Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential debates

Archives

Is there a way to reconnect the archives to the moved talk page? Rogl94 (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. –84.46.53.91 (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the other half over at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential forums. ―  💬  USPrezDebates  20:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikicode errors in qualification table for seventh debate

There are are errors in the Qualification table for the seventh debate table: 2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates#Seventh_debate_(January_14,_2020). It looks like whoever added it didn't adjust ref names, so its throwing out errors (e.g. "Cite error: The named reference "p7_11_15" was defined multiple times with different content.") I'm not familiar with that part of the wikicode, so it'd be great if someone could fix it. Thanks! David O. Johnson (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – All fine today, no cite errors shown in an (unmodified) edit preview. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

How are the candidates sorted in the Qualification tables?

Just wondering. I see the general principles, except I can't figure out why Biden is pushed to the top. Seems like if anything he should be below those who have the same values in every other field but met donor criterions earlier. 69.113.166.178 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

If you edit the qualification table, you will see this note:

Table has presorted the candidates by this order:

(1) All criteria met.

(2) Polling criterion met.

(3) Donor criterion met.

(4) No criteria met.

* and they are further presorted within these 4 categories by polling average & polls

If they tie in all of these criterea, then they are sorted alphabetically by last name. WittyRecluse (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance -- where can I see the code that performs that sorting? 69.113.166.178 (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"Presorted" means that we do the sorting, not computers. WMSR (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Biden is at the top because his qualifying polling percentages are higher than both Sanders' and Warren's. Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

2020

The Steyer + Gabbard rows were updated in 2020 for the 7th debate, but the references still reflect an old state before the 6th debate. How about purging the references column, keeping only references still relevant in 2020? –84.46.52.210 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

How did Steyer qualify by Jan.10th by polls that Real Clear Politics list as released on Jan. 11th?

Does anyone understand how Steyer qualified by Jan.10th by Des Moines Register/CNN polls that Real Clear Politics list as released on Jan.11th (although they were listed there on the 10th)? It seems like double-talk to me. WordwizardW (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

He qualified via Fox News polls that were released before the deadline: [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, the CNN/DMR poll was released at 6 PM ET on Jan 10 (see time given for release here, at the top of the first page). RCP listing it on the 11th is something weird on RCP's end; I think I've seen it for a couple of other evening poll releases before.Gambling8nt (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

How did Andrew Yang first qualify for the 7th debate and then not? How did this not happen to Tom Steyer?

How did Andrew Yang first qualify for the 7th debate and then not? How did this not happen to Tom Steyer? WordwizardW (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, cancel that. I heard a mis-announcement which was then corrected, and got confused. WordwizardW (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

7th debate summary that doesnt summarize

What is the point of a debate summary that does not summarize the debate?Michael E Nolan (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It summarizes one topic of the debate. If you think it can be improved you can work on it yourself.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 04:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Booker and Messam "N" versus "W" in Debate Table

It was recently decided in an anonymous edit that Booker should have be considered withdrawn for the 7th debate because he withdrew before it began, however, it was known he would not be in the debate before he withdrew, so I would prefer to revert the Booker edit and the accompanying Messam edit. I believe this was the consensus already but I don't to start an edit war. I would like some sort of consensus on the issue, but I don't think is significant enough for an RfC. WittyRecluse (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems more correct to list them as not qualified. I'll revert. — JFG ^talk 17:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the previous discussion WittyRecluse referred to is here. It was primarily focused on how to treat the dropped out candidate in the qualification tables for each section, with the participation table seeming to be an afterthought. Ironically enough, we haven't actually been following the decision there; both Booker and Messam are listed as "withdrawn" on the qualification tables for the seventh and fifth debates respectively, even though they are now listed as "not invited" on the participation table. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on how these cases should be treated, beyond the sense that it should definitely be consistent for both candidates (and any others who, in the future, may withdraw after the qualifying period for a debate ends yet before the debate occurs), and that it probably should be consistent between the participation table and the qualification tables (which it currently isn't).Gambling8nt (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Delegate threshold and the ordering of the qualification table

With the addition of the delegate threshold I think it might be worth revisiting the question of how we order the qualification tables. Up to this point we've ordered by criteria met, then number of polls, then number of donors (for those below the threshold). But once votes come in, we will need to answer questions like:

(1) If a candidate (perhaps Buttigieg or Klobuchar) meets a delegate threshold for a debate (possibly the ones in Nevada or South Carolina), but doesn't meet the polling threshold, should they be listed before or after a candidate (perhaps Steyer) who qualifies and has more polls but has fewer delegates at that point in the race?

(2) Should the number of delegates a candidate has (/is expected to have, for state with multi-step processes) pledged be used as a tiebreaker? If yes, should it have more priority than polling (that is, among those candidates with the same criteria met, sort by number of delegates and then break ties with number of polls)? Should it have less priority than polling (that is, among candidates with the same criteria met, sort by number of polls and then break ties with number of delegates pledged)? Does the answer change if there is a future debate with a delegate threshold higher than 1, and some candidates might be "Pending" with differing numbers of delegates and the possibility of picking up more to qualify? (Or should we not borrow trouble on that last one just yet?)

(3) What about someone qualifying by delegates but not having enough donors? (Most plausibly Bloomberg, but it could be one of the others with a higher donor threshold.) Do we order them by delegates and/or polls ignoring the missed criteria, or put them below anyone with more criteria (but possibly fewer delegates and/or polls)?Gambling8nt (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Good point. The delegate count will determine who gets the nomination. So I would favor using it as the main criterion for sorting the table. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like solid logic to me WittyRecluse (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

, and maybe (it's not my bold day) add "remaining" to the three remaining early states. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

today's newest ABC/WaPo poll

I was able to change the date at the top of the columns, but couldn't figure out how to update with the correct reference, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-holds-steady-warren-slips-iowa-caucuses-approach/story?id=68518223&mc_cid=7672179d16&mc_eid=9430bf74bd Please, someone fix it for me? WordwizardW (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Stepping through dozens of diffs since your update, folks evaluated your source, it's in the references, but the Google doc for the columns is as it always was, its author apparently knows what the DNC will do, it's a working crystal ball.. –84.46.53.84 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

delegates column

The delegates column lists two sources, the Green Papers (an unofficial listing), and the New York Times. The Gree Papers lists percentages, not actual delegates won. Klobuchar is not even on its chart. The NYT numbers (with spreads for uncertainties) do not match what's on the Wikipedia chart. In other words, no one knows how many delegates anyone has, and what's on the chart does not match the sources listed. Shouldn't we keep it at "Pending" until there are actual hard results? The uncertainties/inaccuracies multiply. If Klobuchar doesn't actually get one delegate, she doesn't yet qualify for the 9th debate. WordwizardW (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Scroll down on GP. --WMSR (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The DNC press release detailing the eighth debate qualification rules explicitly requires that the delegates be as determined by the Iowa Democratic Party. It also, oddly enough, explicitly sets time limits only for the donor threshold and for the polling threshold, while saying nothing regarding the delegate threshold. (Admittedly, I doubt they thought it would take this long to get an official count, but still.) Fortunately, no one is depending on Iowa delegates to qualify for the debate, so this issue is academic.

The DNC press release for the ninth debate, on the other hand, explicitly specifies official delegate counts for Iowa, but instead of official delegate counts for New Hampshire it explicitly specifies that counts be "as calculated and reported by the Associated Press." It also explicitly only sets time constraints on the polling thresholds and not the delegate threshold, in the unfortunately conceivable event we finally get an official count on February 19.Gambling8nt (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The chart for the 8th debate states that the count has now been altered to be cautious saying "Pending (1 delegate projected, but 0 officially announced)" for Klobuchar, and the rest are similarly tentative, but the chart for the 9th debate does not. The number of (guessed) delegates for Warren don't even match (6 versus 5). Also, the figures I've seen for Biden in the NYT are greater than 2. Could someone please get this as accurate as possible? WordwizardW (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, posted here in talk after doing debate eight, and before debate nine. I've left the ordering per the projected delegate amounts despite the fact that they are pending rather than official. I think that more accurately reflects the general intention of the earlier consensus that delegates be the first measure used for sorting the chart, although I'm not wedded to that decision.Gambling8nt (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The NYT Estimate of the Pledged Delegate Count [2] has Buttigieg and Sanders tied at 12, Warren at 8, Biden at 6, Klobuchar at 1. That's the best estimate I could find, and one of the sources cited on the chart, but not the figures you've used. Why? WordwizardW (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

When I made the switch to the current format, I just used the projection numbers that had already been listed in the chart (complete with inconsistent Warren numbers), in an effort to avoid an edit conflict over what projection to use. I have no particular attachment to the numbers currently there, and no reason to think that they are from the most recent projections. For what it's worth the Times is now reporting Buttigieg at 13 rather than 12, leaving one delegate still unassigned.Gambling8nt (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Time missing

It gives the date, but not the time. This is not something like a holiday that happens all day, but instead, an event that happens at a specific time.71.63.160.210 (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg's controversy - Buttigieg's comment seems irrelevant

"Buttigieg told reporters, "It is important that we have that process where folks have to stand with their competitors and explain why each of us is the best."

The way this particular line has been added at the end of the chapter seems arbitrary and irrelevant to the whole context. What was Buttigieg particularly talking about? A lot of context is missing and it's hard to understand whether he's pro or contra the fact that Bloomberg will enter the stage.

157.193.1.148 (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)