Talk:Results of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries

January 2020

Anybody wanna help? We need this to look like the 2016 republican primary page in less than a month. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Williamson, Castro, and everyone else.

Okay, ballots are being printed as we type, and early voting will begin in four days (!). Castro and Williamson have withdrawn too late to be taken off in any state taking place through mid-March. while it is easy for editors here to count the multistate vote totals for those withdrawn candidates who are on the ballot in only a few states, for the ones who are on the ballot in almost all the states, it is not. So it is better to put Castro back on the upper chart and leave Williamson where she is. This way, it's easier to plug their state totals than to count the totals to make an accurate national result on the lower chart. If a candidate is on only three or four states, that would be easy, but 26? NO!!!!

In less than a month, candidates are going to be dropping like flies and they will still be getting votes in primaries through April. We cannot and should not take them off the upper chart because, 1) it would make it less accurate, and 2) it would be too much work. So we should put Castro back on the upper chart, and leave the order alphabetical. In the post-Super Tuesday primaries, we can juggle the order to fit who's winning, but we keep all the January 1st candidates because they will still be on most of the ballots through mid-April. We should have the upper chart divided thusly:

• The first four and Super Tuesday
• The rest of March and April
• The rest of the season.

The best model to use in observing and planning the page is 1988. It was a glorious muddle through Illinois, then Dukakis won everything. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we are capable of displaying national vote totals for withdrawn candidates without listing their state totals. Reliable sources such as The Green Papers will do the math for us. They don't need to be listed in the main table. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't doubt it. However, with Booker now out, and with Bennett about to go (the impeachment trial is going to start within a week and a half and he's at something like 1%) you'll have four candidates on most of the ballots who were out before the first results are in. Why then bother? I can see Bullock, Sestak, and Harris being on a different chart, they'd look bad aesthetically, but the other four? Keep the statewide totals on a chart for easy access for the reader.Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Look at the 2016 Republican primary. Every candidate that withdrew before the 2016 Iowa caucuses is listed in a separate table, with only their national vote totals reported. It is not a bother to do the same thing in this page. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The candidates who withdrew before the primaries in 2016 did so in 2015. They were on the ballot, there were three, took their names off with enough time to do so to remain in only three or four states. This is different as three of them are on the ballot in ALL the states through Super Tuesday. With the tradition of all the baackrunners dropping out immediately after either Iowa and New Hampshire, what is the difference between those who dropped out between January 2 and February 2 and those who dropped out between Feb 3 and March 3? The reason we are doing this is that I want the reader to have easy access to the data. you go to this page and you look it up without any trouble. Say Bennet drops out in the day after Iowa because he's stuck in the impeachment trial and can't campaign, is stuck at two percent in the polls in NH (as he is now), and is out of cash. Do his votes on Super Tuesday and NH and SC count MORE than Williamson's or Booker's? I don't think so. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. In 2016, the Iowa caucuses were in January, and there is still plenty of time for candidates to drop out. Perhaps later on we can consider restricting the main table to candidates who actually earn delegates. That said, I don't think it's unfair to have a separate section for candidates who dropped out before any votes were cast; in your scenario, Bennet voters were at least voting for a candidate who was running. --WMSR (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Georgia?

Why are the candidates' names rendered in Georgia (the typeface, not the state)? Is this consistent with WP:MOS? WMSR (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a holdover from the previous version of this table (2016 Republican primary). If I recall correctly, the font choice then was so that each candidate's name appeared on two lines and all of the pictures lined up. There were three candidates with short names (Cruz, Bush, Paul) that would otherwise appear on one line (see here). A quick test on this page shows the same thing would happen with Biden. Using a <br> tag, instead of relying on the font style and size, is another possible fix. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep Delaney where he is!

Remember, early voting has already started, that means that thousands of voters (not many, but still), have already voted for him as an active candidate Thus he withdrew DURING the primaries. Considering how long he's been running, he could have lasted a few more days....Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Bennet and Yang

@EditDude: I moved Bennet and Yang following precedent; O'Malley dropped out after Iowa in 2016 and isn't in that table. We also have a uniquely high number of candidates to work with here, and the table is hugely bloated right now. I get that it was a bold edit, but in my view, candidates who have dropped out without winning a delegate (which is really the only determinant factor for the nomination) don't need equal billing with candidates who are still in the race and have amassed some delegates. Glad to discuss, but I think the idea of this table is to present information in an accessible manner, and the current situation with the crowded field makes that exceedingly difficult. --WMSR (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@WMSR: CBS has reported that Patrick will drop out tomorrow.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I was also trying to follow precedent with the 2016 Republican primaries in mind instead of the Democratic page. In that article, candidates who dropped out soon after Iowa (Huckabee, Paul, Santorum) are still included despite the fact that they (well, at least two of them) didn't receive any delegates. I neglected to consider the Democratic article when I reverted your edit. I suppose you can make an argument either way with regards to precedent, but I'm personally in favor of keeping Bennet/Yang (and Patrick if he drops out tomorrow) since this table was based on the Republican one. Maybe other editors can weigh in on this. - EditDude (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@EditDude and Kew Gardens 613: If Patrick hasn't dropped out yet, he should stay in. But to illustrate what I'm saying, he really hasn't campaigned at all. Why should he clutter up this table if he ends the primaries with zero delegates and fewer than 1000 votes? Vermin Supreme will likely do better. Candidates who never stood a chance of winning a delegate really don't need to be on this table. I know that this is subjective, but if a candidate drops out without winning any, that's a reasonable and objective criterion. --WMSR (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I think they could be moved to anothiner table for candidates who dropped out after the start of the primaries but still recieved votes. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That's fine by me; I just would rather not see them in the main table. --WMSR (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine to leave them in the main table with the distinction when they withdrew. Main table is for any candidate who made it to any state while actively campaigning and was eligible to receive a vote. That's why someone like Patrick is on the main table while someone like Booker isn't. Any candidate that withdraws will have the withdraw date added and the column blacked out depending on when they withdrew. Not necessary to make so many tables for the same information. 16:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.40.129.20 (talk)

Any candidate who is on the ballot is eligible to receive votes though. Booker is on the ballot in SC. If he somehow wins there, he would earn delegates, even though he dropped out. The criterion you describe is rather arbitrary, and while it makes sense before votes are cast, I think once primaries and caucuses start, if a candidate drops out without having received a single delegate, they can be safely relegated to a different table, whether that be a unified dropout table or a separate table for those who dropped out during the primaries. --WMSR (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need a separate table for this? We are not adding an more candidates (highly unlikely). The criterion would be anyone who is still in the race prior to the start of the Iowa Caucuses - maybe with a polling threshold? I don't see a need for THREE separate tables: main table, dropped out during, and dropped out prior to Iowa table. We just need the main table and the dropped out prior to Iowa. Following 3 tables, we get "well there are 3 candidates left, 2 of them dropped out on June 20, so now the main table has 1 candidate."192.40.129.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on polling, Gabbard is unlikely to earn any delegates. Steyer might in SC and NV. Regardless, I think candidates who dropped out without delegates make sense in the same table as those who dropped out before the primaries, seeing as none have earned (or will earn) any delegates. --WMSR (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Iowa first/second/third places

I had edited the percentages and places for Iowa to reflect SDEs, since that is how national delegates are allocated. It seems that was reverted. Does anyone have any views of this one way or another? In the past, SDEs have been the main metric in Iowa, and we can't really use the 2016 GOP table as a guide since they use a different system. I am in favor of using SDEs, with my second choice being realignment PV. --WMSR (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The blue colors seem hard to read. Any way we can adjust these?192.40.129.20 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

What I think is confusing is that the legend say: "1st place Popular vote" and by that metric, the current representation is correct. --HoxtonLyubov (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Any ideas for better wording then? "Popular vote or equivalent"? --WMSR (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Designate Bernie the winner of Iowa based on popular vote, add note/hovering ? to explain that Buttigieg won the most delegates.192.40.129.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

No; reliable sources have made no such declaration. The metric that matters in Iowa is SDEs, not the popular vote. It is not up to us to decide whether that's fair, it's just the way it is. As of right now, pending a recanvass, Buttigieg won Iowa. --WMSR (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

We could just shade both the winner of SDE and popular vote totals for Iowa and if this happens again in the future, just put a note explaining what happened? Edit: Also make sure there is a note next to Iowa explaining this designation. That means Iowa would have Buttigieg, Sanders as first place, and leave Warren as third place.192.40.129.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Something along the lines of: While Sanders won the popular vote, Buttigieg had the plurality of SDE, as such, both are shaded the darker color.192.40.129.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Or: Reliable news outlets have reported that Sanders has won the popular vote, which is not a metric used to measure the winner in Iowa. As such, the darker color is used to reflect these reports while also reflecting the SDE plurality.192.40.129.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's not up to us to decide how delegates should be allocated. To win Iowa, you get the most SDEs. --WMSR (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Correct, but the chart clearly says that the darkest color is the winner of the popular vote. Sanders won the popular vote, so if we keep it this way we should change the key. 100.35.194.5 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

We can fix the chart by adding "or equivalent" wording. --WMSR (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"Or equivalent" is meaningless. It needs to be clear. I just changed the thing because I had no idea what "or equivalent" was supposed to mean. I don't even know if I should change it back at this point. SDEs are not the equivalent of the popular vote. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Confusing

In the infobox at the top of the page, the map marked "first place by national pledged delegates" marks the Iowa caucuses as "winner not yet declared". Further down the page, however, there are charts on the overall candidate totals and on the Iowa caucus results that include the number of votes and the number of delegates awarded at the Iowa caucuses. If the winner in Iowa isn't yet declared, why does this page include the number of votes and delegates awarded there? Isn't this self-contradictory? Or should the information on the Iowa results be marked somehow to show that it is still tentative? SunCrow (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

There's already a note included in the transcluded Iowa section that reads "A winner had not been declared for the Iowa caucuses. Although the Iowa Democratic Party initially allocated 14 national delegates to Buttigieg, the Associated Press has listed one delegate as unallocated due to counting irregularities. The unallocated delegate will be awarded to either Buttigieg or Sanders." [1] David O. Johnson (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, David O. Johnson. SunCrow (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Though I believe that after this was posted, that delegate ended up going to Buttigieg after all?137.226.152.81 (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Issues with transcluding article sections

Currently, there are issues trancluding sections of other articles onto this page using the {{#section-h:}} Labeled Section parser function. First, all the 6+ paragraphs of prose and various images on 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#Results are being included here. Second, the subsection 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary#Results by county and its table are also being included here, and causing the "Results by county" to also appear on this page's table of contents on the same hierarchical level as the "Early states" and "Super Tuesday" sections. Thirdly, a recent edit on 2020 Nevada Democratic caucuses that changed the header name from "Results" to "Partial results"[2] caused that table to no longer appear here. Thus, I propose that we go back to what we did in 2016 and put the results tables onto templates, or else this page will be at the further mercy of the additions/modifications on those separate articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Delegate Counts in Infobox

This is possibly the only article still using GreenPapers estimates for infobox delegate numbers. Everywhere else is using AP as more reliable, even though more partial. The current counts should be Sanders - 28, Buttigieg - 22, Warren - 8, Klobuchar - 7, Biden - 6. It's also odd that Sanders is down as having won two states. Which two? Buttigieg is down as having won zero states even though he tied New Hampshire. Overall, this box needs fixing in line with all the other dem primary articles.Wikiditm (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

And it has gotten worse. GreenPapers is now used to Calculate and Estimate CA Delegates with around 100 votes extra added in that race alone.Davemoth (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Shading in results

The important statistic from each state is delegates. This determines who won. The shading was in terms of delegate counts but has been changed to "popular vote (or equivalent)" which is nonsensical and could easily (as in Iowa) result in a candidate appearing to come first who actually came second. This shading should be kept at pledged delegates, to provide an intuitive visual representation of which candidates gained what in each state.Wikiditm (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

How about "final expression of preference" which would be percentages of SDEs in Iowa, popular vote in NH, and CDs in NV? --WMSR (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why it needs to be anything weird or unintuitive though. The important thing from each of these states is delegates, and we have precise numbers for that from each state. So why not just shade based on this? It was shaded based on that before, and it makes sense. As you scroll down, you can then at a glance see who came away with the first/second/third most delegates from each state.Wikiditm (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The legend has now been changed again to the also ambiguous "final expression of preference." It doesn't say what this means in caucus situations (in Iowa, Sanders won final alignment but Buttigieg won on pledged delegates currently). I'm going to reshade following the obvious and meaningful stat of pledged delegates. If you think the metric should be something else, please explain here.Wikiditm (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiditm: Final expression of preference basically refers to the SDE/CD count in caucus states and the popular vote in primary states. This was previously the only reported metric, and it's the only one that means anything in terms of delegate allocation. States are now reporting more underlying data, but the number that matters hasn't changed. Buttigieg won SDEs in Iowa, Sanders won PV in NH, and Sanders won CDs and PV in Nevada. That's the number that was used in the past, and the availability of more data doesn't change the fact that it's the most relevant data point. --WMSR (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Not nearly as relevant as pledged delegates.Wikiditm (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, pledged delegates are important in the picture of the overal race but on a detailed report of the results the metric for 1st place should be popular vote in the primaries and SDE/CD/SCD/... in the caucuses. HoxtonLyubov (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Why? They don't count for anything. Why use something meaningless as a metric as opposed to something which literally determines who wins?Wikiditm (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Because that's the metric the media uses to determine the "winner" of the race. Even in a delegate tie they still call Sanders the winner of NH.HoxtonLyubov (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:3517:A600:5DEF:2D30:2582:1B8 (talk)

Zero delegate dropouts

For the love of all that is holy, can we please move Bennet, Yang, and Patrick out of the main table? As the vote numbers have increased, the words "votes" and "delegates" have been moved to new lines, making the rows quite long on my screen and the table significantly less usable. Candidates who dropped out without winning a single delegate really do not need to be in the main table. Patrick and Bennet did not even manage to get 1% in any primary. --WMSR (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It's good now, right? If Gabbard drops out with no delegates, even if it's in June, I think she should go in the bottom table too. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. --WMSR (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Explanation: the way I see it is, if they dropped out before the primaries, they decided they weren't relevant enough to be included. Anyone who gets no delegates is also not relevant in the main results. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Bumping this. Bennet, Yang, Patrick, and Steyer are not relevant to the results of the primaries at this point. Their vote counts will be preserved in the bottom table and in individual state primary pages, but they really don't need to be in the main table here. --WMSR (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It's unlikely they will get delegates moving forward. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Does popular vote in table use final alignment in caucus?

Either way, this should be stated in the note A by "popular vote". Otherwise it's confusing.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Steyer should stay in main table

Tom Steyer was a major enough candidate that he should stay in the main table even though he dropped out. He got third in SC and should be colored in as so as well. He also may get a few delegates from SC so he should definitely stay in the main table. I would argue all candidates that did not withdraw before primaries should stay in the main table, like the Republican 2016 results page, but at the minimum Steyer should stay in. 100.35.194.5 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree Ghostmen2 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

He didn't end up with any delegates in SC. --WMSR (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

He still withdrew before Super Tuesday, so that's the section he belongs in. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the IP and would prefer to see the table be consistent with the 2016 Republican results page, but it seems like there's been formatting issues on smaller screens which I concede to. However, because Steyer and Yang performed much better then the other candidates in certain states (NH, NV, and SC in particular), I think they, at least, should be restored to the main table. I feel like there should be some sort of additional requirement for the lower table, where any candidate who failed to garner 1% of the vote in any contest while their campaign was active gets demoted. Any thoughts on this? - EditDude (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel like Steyer and possibly Yang (...and maybe even Patrick and Bennet?) should be added back to the main table (but with the greyed-out "Withdrew but still on the ballot" thing), and changing the title of the header below. The only problem with that would be that Patrick and Bennet dropped out after Yang, so it would be weird to include Yang and not them. ...I think the most objective choice of action would be making it a "Withdrew before the primaries" section like it was before (moving Steyer, Yang, Patrick, and Bennet) up to the table but greyed-out. (The only problem with THAT - and the reason we tried to change it in the first place – was because the format didn't show up correctly weirdly on mobile because of the number of candidates). Hmmm... Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

So there are a few possible roads we could go down: Y/N on Steyer, and Y/N on Yang, and Y/N on Patrick and Bennet. Thoughts? Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think if someone drops out without earning a single delegate, they don't need to be in the table. Sure, Steyer did fine in SC, but not to an extent that netted him any delegates. --WMSR (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but he got third. There is a color that the third place candidate is supposed to be colored in, and it just doesnt make sense to not have that candidate in the table at all. 100.35.194.5 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

the top chart was for those candidates were still actively running while the voting was going on, and the lower one was for those who were not. Some withdrew too late to get their names off in some places, so they get votes anyway. Kamela Harris is on four or five, and Marianne Williamson is on the ballot in something like 20. None of them are on any April ballots. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Buttigieg should stay in main table

I disagree that Steyer should be in with the major candidates because he didn't get any delegates. But Buttigieg won a contest, and consistently polled in the top 4-5. I think winning at least one delegate would be a better criterion. Gabbard may get no delegates either, and if so she could go in the lower table. Another suggestion I would like to make is that we color code the lower table to show for which primaries they were still in the race and for which they had dropped out.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

He definitely should stay, since he received delegates. Now the question is how we split the two tables: "By date of dropping out" or "By if they have delegates". Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Major candidates stay in the main table as long as they either a) are in the race, or b) received delegates. There's pretty much no debate that Buttigieg should stay. --WMSR (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The current title "withdrew before March" is very arbitrary just to exclude Steyer and include Buttigieg. Instead we should have "major candidates" and "withdrew without receiving delegates".—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's what I wanted when I created this chart: there were a number of candidates who withdrew between the time they got on a number of ballots and the time voting actually began. They were too late to get their names off of some of them and didn't try in others. But they have/will receive votes anyway because they were still there. I thought it would be nice for the pub quiz fans, political junkies and the like, to have these statewide totals recorded somewhere. The main table would be for the candidates who were still active in the primaries while the voting was going on. Yes, they were/are dropping like flies at the moment, but pretty soon there will be only three or four candidates left and the lower table, which was to be a supplement, shouldn't be longer than the main one. Put Yang, Bennet and Steyer back and let the lower table end in March like it was originally supposed to. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't get why the table was changed. The criterion should be anyone who was still in the race while Iowa began. Everyone else should be in the lower table. We should revert back.192.40.129.20 (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Updated the page with reverted table, a more detailed lead, and an overview section.DarkBeforeDawn16 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain why? We're in the middle of a discussion about it. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead section should have more detail about the race in general and have a text/spelled out summary of the results and race. The overview section can be worked on with maps, but definitely needed. The results table to the right of the page- no reason to not have this. The main candidate table is reflective of the race and those who were actively campaigning when Iowa began. The dropout table are for those who were not actively campaigning when Iowa began voting. There's no reason for so many candidate tables with the same dates and voter information. Not to mention the fact that it's easier to update and distinguish each winner/status of the race with the main table.DarkBeforeDawn16 (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@DarkBeforeDawn16: Please don't make massive changes like that while there's an ongoing discussion about the topic. As I said previously, the table is too wide for many smaller screens. It should be limited to candidates who are either actively running or earned delegates. I appreciate the need for complete information, but the entire point of this page is to present results in a user-accessible way, and the table as it is now does not achieve that due to its size. Please revert pending further discusison. --WMSR (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@DarkBeforeDawn16: It's confusing to mix the withdrawn candidates with the ones who are still running.David O. Johnson (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson: The point of the "Results" article is too be detailed. If they didn't want detail, they should just look at the infobox. I think it makes sense to include important dropped out candidates, like Buttigieg. I understand the placement of the withdrawn candidates on the right. I would also support Klobuchar being on the main table as she got delegates, but am neutral on Steyer, Yang, Bennet, and Patrick.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I get that. If we're going to stick with the layout, we should at least retool the intros and the section titles. The Major candidates section states "The table below shows those current candidates that have either: served as vice president, a member of the cabinet, a U.S. senator, a U.S. representative, or a governor; been included in a minimum of five independent national polls; or received substantial media coverage", but six of the candidates listed aren't running anymore. There should be some kind of delineation indicating that those six have suspended their campaigns.David O. Johnson (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Other Candidates Section - No need for the other table

Other candidates

Prior to the Iowa caucuses, five major candidates, who had been invited to the debates, had withdrawn from the race after states began to certify candidates for ballot spots: Kamala Harris, Julián Castro, Marianne Williamson, Cory Booker, and John Delaney. Other candidates were able to make it on the ballot in individual states. Some votes for minor candidates are unavailable, because in many states (territories) they can be listed as Others or Write-ins. Since the beginning of the primary season, none of these other candidates have been awarded any delegates.

Other/withdrawn candidates invited to debates
Candidate	Votes	Date withdrawn
Kamala Harris	129	December 3, 2019
Julián Castro	83	January 2, 2020
Marianne Williamson	99	January 10, 2020
Cory Booker	814	January 13, 2020
John Delaney	434	January 31, 2020

Of the over 200 people who have filed with the FEC as candidates for the Democratic nomination, the following have been placed on the ballot in at least one state.

National popular vote totals for other candidates
Candidate	Votes	No. states on ballot
Joe Sestak	190	6 (NH,AR,CA,MA,TX,UT)
Steve Bullock	65	6 (NH,AR,MA,MN,TX,UT)
Uncommitted†	1,787	Various states
Other‡	371	Various states
Roque De La Fuente III	8	6 (NH,UT,CA,AZ,CO,TX)
Robby Wells	81	5 (NH,TX,MO,LA,CO)
Mosie Boyd	21	4 (NH,UT,AR,CA)
Michael A. Ellinger	53	3 (NH,AZ,CA)
Henry Hewes	44	3 (NH,AZ,MO)
Mark Stewart Greenstein	39	3 (NH,VT,CA)
Steve Burke	96	2 (NH,MO)
Rita Krichevsky	28	2 (NH,CO)
Nathan Bloxham		1 (UT)
Leonard J. Steinman II		1 (MO)
Velma Steinman		1 (MO)
Bill Haas		1 (MO)
David Lee Rice		1 (WV)
Tom Koos	79	1 (NH)
David John Thistle	59	1 (NH)
Sam Sloan	43	1 (NH)
Lorenz Kraus	27	1 (NH)
Jason Evritte Dunlap	21	1 (NH)
Ben Gleib	17	1 (NH)
Raymond Michael Moroz	16	1 (NH)
Thomas James Torgesen	15	1 (NH)

†Sometimes listed as "None of the Above"

‡Some states don't count some write-ins or minor candidates individually but lump them together.

Comment - @DarkBeforeDawn16: I think the previous version was fine before, and the current edit has some serious problems (which is why it was reverted). The current edit: * removes relevant results and information like the withdrawn candidates votes' in each of the states (and their images), and * creates a definition of "Major candidate" incompatible with the definition we've established on the main 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries page. We count Steve Bullock and Joe Sestak as Major candidates, given their past held offices despite the fact that they didn't qualify for the debate. * Also, it's officially called the "Democratic Party", not the "Democrat Party". * (Additionally, it's kinda minor, but in this version is there a reason the font size so small but still has a bunch of padding?) Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to put back the original version that I created. I know that some have a hard time imagining that all those little zeros that have just been sitting there for weeks across two primaries and two caucuses will ever actually be filled. Indeed some have said it was WP:Crystal, but they are all on the ballot in anywhere between 4 and 25 primaries, and there are 14 that end tomorrow evening. Over the next few days, this page will be changed dramatically. So chill. Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that came out awkwardly – I definitely support the original version that you created. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need the vote totals per state or the candidate's image for these candidates? These candidates have withdrawn and it's very unlikely they will play a major part in the results going forward for this primary season. I wasn't even bothered by the 0s since the main table has a gazllion of them. I was just bothered because if I want to find the vote total for Harris, I can find the total vote. Or if I wanted to find her total in SC, I can scroll to SC. She wasn't a major factor in the SC primary, so I don't understand the point of itemizing all of the states she was in (when there were so many that she wasn't in). I think having these candidates separated into another table separated by state is extremely redundant since this information is very obtainable elsewhere in the article. The most important aspect of these candidates' going forward would be the total amount of votes they have received. Bullock and Sestak are definitely major candidates, but they can be relegated to the "Other" table since they were not invited to the debates. No reason to keep their pictures or state-by-state totals around. They were not involved with the primaries when Iowa started, they were not invited to the debates, so I don't understand why we are going to keep all of that information when we can just condense it into a table like the one above here. Also, the information that they have withdrawn is lost with that table. It makes it seem like they are still trying to get votes, but they have withdrawn. DarkBeforeDawn16 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Because it's more fun this way. Plus more informative. I explain this at the very top of the talk page in detail (happily, it has not been archived yet). I wanted things to be easy to read, easy to find and easy to plug in. Schoolkids, pub quizzers and political junkies can use this stuff, as can college students. What you did was to HIDE data, that's what the rollup chart feature is for. Also, if it's obtainable elsewhere why should we force people to look for where it is? Having everything in one place makes it EASY for the reader. I'm probably older than you, and I remember going to the public library and parsing the Congressional Quarterly election stats book, which was updated every other cycle. It was great. It was easy to use. I loved it. I know people back in the day who OWNED copies. This page, and those like it, are the successors to the CQ stat book.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle7: The page looks very good right now. Great work guys. I was able to condense and incorporate both Arglebargle's and DarkBeforeDawn's edits into one edit. Looks great & both of you guys are awesome for your hard work you have put into this.192.40.129.20 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Lede

DarkBeforeDawn16, thanks for all your hard work on the lede. With respect, I believe that including a list of 11 candidates in the lede makes it too long and clunky. Similarly, I believe that including a list of candidate departures from the race in the lede makes it too long and clunky. I have removed those edits. If you feel strongly that they should remain, please feel free to discuss the point here. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have an overview of the race in the lede. The lede is the only section we have with text, the remainder of the article is tables, pictures, colors, and vote totals. I think also stating that there were 11 candidates that started the race in Iowa then having a summary of the drop outs is a very good way to flow into the chart/table with the candidates and votes that were involved in Iowa and beyond. DarkBeforeDawn16 (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, but can we say that there were 11 candidates without naming them all? SunCrow (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Remember, readers who want more detail can go to 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. SunCrow (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

How's the lede now?DarkBeforeDawn16 (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

DarkBeforeDawn16, it still seems really long and cumbersome to me. Here's what I'd like it to say:

This article contains the results of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and caucuses, the processes by which the Democratic Party selects delegates to attend the 2020 Democratic National Convention from July 13–16, 2020. The series of primaries, caucuses, and state conventions will culminate in the national convention, where the delegates cast their votes to formally select a candidate. A simple majority (1,990) of the total delegate votes (3,979) is required to become the party's nominee. As of March 2, 2020, no candidate has achieved this threshold.

The campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination began on July 28, 2018, when U.S. Rep. John Delaney became the first Democratic presidential candidate to announce his candidacy. By April 2019, more than 20 major candidates were recognized by national and state polls, causing the field of 2020 major Democratic presidential candidates to exceed the field of major candidates in the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as the largest presidential candidate field for any single U.S. political party in a single election cycle.[4][better source needed] With the addition of Michael Bloomberg on November 24, 2019, the total number of major Democratic presidential candidates in the 2020 Democratic primaries totaled 29.[5]

When voting began in the 2020 Iowa caucuses, 11 major candidates were actively campaigning. Democratic primaries and caucuses in early states yielded a controversial and disputed victory for Pete Buttigieg in the Iowa caucuses, a tie between Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders in the New Hampshire primary, a victory for Sanders in the Nevada caucuses, and a victory for Joe Biden in the South Carolina primary. Prior to the March 3, 2020 Super Tuesday primaries, five major candidates ended their campaigns. As of March 2, 2020, six major Democratic candidates remain in the race.

How does that sit with you? SunCrow (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not that bad. I don't see a problem with listing the candidates and their drop out dates though. It gives perspective on the race from my view and it uses the lede to introduce all the candidates without naming them so many times -if that makes sense. I have to run now though. If you do make that edit, it's not bad. Would you just link Iowa, NH, SC, etc and also use the 2 additional references I added for [4]?DarkBeforeDawn16 (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Done, DarkBeforeDawn16, except that I'm not sure which footnotes you meant. SunCrow (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

1,990 or 1,991?

Right now, the lede says that 1,990 delegates are needed to win the nomination, but the infobox next to it says 1,991. The 1,991 number is sourced, but the 1,990 number seems to make more sense. Can anyone shed any light? The self-contradiction we have now isn't good. SunCrow (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Green Papers says 1990 (https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P20/).DarkBeforeDawn16 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

A simple majority is 1,990. The New York Times reference says that the DNC requires one more than half, which rounds up to 1,991. Green Papers links to the DNC rules (see here), which only mentions a majority. I imagine the New York Times source used an imprecise explanation for the term majority. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Spiffy sperry. SunCrow (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like most reliable sources, except Green Papers, are using the erroneous "50%+1" definition of majority, although as stated above, that doesn't appear in the DNC rules. I guess we're stuck with using 1,991 for now. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Riddle me this, Batman.

Klobichar has been at least 12 points ahead in all the latest polling in Minnessota. Early Voting has been going on since January and she only withdrew this afternoon. So how do we depict it if she wins tomorrow? (Howard Dean won Vermont in '04 a month after he left the race).Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

We just shade her the respective blue that she ends up in (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc). Her spot in the chart and the indication that she withdrew and endorsed Biden is clear in the article.DarkBeforeDawn16 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

DarkBeforeDawn16's edits

Hi,

So DarkBeforeDawn16 has unilaterally made massive changes to the article, doing away with the "Withdrew without receiving delegates" section entirely and combining the candidates who are currently running and those that dropped out so that they are both in the "Major candidates" section, which makes no sense to me. This is what it looked like beforehand: [3]. How should we handle this? David O. Johnson (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with this one edit of theirs specifically, which brought it back to the way it was before. It works to split the candidates by "Were they in it at all during the primaries?". I'd argue that the part in question is fine how it is right now, given that there's little room for debate on inclusion, and it's consistent with things like Results of the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries. DarkBeforeDawn16 had also made a different change that made problematic changes to the bottom two tables, but it was discussed on the Talk page and soon reverted. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The table no longer fits on my medium-sized screen. It also splits the numbers with the descriptors, so the number of votes is on a different line than the word "votes", which increases the length of the table by a significant amount. Candidates who drop out without reaching any meaningful amount of support don't need to be on the main table. It just makes everything harder to read, defeating the entire purpose of the table. --WMSR (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The entire purpose of the table is to recap the 11 candidates and their campaign's results in the states that voted, when they dropped out, and their current status. It makes a lot better sense the way it is now. I also disagree with the "Other candidates" section the way it is now though. It's redundant and I don't see the point in listing the vote totals for 25 states for Cory Booker, John Delaney, and Harris, when we can just scroll to "South Carolina" and see that the candidate to drop out on December 19 received 50 votes in the state. It makes more sense to follow the 2016 Republican page with both the main table and the "other" candidates, so I agree with DarkBeforeDawn16's edits.192.40.129.20 (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

There are two reasons. It helps researchers in the years ahead and puts everything in one place. Second, it's fun. As of tomorrow afternoon, if every single pundit on television, radio, and podcast are to be believed, Bernie, Biden, and Bloomberg will be the only candidates that matter and the rest as redundant as Booker, Castro, and Williamson are now. In three months the primaries will be over, this page will be finished, and the General will be in full swing...that is unless there's a contested convention, but that's an argument for another day.

What is relevant now, is that this page is as complete as possible and easy to read. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: It's not easy to read right now. Even on my work computer with a big screen, vote counts are on a different line than the word "votes", which makes the table much longer and hinders readability. There is a very easy way to make it more compact without losing information, and that is moving Bennet, Patrick, and Yang (and potentially Steyer) to the dropout table. This can be achieved by increasing the threshold for the number of ballot appearances. I appreciate all the hard work you've done on formatting this (and the GOP 2016) table, but the fact that it works for you does not mean that it is the best option. --WMSR (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Primary Dates not all correct

The dates of state primaries are incorrect. March 17th for instance is not even listed though that is the day of Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio. For the Democrats, only the Mariana Islands vote on March 14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.76.145 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. This was fixed once before, but the error crept back in when a former version of the table was restored. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Washington

Is there a reason why the Washington results are not filled in? Can I transfer them over from the relevant page? --Orthorhombic, 19:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Moving CT to June

Hi,

Can someone move Connecticut to June 2 in the Major candidates table? I tried doing it myself, but I was doing something wrong, since South Dakota would spill over. Here's a ref for CT changing its date: [4]. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done-Possibly you were adding one too many new rows (|-); with the way the table is structured, the first state on any given day is in the same table row as the date; if you were inserting an extra row break at the beginning, you'd make the last state (South Dakota) fall off. Gambling8nt (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Delegate total sum doesn't match

Delegate total sum is currently (3/31/2020) 3971 instead of 3979. Is this that a typo or intentional? I think it appeared after states started to postpone their elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:26F:30A0:89B1:E005:9E31:22CD (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. See the first and second discussions about the cause of this on another talk page. In short, Kentucky's number was changed from 54 to 46. I have not been able to verify the reason for this, and feel that Kentucky's number should be changed back to 54. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I have changed Kentucky's pledged delegates back to 54, so the numbers should now add up correctly. All reliable sources that I found say 54 for Kentucky. The initial version of 2020 Kentucky Democratic primary in June 2019 had 46, and it was not updated whenever the DNC made its final allotments. Then, the number in other Wikipedia articles was "updated" to this old number at some point. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:20, 31 March 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) 19:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The Green Papers inclusion

Is The Green Papers a reliable source and should it be used as a reference in this article? David O. Johnson (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I recognize that until official results are announced for each contest, various reliable sources often differ in their reporting of votes and/or delegates. (Such is the nature of preliminary data.) However, The Green Papers is the only source that consistently ensures that all results (votes and delegates) are updated to the official results once they are available for each contest. This makes it the best source for nationwide primary vote counts, in my opinion. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That Fugly picture of Biden

Somehow i got into an edit war because one person insists on a horrible picture of Biden. Why? Don't aesthetics mean somehting anymore?Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)