Talk:Democratic National Convention

Nomination process
Hi, I've been trying to learn more about the exact nominating process of the prominent parties in the U.S., and was wondering if someone might help add to the article more detail (perhaps in another page?) about the "series of individual state caucuses and primary elections" that elects the party's nominee... Actually, I think it'd be nice if set up a list linking to pages describing the nominating processes of various parties. Thanks, Brettz9 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See United States presidential primary for the overall description. I'll add a link to the main page.Simon12 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but what I am asking is this:
 * * How exactly does Joe candidate at the state level end up getting himself on the state primary ballot?
 * * If there are differences between the parties in this regard, what are they?
 * And beyond this, I think some explanation of who can become a delegate or superdelegate would be instructive.
 * -Brettz9 05:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No original research
I removed text and a link from this article and the 2008 convention article that constituted original research as to why, as of this writing, this particular party has not yet chosen its national convention. Settler 23:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

1872 convention
The 1872 Convention was in Cincinnati, Ohio, not in Baltimore.Superslum (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? I have two sources stating it was in Baltimore. Simon12 (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The 1872 group that met in Cincinnati were called the Liberal Republican Party. Horace Greeley was nominated by them in Cincinnati after he broke away from the Democrats.  New International Encyclopedia describes that party thusly:

Liberal republican party. In American history, the name given to a short-lived political party which participated in the presidential campaign of 1872, composed largely of "bolters" from the regular Republican organization. The party first appeared as a prominent political factor in Missouri in 1870, under the leadership of Carl Schurz and B. Gratz Brown, the latter of whom, by a fusion of Liberal Republicans with a large element of the Democratic Party, was elected Governor.

(continued) In answer to a call issued by the triumphant fusionists on Jan. 24, 1872, a National Liberal Republican Convention met at Cincinnati on May 1, and after much discussion Horace Greeley was nominated for President and B. Gratz Brown for Vice President.

Afterwards, Horace Greeley was nominated by the Democrats in 1872. The Democratic candidate in 1872 received 2,834,079 popular votes, against 3,597,070 for General Grant. He had abandoned the Democratic Party and joined the Liberal Republican Party. In 1861, Horace Greeley had been a candidate for the Republican nomination for United States Senator, but was defeated by Ira Harris.

The political party that met in Cincinnati were not Democrats, however, they first nominated Horace Greeley, whom the Democrats nominated later on, apparently at the convention held in Baltimore.Superslum (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Delegation Size
How do the Democrats determine how many delegates each state has? The Republican National Convention has a very nice description. I was surprised not to see a formula here. Schoop (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that user, we really need put the specifics of how they are selected. I understand though that the rules on selection are similar to the Republican party, that is delegates per state are awarded depending on how loyal that state is to the party. --58.69.193.142 (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The rules changes for each convention, so it really belongs in 2008 Democratic National Convention, not in this article. And it is available in the 2008 article, in the Rules section. Simon12 (talk)

Electing the nominee
I cannot find--anywhere--the actual rules for electing the nominee. If, as another Wikipedia entry states, a majority of delegates will elect the candidate, why would a convention ever be "brokered"? You just simply take the total number of delegates and divide by two.

What are the precise rules for electing the Democratic candidate? Does anyone know? (So far Google and Wikipedia have failed me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manumoka (talk • contribs) 01:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There would be a brokered convention if no one can pass the 50% threshold on the first go-round. A hypothetical example would be if Barack Obama had 49% of the delegates, Hillary Clinton with 49% of the delegates, and John Edwards with 2%. Probably needs to be explained a bit in this article. Settler (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that the question from 8 March 2008 above has gone unaddressed. Twelve years later and no-one has been able to clear up what it means in operational terms for the candidates to rack up delegate totals. The article tells us how they get their delegates, but then goes silent on whether they vote, how they vote, and if their vote is the final and controlling event in making the nominee. I would propose to insert an explanation of the DNC's public stance on the process to the extent it was set out in the class action lawsuit following the 2016 nomination. In that regard I would cite this source (and others if reqquired): https://www.laprogressive.com/dnc-fraud-lawsuit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.51.70 (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Comparison
It is common in Wikipedia to have articles comparing stuff. I was wondering if maybe we could workout an article called Comparison between the Republic National Convention and the Democratic National Convention. This comparison may be ideological and technical. For instance it could show the readers some statistics regarding for instance the amount of delegates that belong to a minority, or women vs men in each convention etc. Thanks -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 15:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This question has also been added here

Lack of sourcing is allowing users to add original research
There seems to be an almost total lack of any sourcing in this article whatsoever. The article has words that may violate the Manual of Style per WP:EDITORIAL. It also reads like an essay.

Worst of all, someone made a major change to the article, providing no sources and claiming that they were "getting it right". We need to fix this. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)