Talk:Results of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries

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

Williamson, Castro, and everyone else.

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 Castro and Williamson have withdrawn too late to be taken off in any state taking place through mid-March. while it is easy for editors here to count the multistate vote totals for those withdrawn candidates who are on the ballot in only a few states, for the ones who are on the ballot in almost all the states, it is not.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

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

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

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

I think we are capable of displaying national vote totals for withdrawn candidates without listing their state totals.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

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

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

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

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

Georgia?

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

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

Keep Delaney where he is!

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

Bennet and Yang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iowa first/second/third places

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confusing

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

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

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