Talk:Results of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries

January 2020

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 Castro and Williamson have withdrawn too late to be taken off in any state taking place through mid-March. while it is easy for editors here to count the multistate vote totals for those withdrawn candidates who are on the ballot in only a few states, for the ones who are on the ballot in almost all the states, it is not.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I think we are capable of displaying national vote totals for withdrawn candidates without listing their state totals.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)

"Or equivalent" is meaningless. It needs to be clear. I just changed the thing because I had no idea what "or equivalent" was supposed to mean. I don't even know if I should change it back at this point. SDEs are not the equivalent of the popular vote. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 11:53, 23 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)

Thank you, David O. Johnson. SunCrow (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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

References

Issues with transcluding article sections

Currently, there are issues trancluding sections of other articles onto this page using the {{#section-h:}} Labeled Section parser function. First, all the 6+ paragraphs of prose and various images on 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#Results are being included here. Second, the subsection 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary#Results by county and its table are also being included here, and causing the "Results by county" to also appear on this page's table of contents on the same hierarchical level as the "Early states" and "Super Tuesday" sections. Thirdly, a recent edit on 2020 Nevada Democratic caucuses that changed the header name from "Results" to "Partial results"[2] caused that table to no longer appear here. Thus, I propose that we go back to what we did in 2016 and put the results tables onto templates, or else this page will be at the further mercy of the additions/modifications on those separate articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Delegate Counts in Infobox

This is possibly the only article still using GreenPapers estimates for infobox delegate numbers. Everywhere else is using AP as more reliable, even though more partial. The current counts should be Sanders - 28, Buttigieg - 22, Warren - 8, Klobuchar - 7, Biden - 6. It's also odd that Sanders is down as having won two states. Which two? Buttigieg is down as having won zero states even though he tied New Hampshire. Overall, this box needs fixing in line with all the other dem primary articles.Wikiditm (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Shading in results

The important statistic from each state is delegates. This determines who won. The shading was in terms of delegate counts but has been changed to "popular vote (or equivalent)" which is nonsensical and could easily (as in Iowa) result in a candidate appearing to come first who actually came second. This shading should be kept at pledged delegates, to provide an intuitive visual representation of which candidates gained what in each state.Wikiditm (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

How about "final expression of preference" which would be percentages of SDEs in Iowa, popular vote in NH, and CDs in NV? --WMSR (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why it needs to be anything weird or unintuitive though. The important thing from each of these states is delegates, and we have precise numbers for that from each state. So why not just shade based on this? It was shaded based on that before, and it makes sense. As you scroll down, you can then at a glance see who came away with the first/second/third most delegates from each state.Wikiditm (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The legend has now been changed again to the also ambiguous "final expression of preference." It doesn't say what this means in caucus situations (in Iowa, Sanders won final alignment but Buttigieg won on pledged delegates currently). I'm going to reshade following the obvious and meaningful stat of pledged delegates. If you think the metric should be something else, please explain here.Wikiditm (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiditm: Final expression of preference basically refers to the SDE/CD count in caucus states and the popular vote in primary states. This was previously the only reported metric, and it's the only one that means anything in terms of delegate allocation. States are now reporting more underlying data, but the number that matters hasn't changed. Buttigieg won SDEs in Iowa, Sanders won PV in NH, and Sanders won CDs and PV in Nevada. That's the number that was used in the past, and the availability of more data doesn't change the fact that it's the most relevant data point. --WMSR (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Not nearly as relevant as pledged delegates.Wikiditm (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, pledged delegates are important in the picture of the overal race but on a detailed report of the results the metric for 1st place should be popular vote in the primaries and SDE/CD/SCD/... in the caucuses. HoxtonLyubov (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Why? They don't count for anything. Why use something meaningless as a metric as opposed to something which literally determines who wins?Wikiditm (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Because that's the metric the media uses to determine the "winner" of the race. Even in a delegate tie they still call Sanders the winner of NH.HoxtonLyubov (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:3517:A600:5DEF:2D30:2582:1B8 (talk)

Zero delegate dropouts

For the love of all that is holy, can we please move Bennet, Yang, and Patrick out of the main table? As the vote numbers have increased, the words "votes" and "delegates" have been moved to new lines, making the rows quite long on my screen and the table significantly less usable. Candidates who dropped out without winning a single delegate really do not need to be in the main table. Patrick and Bennet did not even manage to get 1% in any primary. --WMSR (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It's good now, right? If Gabbard drops out with no delegates, even if it's in June, I think she should go in the bottom table too. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. --WMSR (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Explanation: the way I see it is, if they dropped out before the primaries, they decided they weren't relevant enough to be included. Anyone who gets no delegates is also not relevant in the main results. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Does popular vote in table use final alignment in caucus?

Either way, this should be stated in the note A by "popular vote". Otherwise it's confusing.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Steyer should stay in main table

Tom Steyer was a major enough candidate that he should stay in the main table even though he dropped out. He got third in SC and should be colored in as so as well. He also may get a few delegates from SC so he should definitely stay in the main table. I would argue all candidates that did not withdraw before primaries should stay in the main table, like the Republican 2016 results page, but at the minimum Steyer should stay in. 100.35.194.5 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree Ghostmen2 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

He didn't end up with any delegates in SC. --WMSR (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

He still withdrew before Super Tuesday, so that's the section he belongs in. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the IP and would prefer to see the table be consistent with the 2016 Republican results page, but it seems like there's been formatting issues on smaller screens which I concede to. However, because Steyer and Yang performed much better then the other candidates in certain states (NH, NV, and SC in particular), I think they, at least, should be restored to the main table. I feel like there should be some sort of additional requirement for the lower table, where any candidate who failed to garner 1% of the vote in any contest while their campaign was active gets demoted. Any thoughts on this? - EditDude (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel like Steyer and possibly Yang (...and maybe even Patrick and Bennet?) should be added back to the main table (but with the greyed-out "Withdrew but still on the ballot" thing), and changing the title of the header below. The only problem with that would be that Patrick and Bennet dropped out after Yang, so it would be weird to include Yang and not them. ...I think the most objective choice of action would be making it a "Withdrew before the primaries" section like it was before (moving Steyer, Yang, Patrick, and Bennet) up to the table but greyed-out. (The only problem with THAT - and the reason we tried to change it in the first place – was because the format didn't show up correctly weirdly on mobile because of the number of candidates). Hmmm... Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

So there are a few possible roads we could go down: Y/N on Steyer, and Y/N on Yang, and Y/N on Patrick and Bennet. Thoughts? Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think if someone drops out without earning a single delegate, they don't need to be in the table. Sure, Steyer did fine in SC, but not to an extent that netted him any delegates. --WMSR (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but he got third. There is a color that the third place candidate is supposed to be colored in, and it just doesnt make sense to not have that candidate in the table at all. 100.35.194.5 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

the top chart was for those candidates were still actively running while the voting was going on, and the lower one was for those who were not. Some withdrew too late to get their names off in some places, so they get votes anyway. Kamela Harris is on four or five, and Marianne Williamson is on the ballot in something like 20. None of them are on any April ballots. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Buttigieg should stay in main table

I disagree that Steyer should be in with the major candidates because he didn't get any delegates. But Buttigieg won a contest, and consistently polled in the top 4-5. I think winning at least one delegate would be a better criterion. Gabbard may get no delegates either, and if so she could go in the lower table. Another suggestion I would like to make is that we color code the lower table to show for which primaries they were still in the race and for which they had dropped out.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

He definitely should stay, since he received delegates. Now the question is how we split the two tables: "By date of dropping out" or "By if they have delegates". Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Major candidates stay in the main table as long as they either a) are in the race, or b) received delegates. There's pretty much no debate that Buttigieg should stay. --WMSR (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The current title "withdrew before March" is very arbitrary just to exclude Steyer and include Buttigieg. Instead we should have "major candidates" and "withdrew without receiving delegates".—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's what I wanted when I created this chart: there were a number of candidates who withdrew between the time they got on a number of ballots and the time voting actually began. They were too late to get their names off of some of them and didn't try in others. But they have/will receive votes anyway because they were still there. I thought it would be nice for the pub quiz fans, political junkies and the like, to have these statewide totals recorded somewhere. The main table would be for the candidates who were still active in the primaries while the voting was going on. Yes, they were/are dropping like flies at the moment, but pretty soon there will be only three or four candidates left and the lower table, which was to be a supplement, shouldn't be longer than the main one. Put Yang, Bennet and Steyer back and let the lower table end in March like it was originally supposed to. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't get why the table was changed. The criterion should be anyone who was still in the race while Iowa began. Everyone else should be in the lower table. We should revert back.192.40.129.20 (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Updated the page with reverted table, a more detailed lead, and an overview section.DarkBeforeDawn16 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain why? We're in the middle of a discussion about it. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead section should have more detail about the race in general and have a text/spelled out summary of the results and race. The overview section can be worked on with maps, but definitely needed. The results table to the right of the page- no reason to not have this. The main candidate table is reflective of the race and those who were actively campaigning when Iowa began. The dropout table are for those who were not actively campaigning when Iowa began voting. There's no reason for so many candidate tables with the same dates and voter information. Not to mention the fact that it's easier to update and distinguish each winner/status of the race with the main table.DarkBeforeDawn16 (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Other Candidates Section - No need for the other table

Other candidates

Prior to the Iowa caucuses, five major candidates, who had been invited to the debates, had withdrawn from the race after states began to certify candidates for ballot spots: Kamala Harris, Julián Castro, Marianne Williamson, Cory Booker, and John Delaney. Other candidates were able to make it on the ballot in individual states. Some votes for minor candidates are unavailable, because in many states (territories) they can be listed as Others or Write-ins. Since the beginning of the primary season, none of these other candidates have been awarded any delegates.

Other/withdrawn candidates invited to debates
Candidate	Votes	Date withdrawn
Kamala Harris	129	December 3, 2019
Julián Castro	83	January 2, 2020
Marianne Williamson	99	January 10, 2020
Cory Booker	814	January 13, 2020
John Delaney	434	January 31, 2020

Of the over 200 people who have filed with the FEC as candidates for the Democratic nomination, the following have been placed on the ballot in at least one state.

National popular vote totals for other candidates
Candidate	Votes	No. states on ballot
Joe Sestak	190	6 (NH,AR,CA,MA,TX,UT)
Steve Bullock	65	6 (NH,AR,MA,MN,TX,UT)
Uncommitted†	1,787	Various states
Other‡	371	Various states
Roque De La Fuente III	8	6 (NH,UT,CA,AZ,CO,TX)
Robby Wells	81	5 (NH,TX,MO,LA,CO)
Mosie Boyd	21	4 (NH,UT,AR,CA)
Michael A. Ellinger	53	3 (NH,AZ,CA)
Henry Hewes	44	3 (NH,AZ,MO)
Mark Stewart Greenstein	39	3 (NH,VT,CA)
Steve Burke	96	2 (NH,MO)
Rita Krichevsky	28	2 (NH,CO)
Nathan Bloxham		1 (UT)
Leonard J. Steinman II		1 (MO)
Velma Steinman		1 (MO)
Bill Haas		1 (MO)
David Lee Rice		1 (WV)
Tom Koos	79	1 (NH)
David John Thistle	59	1 (NH)
Sam Sloan	43	1 (NH)
Lorenz Kraus	27	1 (NH)
Jason Evritte Dunlap	21	1 (NH)
Ben Gleib	17	1 (NH)
Raymond Michael Moroz	16	1 (NH)
Thomas James Torgesen	15	1 (NH)

†Sometimes listed as "None of the Above"

‡Some states don't count some write-ins or minor candidates individually but lump them together.

Lede

DarkBeforeDawn16, thanks for all your hard work on the lede. With respect, I believe that including a list of 11 candidates in the lede makes it too long and clunky. Similarly, I believe that including a list of candidate departures from the race in the lede makes it too long and clunky. I have removed those edits. If you feel strongly that they should remain, please feel free to discuss the point here. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have an overview of the race in the lede. The lede is the only section we have with text, the remainder of the article is tables, pictures, colors, and vote totals. I think also stating that there were 11 candidates that started the race in Iowa then having a summary of the drop outs is a very good way to flow into the chart/table with the candidates and votes that were involved in Iowa and beyond. DarkBeforeDawn16 (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)