Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 8

Order of Candidates
After the much warranted addition of delegates to the candidate table, the candidates were ordered by number of contests won, then delegates won, then by alphabetical order. This seems weird to me, as contests won is less important than delegates won, and as such candidates should be ordered by delegates first (namely, Bernie should go under Buttigieg). I know edits of this nature tend to be rather contested so I've brought my concern here. WittyRecluse (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that delegates should be the preferred measure - as we all know, this is a country where delegate vote (or electoral college vote, in the presidential election) is what actually decides the winner, not the popular vote count. The popular vote count is really just a statistic secondary to the delegate vote which actually decides elections, and I think should only be used as a tie-breaker. I suspect that Sanders will have a clear delegate lead after tomorrow anyway, but that wouldn't solve the possibility of two candidates who aren't in first and second having a discrepancy in order of delegates vs popular vote. (reposted and shortened down from my comment on the template talk page) Cookieo131 (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it definitely shouldn't be contests won. Winning contests doesn't show anything meaningful.  Delegates makes the most sense to me (given that's what the contest is decided by), followed by popular vote (which indicates popular support).  Giving each state an equal weight in the ordering is wrong given that they aren't all given equal weight in the nominating process.  Whiskeypriest 18:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree that delegate order should be the preferred ordering. That's how the nomination is won (usually).David O. Johnson (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I also think candidates should be ordered by delegate counts, with popular vote serving as a tiebreaker. States won should, in my view, be removed completely since it is irrelevant to the contest. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How should the candidates who don't have delegates, but are still active, be ordered? Alphabetically? David O. Johnson (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They would have zero delegates, making them tied, so it goes to the tiebreaker, popular vote. Cookieo131 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are tiebreaking by popular vote, we should probably include the popular vote somewhere in the article, since it isn't currently for candidates not in the infobox. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to have the popular vote of all of the candidates included in this article. The result section links to this article which contains them.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it will be easier to maintain if we keep that information on a single page. - MrX 🖋 03:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delegates for me as well. States won is pretty meaningless. - MrX 🖋 23:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. National delegates, with popular vote as a tiebreaker.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. As someone who has participated in this slow moving edit war. The delegate count is a pointless metric for determining who is in the lead, especially with the irregularities in Iowa. If you ask people who is in the lead, most people will say Senator Senators. The popular vote is generally the only thing that matters in the long term, and there has not been a single candidate in my lifetime that won their party's nomination without winning the popular vote. It shouldn't be more complicated than that. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I still kind of favor contests won tho per WP:ILIKEIT, but I know that isn't happening. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * most people is not a reliable source. --WMSR (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * :p &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I fully disagree, the delegate count is honestly the only metric that can determine who is in the lead because that's what the nomination is actually based on, not popular vote or contests won. The popular vote is not "the only thing that matters in the long term" and the fact the popular vote winner usually wins is irrelevant because if we applied that standard then we would have presidential contests sorted by the popular vote rather than the electoral college – the metric that actually decides that contest. LagsALot (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we put Bernie first? It's clear that he won about half of the Nevada delegates, so he would be in the lead for the delegate count. I know I'm jumping the gun a bit, so I don't mind waiting for the official count to be released before we take action on this.David O. Johnson (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Haven't we largely agreed that the order should be based on national delegates with popular vote as a tie breaker? This edit seem to be restoring it to alphabetical for the candidates without delegates (ignoring their popular vote). Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say we have. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Then should we display the popular vote total in a column to make that clear? As it is, the ordering of Steyer-Gabbard-Bloomberg is ambiguous by the information provided. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 23:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thought we always had them in surname alphabetical order. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We did before anyone had voted, but now that there are results we should sort by delegates. LagsALot (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020
Marianne Williamson recently endorsed Bernie Sanders and the page should include it in the timeline section. emkut7 00:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ And for this template, consensus is only needed for controversial edits . --Spiffy sperry (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Results?
Why isn't a table of the results by primary a prominent part of the article about primaries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.18.242 (talk) 20:04, February 7, 2020 (UTC)

Also why was the overall vote count removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashtagbluejay (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The results section is linked here: . David O. Johnson (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The results are summarized in the infobox at the top of the page. The vote totals were removed pending completion of the count in Nevada (though I'm not sure that was necessary). --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Why was the popular vote removed from the infobox?
This metric has been included in the articles for all prior democratic presidential primaries: 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996... etc. I thought we had a consensus that it should be included. Omitting the popular vote is particularly odd, when we have a graphic in the infobox based on the popular vote.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The vote totals were removed from the infobox since it didn't have numbers from Nevada (though I'm not sure that was necessary). Here is the edit difference. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, that was probably unnecessary.  It is probably better practice going forward only to add votes from a state when the final results are available.  There is no need to remove the votes from states we already have the numbers for.  A note can be added saying that the votes from "insert state" have not yet been included in the popular vote numbers pending final results.  That is preferable to removing the results altogether every time a state votes.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Undo unflattering candidate pictures
Unflattering candidate picture edits were made (in more places than just this article) for a few of the candidates. We should not be selecting a picture that

Some of the edits to 'Declared Candidates' by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick.mon in this time frame should be undone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries&type=revision&diff=920706122&oldid=920584165

The current candidate photos for this page are (opinion) less flattering as the candidates were not posed and not smiling nicely. This applies to at least the Klobuchar -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amy_Klobuchar_2019_(cropped).jpg, Gabbard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tulsi_Gabbard_August_2019.jpg, and Bloomberg - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Bloomberg_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg There may also have been a change relaed to Warren, but a photo edits were made by other editors during this timeframe.

The Bloomberg picture should probably use one of the headshots from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg_2020_presidential_campaign page.

Side note: I don't think this rises to the level of vandalism, but I have noted use of these alternate images even within this Talk page and other pages that excerpt this page. Davemoth (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Point taken. The Bloomberg photo used here is not the best.  That said, the best option may be to source another headshot from the campaign trail.  The "headshot" on his campaign article, is only there due to the box noting that that is an article in a series about Bloomberg.  The photo appears connected to "Bloomberg Philanthropies" and from a flickr page associated with that, not with the campaign.  It is probably better to have a photo from the campaign (ie a campaign event, debate etc.).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should replace the Gabbard and Bloomberg photos, but we should keep the Klobuchar one, since her official photo is from too long ago and I don’t think the one we have now is unflattering. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think the photos are alright as-is! (I think Klobuchar's and Gabbard's are fine, and Bloomberg's is alright.) I'd say it's better than using the "official Senator/Representative/etc. photos" with the awkward directly-to-the-camera forced smiles. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that Klobuchar's and Gabbard's aren't that bad, nor really is Bloomberg's. Truth is finding non-copyrighted images often results in less flattering photos.  Often they are taken by amateur photographers or regular folks, and not edited.  If there are better pictures out there that someone wants to propose, I think we should consider it.  But I agree, that we should not just use Senatorial/Congressional photos, or ones from Bloomberg's companies/organizations.  This article is about the campaign, so where possible we should use photos on the stump (ie. at a campaign event, or on a debate stage etc).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Colorado voting in 2020 timeline
The timeline says that voting will start on the 24th of February, but I can't find any mention of it in the source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheto (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it began | earlier than that. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * That link didn't work for me, and I can only find a reference for the Boulder county voting centers opening. Anyway, the whole thing is a little murky, since Colorado has switched to mail-in ballots as the default. The ballots were mailed out earlier this month (by the 10th, I think) and people could send them in as soon as they received them. Voter service centers (where people can drop off ballots in person, replace lost or damaged ballots, etc.) opened today (Feb. 24th.) And March 3rd is the deadline to get ballots in. So what do you call the "start" of voting? Fcrary (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a working link: . A pipe was left in at the end of the URL originally. David O. Johnson (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

IT's time
A month or two back, I made a suggestion stating that we should change the candidates' table from alphabetical to delegate returns. I have done so. The reason is obvious. The primaries have started, Nevada is tomorrow and Super Tuesday is only 11 days away. May I suggest another change for a week from Tuesday: We separate those who have one at least one primary/caucus from those who haven't. (THEN, not NOW, jeez!) If Biden loses SC, then he's toast. Klobuchar and Warren are well ahead in their home states, and Bloomberg is also ahead in a number of states, most notably Florida and Arkansas. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorting the table by delegates makes the most sense, and I support that edit; though shouldn't the candidates section just be transcluded from the Candidates page? I don't think there's any reason why the same edits should be made twice, once to each page. To your second suggestion: I don't think there's a real justification for separating the table into smaller tables based on number of contests won. Putting candidates with few delegates at the bottom of the table will have a similar effect anyway, without creating an arbitrary separation between those you got first within a state and those who have not. Either way, candidates who aren't bringing in wins will likely drop out anyway; but right now, at this stage of the race, it's not up to us if they are 'toast' or not. Cookieo131 (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I do support this change, although I think the relevant section in the candidates page should be transcluded from here, not vice versa, since this page gets substantially more traffic. I also do not think the sections pertaining to the date the campaign was announced should be removed from the table, since that is still pertinent information, and we should still order candidates who dropped out by the date they dropped out not by the amount of delegates they happened to recieve. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree about sorting the table of active candidates by delegate returns (with popular vote as secondary sort). To your 2nd suggestion: I disagree about breaking the table -- all active candidates should be included and the numbers can speak for themselves. 'Wins' mean very little as even a second place in California could outweigh many small wins.Davemoth (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Contests Won
Why are we basing the contests won on pledged delegates alone? I believe it should be determined based on who the Associated Press determines as the winner. Every news agency, including AP, is considering Bernie Sanders the winner of New Hampshire, so therefore it should show up under "Contests Won" in the Active Candidates section. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  16:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The 2016 primaries list the Contests Won criteria as "According to popular vote or pledged delegate count (not counting superdelegates); see below for detail." while 2020 primaries is "According to pledged delegate count (not counting superdelegates); see below for detail." This should be the same as 2016's method. For states where there were an even split of pledged delegates, there was a footnote added saying that delegates were split evenly, but the candidate with the highest popular vote was given that state in their table (see Wyoming and South Dakota in 2016 article). I suggest that we keep the criteria the same as 2016's, place NH in Sanders' row and add a footnote that pledged delegates were split evenly between Buttigieg and Sanders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CherryFIrewood (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's do it base it on delegates, and if there's a tie, let the popular vote decide. So Mayor Pete won iowa and Bernie won NH. Simple no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arglebargle79 (talk • contribs) 17:54, February 24, 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Arglebargle79. Delegates should be first (as that determines the nomination), then by popular vote if there's a tie in the delegate count. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I also support this method. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree with that. It seems to be a sensible way to decide the issue.  However, we need to be clear in the infobox that is what "contests won" means.  Doing that with a footnote should be appropriate.  Alternatively, we could count ties as a win to both (or neither) noting that in a footnote.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of deciding through delegates, and then popular vote if there's a tie. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  23:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a sensible way to do it, yes, but it doesn't mean Buttigieg won Iowa yet. The final delegate could be doing to Sanders, at which point they tie on delegates and so Sanders won by popular vote, using this method. I lean more towards judging this on delegates alone - Buttigieg and Sanders tied New Hampshire, Sanders won Nevada, either Buttigieg won Iowa or tied it with Sanders.Wikiditm (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if we have new data regarding the popular vote from caucus states that we didn't have last cycle, the only number that matters is still the final expression of preference. This is defined in each state's delegate selection plan, but it boils down to SDE/CD in caucus states and the popular vote in primary states. Those are the numbers we should use. --WMSR (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Super Tuesday is in only 8 days!
For some reason, few have agreed with me on having a plan for how to do major updates, well, with only a week before Super Tuesday, I was thinking we should do the following a week from Wednesday, or possibly earlier:


 * have a timeline for the Democratic primary article and replace it on this page with a narrative as they have on previous elections. The Invisible primary/debate season phase of the campaign is over. We should know if Bernie wins the nomination in a romp or there's going to be a slugfest all the way to the Convention by then.


 * Totally revise the candidate charts. We can divide it into several groups:
 * Those who have won at least one contest (it is possible that Klobuchar and Warren may have won their home states)...
 * Those who have not, but remain viable...
 * ...and everyone else.


 * Get rid of the debate chart. They should be mentioned, obviously, but what happened can be easily transferred into narrative form plus a link to the article.


 * Get rid of the ballot access chart. We needed it last October and into early January in order to inform readers as to the state of the race. All the minor/withdrawn candidates will not be on the ballot anywhere after the middle of the month. So at least on this page, it's not necessary anymore and is just taking up bandwidth.


 * Get rid of the Calender. We don't need it, anymore. Especially with the states that are now over. When they took place will be mentioned in the narrative.

The final debate of this phase is tomorrow. The results will inform what happens in the next ten days. Either the race will be over or it won't. If it is, we should plan for that contingency. If it ain't, then we should plan for that. there are things we can do NOW and there are things we should discuss NOW. Let's do itArglebargle79 (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything except revising the candidate charts. Let the numbers speak for themselves. Even if Sanders sweeps Super Tuesday this is premature. We should not make any artificial revision that could be seen as playing king maker. Wins also mean practically nothing (CA is more than the 20 smallest primaries).


 * Devil's advocate: I could maybe see making the split once a candidate has no mathematical possibility of reaching 1886 (threshold for contested convention) or 1990 (majority) pledged delegates (which might eventually eliminate all candidates.) Hmmm, maybe only make the split if a candidate reaches 1886 or 1990. We could also set a lower bar where the split occurs based on 1000 or 500 pledged delegates.Davemoth (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what is said here, but I am also strongly opposed to making any changes to the candidate charts, I feel that throwing up divides in it serves no purpose other than to create confusion and conflict. I would also like to keep the ballot access chart, but I don’t feel very strongly about that. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * We already have a criterion for major candidates. I don't see any problem with keeping them all in a category and sorting them by delegate count. What Arglebargle79 is suggesting would turn readers away from supporting any candidates who you would consider to be unable to win. I don't know if this is your intention but it is not allowed within Wikipedia.


 * I would argue that we should sort dropped out candidates by number of delegates, not drop out date. For example, in the 2016 Republican primaries, Cruz dropped out before Kasich, but Cruz was much more important in the actual race.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Popular vote totals for withdrawn candidates
Hello, Should we add a popular vote count to candidates who withdrew before the primaries but still recieved votes? I'm personally in favor as we did this for the 2016 Republican Primary. Bandersenbrian (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. They are already there on the results page. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg write-ins
Hello folks,

May be getting a bit ahead of myself here but how should we handle write-in votes for Bloomberg in New Hampshire & caucusers in Iowa if Bloomberg is added to the infobox after Super Tuesday? Should these votes be added to his popular vote total? Bandersenbrian (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to treat them the same as any other vote, yes.Wikiditm (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do not see any reason not to count them as votes. The people that wrote in those names wanted to vote for him.  While the only thing that "really" matters in this contest is national delegates, popular vote is a measure of general support and if a brokered convention happens claims about popular support will certainly be made.  Bloomberg's support in these states is relevant and encyclopedic information that should be included.  We must make clear (as we are already doing) that he wasn't on the ballot though.  That is also relevant context.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * A state is the final authority with respect to who is or is not available to be voted for in that state. In Nevada, for example, write-in votes are not permitted, and Bloomberg was not on the ballot.  As a result, the official count of votes for Bloomberg in that contest must be zero regardless of the number of people who may have voted for him.  (per )  We don't have the right to say that a state's laws should or should not be thus and such; our mandate is to document what is.Gnerphk (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidates with 0 delegates?
I thought we weren't putting them in the infobox? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See the discussion above. There is an open RfC.  A conclusion has not been reached yet, but myself and some others have suggested the cutoff should perhaps be a delegate or >5% of the popular vote.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, while they RfC is open we should stick with the pre-RfC consensus of including only candidates with 5% of the vote in the infobox. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we should maintain the status quo until the RfC is concluded. I didn't mean to suggest a premature close, just note that there was a discussion of this above.  That said I think there was an inconsistent consensus on the articles related to the primaries.  It seems like on some of the articles for the individual state primaries the 5% threshold was being used (and not in some others, ie Iowa).  It seems like here, the consensus had been only to include candidates with national delegates.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, unless a candidate drops out of the race (which has not happened since February 11), whether or not they have received delegates is not as relevant as the fact that they are still in the race. At least, that would be my conclusion based on my current understanding of the Wikipedia policies that are at play on this page and others like it. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You may wish to comment in the RfC above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur with Kerrigan. Also, yes, Stokes is right; you ought to weigh in on the RfC.  Where and how you express your opinion is often as important as its content. Gnerphk (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020
Make an edit in "Contests Won" for Pete Buttigieg. Iowa.

Source: https://iowastartingline.com/2020/02/27/final-iowa-caucus-results-pete-buttigieg-wins/ 2601:1C2:D80:3380:80EA:9915:9867:A3B (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed in the threads above. You are welcome to offer your opinion. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrong number?
When I looked up the primary it showed Buttigieg with 25 delegates, not 26, I'm just trying to figure out which is right — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoteBlockBoi (talk • contribs) 15:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It is 26, as of yesterday's announcement of the recanvasing results in the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Map links to respective state primaries
Map of state wins used to include links to respective state primary pages, now the links are off; Iowa takes you to Idaho, and so on. Someone who knows how, please fix. Thanks.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Why hasn't the map been updated to show Buttigieg as the winner of Iowa?
Vandergay (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the major news agencies are not treating that result as necessarily credible. "The Associated Press and major broadcasters have yet to declare an official winner from Monday's caucuses due to confusion resulting from the vote-reporting process." -- MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggestion. Since New Hampshire votes tonight, the map should be changed. If New Hampshire has a winner, but Iowa is the same color as every other state, it will look as though Iowa has not voted yet. Could we make Iowa a dark gray or black and label it “Results pending” or something similar? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Iowa's weird in that there's an estimated winner now, but the county/district/state conventions to go which actually determine the delegate count and that can change depending on people dropping out and organization at the conventions. For instance, in 2008 they estimated Obama would get 16 delegates and Clinton 15, Edwards 14, but it ended up Obama 36 Clinton 9.  I'm also not sure why the caucus results are thrown in with the national popular vote on this page because it's apples and oranges.13:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s understandable, which is why there are several different maps on the 2016 page. But the current map in the 2020 infobox gives the impression that Iowa has not yet voted at all, so that is why I believe it should be changed. I don’t see a problem with a “results pending” or similar label, so I wanted to ask other editors if they would have a problem with that label before changing it. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that results pending is a descriptor sufficient for contests which have not yet been held, as while as contests which have been held but have not yet released results. Light grey already kind of means results pending anyway by default. There's no reason to add extra info there, especially as it's something so temporary. Cookieo131 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I really like the ideo of a results pending label for Iowa. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Realistically, we don't have a timeline for when (or if) major news networks will finally call Iowa. So I do think there needs to be a distinction between Iowa and the 48 other states that haven't voted after tonight. I think "results pending" or "results not finalized" are more NPOV rather than "results contested" or something similar. I'm open to other ideas about potential labels, though.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment As this talk section seems to relate to the unclear results of the Iowa caucus and how to display them, I'd like to invite any interested editors at this page to comment at Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses so we can hopefully get a consensus on the numbers as well  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Nevada is currently being called for Sanders despite the count not even being close to finished while Iowa still gets “pending” despite the state party and multiple media outlets declaring a winner and this page giving a popular vote win to Sanders is an absolute joke. This whole thing should be deleted if it can’t be unbiased. Hatramroany (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple outlets have declared Nevada for Sanders: [AP. https://apnews.com/6dbc1adb1411f54831f8bbb8fcee4e6e], [NBC, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/nevada-caucuses-set-kick-amid-fears-plans-avoid-repeat-iowa-n1140896]. Iowa isn't even done yet, that's why it's pending; we're waiting on the results of the recanvass. We're not biased, we just go by what the sources say. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Except Iowa isn't pending on the map where it benefits Sanders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.32.41.218 (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Iowa has officially been called that Pete is the winner.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:C080:AB0:F44B:8372:F6D0:9192 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

AP still not calling Iowa after recount
I started a discussion about this issue here. It also affects this article. I note we now have Pete Buttigieg listed as winning one contest (Iowa) in the infobox, but not in the list of candidates which clearly notes we are relying on AP's call concerning who won a contest.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think at this point Pete Buttigieg has won. Nothing has changed in a week. We should put a note that the AP hasn't declared a winner, but still count it towards him and update the maps. Smith0124 (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe this seals it.
 * That may be case, but the AP hasn't yet called it and the results aren't yet certified. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with either noting it as a Pete win, or waiting to Saturday for certification. It looks like he has it though. But our candidates table says "according to the AP", so if we are going to note Pete as the winner we need to alter that footnote. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You can also view the primary source IDP counts here:. It's clear that Buttigieg has won, so it's right to put that in the infobox. I don't think there's much harm in waiting to tomorrow to update the results table though. Sticking with the AP count stops the table being a Frankenstein's monster, bodged together from different sources.Wikiditm (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, someone has added the win to the candidates page table again. Unfortunately, that table says is labeled as winners according to the Associated Press.  The AP has not called it.  As such, I am going to remove that note.  We cannot be saying AP says Pete is the winner.  They don't.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Delegate Percentage in
With South Carolina and Super Tuesday coming up, could we get a delegate percent for each of the candidates in the box, just like we have with the percent of popular vote? Rivere123 (talk) 11:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Iowa
The results from Iowa are incorrect. The summary is this: they haven't counted all the votes yet, the two missing districts had a lot more people vote for Sanders, Sanders got over 6000 votes more than Buttigieg and it has been proven that there were arithmetic errors on the sheets. There also is a recount of the votes by the DNC going on. At the very least there should be a BIG caveat for that 'result'. The responsible action for Wikipedia would be to NOT mention any numbers until this issue has been resolved, the mentioned number of delegates misleads the readers. Sanders has said that with the votes as those have been counted he and Buttigieg would both get the same number of delegates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.132.75.218 (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We report what appears in reliable sources, like this official one . On February 27, the Iowa Democratic Party concluded the official recount, resulting in Buttigieg maintaining a slight edge over Sanders in State Delegate Equivalents. - MrX 🖋 22:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think coloring in Iowa is premature. Unless someone can point me to a major news network that has called the race..? Prcc27 (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * CNN and Fox have reported on this. Cheers, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020
In the maps section of the article edit South Carolina and shade all the counties in South Carolina for Joe Biden. 2601:1C0:8701:7040:7CFD:1FC8:C691:5ADD (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Delegate and Contest Counts
These should be the AP counts, but they're currently the Green Papers estimates which have been rejected in each state article. The AP counts are more reliable, so should be used instead (with Sanders currently on 28 and Buttigieg on 22).Wikiditm (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sanders delegates are 57 and biden is 51 according to nbc news BREntdominate132 (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020
The figures need to be updated. The latest appears to be that Bernie Sanders has 56 delegates Joe Biden has 49 delegates Joe Biden leads in the popular vote approximately 323,244 votes to Bernie Sanders 268,065. Thank you Lpspiv (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020
Correct the amount of votes and what percentage each candidate has in the candidates section to match with the updated final results from the South Carolina Democratic Primary. 2601:1C0:8701:7040:7CFD:1FC8:C691:5ADD (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Replacing the ballot access table
I just saw this, and I think we should replace ballot access table, which is no longer necessary, with this:

This is actully an improvement. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to replace it; there is already a Results page here: Results of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

oy. the chart is already on the page. I'm just saying get rid of the ballot access chart, change the title of the 'primary calendar" to "results," and have another link to the results page there. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of getting rid of the existing chart, why not add a new chart? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Because we already have one. A ballot access chart is no longer necessary. What do you want this page to look like in 72 hours?Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Buttigieg ends his 2020 Presidential campagian
Pete Buttigieg has suspended his campaign we are down to now five candidates. Klobuchar, Warren, Biden, Sanders, and Warren. JBurgerMaroonsBooks20 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ Tulsi Gabbard is a candidate too.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020
Bernie Sanders's Estimated delegate count should be 60 and Biden's 54 if added up. Biden is given more than what he earned. Also check the 2020 Democratic primaries and caucuses table. 103.60.175.59 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Firstly, you did not make a request, you stated information as if it were factual. Secondly, even if that information is correct, you did not site a reliable source to verify the information that you shared. I myself just now ran a Google search for the primary results, and according to those results, Sanders has 58 delegates and Biden has 50. And the next few sources on that same Google search verify those numbers. So I'd be curious to know where you got the idea that Sanders has 60 and Biden has 54. I'd suggest you go back, examine your sources of information, find out whether they are legitimate and reliable according to Wikipedia sources, and then come back and make a proper request for the content changes you are seeking. IMHO, that just seems to be the best course of action. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Follow the advice given above. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Timeline - past or present tense?
The timeline alternates between past and present tense. Which should it be?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Past tense Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ^ &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree, past tense is better.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Past tense, yes. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 02:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I have eliminated the inconsistencies.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Map
The color system for the map marked "results in pledged delegates, by state" isn't consistent with the color scheme of the other maps. I am not sure how to fix and/or explain that. SunCrow (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"Candidates" section needs revision
The first paragraph doesn't define "major" candidates or what a non-major candidate might be, and the third criterion (c): "received substantial media coverage" is too vague and potentially applies to every single candidate, even just for being mentioned here. Sandrazhoureal (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems something is off in the polling section?
Hello. In the polling section, the graph currently has "Others/Undecided" above 20% while from the table below it, it seems it should be about 10%. I don't really understand how the graph works; maybe someone who does could take a look at it? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it should be correct now. I imagine that Pete Buttigieg's removal was reflected in the graph but not table at the time you viewed this. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Klobuchar dropping out of 2020 race and endorsing Biden
Breaking: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/super-tuesday-klobuchar-dropping-out-of-2020-race-and-endorsing-biden/ 129.246.254.12 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Delegates
Hi there would you mind changing the delegates because according to nbc news the delegates are 57 for Sanders and 51 for biden BREntdominate132 (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The various news networks all have slightly different counts. So hold on to your hat when Super Tuesday comes to town in just under 50 hours. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/delegate-count-primary-results.html lists Sanders with 60, Biden with 54, Buttigieg with 26, Warren with 8, and Klobuchar with 7. This is accurate unless/until the Iowa kerfuffle is resolved so as to take one from Buttigieg and award them to Sanders. Does anyone know what the implications of Buttigieg dropping out are to the contested delegate(s)? Maybe he's no longer contesting? WordwizardW (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The numbers listed at the top right correspond to what I just gave, but the numbers in the Active Candidates chart below are different. Who knows how to make them match? WordwizardW (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Structure of "Withdrew during the primaries"
So, I don't believe that the structure of logo and wikilink to campaign is necessarily the best way to structure the "Withdrew during the primaries" section, and I wanted to open it up to discussion, given that my edit (to place a line-break between the two) was reverted. Thoughts? &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 02:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd say the edit that someone else made today is kinda problematic, where ALL THREE parts (Date started / Date ended / Logo+article+FEC) are awkwardly squished into one box, missing two key features the tables above and below retain. The current awkward layout:
 * * removes information like the date of forming the Exploratory committee that effectively began many candidates' campaigns (even though that information is present in the other two tables)
 * * and leaves "Campaign announced/suspended" entirely unsortable since both dates are in the same bo (even though it's sortable in the other two tables as well). The triple-squished version combines the two tables' formats but somewhat unhelpfully.
 * I think the "Campaign announced" and "Campaign suspended" need to be separated back into two different boxes, also so that there's room for the date of forming the Exploratory committee (that the other two tables have, for the candidates who had one) and any future endorsements these candidates may make. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It would go from this...:


 * ...to this:


 * Thoughts? Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, the latter is much nicer: it's more compact, efficient, and just looks cleaner! I'm honestly impressed, Paintspot Infez! Great work! (And, yes, I can support it.) &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 04:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree that it looks better and support replacing the current table with the proposal. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I also support, the ability to order the candidates by announcement and dropout date is essential, and it simply looks better. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the new one. Wandavianempire (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like there's consensus, Paintspot Infez. Your move. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Others/Undecided grey color
Is there a way we could make the grey a slight bit darker. When the Others/Undecided line goes into the primaries and caucuses or debate lines its hardly visible. Just a slight bit dark for our viewers who might have trouble distinguishing the current light grey line. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Done! Made it a tiny bit darker, since it was pretty hard to see where it was in the densely-populated January/February section. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Timeline again
I noticed these things, and I don't know if they are deliberate:
 * There is no up-to-date result on Iowa.
 * The citation for 21 February 2020 is very weird.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean the citation is weird? The formatting looks fine to me. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the dates that look weird. Using a source dated (?) in 2019...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no mention of 2019 here:. I think it's a good ref.David O. Johnson (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you trolling? In full, the entry says: February 21: Voting in the Washington primary began....cite web|url=https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/dates-and-deadlines.aspx |title=Dates and Deadlines 2020 |accessdate=January 7, 2020 |date=February 19, 2019 |work=Washington Secretary of State...  At the earliest, this source was updated on February 19, 2019... This mentions 2019 twice.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please remember WP:AGF. I see zero indication the ref was updated in 2019. I don't know where the added date parameter info came from, but it seems to be incorrect. There's no reason to not use the Washington Secretary of State page as a ref; state election pages are pretty reliable sources and are used elsewhere in the article.David O. Johnson (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said there was anything wrong with the source itself. I can't believe you looked at that citation twice without noticing the date. Part of civility is giving attention to other editors' comments before dismissing them.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Extra whitespace
At the bottom of the table above the section entitled "Primary election polling" is an extra carriage return, but I can't figure out where it's coming from. Would a more knowledgable someone please be so kind as to delete it? —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I fixed it, the issue was actually over at Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, where that section was transcluded from. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

A note to our faithful fans about Super Tuesday and the Rest of the month
Starting at around seven PM on Tuesday this page and those like it are going to undergo a vast transformation. 14 states will have primaries, and the popular vote and delegate strength totals are going to go through the roof. those who have hundreds of votes will have thousands of votes, those with tens of thousands will have hundreds of thousands, and...you get the idea. The number of viable candidates will be down to two or three, and it's possible that Bernie Sanders will become the presumptive nominee. We just don't know at this point.

What we do know, is that all hell's about to break loose with the numbers and we won't get it fixed until around friday or saturday, and then there's going to be another "super tuesday" a few days later and a huge day a week after that. AS you noticed, there've been some requests to make changes to the vote totals with regards to South Carolina. We know all about this and ask your forbearance. Some of us have been waiting for this for nearly four years. It's not going to get better in that regard. So again. Please be gentle and patient with us. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In response to the fourth sentence of your note, I should just say that arithmetically speaking, even a candidate who doesn't have any delegates so far (i.e. Gabbard or Bloomberg) will technically not have missed out on enough delegates yet to no longer be able to win even if they also don't get any delegates on Super Tuesday, and conversely, even if Sanders wins all of the delegates from all of the ST states, it's mathematically possible if he suddenly and drastically loses popularity in the rest of the race that even before the convention he will not have enough pledged delegates to win. How tiny the possibility of either of these extremes are I have no accurate guess of, but speaking purely arithmetically the race can not be over yet after ST unless all but one candidate withdraw. (For those interested, the earliest date after which, any candidates (even Sanders) who have not gained in delegates between now and then will be fully and mathematically out of the race even if they don't withdraw, is the third Tuesday, Arglebargle's 'huge day' I think, when FL, IL, OH & AZ vote.)Adam Dent (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing lesser-known candidates
Neros1234 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Don't you think it's time to remove Henry Hewes, Robby Wells, etc... They are on the separate Candidates page and that should be enough. They are not of importance to stay on this Wikipedia page this late in the game with only 5 major candidates remaining. Same goes for Ben Glieb and the others who dropped out, but because they're out it's not as much of an issue.
 * No. For all we know, Wells might do quite well in Utah and Texas, wouldn't that be fun? The overhaul is going to happen the day after tomorrow, AFAIK, and as far too many have said to me over the years: Wait. All will become clear in a day or so. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg in Alaska
Why is Bloomberg listed as having won the Alaskan primary when it's not happening until april 4th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigdos (talk • contribs) 08:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg is listed as having won AS which is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_caucuses_in_American_Samoa#Democratic_caucuses Alaska is AK.Davemoth (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Bernie won California
The Associated Press shows that Bernie Sanders has won in California. Why doesn't the map show that? PauldGOAT13 (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)PauldGOAT13PauldGOAT13 (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I didn’t personally fix it, but California is green now. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Maine?
Why are we showing Biden having won the popular vote in Maine? Bernie and him seem to be within one point of each other and counting is ongoing. Neither the NYT nor CNN has called it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press just announced Biden won Maine. PauldGOAT13 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, well that seems to resolve that one, even though we jumped the gun.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Maine, Biden has now jumped ahead of Sanders in the pledged delegate count as well, and all have been allocated. I am not experienced enough to fix the map, but if someone could remove the stripes and color it solid blue, that would be appreciated. Thanks! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion on Color Scheme in Infobox/Electoral Map
Dear editors,

Would it be amenable to change the color scheme to non-blue hues as in the 2016 Democratic Primaries and the 2008 Democratic Primaries? My concern is that the page may been seen to be misleading since the current color scheme of blue (under Joe Biden) is closely affiliated with the Democratic Party colors and that changing all color schemes to non-blue would ensure that the page would be free of any kind of bias.

It would be great if the editors to this page can respond and implement my suggestions if this concern is equally shared by you. Thank you.

Yulun5566 (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I support this idea. There was previously significant discussion of colors for candidates, and that should be reviewed to see if this (ie: bias) was already discussed there.Davemoth (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that the dark blue should stay. It’s sufficiently different from the light blue of the official Democratic Party logo that I think bias is avoided. All of the candidate’s colors are also based on official campaign colors. Finally, with at least five candidates in the infobox and more throughout all primary articles, it’s difficult to find enough usable and distinct colors. Someone is going to end up with a shade of blue. Especially if we are avoiding red, since it causes issues for red-green colorblind readers and we already have a green candidate. That’s just my opinion; I know it has been discussed before and other editors are free to reference the previous discussion. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are resources for color-blind friendly palettes (example ). There are shades of red and green that would not encumber red-green colorblind readers. Also, we already have a red candidate - Warren.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Map at the bottom
The map at the bottom says "Results in pledged delegates, by state" so that map should probably be replaced by something like this: but then obviously in better quality which I can't do so if anyone is up to that. I'd highly appreciate it. --HoxtonLyubov (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Just looked at the 2016 page and both versions of the delegate map are there. Should probably just add the one you are suggesting. Ainsworth anderson (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That would be a useful map to have in addition to the ones already included on the page.  If someone has the time and expertise to make it, that would be a valuable contribution.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't claim much expertise, but I fiddled around and added the delegate map shown here. Could other folks please update that map as needed when SC and Super Tuesday, etc., come in? Thanks.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

If someone would like to update the delegate-inclusive map once Super Tuesday gets sorted, I'd be happy to put it back up in the infobox. Since the race is all about delegates, it's a much more meaningful map than the popular vote one and much more informative than who gets first place in delegates per state.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Order of Candidates in the InfoBox
This issue was already discussed and I believe the consensus was that candidates would be ordered according to number of delegates. Now that we have withdrawn candidates I assume we are still continuing with that, or do people think we should list the withdrawn candidates in order of their withdrawal? I made this edit to move Warren after Bloomberg as she has fewer delegates than him. Happy to discuss here if folks disagree.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, notes in this edit that the numbers in the infobox were incorrect before and Warren actually has more delegates than Bloomberg.  If that is the case that seems to sort things.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Bernie has 1 win not showing
In the section Active Candidates it shows that Bernie has 7 wins but at the introduction to the right it says he has 6. —- Starboybooya526 (talk) 12:03 March 5 2020 (UTC)


 * Both correctly show 6 now. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What is win #6? California? That's not been yet called for him by many outlets (CNN, NYT). All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Audit Map?
This map was added by this afternoon concerning the process of election audits. I am not sure if this applies directly to this primary. It does not seem to have been created for this article. Frankly, I am a little confused about its purpose. Should this be included? If so, is there a way to better integrate it into the article?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be included, personally. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd only support inclusion if there are RS mentioning the lack of audits in certain states. The subsection currently cites sources which mention the now-infamous Iowa Caucuses, so I'm not strongly in favor of removing it since it is convenient and there's at least some reason to believe that it's relevant to this page, but I'd also be okay with removing or shrinking it while continuing to link to the Election audit article in the subsection so interested readers can find more information about that subject.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 09:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's too much of a tangent for this particular article. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Flow of Article - edits to article and sandbox for large edits
Hey guys. I am working on trying to expand certain sections and condense some tables/information on this page. Since there is a lot of work and since I don't own all of this information, I figure we can all contribute. I set up my sandbox as a place to edit a majority of this article. I really like the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries page and the way it recaps in detail nearly everything about the process and I hope that we can get this page to that standard. If anyone would like to help make changes to the sandbox, that would be great. Remember, it is a sandbox-not the actual page.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Things we should work on:


 * Timeline of Race - this should be more paragraphs, rather than bullet points. Condense bullets to prose/paragraphs. Adding charts for the early states/super Tuesday similar to the 2016 Rep page would be helpful.
 * Ballot Access - condensing ballot access and schedule of primary into a single chart
 * Campaign Finance - transferring all info into the 2016 Rep version of the chart, since it is more condensed and feels a bit more "mature"?
 * Flow of Article - Place National Convention into the timeline, figure out a better way to organize endorsements (why a blank header?) and add polling/debate information into timeline in smaller charts?DoubleTrouble16 (talk)


 * I figured that once the race is "over", we will expand the lead to match a general description and timeline of the race to match previous ones, such as 2016. However I agree that we should be strengthening what we can and moving away from the bulletpoint style with regards to the description of the race. TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Why Gabbard's photo and statistics kept getting removed from the page?
I did see her photo, but it disappeared. She is still in the race, yet, her photo and statistics is not on the left side. I see there Biden and Sanders, and 3 others who dropped out. Why Tulsi Gabbard is not there? She has a delegate and she is not dropped out, her campaign is active.

If her photo and stats were there, why someone removed it? Is it one of the many tricks to make her "less visible"? Because it looks like it. I would expect Wikipedia to not hide a presidential candidate with a delegate and an active campaign.

Can we have her photo and stats on the main page with the other candidates, or she is literally prohibited to be there?

I'm not even her supporter, I just think it's really suspicious and wrong to take her off from the most important part of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLiberty (talk • contribs) 22:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There's no tricks or censorship going on here, don't worry. There's currently a debate as to who should be included in the infobox, and whether Gabbard has enough support to warrant a spot on there. You should be able to find that elsewhere on this page. - EditDude (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an RfC and discussion above concerning which candidates should be included in the infobox. The status quo at the time the RfC was started was with Gabbard and Klobuchar in the infobox.  That is why it has been restored.  If you wish to comment, do so above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Gabbard's delegates in American Samoa
Hi,

According to this source, Gabbard does indeed have two delegates from American Samoa. IDK if it should take precedence over RCP, etc. (as RCP still indicates she only has one):. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible that she did get two. However, that statement is coming from her campaign which is reporting the American Samoa Democratic Party's words secondhand. We should wait for a better source before changing it, in my opinion. The American Samoa Democratic Party would be the ideal source if they put out a statement. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like NBC, NPR, Bloomberg , and The Guardian all have her at two delegates. The Guardian's number are based on the AP numbers, so it looks pretty official (it's already been updated in the Results table and elsewhere). David O. Johnson (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Why remove Amy but not Pete?
Really all candidates who have suspended their campaign should be removed from the current infobox, otherwise it's unfair. After the election it would be fine to put all candidates back in who got any delegates at all, but before it, it could be confusing to people if they happen to miss the "(campaign suspended)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3260:15C0:A17A:EBE4:C0FE:610A (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The infobox is not intended to display current candidates. It is a summary of the race. Pete won a state. That is notable and will always be a notable. That is reflected in the map right below the photos. He should remain. --Vrivasfl (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd argue only the top 4 candidates should be included. It looks the best and is how things were done for previous elections. The candidate colours are still at the bottom of the infobox after all, which is where people can look to see if Pete Buttigieg won a state. CJ Melon (✉) 17:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's being discussed in this section: Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also see thenew RfC below.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard
Why does the infobox have Buttigieg's picture and info even though he has dropped out of the race and the infobox has zero information about Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard even though she is still in the race and she has picked up delegates? I think the infobox needs to edits to fix this. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion above and contribute if you would like. Tulsi also only has a single delegate out of 1991 needed to win, and she has not won a state or territory, for clarification.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You sound like the DNC spokeswoman. Going to keep moving the goal posts to make sure she doesn't get recognized, eh? --2601:84:8A01:31D0:F02B:7167:B180:AF98 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See the new RfC below, you are welcome to comment there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Should former candidates remain in the infobox?
Buttigieg and Klobuchar both won some delegates in early contests, but have since dropped out. As of right now, Klobuchar has been removed from the infobox but Buttigieg has not. I have no preference either way. There is value in only keeping active candidates there to allow readers to see the current state of the race at a glance, but there is also value in keeping former candidates there in order to summarize the historical state of the race. Either way, however, this should be applied consistently: either both former candidates should be there, or neither. 204.246.8.98 (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the delineation should be whether a former candidate won a state and or delegates. If they did, they should stay in the infobox.David O. Johnson (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Since there's usually four candidates in that section, I'd argue the four candidates who will actively be competing on Super Tuesday (Biden, Bloomberg, Sanders & Warren) should remain there. Having delegates shouldn't necessarily warrant being put there, like the singular delegates Carson and Bush received in the GOP primaries 2016. CJ Melon (✉) 19:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I believe that having won a state should be the decisive factor, given that the list of candidates includes colors used on the maps immediately succeeding the list of candidates. Thus, every candidates who has won a state should remain; and though my personal preference is that all candidates awarded delegates should remain, too, I leave that to editorial consensus. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 19:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, I suggest leaving all candidates with delegates so that both Buttigieg AND Klobuchar are included, since that looks way better visually. CJ Melon (✉) 20:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I also support keeping all candidates with delegates, since one of the maps in the infobox tracks all delegates. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll probably have to add a 7th slot now unless you can dream up a new excluding criteria. 173.153.57.117 (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with CJ Melon. The 2016 Republican Infobox at this point only has candidates that won any states. The results section will show the full results including delegates and popular vote.Davemoth (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like candidates that withdraw early have been removed from infoboxes before. Martin O'Malley does not appear in the infobox for the 2016 contest. Concerning the Republican contest only Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich are in the infobox. What I think is clear is we need to be consistent. If we are going to keep Buttigieg in the infobox, I see no convincing reason Klobuchar shouldn't be there too.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The 2016 Republican Infobox only includes candidates who happened to meet the following criteria, although these criteria were obviously not necessarily all used:


 * 1) dropped out after Super Tuesday II (the qualifier you are referencing); this would probably correspond to dropping out after Super Tuesday for this primary, but waiting longer to concede does not really make a candidate important
 * 2) received over 5% of bound delegates (Klobuchar has 4.5% currently; Kasich had 6.5% at the end)
 * 3) won a state
 * 4) received over 5% of the popular vote (Klobuchar has 9.5% currently)
 * I think it is reasonable to include any candidate that meets the last three criteria, and to entirely ignore the first one. That would keep Klobuchar in the infobox for now, and Buttigieg in permanently. I also support (as I've previously stated, before Klobuchar dropped out) giving the 5% of popular vote qualification the qualifier that the candidate must also be active; without the candidate being active qualifier, Steyer would also be currently included. I'd like to make this an RfC but I need to figure out how to formally make one. Cookieo131 (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with points 2-4. Anyone who receives 5% or more of the delegates and/or popular vote would be notable enough to include in the infobox. This means that eventually Klobuchar will drop out of the infobox, though she should stay until at least tomorrow. I do believe Buttigieg should remain permanently, because winning a state is notable regardless of the fact he suspended his campaign before Super Tuesday. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's keep any candidate with a state win *or* >5% of pop vote *or* >5% of bound delegates. When they fall behind (as Klobuchar will on Super Tuesday), let's take them out of the infobox, but keep Pete (who won IA).--Wikibojopayne (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that that criteria set would also mean that Steyer should currently be included (6.8% pop vote), although I don't believe that anyone should really bother adding him in, as he is sure to fall off tomorrow the minute the first results come in. Cookieo131 (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Cut Klobuchar, keep Buttigeg. He had a significant impact on the race being a competitive candidate in Iowa and New Hampshire, winning the former and tying the latter. Klobuchar came third in New Hampshire and won no contests. The priority for the infobox should be to illustrate the most important candidates and Klobuchar simply isn't one of them. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 00:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I would also agree with Cookieo, Michelangelo, Wikibojopayne and PhilipTerryGraham; Buttigieg should be included permanently because he won a state (and as PhilipTerryGraham says, had an impact etc.) (don't forget that Bloomberg and Warren currently look likely to overtake him in delegates as well soon enough and push him to the bottom of the box anyway); Klobuchar and Steyer can be included until results from today come in and they no longer have 5% of delegates or popular vote, at which point they can be removed because they didn't win any states and, unlike Buttigieg, were never the frontrunner of the whole thing; Bloomberg and Gabbard shouldn't be included yet but should be if they win any states or have 5% of delegates or votes at any point later in the race. Adam Dent (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say no, even if they won delegates or states for that matter. Once they dropped out they're gone, no need to put them in the infobox anymore, IMO I would only put active candidates who have at least earned delegates so atm it would only be Sanders, Biden, and Warren. Add Bloomberg or Gabbard if they earn delegates if they don't drop out of course. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally don’t think that makes sense. Would you support removing Sanders from the 2016 infobox since he eventually dropped out? Are we just going to add them back in after the convention? Or do you want the info box to eventually contain only one candidate? The purpose is to summarize the race, not list all of the current candidates. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2016 is apples and oranges because there were only 2(edit: significant) candidates and it lasted all the way to the convention. If Sanders dropped out at this moment I would take him out. If it's down to one I would put back only those who won a significant amt of delegates which would probably be 3 or 4 at best. Just my opinion, which makes sense to me. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

We should keep all candidates who have won delegates, in addition to the still-active candidates who are polling above 5%. That's the best way to reflect the reality of the race. — JFG talk 11:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed (vs my earlier comment to limit it to state winners). The list of candidates in the infobox should *at a minimum* correspond to candidates who make the infobox maps, to make those maps more readable. Which means those who *either* won a state *or* won delegates should stay, since we have maps (and corresponding colors) for both. Since the delegate threshold is at least 15% per congressional district, that already implies some degree of popular vote.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It is probably worth noting that both of those positions are likely to result in the same candidates being included as would be the case if we stuck to delegate or >5%. With Tom Steyer having withdrawn, he is unlikely to get many votes today and thus will fall below 5%. If that happens, he would be out of the infobox unless he picks up a delegate. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Each cycle is different. With Warren and Klobuchar still possibly winning their home states (Paul Simon and Howard Dean won primaries after they suspended) this evening, we should have it One state or 250,000 votes. The delegates for Mayor Pete and Amy are going to go to Biden anyway. There will either be four or six. We end with the delegate total on the last day of the primary. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I favor removing Klobuchar, adding Gabbard. Juno (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Buttigieg dropped out
What do we do with his information in the infobox now? Wandavianempire (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We keep it until he drops under 5% of the vote I suppose. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

why is Pete off the infobox?
he's got more delegates than Bloomberg or Warren or Klobuchar MB298 (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See the two topics above. Buittigieg dropped out of the race this evening. Since he's no longer running, the number of delegates he won during his active campaign is now a moot point. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)--Jgstokes (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Rubio and Cruz and Kasich weren't taken out when they dropped in 2016. MB298 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure I support removing him from the infobox. Especially since he will likely be added back to it after the primary is over.. Prcc27 (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The criteria for inclusion on the infobox, for now, should be some combination of these:


 * 1) Won a state (or won a state while still being active)
 * 2) Earned 5+% of the popular vote overall (or 5+% while still being active)
 * 3) Has any delegates (or some delegate threshold, ie 5% of currently pledged/total delegates) (or those delegates while still being active)
 * Thoughts? I am personally in favor of all three, with the still active qualifier being used for only #2, as it seems silly to include a candidate without any delegates who already dropped out. Cookieo131 (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Any candidate who wins a state should be in the infobox. The color coding of the states doesn't have anything to correspond to otherwise. Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Even if (when) Pete drops below 5% nationally, he should stay in the infobox because of Iowa. I would support making “won a state or territory” sufficient to include a candidate in the infobox. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Any candidate who has won delegates should be listed, even though they dropped out, because keeping track of the delegates is the name of the game unless/until one has won a majority, and even then, the info should be kept for historical reasons. They can be listed in a line below those still running. WordwizardW (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that either "won a state" or "won delegates" should be enough for inclusion in the infobox. By and large, though, given that the counts are immediately followed by the maps showing the state of the race, I think that "winning a state" should be a deciding factor, with winning delegates as a possible baseline criterion. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 19:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Please get archiving going on this page
Please! Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posts on this page are automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity. --WMSR (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are 38 threads right now, maybe the inactivity period can be dropped to five days of inactivity? I really can’t load all of this. I get errors quickly. Just a suggestion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the archive period to 7 days. Anyone feel free to revert me if there is any objection. - MrX 🖋 22:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think 7 days is good. Smith0124 (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I bumped it to 4 days. This page is starting to get really big. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Jeeze, I closed a bunch of the conversations on this page where it seemed appropriate to try to tidy it up. Hopefully that helps a bit.  The talk page is a bit out of control, with conversations about the same topic happening across several sections.  I have also changed the archiving to 3 days.  Hopefully, that will clean out some of the discussions that are not ongoing before the next round of primaries on March 10.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

What qualifies a candidate to be on the infobox?
What determines whether or not a candidate is on the infobox? I assumed that a candidate needed to win a primary or have over five percent of the vote, but Steyer has over five percent and is not on there. An argument could be made that because Steyer is withdrawn, he should not be on the infobox, but Buttigieg and Klobuchar are on it and they've dropped out as well. ThatOneGuyWithAFork (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, he probably technically should be on there. If anyone wants to add him for now, they can, but he's nearly sure to be removed tomorrow (as with Klobuchar, probably). Cookieo131 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect the reason no one has added Steyer is that there is a RfC about this issue above. When the RfC started he was well below 5%.  Generally, the status quo prevails until a RfC is concluded and editors are discouraged from making significant changes or warring over a topic that is subject to a RfC.  That said, RfCs are not a quick way to make decisions.  While this is a general rule there could be situations where it could be appropriate to deviate from it, particularly if there is strong agreement for a temporary state of affairs while a RfC concludes.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the RfC actually is only about specific primaries and caucuses, (ie Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina or Texas), whereas we're talking about the general primary and caucus infobox, for which rules don't seem to really have been established. Cookieo131 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong. I thought it was about individual contests (IA, NH, NV, SC etc.) and this article (the overall primaries).  I certainly could have misunderstood though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As the editor who created the RfC, my intent was that the guideline would apply to the individual primary and caucus articles, as well as this article. - MrX 🖋 11:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say at this point, only active candidates who have earned any delegates should be in the infobox. As of right now, it that would be Sanders, Biden, and Warren. If/when Bloomberg or Gabbard (assuming they don't drop out) receive delegates, then they can be in there. Maybe it's better to be in a holding pattern until the Super Tuesday results and then things can be adjusted. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 5% of votes is a good barometer *after* Super Tuesday; until then, delegates area are a good threshold. Keep as is for now.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See the above post for discussion about this topic. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd said candidates who are still in the race, or who have earned delegates, should be in the infobox. Not including Bloomberg, for example, doesn't make any sense, since he's had a huge impact on the race. Doing it that way would still only be seven candidates. —Torchiest talkedits 03:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For this page, I suggest one state or 250,000 votes. that is starting tomorrow. We can't really do a damn thing before getting tonight's results.Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we add Gabbard..? I think we should since she has won a delegate.. Prcc27 (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that Gabbard should be added. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, logically Gabbard should be added.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are six slots, two of which are occupied by people who have dropped out. But I'm sure there's some democrat (i.e. not democratic) reason why she'll continue to be excluded. 173.153.37.72 (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the template allows for 9 candidates, so there is room for Bloomberg and Gabbard and should be room for anyone with 5% popular vote even if they have no delegates. Davemoth (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We should probably wait to see if the DNC change the criteria to qualify for the next debate to deliberately exclude the last female person of color from qualifying. If they change the rules to discriminate, we should leave her off, else add her. 173.153.132.85 (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that Gabbard has won a delegate she should be added Edwyth (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Gabbard has won only a single delegate and has not won any states or territories. Hundreds of delegates have been awarded at this point. She is a non-factor in the race and has not received the amount of media attention necessary to merit inclusion in the info box. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Gabbard should be added. - MrX 🖋 15:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Gabbard should be added. Rlendog (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I also think Gabbard should be added. Getting a delegate is a very straightforward criterion for inclusion. —<B>Tourchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 17:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. If we are limiting the infobox to six candidates, Klobuchar, despite having dropped out, has more votes and more delegates than Gabbard, and seems more deserving of the spot. If Gabbard amasses more support over the course of the primaries, she could conceivably take over the spot, and if we decide to limit the number of candidates to 4, it might make sense to add her and remove the dropouts, but given the current format, it seems that number of delegates earned (regardless of campaign suspension) is the arbiter here. --WMSR (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't limit it to six as the template allows up to 9 and add in Gabbard and Kloubuchar. The criteria should be winning delegates, if it was winning contests than Warren should be removed. 148.77.10.25 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with adding Gabbard, but if she is going to be in the infobox then there’s no reason not to include Klobuchar and Steyer as well, since they’ve both gotten more delegates than her. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Steyer has no delegates: . David O. Johnson (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake, thanks for correcting it. Then Klobuchar should go back into the box but Steyer should not. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * from my perspective the qualification for making the infobox should be having received delegates, so Klobuchar and Gabbard should be there, this isn't printed on paper, we don't need to limit ourselves by artificial restraints, up the infobox size to 9 and include the 7 people who have received delegates so far Edwyth (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not add Gabbard. She only has one delegate of over 3,000 total pledged delegates. In the 2016 Republican primaries, there were 5 candidates that got delegates that were not included in the infobox. In 2008, John Edwards was not included in the inbox for the Democratic primaries even though he received 14 delegates. TheSubmarine (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * John Edwards is not in the infobox now, given that Obama and Hillary were the only candidates who won any states. But was Edwards treated any differently than Obama or Hillary while his campaign was still active and he had delegates?  The history files from January 2008 don't show a difference, but no infobox shows up, so I am not sure whether that is because we didn't have an infobox in the article then or because the infobox is now deprecated. Rlendog (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Active candidate and 2. either a) 3% of the popular vote or b) a contest won. The box should show who is actually involved in the contest, not those that have quit or are hanging around to make a point. Tulsi's 1 delegate is literally trivia.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. As  notes above, our job is to summarize the race (as a whole) not just list the current candidates.  Do we remove candidates that have withdrawn now, and add them back later when this article is no longer about an "active" primary but a "historical" one?  Also if a brokered convention does happen, which withdrawn candidates have delegates and how many might be quite relevant to understanding the race and the eventual outcome.  I am not sure one delegate out of 3,979 warrants permanent inclusion in the infobox.  I have a preference of trying to keep it to six candidates in the box, but that is another discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as she's active and has at least one delegate she belongs in the infobox. Perhaps there can be a threshold for how many delegates or votes one should have to be included (as an active candidate), but the difference between have none and having any seems like the cleanest.  I don't know what the objective basis is for a 3% threshold, rather than 2% or 5%.  Assuming she gets no more (or few more) delegates I have no problem dropping her from the infobox once she drops out, but for now she is one of 4 3 active candidates who has earned any delegates and so is relevant to the infobox. Rlendog (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

We should have all active candidates in the infobox. For this case, it would leave 3 candidates. For the sake of evening the infobox, we should then take the next, top vote-getter/delegate-getter and place them in the last positon. If Sanders/Biden/Gabbard drop out, we then sort the infobox by votes, then by delegates. Only 4 candidates should be in the box. If #4 and #5 have a small number of votes or delegates separating them, then we can cross that bridge when we get there. There is no reason to have 5, 6, 7, or 8 people in the infobox. It is not an article- it's a quick summary for multiple pages relating to the same information.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2020
Remove Pete Buttigieg please he dropped out 71.173.77.153 (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Not Done. We don’t remove people from the info box after they drop out. Take a look at past primary pages, and you’ll see that the info box always includes the top candidates even if they didn’t win. For example, we are similarly not going to be removing Sanders from the 2016 infobox. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing that is done after the race is over, is not necessarily the same that is done *during* the race. Ariel. (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2020
Change "1,990" to "1,991" in the info header, i.e.: "1,990 of 3,979[a] pledged delegate votes needed to win the presidential nomination at the convention's first ballot.[1]"

Reason: the source [1] indicates 1,991, and thus contradicts the current text. Tourist from Pluto (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ Michelangelo1992 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is 1 source. Where does the NYT get its info. The article is not open for me to read, so I am really asking. 1,990 seems to be the simple majority which the democrats specify. Unless you need 50%+1.. What is the correct number? If we do not know, we should not display possible false info. The NYT is not an authority here, unless it is quotng an actual source. The actual source says "majority". Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the relevant paragraph from the article. “ Half of 3,979 is 1,989.5. Democratic National Committee officials say that on the first ballot, a candidate must win one delegate more than that, or 1,990.5, which is rounded up to reach the magic number: 1,991. (If a candidate won 1,990 pledged delegates on the first ballot, D.N.C. officials say, that would not be sufficient.)” Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2020
You should take the other candidates off of the info box and keep it that way. Some days it has everyone in the race, some days it has only Bernie and Biden. Just keep it at Bernie and Biden and Buttigieg because those are the only people represented on the map. 130.253.27.5 (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's currently being discussed here. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Easy to see winners of state
I think that that the table called 2020 Democratic primaries and caucuses should have a small addition. I suggest that we should have a certain background color (ligh blue, light orange, gold etc) to differenciate a winner of a primary or caucaus from other candidates, who might have gained delegates from that state as well. This minor change would make whole table more readable. Margustoo (talk)

F.e


 * Why not just bold it? The colouring seems to make it a bit difficult to read the table smoothly across.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The colouring is very useful for visual impairment to add contrast. Bold is difficult to read. Please retain colour99.239.82.15 (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Please restore primary caucus calendar section
Please restore the Caucus calendar section removed in version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=944001092 It is stated it was removed Removed unnecessary state by state delegate counts I added to the Active candidates section; they are already listed in the Primary and caucus calendar section However many of our students, especially those unfamiliar with the caucus calendar visit it regularly as a go to, easy, objective summary of what's happened so far and what's next. With the data lost the interest of the students is waning and the caucus calendar section is a very useful tool and in no way an "unnecessary state by state delegates count", even if already listed in other sections. There is no other resource or table summary as easy to grasp and rely on. Even the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries is very overwhelming with the way data is presented and unapproachable and unaccessable. Please restore the caucus calendar section. 99.239.82.15 (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The info is largely present in this section here: 2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries; the main difference is that the current version doesn't have delegate totals for days that have multiple primaries (like Super Tuesday, for example). As it stands, the current table I linked to earlier has almost all of the info you're seeking. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Page previews from results table are being altered to promote specific candidates
Someone is altering the page previews from the state/territory name links in the results and contest schedule table. Initially, these previews led to the opening text on the page for the specific primary, accompanied by an image of the relevant state seal. Someone has been systematically replacing the state seal graphic with photos of specific candidates. This has been happening in advance of the actual voting. For example, as things stand today (March 5), every page preview for contests taking place on March 10 is accompanied by a photo of Joe Biden. The same thing was done with the Super Tuesday primary links prior to those primaries.

I could understand if, after the primary, the state seal graphic was changed to a photo of the primary winner, but that's not what's happening. All of the past primary links that include graphics (which is nearly all of them) include photos of Joe Biden except for Iowa (photo of Elizabeth Warren) and New Hampshire (Amy Klobuchar), neither of whom won the respective primaries. None includes a photo of Sanders, Buttigieg, or Bloomberg, who are the only candidates beside Biden who have won primaries thus far. Previously, some of the previews that currently have photos of Biden had photos of Warren, so it seems possible that supporters of various candidates are jockeying with this technique as a subtle way of biasing toward their preferred candidate.

By the way, on the Wikipedia page that covers 2020 Republican primaries, links from contest locations in the results and contests table, if they include a graphic at all, show either the state seal or a map of the state with county borders colored to show the winner in each county (always Trump, in those cases).

I don't know how figure out who's been doing this, nor how to fix it, but am hoping that someone who does is able to remove this spin from the page and perhaps prevent it from recurring. 2604:6000:B405:4300:6CE8:DF9:B294:7C77 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC) NPOV-fan
 * My understanding is that what photo shows up is decided by an algorithm, not something we can change. I do not believe editors have control of that.  Perhaps someone knows better than I do.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's correct. This "issue" has come up at least once before: . David O. Johnson (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new at this and neglected to include a subject on my previous post. Here it is again with a subject. Can someone please delete my previous post (if that's possible)?

Someone is altering the page previews from the state/territory name links in the results and contest schedule table. Initially, these previews led to the opening text on the page for the specific primary, accompanied by an image of the relevant state seal. Someone has been systematically replacing the state seal graphic with photos of specific candidates. This has been happening in advance of the actual voting. For example, as things stand today (March 5), every page preview for contests taking place on March 10 is accompanied by a photo of Joe Biden. The same thing was done with the Super Tuesday primary links prior to those primaries.

I could understand if, after the primary, the state seal graphic was changed to a photo of the primary winner, but that's not what's happening. All of the past primary links that include graphics (which is nearly all of them) include photos of Joe Biden except for Iowa (photo of Elizabeth Warren) and New Hampshire (Amy Klobuchar), neither of whom won the respective primaries. None includes a photo of Sanders, Buttigieg, or Bloomberg, who are the only candidates beside Biden who have won primaries thus far. Previously, some of the previews that currently have photos of Biden had photos of Warren, so it seems possible that supporters of various candidates are jockeying with this technique as a subtle way of biasing toward their preferred candidate.

By the way, on the Wikipedia page that covers 2020 Republican primaries, links from contest locations in the results and contests table, if they include a graphic at all, show either the state seal or a map of the state with county borders colored to show the winner in each county (always Trump, in those cases).

I don't know how figure out who's been doing this, nor how to fix it, but am hoping that someone who does is able to remove this spin from the page and perhaps prevent it from recurring.2604:6000:B405:4300:6CE8:DF9:B294:7C77 (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC) NPOV-fan


 * We do not control the photos that show up under the page preview. I don’t know how it is decided, but it is presumably a site algorithm. Also, please assume good faith with regards to things such as the picture previews, and consider creating an account to stick around and help out on pages in which you have an interest. Thanks for commenting! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I will try to assume good faith, though that's increasingly difficult to do in today's polarized environment. Do I have to assume that Wikipedia's algorithms are unbiased? I realize that the issue I'm raising isn't of paramount importance, but I ask because if the preview photo selection is indeed either random, or follows a certain set of rules (such as always selecting the photo in a particular position in the infobox), then it's hard to explain what I'm seeing.

Following the first two contests (IA whose preview features Warren, the third place finisher, and NH whose preview shows Klobuchar, also in third position), the next 23 previews (of those that include a photo) all feature Biden, even though the position of his photo in the infoboxes of the linked pages varies, and his is one of either three, four, or five photos in each infobox.

Clearly, the algorithm isn't selecting the photo on the basis of position in the infobox. Random selection makes any outcome possible, but the odds of Biden's photo being randomly selected 23 out of 25 times from the photos in the infoboxes are astonishingly low. I'm not suggesting there's intentional bias in the algorithm, but its behavior is suspect. Does anyone know how it really works? 2604:6000:B405:4300:A025:DDB1:4881:7C3C (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC) NPOV-fan

You may have to ask Jimmy Wales. My understanding is that this is above the paygrade of volunteer editors like ourselves. This is unlikely the right place to get an answer to such a query. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Source for Jay Inslee's single vote
Jay Inslee is shown to have a single vote despite also having a note of not being on any primary ballots which means this is either an error or a write in vote. 209.54.86.136 (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * looks like https://vtelectionresults.sec.state.vt.us/Index.html#/ has a write in vote. added as a note.Davemoth (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020

 * } " missing from candidate table. 38.75.231.18 (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Popular vote map needs updating
I don't have the know-how to fix it but California and Maine have been called for Sanders and Biden respectively and the popular vote map should reflect that
 * looks like this is handled correctly at this time.--Davemoth (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Info-box Candidates
I've made this point before, but once again, Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg have not yet received more than five percent of the vote to be included in the info-box. I understand that several states have had early voting before they dropped out, so there's still a chance it can increase, but it can be updated if it happens. (Also not everyone needs to have a color, Yang, Bennet and Patrick really don't need a color. I understand they dropped out during the primaries, but they garnered such a insufficient amount of the vote to get a color to be shown on a national level.)Benjamin.P.L (talk) 15:57, March 6 2019 (UTC)


 * There is already an active discussion on this issue in the Request for comments (Rfc) above.  I suggest you make your views known there or they will not be counted when the Rfc closes. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what makes 5% a particularly significant threshold. Buttugieg in particular received over 20% in the first 2 states - and won a state - so even if 5% has some significance he has yet received 5% of the vote, even if he fell below 5% subsequently. But the best place for this discussion is the RfC.  Rlendog (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Results representation - suggestion
Hello everyone, hope you're all recovering from the madness of Super Tuesday. Wanted to quickly flag my suggestion for the representation of results on the article.

My main issues with the current regime is that:
 * 1) '''The most accessible format of results – the calendar showing the delegate count – lacks certain important metrics, namely popular vote
 * 2) The detailed results are somewhat complex to look at, and are on another entirely-different article

To remedy these faults in my view, I have constructed the following table, which I believe has the following benefits:
 * Detailed information is presented without being overly detailed, vitally including the delegate count, popular vote (and percentage)
 * '''The candidate 'winning' a contest is shaded in a pastel version of their agreed-upon colour, representing another crucial metric: "contests won", and reinforcing the colour system
 * The use of bolding and shading can allow readers to quickly discern who is still in the race and who has won the most contests

At the current moment, I have included candidates who have won pledged delegates in the table, in the order of the number of delegates won so far, with the withdrawn candidates at the right-most side of the table. I realise this may require some re-calibrations given Bloomberg's suspension, but maybe Warren and Tulsi will drop out soon too. I have left the Super Tuesday contests blank without results info, but have shaded the respective boxes based on declared winners (another strength of this system imo).

Also note the moving of the "results" section right after "background". From my experience as being heavily involved in several Australian election articles, the presence of this section higher up the article allows for ease of access for the more general reader, while more nuanced prose can still be accessed below. I think having the results section at the foot of the article kind of crowds it out, and makes it difficult to find that perfect mid-range level of detail required: more than what the infobox offers, but less than what the entire results page offers; could be worth giving a try.

Let me know what you think! LeoC12 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I like it. With one request: make it collapsible? This is huge. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 16:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks man, that would be great if you could figure out how to do that as I'm not 100% confident without stuffing up the syntax in some way. Maybe rendering the whole table in small could also work? LeoC12 (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please add correct results? Gabbards numbers jumped out at me, but the others are wrong too when looking at Super Tuesday. If you can't get to this I can get to it later. Should this be un-done until we get the numbers back until at least what they were?Davemoth (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I do like this format, but it does seem awkward to use on mobile (small form factor devices). Suggestion: Repeat the "Contest" column on the right so that if you scroll to the right the State/Territory is repeated and becomes available again. Last suggestions: add % of Contest awarded delegates, % of total delegates, total Pop vote, and % of Total Pop Vote.Davemoth (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this table is a decent idea, but honestly, I think we should follow this example for recapping the primary process and this example for schedule and ballot access. The 2016 Republican Primary page is a really good page that gives a very good overview of everything involved with the process. I think the format of this table looks a little lopsided as well.17:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleTrouble16 (talk • contribs)


 * I like the table but it is super bulky and I am not sure it should go before the candidates and something briefer about the calendar. We also seem to have lost this helpful map about the election calendar.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like someone added the map back. The only thing is it looks kinda smushed together since it's in the same section as the table. I put it in the Maps section, while editing and testing it with page preview, but I couldn't get the legend to show. I'm sure there's some wikicode to fix it, but I'm not as familiar with that side of things. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the Maps section, but it's aligned to the right and a little too small. I'll work on it. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That was easier than I thought it'd be. Lol. . David O. Johnson (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Very nice summary table, thanks for your conrtibution! — JFG talk 08:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, appreciate it! LeoC12 (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As someone who has visited this page many times (but hasn't really edited it), I just want to say nice job with this. Orser67 (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see the table show the number of delegates on each election day. For example, to show that there are a total of 577 delegates for all the elections on March 17. Does anyone mind if I add this to the table? Should it be in a new column or displayed under the date in the date column? I'd suggest putting it in the date column to avoid making the table wider. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Primary caucus calendar section
Please restore the Caucus calendar section removed in version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=944001092 It is stated it was removed Removed unnecessary state by state delegate counts I added to the Active candidates section; they are already listed in the Primary and caucus calendar section However many of our students, especially those unfamiliar with the caucus calendar visit it regularly as a go to, easy, objective summary of what's happened so far and what's next. With the data lost the interest of the students is waning and the caucus calendar section is a very useful tool and in no way an "unnecessary state by state delegates count", even if already listed in other sections. There is no other resource or table summary as easy to grasp and rely on. Even the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries is very overwhelming with the way data is presented and unapproachable and unaccessible. It's true the data is there but it is not simple enough. A simple calendar is with SUMMARY of results is super valuable. Please restore the caucus calendar section. 99.239.82.15 (talk) 06:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a table in the section Contest schedule and results that preserves all of the functionality of the old table. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2020
Could someone add that Steve Bullock is running for Senate for the "Withdrew Before Primaries"?

Here is the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Senate_election_in_Montana Here is the article confirming it: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/montana-gov-steve-bullock-announces-run-senate-n1153016 Crispytoast9 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added it. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispytoast9 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Split Puerto Rico into Democratic & Republican primaries?
I think we should split 2020 United States presidential primaries in Puerto Rico into two pages, one for the Democrats and one for the Republicans, or at least make a Democratic primary page. I know that it's a territory, but at least for the Democrats it's worth a fair amount of delegates and is in general is just as important as a state. Smith0124 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There should be two articles.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, I made one for the Democrats. As a Democrat myself I don’t really care to make one for the Republicans, but I think somebody should. Smith0124 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries. feminist (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Results
In the overview of the results, for each state where the final tally is not yet known, there should be a note about that in the box - for instance in the California box, the text under California should be '(count not final)' or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 02:54, March 7, 2020 (UTC)
 * Or better still (in my opinion), an additional column to state the number of (pledged) delegates 'TBA' for each state. Adam Dent (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Results Table
I noticed something about how the results table is organized. The current order of candidates is:

Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Gabbard, Buttigieg, Klobuchar

However, there seems to be no reason behind this order of candidates. A solution would either be an order in which candidates are listed by total number of delegates, which would be:

Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Gabbard

OR an order in which candidates are sorted by when they dropped out (while the remaining candidates are sorted by delegates), which would be:

Biden, Sanders, Gabbard, Warren, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, Buttigieg

Which one works better? ~CJ Melon (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The last one, for the time being. Candidates who have dropped out, especially if they have endorsed a candidate (I notice Elizabeth Warren is between those who are still in the race and those who have made an endorsement in your third option), are largely irrelevant until the convention. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 20:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Candidate order should be by delegates, which is all that matters for the nomination.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the initial design discussion in talk above: candidates should be listed "in the order of the number of delegates won so far, with the withdrawn candidates at the right-most side". At this point I would wait until after tonight's results to reorder the table.Davemoth (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Gabbard After some reflection, I think this should be ordered based on delegates, as this is likely how we will order them following the DNC Convention.--Davemoth (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)