Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

15% vote threshold for delegates?

Under 'Delegate threshold' it states 'Candidates who get under 15% of the votes get no delegates'. Does the 15% refer to the votes in each state, or what? JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 20:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Votes in each state, as well as votes in each state’s congressional districts. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

What Devonian Wombat says, although it needs a reliable source: There are congressional district delegates, apportioned by that district's popular vote, and the candidate needs 15% of the district vote to even have a chance at being proportionally allocated a district delegate; then there are statewide delegates, apportioned by the statewide popular vote, and the candidate needs 15% of the statewide vote to even have a chance at being proportionally allocated a statewide delegate. (I say "even have a chance" because there are a limited number of delegates, especially per congressional district, so the proportional allocation may leave candidates at the bottom with no seats left to give them.) --Closeapple (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, so the states in which some candidates won multiple delegates though receiving less than 15% of the statewide popular vote (see 'Contest schedule and results') are district delegates, and not statewide delegates? JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Correct. They won more than 15% of the vote in certain districts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I see. Thanks all! JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 12:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

On 2020-03-05 @Devonian_Wombat deleted text on current effect of 15% threshold:

• the threshold means that any sector of the party (moderate, radical, centrist, etc.) which produces few candidates, thus not dividing supporters' votes, may win most delegates, without winning a majority of votes.

This current effect of the 15% threshold was a major point in the cited Brookings, The Hill, and FiveThirtyEight articles, and has helped drive the withdrawal of moderate candidates in February-March 2020. Maybe it would be better framed as the converse:

• the threshold means that any sector of the party (moderate, radical, centrist, etc.) which produces many candidates, thus dividing supporters' votes, may win few delegates, though winning a majority of votes.

At the same time Devonian_Wombat deleted text on accuracy of caucus results:

• Caucus rules depend on state parties, and the Iowa party decided it did not have time to correct errors in counts from its caucus.

This issue dominated the beginning of the caucus/primary season, and deserves this brief mention, with most discussion at the linked article. The only reason given for deletion was "removed poorly worded and irrelevant information" Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

No, this issue did not dominate the beginning of the caucus / primary season. The references you are using are inappropriate regardless - they don't say anything about this particular primary season, and one of them is a book that was written in 2018, before the primaries even started. Not to mention just a biased and accusatory phrasing that suggests Iowa was somehow "wrong." Matters of election security are well and good, but you can't selectively bring it up on elections you'd like to discredit. The Iowa caucus issues are well-reported on and valid to bring up at 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses; there's no reason to talk about election audits for the primaries as a whole here specifically unless you have some reliable references on THIS TOPIC SPECIFICALLY, lest every single election ever have an "election security" section. SnowFire (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The specific issue which did or did not "dominate" is "accuracy of caucus results." I'm not sure how much evidence would show dominance. Here are a range of articles, which certainly show it was considered nationally significant, and needs mention in this overall article on the 2020 primaries. Most recent wording cited just two local articles with details. More can be cited. Wording doesn't seem critical to me, but factually says what the Iowa party decided (I personally see why they decided that way). If there's a more neutral way to summarize it, great. The most recent wording was: Rules about the accuracy of caucus results depend on state parties, and the Iowa party decided it did not have time to correct errors in counts from its caucus.

• https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/14/us/politics/iowa-caucus-results-mistakes.html
• https://www.npr.org/2020/02/19/807323379/how-nevada-democrats-hope-to-avoid-iowas-tech-errors
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/21/iowa-caucuses-survey-shows-majority-democrats-confident-fair-primary/4826847002/
• https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a30810883/iowa-caucuses-math-errors/
• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/nbc-news-review-iowa-caucus-vote-finds-potential-errors-inconsistencies-n1132011
• https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mattberman/iowa-caucus-results-2020-problem
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-caucuses-to-kick-off-democratic-nominating-contest-11580731200
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/all-the-iowa-caucus-results-are-in-but-they-contain-inconsistencies
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/10/iowa-democratic-party-responds-ongoing-errors-caucus-results-with-shrug/

The other text deleted was about accuracy/audits of the primary elections. It does seem relevant to have a brief message to complement the above caucus issue, and counterbalance reports of foreign interference, which definitely do apply to this primary election. Numbersinstitute (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/21/21147801/bernie-sanders-russia-presidential-campaign-trump-election-interference
• https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/485781-majority-of-voters-say-they-believe-there-is-evidence-russia-is-trying-to
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/04/rigged-rhetoric-makes-comeback-after-trumps-comments-sanderss-losses-gives-russia-just-what-it-wants/
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/23/joe-biden-russians-election-interference/4851853002/
• https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/super-tuesday-russia-interference-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-trump-20200304.html
• https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/03/russian-interference-michigan-primary-general-election/4902193002/
• https://thehill.com/homenews/house/484202-clyburn-on-russian-election-meddling-there-is-something-going-wrong
• https://www.npr.org/2020/03/05/812217886/what-to-know-about-the-election-security-situation-after-super-tuesday

Numbersinstitute: Thanks for your response. I agree that what you're describing was a real issue with reliable sources - it's just that this is already covered at 2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses#Inconsistencies_in_votes. We don't have any such sources concerning the New Hampshire primary, or the South Carolina primary, or the North Dakota hybrid event, and so on. It's important to be specific here and not just vaguely gesture at election security being a problem in general - imagine if out of 10 separate elections, comments about a lack of election audits were stuck on 2 at random. That would make those 2 look more suspect, no? Even though we're directly assuming that they were picked at random? I don't think "Rules for number of delegates" is the right section to stick this material in, if kept at all, regardless. It seems something better suited for "timeline" - which again, already covers the Iowa issues. I think the NPR article you linked is a good foundation for any sourced material you do feel should be included - note that it specifically talks about "Officials dealt with problems in Texas, California and North Carolina" while also saying that "They followed comparatively smooth primaries in South Carolina and New Hampshire, (and) a comparatively smooth caucus in Nevada". That's useful, relevant information a book written in 2018 can't possibly have. Maybe worth updating the "Timeline" section first? I wouldn't have any objections to that. SnowFire (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Portrait standards

All the portraits currently in the infobox is integrated as the 4:3 ratio. That may be one of the standard we could agree on. However, for other standards, we need to come to a consensus.

1. Background (dark/black/doesn't matter); 2. Facial direction (towards the camera/doesn't matter); 3. Smile (must smile/doesn't matter).

My personal preferences are 1. Background should be black for all candidates. If couldn't find a black background for one candidate, then the background could be dark. If still unapplicable, then it doesn't matter; 2. The candidates' face should face towards the camera; 3. Smile doesn't matter. Could be a grin, could be serious. Davemoth, Someone in SoCal Area, Darryl Kerrigan, Jgstokes, Bkatcher, Nick.mon, UpdateNerd, Devonian Wombat, what do you guys think? —Wei4Green • Talk 16:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

My personal preferences:

Aesthetic Similar to other candidates (pose, smile, etc)

Background Contrasting with hair/clothes

Source recent from campaign trail (if available and matches above 2 criteria)

--Davemoth (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with these, in addition to consistent ratio. Taking it to the level of "the background must be a certain color" isn't productive. Just using the best pictures that work, with a little common sense, is the way to go. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

My personal preferences are:

• 4:3 ratio
• Neutral background
• Recent pic, taken from the electoral campaign

-- Nick.mon (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't really care that much. The only two things I think are really important are that it is from the 2020 campaign trail, and it is similar to the other photos. A smile is nice, but a grin or serious look is fine too. I get the inclination where folks get upset if they think an unfaltering photo of their favourite candidate is chosen. But there isn't anything wrong with any of the Tulsi photos that were included in the above discussion. We shouldn't be including photos that are intentionally chosen to make folks look bad (ie clearly unflattering facial expression, or altered to make someone look red/ill). Other than that, we just need to pick a photo and move on. Frankly, all of the photos of Tulsi and as far as I recall all of the iterations of Bernie and Biden photos have been fine. The reality is that sometimes, the perfect photo is not available or public domain. I am happy to live with good ones which are.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I really don't think having standards for portraits is a good idea at all, besides maybe one for the ratio. The constant shuffling of images in a desperate and futile attempt to find the perfect one is more harmful than sticking with one perfectly fine picture, and what image that is should not changed on a whim. Creating arbitrary standards around picture quality just means we will have a constantly shifting picture, which is confusing to readers. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Help? Anyone know how to code an image as grayscale?

Not sure this is possible without editing the photo offline and re-uploading it, but if someone knows how to do this please let me know. I have also asked on the template talk page. As many reading this will know, I suggested making the "withdrawn candidates" photos grayscale above as a compromise to the ongoing RfCs. While I do not think it is appropriate for us to change it without reaching some sort of consensus, perhaps seeing a working copy here or in a sandbox might help us work towards a consensus. Anyway, let me know if this is even possible with the coding tools we have available.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

css has a way of displaying pictures in grayscale "img {filter: grayscale(100%);}", not sure if wikipedia formatting supports this TheFIST (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Louisiana Primary Date Change

Please update timeline to include new date for Louisiana primary. New date is June 20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.120.5 (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I updated the timeline. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Inconsistent winner count

Both the infobox for the page and the "contests won" boxes in the Candidates section give Bernie a win for New Hampshire, but not Buttigieg, despite the fact they tied in the state. If we're counting by popular vote, that would mean Bernie should get Iowa too, so obviously we're counting by delegates won. I think to be consistent either we should remove NH from Bernie's win count in both places, or add it to Buttigieg's as well with a note on both that it was a tie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nablais (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You would have to check some of the talk history to be sure, but I think that we were using the winners as noted by the Associated Press or a similar 3rd party site. I tried to check now, but I couldn't get to the APNews website.--Davemoth (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Several news sites carry incorrect "winners," based on incomplete data. Surely the final "winners" must be based on delegates and/or popular vote? -- Netwalker3 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Winner should be by delegate count, unless there’s a tie. Then the winner is the one who had the popular vote. That’s why Pete won Iowa but Bernie won NH. Also, Bernie has been called the winner of NH by various reliable sources and Pete has not. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

In an emotional situation such as a primary, the "various reliable sources" are simply expressing opinions. I would say: go by delegate count only, call a tie a tie, and count 0.5 of "contests won" for those in a tie. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of this? David O. Johnson (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

We WERE using the associated press as a third party souce for this, but they were refusing to call Iowa for Buttigieg because Sanders had an open appeal to the DNC. Since the Iowa Democrats had called it some editors kept changing it in the table. I changed it back once because the table clearly said "according to the AP" but it was changed again so we abandoned the "according to the AP" bit. Now we do not have any real standard. Historically, caucus winners have been called based on SDE (likely because vote totals were not released) and primaries by popular vote. There seemed to be interest in sticking with that although I do not think we ever really established a clear criteria.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Wow. ok. Hopefully they've called Iowa by now and we can go back to the AP? It feels like we should really have a standard. I personally think we should just have the number won (based on delegates since that's what matters) and then if there are ties put them in parentheses. For example: 6 (+1 tie) Nablais (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Clickable map

There is a problem with the map in the infobox. The first map, showing delegates, is clickable, while the popular vote map is not. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Added the option.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Washington?

Is there still no definitive result from Washington?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it’s a vote by mail state and the AP (and other reliable sources) have not called it yet. It’s a close race and it may be a while for all of the mail-in votes to be counted. And they don’t have to arrive by Election Day; they just have to be postmarked by then. It’s over 90% reporting now, so it should be relatively soon. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI, multiple news outlets are now calling Washington for Biden.[1],[2],[3]. BD2412 T 01:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Pledged delegates map

Why has the map showing pledged delegates by candidate in each state been removed? I found it very helpful.68.15.198.210 (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, does anyone know why it's not there anymore?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Well it got removed cause there was something wrong with the file, which is fixed now. But I didn't know what to do with the states that hadn't assigned all their delegates so yeah. You can find the file here though: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_pledged_delegates_state_2020.svg If anyone wants to update it, be my guest.--HoxtonLyubov (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Change of primary dates

Louisiana and Georgia have changed their primary dates, and the changes have been duly noted here. However, I read this in a Washington Post newsletter today: "Ohio was supposed to hold its primary tomorrow, but its governor just said he wants to cancel in-person voting and extend absentee voting." Some adjustment should be made or note added, if there will be no in-person "election" held tomorrow, and the date by which people can vote by absentee ballot is extended. This is becoming less of a "Super" Tuesday III now almost 1/4 of the delegates (136 out of 577, now reduced to a total of only 441) are being removed from Tuesday itself. WordwizardW (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a judge will decide whether to postpone the Ohio election. [4] David O. Johnson (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Could somebody please move Ohio from March 17 on the 'Schedule and Results' table to the bottom of the page with date listed as TBD. The page is semi-protected so I can't do it. Thanks.--Mrodowicz (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The primary will be June 2nd: [5]; I went ahead and moved it there. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks--Mrodowicz (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2020

In the infobox, change the number of delegates to 1,165 for Biden and 879 for Sanders, as those are the updated figures listed by the source. (The delegate count has now been updated, so no need to change it.) Zigmo32 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Total pledged delegates (Kentucky)

It should be 46, not 54. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.121.88.184 (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It's fixed now. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard photo

Why is Tulsi the only one not smiling in the picture? There shoukd be better pictures of her than that. 88.83.36.186 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It was changed to a smiling pic but changed back for whatever reason(I do not know). Her bio has an image of her smiling but perhaps there is some reason that image cannot be used in this article. Of course, we do not have to give in to the patriarchy and demand there be an image of her, or any other woman, be smiling. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I beleive an editor reverted to the old one of her because it is from the campaign and head on as opposed to the side. Other editors have also changed her photo to her congressional one, but I think the preference is for a recent photo, head on, and from the campaign (ie her on the campaign trail, at an event or on the debate stage). Of course, we can only use public domain or creative commons images. If you have a better one feel free to add it. I expect it will have the best chance of staying there if it meets those criteria.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Her mood with having just two delegates. --2601:241:201:DEE0:3C18:674C:E04F:D03A (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I'd caution other editors to refrain from personal commentary or expressing a personal opinion on candidates, as Wikipedia is not a forum for personal soapboxes, and makes it appear as if the editor making those statements lacks personal neutrality. There's a time and a place for discussing personal opinions on candidates, and Wikipedia isn't that place, nor is the talk page the right setting in which to do so. I could be wrong here, but that's my opinion on this. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I had changed the picture to which was from the campaign but it was also changed back to the non-smiling one. I think this one is from the same event even.Davemoth (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davemoth: I think her portrait should be a black background to be consistent with Joe's and Bernie's: A: or B: —Wei4Green • Talk 00:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I'm going to revert it back. Bkatcher (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I also added a comment to the active candidates section to come to the talk page before changing the picture. Looking at the history of that image it appeared in pages in October and the original user often undoes the edit shortly later. I have asked him to visit this page before making other editsDavemoth (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi everybody, as I said to Davemoth, we can use this portrait, but I think we had to crop it, because it’s too different from the others. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It should ideally match the portrait at Template:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, as with the other candidates. I'm trying this image there so you can see "both sides of [her] face", but we'll see if that gets reverted for some yet-to-be-clear reason. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That image legitimately looks terrifying, we should 100% not use it under any circumstances. I am in favour of the old portrait, smiling is less important than a photo being head-on and competently shot. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the version that Nick.mon has in place now. It is consistent with the aesthetic of the other images.Davemoth (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

My preference is for either A or B of the dark images from the California Democratic Party State Convention. If there is a better photo from that even when she has a smile folks prefer then great, but I agree that it would be preferable for her image to look similar to Biden and Bernie's.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wei4Green: I see you changed the photo. I don't think there is consensus for using that photo. Many have said here that a similar aesthetic (ie: a smile) is important. I personally think background has zero impact on the aesthetic (and now Klobuchar on the Infobox is the only outlier on that). Can you revert your edit and see if you can find something with a black background and a smile similar to Biden/Sanders? --Davemoth (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davemoth: No, sorry. That portrait is the closest I could find Tulsi with a black background and with a somewhat smile. I could try to find portraits of Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar. —Wei4Green • Talk 15:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davemoth: But the portraits of some of the withdrawn major candidates don't have a smile or a black background. I updated the portrait to File:Tulsi Gabbard (48011616441) (cropped).jpg mostly because her face is facing towards the camera, not away from it. —Wei4Green • Talk 16:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wei4Green: I just spent some time looking for other options and there are a few better ones, but I couldn't determine if there was a copyright. I came to the realization that my main objection comes from the black background. You cannot even tell where her hair starts and stops. A candidate with a dark complexion could almost disappear into the background. Maybe better photos for Biden and/or Sanders need to be found instead -- I will look into that angle when I can. Ideally we should maybe source headshots from the campaign websites (if we can find ones with no copyright or an open license.)--Davemoth (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davemoth: Yeah. I think we may have to discuss about the criteria in Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Portrait standards. I'm pretty busy today, so I think I won't get you back until Saturday. Please feel free to revert or overwrite my edit if there's a consensus on portrait standards. —Wei4Green • Talk 16:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Can someone crop the photo so her head appears about the same size as those of the other candidates? I personally think this is the best photo available of her to suit the portrait standards (regardless of the background, there aren’t any good head-on photos of her smiling more fully in Wikimedia Commons) but it currently seems too zoomed out to match the aesthetic of the other photos. -- Tartan357 (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and tried cropping it myself. Feel free to revert if you think it's cropped too tightly. -- Tartan357 (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

Change undecided Washington State graphic to blue Biden graphic. Wingflop2 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Not all pledged delegates in Washington have been assigned yet. There's still 5 more. 162.221.124.29 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

But the AP has called it for Biden. [6]. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The majority of Washington’s pledged delegates are assigned based on district-wide results, not statewide results. It’s technically possible to win more delegates than your opponent by overperforming in key districts despite losing the popular vote (similar to Iowa). I don’t know if it’s still possible for Bernie to win a majority of delegates based on district delegates in Washington because I have not done any math and I have not seen reliable sources discussing this. I doubt it is, but it may be within the realm of possibility. Biden won the popular vote and can’t be caught at this point, so the second map is good. As for the delegate allocation map, Biden is leading by 2 delegates with 5 still unassigned; I don’t see the harm in waiting until a few more are assigned for accuracy. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Going to close this as already done looking at the article's graphics to me it seems as if Washington state has been colored blue for Biden. Please reactivate request if I am wrong. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Editing of template while RFC is ongoing

Hi,

A couple of editors, (specifically Smith0124 and Wikibojopayne), have changed the template by removing Klobuchar and Gabbard. I was under the impression that no changes were to be made while the RFC is still ongoing. Am I correct? David O. Johnson (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, now that Gabbard is out of the race, there's no real argument to be made for her staying in the infobox. Her inclusion so far was due to her still being able to gain delegates, as far as I'm concerned. Now that she's out of the race, she hasn't made big enough of an impact. Jeb Bush and Ben Carson earned multiple delegates as well but were not included in the 2016 infoxbox. It's just nonsesnical to keep her, basically. ~CJ Melon (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I think Klobuchar should stay pending the result of the Rfc, but Gabbard there's no reason. Even though she stayed in longer, she hasn't done better than candidates like Yang or Steyer who aren't in the infobox. Smith0124 (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that Gabbard should no longer be included, regardless of the outcome of whether or not Klobuchar should be. Cookieo131 (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

No, edits should not be made during the RfC. The status quo should be maintained. While I think Gabbard does not belong in the infobox, the process is larger than me. I believe some editors were of the view that all candidates who won delegates should be included. That may have changed. If so, they can change their !votes. Davemoth has done an excellent job summarizing the last RfC and working towards a consensus among the participants. He intends to try to do the same with this one. I have also asked for a formal close. Hopefully, a resolution to the RfC will come soon. I do not see any reason to rush it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan I don't think there is any consensus on this RfC based on an initial look. Quick rough votes are A 15; B 3; C 22; and D 22. I haven't looked in depth at the merits of the arguments but my gut feeling is that no consensus will be found. This will likely end up for just this Infobox as the result of the first RfC so we will end up with Delegate or 5% so we will have all 7 after the convention. I don't think an experienced closer would find anything different.--Davemoth (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that quick assessment Davemoth. Sorry, I didn't mean to volunteer you there, I thought you had indicated that you intended to take a stab at this second RfC as well. I agree there is likely not a consensus yet in the second RfC. Perhaps, some editors will clarify their votes in light of Gabbard dropping out. Perhaps that changes how they view things, perhaps not. I agree with your comment in the RfC above that, now is likely not the time to try a close given that this change just occurred. Probably best to wait a few days at least. If that changes things for editors, that gives them some time say so.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davemoth:@Darryl Kerrigan: The only reason Gabbard was in before was because she was still an active candidate. Otherwise she met no threshold. Had there been no Rfc she would've been removed. Not removing her means candidates such as Yang and Steyer should be there too. Smith0124 (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe you are correct that is why she was added originally: that she was a "major" candidate according to our candidates section and she was "active". That said others commented that if she got more votes or delegates she should be included. Then she won two delegates. That doesn't carry the day, but it is what the RfC was about. Steyer and Yang are in different positions as neither won delegates or 5% of the vote in the primaries. Gabbard has won delegates. You know I agree with you on substance. I think in a feild where seven candidates have won delegates, winning two doesn't qualify you for the infobox. BUT this isn't about what I think or what you think. Many editors have commented in the RfC, it is not our place to ignore their !votes. Let's let it play out. It may very well go the way you are suggesting, why does it matter if she spends another few days in the box.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

My apologies for editing. My understanding was that Gabbard *and* Klobuchar were only there because they had *delegates*. So when Smith0124 removed Gabbard, I assumed it was fine to take down Klobuchar as well. Personally, I believe the infobox should be limited to those who won a significant number of delegates, defined as: 1) won a state/territory or 2) got more delegates than the state-winner with fewest delegates. In this case: Pete, Bloomberg, Warren, Bernie, Biden). I've been frustrated that so much commentary on who should be in the infobox is totally ignorant of Wiki-precedent. But of course, I'll abide by the community's decision.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead template, now that Gabbard is out

As I mentioned at the end of the talk section above, there needs to be a fresh discussion regarding the candidates in the lead template now that Gabbard has suspended her campaign. Only including two options for now, as more options only complicates matters.

• A: Keep only the remaining two major candidates, Biden and Sanders.
• B: Keep as is, at least for now.

• Note that if Option B wins, we can still have a separate conversation regarding removing candidates who failed to reach a certain threshold.

A has my endorsement. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• B-ish: Keep all candidates except Tulsi Gabbard for the reasons I have expressed in the two RfC here. Also, I agree with Michelangelo1992 and Javert2113 below. The existing RfCs should be closed. A further discussion is likely not particularly helpful, until those are resolved.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• C: Why limit to only two options? And do we really need another RFC before the first ones have even officially closed? Leave for now. Regardless, eventually my preference is to cut Klobuchar and Gabbard for reasons I discussed extensively above. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Invalid RfC, given that the former ones have not yet closed. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I had the realization that this was too hasty after seeing the section just above this one, which seems to have some good consensus of an Option C. Anyways, I really think the initial RFC is invalid now that the number of active candidates has changed and needs to be closed/restarted. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting clarification on Kentucky's delegate count

I just want to know why Kentucky's delegate count was reduced from 54 to 46? Specifically in regards to what source(s) reported that change (because I'm looking at CNN and it still says 54 for Kentucky; no, I'm not accidentally looking at Louisiana's delegate count).

The primary reason this is important is because, if Kentucky's delegate count is indeed 46 now, then the total delegates of 3979 would no longer be an accurate number, nor would the required delegate threshold of 1991. No other states have had any numbers changed. And yes, I did the math. So if all the sources we are using here are still saying 3979 and 1991, then it is not possible for Kentucky's delegate count to only be 46, it has to still be 54. So this is why I just want to receive clarification on this, so that the hard-working people who update this article can look into this and confirm what the correct number actually is. Thanks so much. Bobharris1989 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I echo these concerns. If Kentucky is 8 delegates lower, then that affects the overall total. I haven't seen a source for 46, but I was waiting to hear if the postponements would have an effect on delegate allocation. The DNC's previously defined primary window ends June 9. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Map: Arizona

This has been called for days. Would someone capable please colour Arizona blue for Biden in the popular-vote map? Thanks a lot. 178.4.151.167 (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done, though it may take some time for the new image to propagate. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Popular Vote Map: Dems Abroad

If someone knows how can they shade the Democrats Abroad (World) image Green. We now know Bernie Sanders won the popular vote in this contest. Thanks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done, though it may take some time for the new image to propagate. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Voting schedule map and the pandemic

Democratic primary and caucus calendar by currently scheduled date
  February
  March 3 (Super Tuesday)
  March 10
  March 14–17
  March 29
  April 4–7
  April 28
  May
  June

This map likely needs to be updated too given that many of the primaries have been rescheduled. If I have time I will have a look at this, but I do not have experience editing these maps. If anyone has the time and know-how that would be a help. Perhaps for historical purposes, there is value in having two versions: this one which shows the planned dates, and another which shows the rescheduled dates (ie the dates the primaries actually occur on).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I really like the idea of having both versions to show the special circumstances surrounding some of the later primaries and the impact of COVID-19 on these elections. Cookieo131 (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

My attempt at a new map is below the first map. If this is used, then the first map can be rolled back to its pre-rescheduling state. (New dates for LA, GA, and KY are currently shown on the first map.) --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Democratic primary and caucus calendar by rescheduled dates
Same legend as above, except April 4–7 is now 4–17

Or, the first map (the original file) can continue to be updated, and the second map can be changed to the pre-rescheduling state. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. Yes, that is a good idea to roll back LA, GA, and KY in the first map.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

County map error

The map showing winner by county shows Sanders winning several counties in Washington, including King and Skagit counties (among others), that were actually won by Biden. The wiki page on the Washington primary has the correct map 177.225.145.33 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19

David O. Johnson reverted my edit deleting the entry on the timeline of the first known COVID-19 case in China. I deleted it because a case of a disease in China is not germane to the 2020 Democratic primaries. If a candidate became ill, that might be worth including, but in terms of the primaries, if a contest is delayed due to the outbreak, linking to the page for the pandemic seems reasonable but I don't see a need for much more. Regardless, the first COVID-19 case in China is not an event in the primaries, and that bullet should be removed. --WMSR (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It was an accident with the rollback button. I undid my reversion right away. My apologies.David O. Johnson (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Striking because I now see that the editor undid the edit in question. My bad. --WMSR (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE TO THE FASTEST SOURCE

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.

---

SOURCE :
Delegate Level : +20 Delegates Compared To The Green Papers
Vote Level : +198,936 Votes Compared To The Green Papers
(As Of March 26th)
-- 59.11.55.12 User talk:59.11.55.12 Special:Contributions/59.11.55.12 02:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It might be fastest, but is it WP:RS? The fact that is has more Delegates that the Green Papers suggests that this is also using estimates or projections. --Davemoth (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It's moot. That IP address has been blocked for spamming. [7]. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

Accuracy of primary and caucus results

There has been discussion, previously archived, on including a subsection about the accuracy of caucus and primary results. Caucus errors in Iowa have has their own article and the following sentence, or a better one, is enough mention in this overview article. It was covered extensively in the national press, with examples below, which don't need to be cited..

• Accuracy of caucus results depends on state parties, and the Iowa party decided it did not have time to correct errors in counts from its caucus.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/14/us/politics/iowa-caucus-results-mistakes.html

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/19/807323379/how-nevada-democrats-hope-to-avoid-iowas-tech-errors

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/21/iowa-caucuses-survey-shows-majority-democrats-confident-fair-primary/4826847002/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a30810883/iowa-caucuses-math-errors/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/nbc-news-review-iowa-caucus-vote-finds-potential-errors-inconsistencies-n1132011

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mattberman/iowa-caucus-results-2020-problem

https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-caucuses-to-kick-off-democratic-nominating-contest-11580731200

https://www.thedailybeast.com/all-the-iowa-caucus-results-are-in-but-they-contain-inconsistencies

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/10/iowa-democratic-party-responds-ongoing-errors-caucus-results-with-shrug/

Accuracy of primary results depends on state law. Many articles address interference in this election, problems, and ability of audits to deter or detect problems.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/21/21147801/bernie-sanders-russia-presidential-campaign-trump-election-interference

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/485781-majority-of-voters-say-they-believe-there-is-evidence-russia-is-trying-to

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/04/rigged-rhetoric-makes-comeback-after-trumps-comments-sanderss-losses-gives-russia-just-what-it-wants/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/23/joe-biden-russians-election-interference/4851853002/

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/super-tuesday-russia-interference-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-trump-20200304.html

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/03/russian-interference-michigan-primary-general-election/4902193002/

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/484202-clyburn-on-russian-election-meddling-there-is-something-going-wrong

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/05/812217886/what-to-know-about-the-election-security-situation-after-super-tuesday

Warnings of interference in this specific election are broad and well-sourced. About half the states have election audits to deter and detect problems. The following response from SnowFire was in the archived discussion. Numbersinstitute (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Numbersinstitute: Thanks for your response. I agree that what you're describing was a real issue with reliable sources - it's just that this is already covered at 2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses#Inconsistencies_in_votes. We don't have any such sources concerning the New Hampshire primary, or the South Carolina primary, or the North Dakota hybrid event, and so on. It's important to be specific here and not just vaguely gesture at election security being a problem in general - imagine if out of 10 separate elections, comments about a lack of election audits were stuck on 2 at random. That would make those 2 look more suspect, no? Even though we're directly assuming that they were picked at random? I don't think "Rules for number of delegates" is the right section to stick this material in, if kept at all, regardless. It seems something better suited for "timeline" - which again, already covers the Iowa issues. I think the NPR article you linked is a good foundation for any sourced material you do feel should be included - note that it specifically talks about "Officials dealt with problems in Texas, California and North Carolina" while also saying that "They followed comparatively smooth primaries in South Carolina and New Hampshire, (and) a comparatively smooth caucus in Nevada". That's useful, relevant information a book written in 2018 can't possibly have. Maybe worth updating the "Timeline" section first? I wouldn't have any objections to that. SnowFire (talk) 3:52 pm, 12 March 2020, Thursday (10 days ago) (UTC−7)

Half the states now audit elections

I agree adding text to random elections would be wrong. We agree issues about this specific election are germane. Besides reports about foreign help for Sanders, intelligence officials are concerned about "more actors... interfering in networks or the vote count". The public has the same concerns. These are concerns spread pver many months, so I don't see how they fit in the timeline. Brief mention could go in "Reforms since 2016" since many states have added paper ballots, some have added audits, and they say they are working on cybersecurity, though details are sparse. Or brief mention could go in "Rules for number of delegates" if it were re-titled "Rules for selecting delegates" since delegate selection is what interference in the primary would target. This map was in the article at one point to show the current extent of auditing. The text would be something like

• Intelligence officials, election officials and the public are concerned about interference in counting votes during 2020 elections. To address these concerns, many states which did not have paper ballots in 2016 and 2018 do have them in 2020. About half the states audit samples of ballots in the primary and general elections to measure accuracy of the reported results. Numbersinstitute (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Made changes as discussed here Numbersinstitute (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Potential 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates

So since the Coronavirus hit New York, it's Governor, Andrew Cuomo has begun to be seen as a potential candidate. Sure, speculation about his run is minor, but it is significant enough. More and more articles such as: https://dnyuz.com/2020/03/26/andrew-cuomo-overtakes-bernie-sanders-in-odds-to-be-democratic-candidate-amid-new-york-governors-pandemic-response/ have been discussing Cuomo possibly running. He already stated he wouldn't run, but some presidential candidates such as Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg claimed they wouldn't run, but ultimately chose to run anyways. Should a "potential candidates" section be added to 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates with Andrew Cuomo in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliticalJunkie2006 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Outside of some right-wing frothing by the likes of the National Review and Fox News, salivating at another chance at internal Democratic division, this is a non-story. So, no, no inclusion. Zaathras (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's still minor. TFD (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Campaign Finance up to Feb 29, 2020

The campaign finance on this page isn’t up to date (for example, Bloomberg spent over $900 billion).

Is there another page on Wikipedia dedicated just to campaign finance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemikem (talk • contribs) 23:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Lack of Ojeda and Sestak Campaign Logos

All of the other candidates have them and them and they have campaign logos and I'm pretty sure I have seen them at random points with them so why are they excluded from having them on the page?2600:1702:3D20:E1C0:AC40:3439:E770:6808 (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

There are notes in the wikicode where the logos would be.

Here are the notes :

"Please do not add Joe Sestak's campaign logo. We do not have the rights to the image, and this is not a fair use per the criteria."

"Please do not add Richard Ojeda's campaign logo. We do not have the rights to the image, and this is not a fair use per the criteria."

Hope it answers your question. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Grand Total Number of Pledged Delegates

Out of pure boredom, I added up all of the total pledged delegates up for grabs from all 56 contests a few times and I came to the grand total of 3,971 delegates. However, as we all know, there is actually 3,979 pledged delegates to the Democratic Convention, not 3,971: am I missing 8 delegates being included somehow? --Curdlash (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Where/when did you get the numbers for the individual contests? Yesterday, I corrected Kentucky from 46 to 54, and now I get a total of 3,979. (See discussions here and here). --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Aha, that makes sense! I did this before you updated Kentucky's # of delegates; I used the "Schedule and results" table on this article and I haven't checked since that Kentucky's delegate count was changed (which I should've done before posting this query), therefore balancing to 3,979. Thanks very much! --Curdlash (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2020

The Ballot Access table is missing Nebraska and New Jersey. Please add those two states. Thank you. 73.158.239.77 (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Majavah ^(t/c) 11:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The information in question was added to the table on March 31, shortly after this edit request. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

West Virginia has rescheduled its primary

Please note that it will now be held on June 9, as noted by these sources 2601:447:4100:C120:C04B:D468:8A18:28BF (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The article has been updated to reflect the rescheduling. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there any sense on how these reschedulings, the effect of the coronavirus, are going to affect the primaries as a whole? Simply having a list of reschedulings and cancellations doesn't really convey anything...--Jack Upland (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's important to note. What's your point? David O. Johnson (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I made it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Wisconsin primary date change

Even though they have changed the date they will still ge voting results in on April 7 and be finished on April 13 Nyjets113 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As it stands now, I think the Wisconsin primary should still be listed as scheduled for tomorrow. The Governor's action is being challenged and no final decision has been made about the legality of the postponement. Until such a time, it should remain in the schedule as previous, but could be marked as "potentially rescheduled" or something similar. Vir4030 (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

As of right now, the Wisconsin primary is back on for tomorrow (Tuesday, April 7th). (The state Supreme Court overruled the governor's executive order.) I don't really know what I'm doing, but if someone else doesn't change the article back soon, I'll take a shot at it myself. Fried Gold (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2020

Bernie dropped out of the race so you will need to add him the withdrawn section. And it's going to Biden vs Trump MagicL55 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done by another editor. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ballot Access

Shouldn't the Ballot Access section include a discussion of Wisconsin's on-again-off-again COVID-19-plagued primary where people who requested ballots in a timely manner were not able to receive them by the date of the primary when they needed to be mailed by? WordwizardW (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Bernie out

Uhhh.… did Bernie drop out. I’ve been seeing things of him out, but can someone confirm it. I mean the wiki table at the top of the page still has Bernie as a candidate (instead of campaign postponed or “dropped out”). Jerry Steinfield (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum. If you read above you will note there is discussion on noting "presumptive" next to Biden.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Also same subject as #Sanders Dropped (edit request) and #Sanders is out (sources) above. --Closeapple (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Sanders Dropped

The table should be updated to include the fact that Bernie Sanders has dropped: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-to-end-his-presidential-campaign/2020/03/18/cf7a1824-4d18-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html 75.181.181.115 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done by another editor. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hold up, I think this wording may overlook an important distinction. Sanders suspended his campaign--you can still vote for him in the primary, he still has his delegates, and, in theory, he could even still win the primary, he just isn't actively promoting himself. Maybe that is also what the other drop outs did, but I just wanted to raise the issue. There may be a very real difference here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/us/politics/bernie-sanders-drops-out.html https://nypost.com/2020/04/08/bernie-sanders-drops-out-of-2020-presidential-race/ https://nypost.com/2020/04/08/bernie-sanders-will-stay-on-2020-ballot-to-exert-influence/ Hunter's Leesee (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

In my experience of following American elections, "suspending a campaign" has always been synonymous to "dropping out," "ends run," or "withdraws." I believe that the difference between "suspending" and "dropping out" is just formal vs casual wording. You can google any candidate's name followed by "drops out" or "suspends campaign" and come up with articles written within the same few hours from different reliable sources, ie: on March 5, the NYT said Warren "drops out" in the title and says "suspended her campaign" in the body of the text, while ABC said "suspended" and "suspends," and [CNN https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/05/politics/elizabeth-warren-drops-out/index.html] says "drops out." I believe that there is not any difference at all. Cookieo131 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry didn’t see all the other people talking about this on the talk page. Jerry Steinfield (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Rfc Regarding the Infobox

Hey all, Since the last Rfc was posted at a very different time in the race, I am starting a new Rfc that presents options more fitting to the current state of the race and hopefully are less confusing. I encourage all who participated in the previous discussion to continue to share their thoughts., and I have asked for a close on that discussion. In that request, I said that I believe that the change in the race warrants a new discussion.

Question
What candidates should be featured in the infobox?

Options
A - Candidates that EITHER win a contest, get >5% of the popular vote, or get >5% of delegates (As of 4/7 includes Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg) (by Michelangelo1992)
B - Candidates that get >5% of the popular vote (As of 4/7 includes Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Bloomberg)
C - Candidates that get >5% of the delegates (As of 4/7 includes Biden and Sanders)
D - Candidates that get even one delegate (As of 4/7 includes Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, and Gabbard)
E - Only candidates still in the race (As of 4/8 includes only Biden)
F - Other

Thank you all! Smith0124 (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
A - This is in line with previous standards and the usual 5% threshold, and represents both the popular vote and the delegates. Personally I would add Klobuchar in addition since she was a major candidates all the way up to Super Tuesday almost, but that's subjective and these standards represent the most fair way to keep control of the infobox while still having it be a representation of the race now and when it is over. In addition, it was the most popular option in the previous Rfc without even being an option, so I think it has a good amount of public support. Smith0124 (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

B - But I'd add OR got >5% of delegates for future precedent. In this case, that wouldn't add any new names to the four. Omnibus (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

While I appreciate the attempt to resolve this, I am not sure a third RfC on this issue is going to help us do so any faster than waiting for a close to the previous two. Opening new discussions before the previous ones are closed tend to complicate things, and attempts to "start fresh" tend to welcome accusations that a prior consensus (or at least consensus in the making) is being ignored or stifled.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

That’s fair. That’s why I asked for a close on the previous discussion. Smith0124 (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have also asked for a formal close here. Unfortunately, those tend to take a long time. I note that since this section started, Bernie has also dropped out which may change things for some and certainly won't for others. For what it is worth, I still think it should be the top six. We are going to have five if we use those with over 5% of votes/delegates or who won a contest (Biden, Bernie, Warren, Bloomberg, & Buttigieg). The template is symmetrical with 2, 3, 4 or 6 (but not with 5). I tend to hate having an empty slot so would include Klobuchar too, but that is mostly a style preference.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Quicj suggestion, now that Biden is the only candidate in the primary would it make sense to remove (Withdrawn) from Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Gabbard, Klobuchar, Buttigieg and just have (Presumptive nominee) for Biden? Its now obvious that everyone has withdrawn from the race. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That would probably make sense. Put a {{update after|2020|08|19}} on it — not that the 12-hours-early crowd and the hover-over-the-save-button crowd won't be on top of it. --Closeapple (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

In his speech, Sanders didn't drop out, but he only suspended his campaign. He remains on the ballots and continues to gather delegates, and he even urged people to still vote for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:26F:30A0:E94A:8BCB:633D:405F (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Sanders is a bit unusual in that he did explicitly say in his suspension speech that he would stay on the ballots and continue to gather delegates. I hadn't heard him explicitly say to vote for him, but I guess that's implied by saying that he will continue to pursue delegates, since the conventional wisdom is that his only delegate power is really in popular-vote delegates rather than superdelegates. In any case, having to qualify a "Suspended" tag won't be necessary in the infobox if the tag criterion becomes "Presumptive nominee" instead; then people can look in the article to see what the candidates who aren't the presumptive nominee are doing. --Closeapple (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, reliable sources are now referring to Biden as the presumptive nominee. I don't think we need to wait for the convention to refer to him as such. --WMSR (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

ranked-choice voting

Now the question is, what do we do with ranked-choice voting? Both were used in Alaska and Wyoming and most online publications only show the final total. All the candidates received votes on the first round. So what do we do about it?Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

My understanding (and I could be mistaken) is that delegates are only given out based on the final round vote totals. If that is the case, then those are the vote totals that should be used on this article. Maybe a way to give both sets of information in the results table would be to show the final round votes as regular text, and include the first round votes in parenthesis as (small text), or something like that. Jacoby531 (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sanders is out

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vermont-sen-bernie-sanders-suspends-presidential-bid/story?id=67498756

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52219756

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-to-end-his-presidential-campaign/2020/03/18/cf7a1824-4d18-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html

Suggestion to update the map with current contest dates

I know that this map is updated whenever a state changes its contest date, but the color scales on this map have not really been changed much, and I think they should be to better reflect the current dates. May I suggest, to whomever is it that edits this map, the following changes? One, combine April's contests into just one color; since there has ended up being only 4 of them in total, having them divided into two separate colors on the map doesn't make much sense anymore. And two, separate the July/August contests into their own color, separate from the June contests. So basically, I'm suggesting that the total number of separate colors (eight) remain the same, but just editing the scale to make more tangible sense for the current range of dates, and editing the coloring of some states as necessary. (Side comment, I would also suggest grouping any "TBA" states, such as Puerto Rico currently, under the July/August color, just as a temporary fix until a date is announced. I don't think that just keeping it under April's color would be correct to do.) Thank you very much, and I appreciate the work you do with all these maps! Bobharris1989 (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that both maps should have a unified color scale, even if some of the dates don't appear on one of the two maps. It would make it a lot easier to read and compare the two maps. I also think that June-August is far too wide of a time frame for the number of primaries that are happening in that time; there's 11-12 contests (PR is unscheduled) over those three months and five on June 2 alone, so there's definitely enough states in that range to be separated into multiple categories. Cookieo131 (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

After analyzing the dates as they currently stand, I have come up with a plan to stretch the existing pallet of nine colors. 1) combine mid-March and late-March into one color, 2) combine the two April ranges into one color, and 3) split June-August into three blocks: A) June 2, B) the rest of June, and C) July-Aug. This is similar to the original proposal above, except June 2 stands alone due to the large number of primaries on that day. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Color	Original Scheme (1st map, 2nd map)	New Scheme (1st map, 2nd map)
	February (4, 4)	February (4, 4)
	Super Tuesday (15, 15)	Super Tuesday (15, 15)
	March 10 (7, 7)	March 10 (7, 7)
	March 14-17 (5, 4)	March 14-29 (7, 4)
	March 24-29 (2, 0)	April (11, 4)
	April 4-17 (5, 3)	May (7, 5)
	April 26-28 (6, 1)	June 2 (5, 9)
	May (7, 5)	June 6-23 (1, 5)
	June-Aug (6, 17)	July-Aug (0, 3)

since when did we ditch the green papers?

We've been using them like, forever...they have Biden at 1660.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Greenpapers is fine for vote totals. But, when a state has incomplete results, Greenpapers will post forecasts of the total delegate allocation (which are close, but often wrong). Every reputable site uses the AP numbers for delegates - yes the AP is slow but that's because they actually use sources rather than forecasts, which is why they are considered the gold standard of election results. I think we can be patient and wait on the election boards to finish their vote counting processes before fully allocating the delegates. Rdougellis (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

New York

The cancellation of the New York Democratic primary is just like the cancellation of the Republican one. The delegates were declared elected. There weren't any alternate methods of selecting delegates. They were just declared elected by the NY state election board. So them's the rules, don't say it's premature or invalid. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Any declaration about delegates still needs a reliable source. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You mean like NYS Board of Elections? go to the right hand of the page and check out: Amended Presidential Primary certification. According to the official declaration, Biden and all his delegates are unopposed. So there is no primary.Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. BTW, I noticed you changed back the wording here in this edit, [8], with your edit summary indicating "putting the original sentence back in. The quote is not in the article cited." However, it is in the NY Times ref: "Mr. Jacobs said he was not sure what it would mean for the state’s delegate count at the convention." I went ahead and removed the NYS Board of Elections link and added back the previous wording on the unclear meaning of the cancellation, in terms of NY delegates. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The reason why the press is not allocating delegates to New York is for two reasons. Primarily, the NY decision violates the Democratic Party’s rules for selecting delegates to the national convention (See more details from the Washington Post). Of course, the DNC might change their position and allow NY to seat the NY delegates without a primary, such as through a waiver or a new plan approval. But that hasn't happened yet ... this is why the AP has not allocated delegates to New York and neither should Wikipedia. Second, the decision to cancel the primary in NY is headed to court, so who knows what will come out of that. The bottom line is that at the moment, there are no delegates from New York counted to go to the convention, despite whatever the state's election board might publish or Greenpapers might forecast. Rdougellis (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The NY primary has not been cancelled and will go ahead like an election in North Korea. There will only be one name on the ballot, chosen by the party leadership. TFD (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

TFD, if I may ask, where is the source verifying the information you provided? Unless a reliable source is cited, that information will be very difficult to confirm. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I stand corrected. News sources reported that Sanders' name had been removed from the ballot.[9] The party has however cancelled the presidential vote from the ballot itself. TFD (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are the rules being changed?

I'm just wondering why there needs to be a new consensus for infoboxes when it already seemed pretty clear what was necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalteringArc2 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What rules do you feel are being changed? Usually, candidates are only provided a space in an elections infobox if they have received >5% of the vote, but sometimes we include those who have won contests, or delegates (particularly where they are included in map in the infobox). Questions about how to apply these different criteria is why a RfC was started above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

But in the past we never inluded candidates who just won delegates. That would mean Dennis Kuucinich and Al Sharpton need to be added to the 2004 infobox, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter need to be added to the 2008 infobox and John Edwards needs to be added to the 2008 infobox.(talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say we always include anyone who has won any delegates. I said that is one of the criteria sometimes pointed to for inclusion. As is winning a contest (ie state or territory). As is receiving over 5% of the vote. The RfCs above are about determining what criteria exactly should be applied here. If you disagree with current layout of infobox comment in the RfCs above. Or alternatively, do nothing and wait for the RfC to be closed. We requested formal closures a while ago (as noted in the RfCs). When they are closed we will have a better idea what the final result is. Complaining in this section is unlikely to achieve anything.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Should Ron Perlman be included?

He announced a campaign but never filed with the FEC. Should he be in the candidates list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalteringArc2 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC) :

If he never filed with the FEC, never campaigned, was never on the ballot, and never won one vote, then it's pretty clear to me that he shouldn't be included. This is because his campaign did not merit any significant media coverage, and went nowhere. If we were to list every candidate that ever filed for any office, the articles in which they were listed would become too unwieldly. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorting of candidates who dropped out

In the table for Withdrew during the primaries, I would prefer if candidates were sorted by 1) number of delegates, then 2) number of votes, rather than date withdrawing. This way the more important candidates would be towards the top. Gabbard wasn't very important, and Buttigieg was more important than Klobuchar although he dropped out one day earlier.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. That said, it is already sort-able, so readers who want to see who won more delegates, or got more votes can easily click on that heading and sort the candidates by that field.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

That so many participants felt the need to qualify their response is a sign of a badly constructed RfC and makes for a difficult close, but I will do my best.

There is no consensus for the proposal in part A. The votes for and against were about even (actually 10 for no and 9 for yes including UpdateNerd who commented in the wrong section). A large number of participants (8) qualified their vote with the suggestion that either all candidates, or the top x candidates should be included. Since most participants did not indicate their position on this issue (it was not one of the questions asked) that is also no consensus.

Participants rejected the proposal in part B as written. The voting was 7 for yes and 11 for no. However, a large number of voters (11) qualified their response by suggesting the criterion should be 5% of popular vote or a delegate. In my judgement (although this is too messy to be completely certain) there is consensus for part B with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote.

Several participants (4) commented on the choice of 538 as the poll aggregator. This is somewhat moot as proposal A has failed, but I will give a summary anyway. Comments were not consistent on which aggregators should be used and how they should be averaged if multiple aggregators used. The level of participation was not sufficiently high to find a definite consensus, but it can be said that using 538 alone is controversial. SpinningSpark 09:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

---

This is a two part RfC.

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

• A:No, B:Yes A: Show the top 9 candidates. Polls can be wrong, and excluding candidates that have passed the criteria to be included in a contest from the infobox takes them out of the view of voters who visit that article, potentially influencing the vote. Because of this influence, we should err on the side of inclusion. On the other hand, infoboxes do have limited space, and polls are a somewhat useful measure of relative ranking, so I would propose keeping up to the top 9 highest polling candidates in the infoboxes. 9 candidates, 3 rows of 3, is a format that is easy to scan and digest. B: The formats of these contests vary from state to state, but the one constant is candidates win delegates from these contests. To keep the infoboxes simple and consistent, only the candidates who win delegates should be included, and only the delegate counts should be listed. --Jiminyhcricket (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Clarification - B: No (delegate or >5%) more closely matches my preferences. --Jiminyhcricket (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • There's only 8 current candidates. In the SC primary there are only 7 major candidates on the ballots. Some will drop out before future primaries. Are you suggesting we include "minor candidates"?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I would include all the candidates mentioned by 538 as long as they remain in the race. TFD (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: Yes; B: No, per Darryl { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: Yes (but if more than 9 qualified by 5% polling average ahead of the election then we should limit the infobox to top9); B: No (criteria after election should instead be "Delegate or >5% of the popular vote").
  I largely agree with Darryl. The main argument for why the infobox should also include "no delegate candidates if they won >5% of the popular vote", is that their inclusion makes it fast and easy to learn which candidates came close to win delegates in the specific election (and when browsing through all 57 seasonal election infoboxes such info adds value).
  If Klobuchar in Iowa had not performed strong in CD4 where she won her sole 1 delegate, then she should still be included despite that her statewide 12.3% popular vote was not enough to win her statewide pledged national convention delegates.
  Another borderline example is Buttigieg in Nevada, who won 15.4% in popular vote (or 17.3% popular vote after 2nd realignment) but only 14.3% CCD's (the determining vote metric to decide national delegates); Buttigieg did not win any statewide pledged national convention delegates because of his 14.3% CCD being below 15% but he was lucky to win 3 national delegates via >15% CCD´s in three of the congressional districts. In the hypothetical case that Buttigieg had not won those national delegates through a strong performance in one or more of the congressional districts, then he would have won 0 national delegates, but still be damn close to have won a number of national delegates (as per his score of 15.4%=>17.3% popular vote translated to 14.3% CCD's); and therefor in this made up example where he scored 0 delegates (which is mathematical possible), it would be inappropriate to exclude him from the infobox as he still delivered a strong infobox notable performance.
  So the B criteria needs to be: "Delegate or >5% of the popular vote", because when we list a 12.3% vote (1 delegate) performance its equally important to list a potential 14% vote (0 delegate) performance or even a potential Buttigieg 15.4%=>17.3% vote (0 delegate) performance in Nevada. The cut-off inclusion criteria level for popular vote could appropriately be set to 5%, as it is close to mathematical impossible to win 1 national delegate in a congressional district with <5% statewide popular vote (i.e. if CD1=15%, CD2=1%, CD3=1%, CD4=1%; then the average statewide vote would be 18%/4 = 4.5%). Danish Expert (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: Yes; B: No. I believe that candidates should be polling at 5% to be included in the infobox before the primary, and should receive 5% of the vote, even if they have no delegates, to be included in the infobox after the election. Simple as that really, Darryl Kerrigan and Danish Expert have already provided fantastic arguments for why it should be the case. I would like to note, I believe that in caucuses we should use State Delegate Equivalent's and not popular vote to decide who got in the infobox, since we are ordering the candidates within the infobox by the SDE's that they had received. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to state, since I somehow missed this the first time, we should not be using 538 as the source for which candidates are polling at 5%. They are not the supreme arbiter of polling, we should be averaging out all the polling aggregators that are considered reliable, not cribbing off a single source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A. No (as written, Yes switched to average of aggregators); B. No, per Danish Expert. As things have stood for this primary season thus far, the standard seems to have been to use an average of available poll aggregators (270toWin, RealClearPolitics, and 538) rather than specifically privileging one aggregator over the others. While I think 538's more sophisticated model is probably more accurate, I don't think a polling threshold should specifically endorse one polling aggregator over others, and would prefer that the default be an average of notable aggregators available.

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

• A: Yes; B: No. I have found Danish Expert's comment convincing for B. As above for A, prior to the vote the cutoff should be based on aggregate not just 538. The infobox should summarise the key facts and a 5% cutoff is low enough to ensure we aren't ruling out any significant candidates, while keeping it tidy.Wikiditm (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: Yes (I assume you mean polling average of all aggregators) B: No (delegate or >5%) I believe that the 5% threshold is a good way to limit the size of info boxes impartially. I also believe that the threshold should rise to 10% if there are 5 candidates or less and 20% if there are 3 candidates, but that’s a discussion for another day. As for B, 5% or a delegate works in my opinion. Otherwise the New Hampshire primary page wouldn’t include Biden or Warren, which would be misinformation. Smith0124 (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A:Only if it looks that there's going to be a brokered convention on the day after Super Tuesday. B. No. Anything less than 15% means they got no delegates. Like I said, if a contested convention is a possibilty a week from now, it might be worth discussing, but that's in a week. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: No; B: No (delegate or >5%) In the case where there are 9 or fewer active and eligible candidates they should all be included. We should not be playing kingmaker. Polls (and the Aggregates) are not always available, recent, or reliable. We should not start making judgement calls on what should be counted. Keep it simple and use a criteria that is less likely to be seen as manipulation or subject to abuse.Davemoth (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: No, B: No - In both cases, I think the most WP:NPOV compliant option is to simply display all of the candidates, or the top 9 according to the equally weighted average of the three polling aggregators (per Gambling8nt) prior to the contest; and then the top 9 by delegates; and then by popular vote after the contest. We do not "need" a cutoff, other than the limit imposed by the template (which could be extended if we wanted). 5% is arbitrary, and could distort the information in these times when candidates polling at less than 5% have shown that they can jump to the lead in subsequent polls or primaries. - MrX 🖋 19:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: No; B: Yes Who cares what a statistics website thinks? Delegates lead to the nomination which is the most important thing, aggregations are nice to look at but immaterial. ⌚️ (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I somewhat agree with Darryl Kerrigan's comment above, but I would also note, as I did in one of the subsequent sections below, that to exclude a candidate from the infobox when they are still very much in the race, regardless of whether or not they currently have any delegates, would be counter to precedents set by Wikipedia articles published for prior elections, where all candidates still in the race were featured in the infoboxes until they dropped out. So there's a lot to consider here in that respect. If what Darryl Kerrigan suggested above agrees with that past precednet, I agree fully with the position he expressed, but wanted to weigh in with my opinion here, as I was invited to do so by him in one of the threads below. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: No; B: Yes I think all candidates should be included in order to meet WP:NPOV, though only candidates with delegates should be listed post-primary/caucus for each article, as that's the method of gaining the nomination. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer - I think a second a vote should be held on part B, because based on the comments, many who voted no (like myself) believe that it should be either >5% of the popular vote or getting a delegate, which wasn’t an option in this Rfc. I believe that it’s an oversight and that the vote doesn’t accurately portray public opinion. For part B, I propose a second vote:

Option 1: Must get 5% or more of the popular vote

Option 2: Must get a delegate

Option 3: Must get EITHER 5% or more of the popular vote or a delegate

Option 4: No threshold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith0124 (talk • contribs) 21:44, February 26, 2020 (UTC)

• A: Yes, B: Yes (Option 2) I think only candidates who get delegates should go in the infobox because that is the only metric that "matters".  Nixinova   T   C   04:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• A: No; B: Yes (Option 3/4) Our mandate is to report what is, not what we think should be. If a candidate actively campaigns in a jurisdiction using significant resources and still gets very few votes, that's still remarkable and should be documented. In general, every major participant should be mentioned so as not to bias future races WP:NPOV. The question that faces us is, "What makes for a major candidate?" Delaney's failed campaign in Iowa is remarkable; Yang, Bennet, and Patrick all rate mention with respect to New Hampshire. However, the scale should vary depending on circumstances; with eleven major contenders in an early race, even 0.1% is significant, but with four in a late race it's negligible. I recognize that this is not simple, but then neither is reality. We do the best we can. Gnerphk (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• A: No. B:Yes. For A, I strongly believe that only presenting those above 5% is deeply misleading. Those that visit the primary page may end up with the impression that only those on the page are running and make up their mind about who to vote for before they get their ballot. It also disadvantages those polling under 5%. For a fair primary, it's extremely important to show all eligible candidates. If that makes the infobox too large, then the layout of the infobox should be changed to allow for longer lists with smaller images or a simple textual list without images should be used instead. With B, I don't have as strong a stance. However, it does make sense to me that only those that won any delegates are shown, as that's what primaries are about. Mirek2 (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

If we are to include everyone at first, should candidates like Henry Hewes and Robby Wells be included then? We have classed them as non-major candidates. If we exclude candidates like Warren/Biden from some state races where they received over 8% of the vote but received no delegates doesn't that deprive readers of a good understanding of the primary both as a whole and as it played out in a state? Sure, delegates are the way the nomination is won. But our job is not to document only the winners/victors. Our job is to document the election. Losing candidates, campaigns that fall short, and those that make a come back in the contests that follow is part of that. Isn't excluding any candidate who doesn't receive a delegate in a state setting the bar to high? Isn't including ALL candidates (including ones like Hewes/Wells) setting it too low?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

On Henry Hewes and Robby Wells – if they're on the ballot in the state, then yes, they should absolutely be included, for the same reasons I provided above. Not including them would be misleading. As for excluding candidates that didn't win delegates: yes, the Wikipedia page is supposed to document the entire primary, but the infobox isn't supposed to document the primary — it's just supposed to provide at-a-glance info about it. Before the primary happens, that info should be who's running. After results are in, it should be who won the primary. (I should note that, currently, the Infobox doesn't communicate who's being shown. It'd be good to add the title Primary winners for clarification.) If anyone wants to gain a better understanding of how the primary went down, the Results section on the page provides detailed info. It would be impossible to include that same level of detail in the infobox itself, and if there was a threshold based on the popular vote, the infobox would again be misleading, potentially including a few select losers, but not all of them. That would mistify people about who took part in the primary. Mirek2 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Meh. Include the top six in each state by polling or, after the fact, results. --WMSR (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: Yes, B: No (delegate or >5%) Before a contest, I think we'd do just as well to not have an infobox at all, but that's a separate can of worms. A 5% cutoff is necessary to prevent the infobox from being too ridiculous in length (we couldn't include the ~20 candidates in New Hampshire even if we wanted to). After the vote, I don't think that "winning delegates" should be the only cutoff. It's not like getting second place in a first-past-the-post election wins you anything either, so simply "not winning" isn't reason enough to exclude people. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

And for Iowa/Nevada, "5%" should be 5% of state-delegate equivalents, not the first-preference vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• A: No, include all top six now that Steyer is out. This can be justified by the amount of national delegates, not polling. B: Yes, and also include candidates with more than 10% of the popular vote, and cap this at six candidates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• A: No, B: No (delegate or >5%) - before vote there are 2 possible approaches, either we don't list candidates at all in infobox, or alternatively we try to be as inclusive as possible, so top 9 per polling order would be okayish. For results, a delegate or 5% of votes is a good cutoff point to be informative for readers without getting overly crowded.--Staberinde (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• A: No. B: Yes. I only trust polls on a case-by-case basis. We're not the DNC or Commission on Presidential debates here, so let's just do it like we do in the general elections (everyone with a path to win gets in).
  However, we should be more exclusive after the first ballots are cast and caucuses held. If the voters decided a candidate wasn't viable in the race, then so be it. Let's just not pretend that polling is a substitute for that, though. We may also want to consider making an exception for the overall winner of the nomination iff that candidate also contested an individual primary or caucus. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  To clarify though, since this isn't exactly a general, I mean only the major candidates get in. The ones we classify as non-serious should not be presented in an WP:UNDUE manner. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  To further clarify since this thing is a mess, withdrawn candidates should be removed altogether from the main page since they are not in the running. When the whole thing is over, then we can add them back.
  Also, popular vote is nice and all (not as nice as contests won, but that's just me), but if you can't get a single delegate then why do you need to be in the infobox? 15% is the cutoff there for most primary states, so having just 5% really doesn't mean much. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• A: Yes and B: No. Part A- 538 is among the best, though I would also be fine with using RCP or another well-respected polling aggregator. No sense in including someone if they can't crack 5% in polls. Do we want perennial candidates and performance artists in the infobox? I think not. Part B- 5% popular vote or a delegate is good enough for infobox inclusion for individual caucus and primary pages. 5% popular vote or an individual contest or 5% of the delegates for the overall 2020 primaries page. Winning a contest is significant regardless of whether or not a candidate goes on to win any other contests. Winning 5% of the popular vote is significant enough to influence the election regardless of delegate haul. Winning 5% of the delegates indicates that the candidate got some popular vote and also that they had some influence at convention. Winning a single delegate is good enough to get included on a primary or caucus infobox, but including a candidate for winning a single delegate overall in the 2020 primaries seems trivial and WP:UNDUE. Also, removing candidates when they drop out does not make sense. Candidates with suspended campaigns still have influenced the race up until that point, especially if the plan is to add them back in later. Try a reductio ad absurdum here. Imagine that Bernie Sanders had dropped out after Super Tuesday in 2016. Should we have removed him from the infobox despite his delegate wins, leaving Hillary as the only candidate in the infobox until the convention, and then have added him back? Absolutely not. Leave a "campaign suspended" note and leave them in the infobox. (Apologies if these thoughts are duplicated elsewhere, but I was pinged so I will place my thoughts in the RFC as well). Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: There have been a number of recent edits removing, adding, removing and adding candidates from the template. I tend to think withdrawn candidates should remain in the infobox if they have a significant amount of delegates. I am not about to edit war about it though. I encourage all editors including Michelangelo1992, TrailBlzr, David O. Johnson and Smith0124 to discuss how best to proceed here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I already commented here last week. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood, I was just suggesting that we should discuss the changes here as there was a lot of editing and reverting going on without discussion. Smith0124 is suggesting that we start a new RfC on the template used in this article only on the template page. That might not be a bad idea.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added my thoughts above (as well as below, in several other related threads. Apologies that this conversation has gotten so messy). Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have asked for a close here. Not sure if that is premature or not given the amount of responses received already, and the fast moving nature of this article and topic.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The last real discussion appears to have ended on March 4th. I am concerned that it may be a long wait to get a closer for this and the 2nd RfC. One of the acceptable methods for ending an RfC is for the RfC Participants to agree to agree to end it. I am not an experienced closer and I have participated here, but I will attempt to summarize the discussion here and see if we (RfC Participants) can get a consensus on the consensus here and maybe move on. I will sandbox something and post later.--Davemoth (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to Closer: Unfortunately, conversation on this topic has not stayed within this section. There has been discussion here and also here. There has also been some discussions on a few of the State primary pages and on the template talk page here. Note there is also a new RfC below which attempts to address only the infobox/template used in this article as opposed to those on the individual states/territorial contest pages.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer and participants: The last real discussion appears to have ended on March 4th and Darryl Kerrigan asked for a close on March 6th. I am concerned that it may be a long wait to get a closer for this and the 2nd RfC. One of the acceptable methods for ending an RfC is for the RfC Participants to agree to end it. I am not an experienced closer (although I strive to be) and I have participated in this RfC, but I will attempt to neutrally summarize the discussion here and see if we (RfC Participants) can get a consensus on the consensus here and maybe move on (and save an official closer from an unenviable slog through multiple threads in several talk articles). A consensus here may also assist with some of the edit warring that seems to continue to occur both before and after primaries and caucuses. See separate discussion section below at Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Participant_agreement_about_closing_Two_part_RfC_about_inclusion_criteria_for_infoboxes--Davemoth (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2020 (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.