Talk:2020 California Democratic presidential primary

Discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. - MrX 🖋 01:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Best constituencies for each candidate

Currently the lead contains the following paragraph:

Sanders dominated among younger voters on college campuses, Latino voters under the age of 45 in the Mexican American community, and among Asian American voters of diverse ethnic background. Bloomberg also performed strongly among Asian American voters, according to exit polls. Biden's best demographic were African American voters, who comprised a smaller percent of the electorate than in the American South.

The trouble is information in the lead should either be cited within the lead or it should be elaborated by data within the body of the article. Currently the body of the article shows no data about breakdown by race or age, so it is unclear where this information came from. @Neddy1234:, can you provide a source?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg withdrawal

Bloomberg withdrew after this primary. Do not move him to the withdrawn section without reaching consensus here first. Stop with the edit wars.Davemoth (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Reporting

The information that almost 100% of the votes were counted is not correct. According to CNN (link), more than 40% of the votes remain to be counted, an information that corresponds to data from the Secretary of State of California (link; "Ballots cast: 5,710,823") and report of The Guardian ("Meanwhile, nearly half the state’s ballots still remain uncounted [...]"). Érico (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I am working on updating this number. The Ballot's case and the Unprocessed Ballots do not match in total with the vote counts. I am going to use Unprocessed Ballot numbers and cite the CA Secretary of State page for that.Davemoth (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times says 89% reporting. Smith0124 (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That appears to be coming from their live results page, correct? At the bottom of the first table shown, it (as I write this) gives a total of 3,892,883 votes (less than we have listed here), with 20,027 of 22,522 precincts reporting. The latter is 88.9%, which is where their 89% reporting figure comes from.

Except in California, precincts make reports of partial results that generally get significantly revised later since a substantial fraction of votes are sent by mail on or just before the day of the election. Media outlets often count these results as the precinct reporting, even if they are very likely to change significantly in the following days. Thus, even though we have partial results from the California Secretary of State for 100% of the precincts, we also have reasonable estimates that this probably represents somewhere in the vicinity of half the votes.

Per the California Secretary of State's FAQ, final results for determining presidential delegates must be in by April 1, although I strongly suspect the overwhelming majority to be counted during the upcoming week (since mail sent from within California, postmarked by election day, ought to arrive in 3-5 business days).Gambling8nt (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

So can we agree that it’s 89% reporting, not 51%? That’s a really low number. Smith0124 (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

No. The Times is including precincts as "reporting" even though they have sent partial reports while many ballots (an estimated 3,247,283 at present) are not yet processed (and mostly haven't arrived yet for processing). A claim of 89% reporting when the reports themselves are that incomplete is fundamentally misleading.Gambling8nt (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

51% isn’t any less misleading. Smith0124 (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is with the template. Reporting is about how many precincts have reported anything and that is now 100% according to the Secretary of State. That the 89 came from the live reporting that was not updated. The 51% is the difference of counted votes vs those unprocessed. Neither is accurate. Should we look for a change to the template to allow both to be noted.Davemoth (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 Alabama Democratic primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Rfc notice

Editors of this page are encouraged to participate in an Rfc on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries pertaining to the infobox of this page and all state by state primary pages. The Rfc is about candidates who have withdrawn. Smith0124 (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation

@Tartan357: 2020 California Democratic primary, the former title, still redirects here, so wouldn't it make sense to keep the hatnote? —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 13:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naddruf: No, the move disambiguated the page. That redirect page should be changed into a disambiguation page if there are pages for other primary elections. I can get to doing that later, or you can do it now if you want. See 2020 Puerto Rico primaries for a good example of such a page. I’ve already updated links to these pages on the main primaries page per the move. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 16:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357:I think it make sense to convert the redirect to a disambiguation at the same time as you remove the hatnote, but I will do it now for this page.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixing links

I looked, and I can't find the links in all these articles: [1] to the 2020 California Democratic primary page. It would be great if someone else could try to figure it out.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)