Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 4

Nebraska Primary sabotage
The official results of the Nebraska Democratic primary in March have been erroneously deleted and replaced by non-binding May 10th caucus results. I expect this was politically motivated and it should be restored. It also appears that the upcoming May 24th Washington Democratic primary results section is being groomed for similar treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.195.102 (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Relax, both Nebraska and Washington hold a primary AND a caucus, the caucuses were held in March and are what determine delegate counts, the primaries are merely a show-of-hands. This is explained by the "Non-binding primary with no delegates allocated" in the table. 50.206.233.196 (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since no delegates are awarded in the non binding primaries I do not see why you are raising the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The non-binding primary from Nebraska is no longer there. All the non binding primaries from 2008 and all republican primaries over the years are included and I see no reason why it should be excluded from the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.185.170 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Not only are nonbinding primaries a "show of hands" with no delegates awarded, the participants are skewed heavily to voters who wish to vote for something that doesn't count, and voters who don't even know when something that looks like an election is an empty charade. So they are less reliable than even normal polling would be. This encyclopediac article is about a nomination battle determined by awarding of delegates, and should not include any polls, shows of hands, celebrity endorsement counts, or other noise. Dude 50.35.51.239 (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As opposed to caucuses that are quite literally a "show of hands"? And don't show the democratic voting process like primaries do?  I bet if Sanders won the non-binding contests it would be in extra bold and double font size.  Funny how you Bernie Bros are trying everything in your power to try to hide and downplay anything that shows that Clinton has more support.  It's gotten pathetic.  Don't let your purist holier-than-thou attitude infect this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.103.53 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to discuss the template content...that template's talk page is the proper place for this kind of discussion. Guy1890 (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This conversation is entirely inappropriate for the talk page. I will consider deleting it. S51438 (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

NPOV?
"and solidified her status as the likely nominee after completing 80 percent of the primaries and caucuses."

Personally I think this is slightly biased for Clinton, the race is not over yet! Ueutyi (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC) I do not believe it violates NPOV because it says "the likely nominee", not "the nominee". If we are looking at the math alone, the statement is entirely factual. Perhaps "solidified" is up for further debate. S51438 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that's a bit too much of an opinion and so I've edited it out. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Multiple reliable sources are describing her in these terms: seems reasonable to me. Can we put that text back in? Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The text should be put back in, multiple reliable sources cite this as well. This is not a pro Clinton statement as the word "likely" is used, I would object if the wording were different. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are also saying the complete opposite, that clinton has not solidified a win yet.Kswikiaccount (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote
Is there some reason why the Republican Party presidential primaries article includes the popular vote, but this one does not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.27.37 (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes...see above. Guy1890 (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The popular vote is now included in the template at the top of the page, but not the additional charts with the delegate distributions. Consensus needs to be reached as to whether to add the popular vote (with a footnote) to the charts, which could take quite some time because there has not been nearly as much discussion here as compared to the template page.

I am opening this thread to discussion as to whether to add the popular vote with a footnote to the chart following the table of contents, thus matching the template. S51438 (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, add the popular vote with the same footnote used in the template.
 * No, do not add the popular vote with a footnote (please state why).
 * Yes, add it to the chart. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That proposal shouldn't be proposed on this talk page. It could however be proposed here. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that this article is where the chart following the table of contents is, we are under full discretion to discuss it here. The one near the bottom with running vote totals will require a separate discussion. S51438 (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No - I'm not sure if the above proposal is meant to include just this section of this article here or the above-mentioned template as well (which is definitely where that kind of discussion should occur), but, since, again, there really is no such thing as a national "popular vote" in this kind of primary/caucus process and the totaled (nonsensical) numbers are now apparently in the infobox of this article here, it's redundant & unnecessary to include this kind of info elsewhere in this article here. I would also note again that these issues have been discussed many times elsewhere ad nauseam as of this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion at the template was completed. The numbers are sourced, so they are of course perfectly sensible. And under that argument, repeating delegate totals would also be unnecessary. The fact is has been discussed does not mean we can change the chart below the table of contents without consensus. S51438 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As for "repeating delegate totals", delegate totals are what determines who the 2016 Democratic nominee for President of the USA will be. "National popular vote" totals mean nothing. Also, it's pretty routine that not all of the info contained in an infobox is discussed in the body of an article. Guy1890 (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but it still is relevant to this article. S51438 (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, add to the chart. The "popular vote" statistics have been computed in earlier years. Computing this statistic helps the reader understand the state of election easier and is not redundant. One can argue, that any chart or statistic is 'redundant & unnecessary' as it does not provide new information. But it is not, charts and statistics open new point of views to the readers. PunGNU (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to add it to the chart (or don't want to add it to the chart) discuss it at the chart's talk page; not here. Thanks Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that this article is where the chart following the table of contents is, we are under full discretion to discuss it here. The one near the bottom with running vote totals will require a separate discussion. S51438 (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's be consistent with the outcome of the template discussion; like it or not, the dispute has been settled. And this poor horse has suffered enough abuse, let him rest in peace. — JFG talk 15:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Consistent or redundant? Either way, this is not the place to discuss it. Get consensus at the chart's talk page if you want to change it so bad. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the full chart with results at Template:2016USDem, I think the OP means the table that shows the two leading candidates and their current delegate counts. Thankfully this whole primaries circus will be over soon... — JFG talk 03:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading S51438's statement again, I think he means to include the total both in the leading candidates table and in the full results chart. For the record, I am in favor of adding it in both places for consistency (with the explanatory footnote of course), and I don't think we need yet another debate at each venue. — JFG talk 04:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. Yes, that is correct. S51438 (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Update. I added the popular vote to the chart below the table of contents, but the reference was listed on another line, which was not visibly pleasing. Perhaps there is a way to fix this, but I do not know how. S51438 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies. This only applies for the chart immediately following the table of contents. As for the chart near the bottom with a running total of popular votes, as Prcc27 pointed out, that will have to be discussed at the separate talk page. S51438 (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Non binding primaries
Okay, I just went and blanked the content that has to do with the non binding primaries on one of the templates per WP:BOLD. Here are my questions:


 * 1. How would the map look on the info-box? Are we striping the states that have a caucus/primary different candidate win?
 * 2. Are non binding primaries included in the popular vote totals?
 * 3. Are we going to add Nebraska to Hillary's contests won section? This would make 27 contests won for her.

I feel the non binding primaries could just as easily be explained in text in the article if we aren't going to show the status on the maps. I also want to say that these non binding primaries are not included in the 2008 democratic primaries article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this for discussion. To my mind, I would say no to 1, 2 and 3. This is because in Nebraska and Washington, only the March caucuses have any real impact on the composition of the delegates. Striping Nebraska on the map would imply that the results were somehow tied. If you want to show Hillary Clinton's lesser victory in Nebraska on the map, the only real method I could support was if Nebraska was to be marked with a yellow star on a green background, or something like that. However, the non-binding primaries should still be included in the schedule/results chart on this page, and it's perfectly fine to mention them in the text. 2A02:C7D:C81B:1800:B:9763:1C28:F77E (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That was my comment above; I forgot to log in. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Results of non binding primaries are skewed to people who like to vote for pointless things, or people who don't even realize that it's a charade. So they don't reflect a realistic electorate, as many voters will intentionally not vote in such a ballot. This encyclopediac article is about a nomination battle determined by awarding of delegates, and should not include any polls, shows of hands, celebrity endorsement counts, or other noise. Dude 50.35.51.239 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If it isn't going to count towards the popular vote though, then why bother to include the results in the table? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's made clear that the non-binding primary didn't allocate any delegates, I don't see anything wrong with including the information. Anywikiuser (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer the questions above,

Additionally, should be in the text part to reflect the vote. Omnibus (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) 1 No, don't change, alter, or stripe the maps.
 * 2) 2 Yes, should be included in popular vote totals. They are votes.
 * 3) 3 No, only the delegate-allocating contests here.
 * Again, this isn't the place to discuss the template content at all...the template's talk page is the proper place for this kind of discussion. Having said that, I don't have a problem showing the results of non-binding primaries in this article, and inclduing them doesn't mean that we need to color any of the maps in this article differently. Including these type of non-binding primaries does, in fact, make the "national popular vote" totals that much more meaningless though, but those shouldn't be in this article at all in the first place. All these type of primaries really show is that caucuses are a horrible way to determine who should be a Presidential nominee. Guy1890 (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * My two cents:


 * 1) I'd prefer not to change the map. Let's keep it simple - binding contests only.
 * 2) Debatable. Actually, rather tempting, to be honest. They are votes. Also, the turnout was greater than the caucus!
 * 3) I'd prefer not to change the 'contests won' cell. Let's keep it simple again, to that of binding contests.
 * But main point is -- that they should be kept in the text and the table. The current label "Non-binding primary with no delegates allocated" is pretty self-explanatory and clear. And more so for completeness sake for this discussion: the DC non-binding primary was included in the 2004 primary article. Sleepingstar (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wanted to make this particular thread viewable to as many as possible as inclusion was contested. IP addresses & new users normally do not follow template pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

My take:
 * 1) Given that we are not including the Nebraska Primary in the popular vote, I do not think the map should be changed. If the map is based on a popular vote or a majority of delegate equivalents, then the map assumes the shading is from a binding result. The Nebraska Democratic Primary is not binding, and therefore would be inappropriate to include in the map.
 * No, as indicated by the footnote next to the popular vote in the template.
 * No, the footnote next to NE in Bernie's column is enough. S51438 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

We should provide the same weight to non-binding primaries as reliable sources do, which is very little. At most we could add a footnote to caucus results. I understand the argument that some Clinton supporters and others make, that the primaries are more accessible to voters and therefore represent their real choices. Or it could be that most Sanders voters had no interest in the down ballot races determined in the primary. I note that for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008, the Nebraska primary is not even mentioned. TFD (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A footnote to caucus results would be a good idea. These primaries and their results should somehow be mentioned. 1. No 2. No 3. No - Ich bin es einfach (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

County map results
My understanding is that Clinton won Marion County, Indiana, though it is colored for Senator Sanders at the moment. Is there any resource indicating otherwise? If not, then someone should edit the maps both on this page and on the Indiana results page to reflect that (I would do it myself, but don't know how). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.232.200 (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. I do not know how to alter the map. I think I posted on the talk page for the map in question regarding the same issue. S51438 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have altered the map to reflect accurate results. MB298 (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.232.200 (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nevada
Media reports are that yesterday's Nevada convention was actually a sham. To protect the integrity of Wikipedia I believe that an asterisk needs to be placed next to the results. 98.118.129.34 (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest exactly and what are your sources? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 20:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sham? I followed the convention closely. Any sources besides Reddit? S51438 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell Sander's supporters went on a roller coaster ride due to conflicting reports. I don't blame them for being upset, but the results are what they are so their beef should be with the DNC in Nevada not us. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe the results will be challenged. Then we can mention it. - Ich bin es einfach (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If the results are challenged then the state would still remain yellow until the mess is sorted through. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, the results at the moment are how they are. That's no dissent to mentioning it, if the results are challenged. - Ich bin es einfach (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please correct me if I am mistaken. But regardless of the results of the final pledged delegate breakdown, the coloring of the map in the infobox is entirely based on popular vote or its nearest equivalent, which in the case of the Nevada is made on the county delegate projections made on election night i.e. 52.64%:47.29%, in slight favor of Clinton. So regardless of the final state convention results, the popular vote equivalent from the caucuses will remain a Clinton lead, hence the infobox map will be colored yellow for Clinton regardless. The maps based on pledged delegate counts are found later in the maps section of the article, and may need to be changed dependent on the state convention results should that alter in the future. Sleepingstar (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's correct. There is currently only one map based on pledged delegates. - Ich bin es einfach (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is over. It is what it is and Hillary won it. Enough already. If you want to debate whether it was fair or if there were any cheating or wrongdoing that went on that is for another site. We deal with the official results here. This isn't a political debate site.2602:306:CC42:8340:E194:1E04:CE4C:A05E (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Total Number of (Super)delegates
Why is Wikipedia the only source stating that there are 715 superdelegate votes &, therefore, 4,766 delegate votes in total? According to Ballotpedia: "In order to win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, a candidate must win 2,383 delegates at the national convention (this total is current as of May 15, 2016). Currently, there are expected to be 4,765 delegates at the Democratic National Convention." According to The Green Papers, who keeps a list of decided superdelegates, there are "4,765 total delegate votes - 2,650 district / 910 at large; 491 Pledged PLEOs; 714 Unpledged PLEOs". On CNN, "democratic party total delegates: 4765". The Associated Press: "DEMOCRATS Need 2,383 to win". I mean, seriously, why is Wikipedia the only place who, using all the sources stating there are 4,765 delegate votes, is saying that there are actually 4,766 delegate votes because of an additional superdelegate (to make for 715 instead of 714)? I believe the issue should be adjusted to accommodate most sources out there saying that there are indeed 4,765 delegate votes; or is all other sources (legitimate sources, I might add) just wrong? And if so, where is Wikipedia getting the information that there are actually 4,766 votes (b/c of the 715 supers)? Brucejoel99 (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Here is one to mention about Hillary http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-17/sanders-quest-for-superdelegates-loses-one-after-virgin-island-official-flips-to-clinton 2602:306:CC42:8340:E194:1E04:CE4C:A05E (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't explain this. Ask this question here List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016 S51438 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The exact number of superdelegates can fluctuate due to resignations, deaths, etc. I assume that the Wikipedia record has not been updated. 2A02:C7D:C81B:1800:5923:3066:5A03:9037 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To the credit of the article, no source is accurate when it comes to the superdelegates. Every source is saying something different, those that get their info from Associated Press, and those from elsewhere (CNN). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Along with other esteemed editors, I followed the detailed tracking of superdelegates on the relevant article over the last few months, so let me try to explain. The discrepancy comes from the resignation of Tulsi Gabbard from the DNC in late February. She was a superdelegate by virtue of two of her positions: as a Representative for Hawaii and as a Vice-Chairwoman of the DNC (one of 5 such vice-chairpersons). Following her resignation from the DNC (because she supported Sanders), she is still a superdelegate per her Rep position but there is now a vacant position as DNC Vice-Chair which would bring a 715th delegate to the convention; you can see this position at the end of the WP list, along with a few other vacant posts. It is not known whether the DNC will elect a new vice-chairperson before the convention; if they do there will be 715 superdelegates, if they don't 714. — JFG talk 12:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Updates needed
The sums in the table "Schedule and Results" need to be updated. They still show the numbers of delegates before yesterdays primaries. --62.143.245.76 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Kentucky
The secretary of state (of Kentucky) has said on CNN that Hillary Clinton has "unofficially" won the race with 8 precincts outstanding. Even if all 700 or so remaining votes in Jefferson county went to Sanders, she would still be up by over 1,000 votes. The final official results though wont be announced until a later date. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we color it or wait until official certification? If I can recall, I think that we colored in Missouri anyway despite unofficial results, so just wondering. Nike4564 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have a major news source make the call, but yeah no matter the result tonight it will be an unofficial win that should be colored in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * NBC has called it: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-apparent-winner-kentucky-primary-n575806 &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay then I feel it would be safe to color the map now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we can do it now. We can always tweak it after. Nike4564 (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Color that baby GOLD!!2602:306:CC42:8340:E194:1E04:CE4C:A05E (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the hold up is, two major news organizations have called Kentucky for Clinton. Sanders has announced that he wont contest the results, and Hillary tweeted a win. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because Prcc27 is apparently in control (see last edit on the map, flagrantly going against what you stated). If only hacks could be banned from Wikipedia. S51438 (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I "reverted" Knowledgekid87 on the map without even realizing that they and the person before made an edit on the map. I was actually trying to update Oregon without realizing that Oregon had already been updated. Also, I made an edit to the article before seeing the discussion on this talk page. Since a projection has finally been made it is settled. But please refrain from uncivil sass. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My only question is, why didn't you watch-list this page during two primary elections? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do have this page watchlisted, but I didn't check it before making my edit. I didn't see an explanation in anyone's edit summary so I thought that there wasn't consensus for their edit (to be fair, there actually wasn't consensus for their edit at the time). Prcc27🌍 (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you, I agree that more communication should have been put forward but next time give this page a lookover as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for the record aside from a clear consensus here there is also CNN's projection. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just coming to delete my comment. Oops. S51438 (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If it hasnt been officially declared it shouldnt be added to the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.28.202 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is the Graph in French?
The pledged delegate line graph in the "schedule and results" section is in French. Specifically, the months on the X-axis are French abbreviations rather than English. Can someone knowledgeable fix this? Thank you! (New editor here, sorry if this is the wrong place to discuss. Just let me know. -Michelangelo1992 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion on the file's talk page about this now. Guy1890 (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Individual primary articles
Unfortunately 56 articles for each of the individual primaries and caucuses in each state were created, which goes against the practice of 2012 election articles and what we were doing for 2016 so far. There are also articles for a handful of Republican primaries. It is silly to have one article for the Republican primary, one for the Democratic primary, and one for the general election (more than 150 total) when all three are about the same position voted on by the same state. The headline results are in this and other main articles, but the details should not be spread across 150+ subarticles. Could someone give me a hand in merging the pages in Template:2016 Democratic primaries with the main articles at Template:State Results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election? Reywas92 Talk 20:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with much of what you said. It's unprecedented to for them to have all their own articles and it really is superfluous.  I can understand why Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina might because of the intense media and influence they have, but the others?  Not really.  And all the articles are are just a chart of the polls.  If they have no purpose they need to be merged.  I am sure each state will have it's own article in the GE, should probably just all be there.  Manful0103 (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No time to help but I fully endorse your effort. — JFG talk 06:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I began merging the first set of these, but User:PanchoS reverted the changes, claiming they should be separate due to "distinctness, relevancy and article size." How is the primary election for president in a state not relevant to the presidential election in a state? How is candidates running for president distinct from running for president? The main articles are no longer than 10k bytes, which is well below the recommendation to split at WP:Article size, and little of that is readable prose. The reasons stated in the revert edit summaries hold little water, and there is clear precedent and agreement here that there do not need to be separate articles for the primaries, especially when the only content is a table of polling and a table of results. Most of all, there is not need for this material to be duplicated a additional time, beyond the main state article Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, and Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. Reywas92Talk 19:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One the main issues here is that (as I've stated here on this talk page in the past) the whole "Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016" article doesn't need to exist in the first place, since the vast bulk of it is duplicated in this article here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. While I agree that articles that contain only "a table of polling and a table of results" can probably be safely redirected, some of the other individual state articles (not all of them) that I've viewed have some more content than that. Guy1890 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

How come Washington colored when the primaries hasn't happened
Are we telling the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.50.4.76 (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Washington had a caucus on March 26th which Sanders won, those results mattered as they gave out delegates. Washington also has a Primary contest though which is a morale booster if nothing else as no delegates are awarded. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See the Nebraska section above; Nebraska had a caucus which was won by Sanders in March; that caucus awarded delegates and is the contest that matters. The non-binding primary was held May 10, and was won by Clinton, however does not award delegates and is close to meaningless. This is a similar situation to Washington. MB298 (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Figure colours: 'tie' should be added, Kansas should be coloured in the figure "Results by county, popular vote margin"
The colour to Kansas should be added, despite the fact that the colour would be the average from the whole state. The figure cannot used as it is for twitter or other spreading because it undermines one major Bernie Sanders victory. Also the top figure is hugely misleading as it is. You should decide "technical tie"-colour to be added there. A 'win' by 0.3 % is no win at all. Are all Americans obsessed with 'winning' or why does everyone obsess about announcing 'victories'? The top map doesn't give any kind of picture of the whole process as there are NO winner takes it all-states in the democratic primary and caucus race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.90.248 (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "A 'win' by 0.3 % is no win at all." Actually, in these races, a win is win, but the outcome, in terms of the pledged delegate splits, in close contests basically yields only marginal victories at best. Guy1890 (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to apply an inconsistent metric to a graph using incomplete data for the benefit of one candidate's social media presence. Kansas is appropriately colored on every other map for which the relevant data exist. On the "Results by county, popular vote margin" map, the relevant data do not exist, and cannot be invented for the sake of convenience. NelsonWI (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Kentucky Primary
I don't know if there's been a discussion on this yet, but the race in Kentucky has not been called yet. Sure, the Clinton Campaign have declared victory, but I think they're doing a recanvass of the state right now. The race will be called on May 31st according to ABC. I think we should grey out the state temporarily, until the race is called. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  21:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Is this a violation of WP:CRYSTAL ? Jp16103 21:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is now that I think about it. The map is supposed to show delegate victories, and they're tied in delegates in that state, the last delegate has not pledged to either candidate. Some would argue that the map is supposed to show the winner of the popular vote in such a scenario, but since the Kentucky Democrats are recanvassing, the popular vote is not final which is why they have not called the state. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  21:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Clinton has 28 delegates versus Sanders having 27 from Kentucky. As of now, she is the winner of the primary in both popular vote and delegates awarded.  Unless an official recount takes place and changes those results, it should not be changed.  Clinton is the winner of Kentucky.  A recount has not even begun.  Manful0103 (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

We made the call based on MSNBC, not AP. If AP is the standard, then I agree the state should be grayed out (add a footnote somehow, as this will cause confusion). S51438 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They finished recanvassing the state, Clinton remains in the lead. I retract what I said, keep it at yellow, she won the state. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  02:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, keep it as it is. Jp16103 02:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Delegate Count Source(s)?
AP, and Bloomberg have different delegate totals than are reported on this page. The totals reported on this page don't appear to be sourced. What is their source? Michael Sheflin (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * CNN is now agreeing with them as well . What are we going to do when other sources have called the win for Clintin but we are still behind due to The Green Papers? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to be honest. I don't understand what you're saying but I feel like you're pushing a partisan point.  I'm actually just curious...  At the moment, Wikipedia says  Clinton - 1770 && 519, Sanders - 1500 && 43; CNN  says Clinton - 1768 && 542, Sanders - 1499 && 43, AP says  Clinton - 1769 && 541, Sanders - 1499 && 43, Bloomberg  Clinton - 1769 && 541, Sanders - 1499 && 43.


 * So what I was saying was that Wikipedia's estimate doesn't match any of these sources, and I again have no idea what you're talking about Knowledgekid... maybe you cold drop some knowledge on me? But the GreenPapers show  Clinton - 1770 && 515, Sanders - 1500 && 42; so they actually also don't match Wikipedia or any of these news sources.  So my question was just what's the source [in the wikipedia article?]... also shouldn't we maybe cite it?  Michael Sheflin (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF please, my point is that all three sources have Clinton at 2,310 and Sanders at 1,542 (superdelegates included). The source being used on the page here is The Green Papers which looks to be behind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So in a nutshell; CNN, and those media sources associated with the associated press are now agreeing (something that wasn't the case before). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I gotcha. Well the other sources might agree on the totals, but they don't actually agree.  I'm not assuming good or bad faith on S51438's part, although he has repeatedly contrived facts that he's refused to cite on other matters (so I think there's actually cause to assume a presumption of bad faith notwithstanding - though I am not).  If you mean assume good faith with regard to you I just don't actually follow... [I assumed you were making an "us and them" partisan point to set up an attack on me as raising some partisan agenda per the backlash when I tried to raise allegations of constitutional violations above.  I apologize if I implied that your comments were in bad faith.  I just honestly didn't understand what you were saying.  Sorry for the confusion; sorry for any hostility.]  Is our source the Green Papers?  My concern there is that their Superdelegate list seems to just cite to Wikipedia.  Is Wikipedia their source for the totals as well... is this a recursive citation issue...?  But all that notwithstanding, I'm just curious what the Wikipedia source is.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The current source for the superdelegate numbers is List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016, where every endorsement is individually sourced. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that may be the Green Papers' source too.  But does anybody actually check the sources?  For instance can someone explain Reference #3 to fivethirtyeight purports (the 538 site) to be updated as of May 25th, but that obviously cannot mean updated per the most recent list of superdelegate endorsements...  This is going to be a disaster if superdelegates at all change their minds.  But that may be the best way to do it.


 * And what about for the pledged count? Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't understand your question about ref #3. As for the pledged count on 2016USDem, the sources are either official results from the state governments, or taken from the Green Papers or the New York Times. There was a push some time ago to switch from TGP to NYT, and I think that's what has been done where possible. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 04:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't super-clear, sorry; shows 511 endorsements for Clinton and 13 for Sanders.  That was probably true much earlier on but the page purports to have been updated on May 25.  So if that's the pattern of sources (for instance, that source is the basis of ... well a lot of the superdelegate count.  I was counting by hand and gave up after the Johnsons, but there were 92 delegates solely cited to that fivethirtyeight link).  Is the Wiki list actually accurate...?  Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the Wiki list is becoming inaccurate, which I stated on that article's talk page. CNN/AP can contact these individuals unlike us, and an article may not be published stating their endorsement. There was opposition to quoting these other sources because there was a discrepancy, but now CNN/AP are on the same page. Perhaps we should transition over. S51438 (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should transition over, it doesn't look good if only one source agrees with us while the majority say otherwise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But they aren't on the same page. The totals just align for the moment.  No?  Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * While I agree there can be a legitimate debate over whether to use the Associated Press, CNN, or the wikipedia superdelegate list for superdelegate counts, I just want to weigh in on fivethirtyeight.com's tracker, which is the cited source for around 175 of the endorsements on the wiki superdelegate page. What may superficially look like an out-of-date superdelegate count for Clinton and Sanders is actually not a delegate count at all.  Fivethirtyeight.com only tracks endorsements by Democratic governors, senators, and representatives (and thus does not track DNC members and distinguished party leaders), and assigns points for each endorsement (10 for governors, 5 for senators, 1 for reps.), and thus the totals displayed (511 for Clinton, 13 for Sanders) are the point totals for its endorsement point system, not a superdelegate count.  Additionally, each endorsement is sourced to a reliable outside link, and therefore the endorsement tracker should not be discredited as a reliable source, and in turn should not be used to discredit the superdelegate list. Saltshaker25 (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well as S51438 pointed out to me, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016/Archive_2#Delegate_count, that debate in theory has partially happened. It was closed for reasons that are unclear to me - possibly because they realized they had attracted some media scrutiny; I'm not sure.  But I read that debate/section as totally unresolved.*  Someone basically said 'So GreenPapers, right?' and somebody else said 'Um no' and then there was a debate about how it's not a clearly sourced site.  There were previous comments about its ultra detailed sourcing but I don't know what these refer to; I find no specific citations to their pledged count (I assume I've just missed them so somebody please post a link/links).  That means that we [*may have] included TGP on the weight of its citations for the Superdelegates... and one of their two sources for that is Wikipedia - so if that's actually what happened that is an epic fail on the editors' part.  Worse... and this is why I bring it up as a response... one of the Wiki sources for the Superdelegates page - source 3, for over 100 of the entries on that page... still - comes from that fivethirtyeight link - your link doesn't work for me but we're talking about this right (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/)?  So is the impact of what you're saying that the Wiki page actually doesn't cite validly to over a hundred of the SD's for which that is the sole source... and then we're citing TGP which are citing that?  Please tell me I've misconstrued something here or made a fallacious conclusion...  Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC) [*I gave a slightly more coherent ... maybe... interpretation at the end of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Msheflin#Delegate_count_sources]


 * I was basically making three points:
 * 1) Fivethirtyeight.com's endorsement tracker tracks endorsements by Democratic governors, senators, and representatives, but not DNC members or distinguished party leaders.
 * 2) The point total (Clinton 511, Sanders 13) is not a superdelegate count.
 * 3) Every single endorsement on the endorsement tracker is sourced to an outside reliable source, and therefore fivethirtyeight.com should be considered a valid, reliable source. Saltshaker25 (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, but then why are over 100 delegates only sourced to that one fivethirtyeight site that isn't tracking superdelegates. A site can be reliable; that doesn't mean it's being cited properly.  Or am I still misunderstanding you?  Michael Sheflin (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But the people tracked by fivethirtyeight are superdelegates. It's just that the site doesn't track all superdelegates. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 03:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)