if anyone detects some non-neutral wording please correct it for me since I might not be able to notice it. Thanks! → Call me Razr Nation 05:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

March 26 results in delegate count?

Why aren't the results of the March 26 caucuses counted towards the total number of votes anymore? The header shows 1234 delegates for Clinton and 975 delegates for Sanders, those are the old delegate count of before March 26... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.117.151 (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The Green Papers is being questioned as a reliable source, please provide one here that is more up to date that is reliable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Continued updates for delegate information.

The details of the delegate counts have not been updated to reflect Saturday, 3/26/2016's results for the primary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviose (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

New layout is worse.

There was a nice tabel, why replace that with an unneccesaary wall of text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.132.75.218 (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The table isn't gone, it just needs to be fixed before it is re-added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Rampant discrepancies of the delegate count. Even this wikipedia page doesn't agree with ITSELF! Please fix it! Every news source is reporting it wrongly!

At the top of the page it says the much much reported pledged delegate score of 1,243 Clinton to 975 Sanders. Scroll down to the primary results table and the math is clear: 1,266 Clinton to 1,038 Sanders. The 3 digit 975 score for Sanders has been widely and incorrectly reported in USA Today, CNN, and many other news sources. Even Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight was off by a delegate for both. Please fix the top of the page to reflect the true count on the bottom.

I saw the thread which asks wiki users to vote on which news source to reflect. Are you kidding me? They are all parroting which ever misinformed source they so chose. I came up with the same results at the bottom of the wikipedia myself by just doing the math of %'s won vs. available pledged delegates. This is simple math, folks, not opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahquest (talk • contribs) 20:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The numbers down below are being sourced by The Green Papers which is being questioned as a reliable source. If you can find an updated source tied to The Associated Press then use that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elijahquest: I don't think you understand how the process works. These delegates are real people, and they may not pledge immediately after results come in for several reasons. Let's take the WA caucus for example, some delegates in that state are decided by the statewide results, while others are decided by results within the precincts. We cannot simply make up the math about whether a delegate is pledged or not, we need a reliable source to confirm that this has happened. The Associated Press and CNN are able to confirm how many delegates have pledged to one candidate or another through their sources at the Democratic Party. --Bobtinin (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Washington State won't assign the other 2/3 of their delegates until May 21 but they are assigned proportionally so just by doing math we know that Sanders will have 74 delegates to Clinton's 27. Is wikipedia seriously going to stick to showing only 1/3 of the results of Washington caucus for two months? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.184.147 (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Should they be counted before they are already assigned? I don't think they should be until May 21, but maybe there could be a speculative or a * based on Washington? JaneBGoode (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

An * based on Washington would be better than nothing but there's nothing speculative about the numbers I gave since the remaining delegates will be assigned proportionally. That's why fivethirtyeight and the green papers already counted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8402:0:B511:1D26:2640:C2D0 (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Now everything is consistent and up to date; thanks for your patience while we debated sources and process! — JFG ^talk 07:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

References