Talk:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Candidate colors/gradients

similar to my GOP proposal on Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries I'm proposing below the following color gradients be used for the candidates in the 2024 Democratic Presidential Primary, this will allow us to have a uniform way of creating county maps and distinguishing candidates. below is my proposal but I welcome all suggestions Matthew McMullin (talk)

Update: changed Kennedy color from orange to green

User:CaptMarsMan I do have to agree with you that Green fits better for kennedy than orange, I've updated the gradient to reflect that

Joe Biden

Hex code	Percentage
#eef2fd	<30%
#dee6fb	30–40%
#b4c4ec	40–50%
#8da5e2	50–60%
#6787d7	60–70%
#4169cd	70–80%
#3352a2	80–90%
#243c79	>90%

Marianne Williamson

Hex code	Percentage
#fdeef6	<30%
#fbdeed	30–40%
#f0b4d2	40–50%
#e988b9	50–60%
#e05a9d	60–70%
#ce2e7e	70–80%
#ab145f	80–90%
#800f47	>90%

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Hex code	Percentage
#ebf7e6	<30%
#d7efcd	30–40%
#a7d693	40–50%
#78bd5a	50–60%
#4ea528	60–70%
#2a8d00	70–80%
#227000	80–90%
#195300	>90%

Bumping this as to avoid it being sucked into the archives. Matthew McMullin (talk) 11:48, 27 may 2023 (UTC)

Striking out RFK. Jr. --Politicdude (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC) Politicdude (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Are there any potential colors for Uygur and Phillips? Colin.1678 (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The media coverage discussion on Uygur isn't settled yet, but as he's at three polls this is still a relevant question. Expoe34 wrote If consensus favors Uygur as a major candidate, I suggest we use       as his candidate color, although this now seems to have been used for Phillips. I don't know which colour is appropriate, but in light of past derogatory comments online I think we should avoid brown. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest some shade of red. Longestview (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Red should do. In terms of symbolism he is a former Republican. He now identifies as a progressive or a democratic capitalist, which might not fit perfectly. But then the colour doesn't actually need to be perfectly symbolic. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Robert F Kennedy

which was followed by anti-vaccine activist, environmental attorney, and conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

should he be called a conspiracy theorist?? Not really factual statement feels like an opinion 71.125.27.118 (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

: Partly done

Kennedy as a conspiracy theorist is exceptionally well documented by reliable sources.

References

"Not really factual statement feels like an opinion" is an opinion in and of itself. However, I did change it to "promoter of conspiracy theories" to avoid assigning a label. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Marianne doesn't have similar information or titles about her. And Dean Phillips is simply labelled as "Representative Dean Phillips". Is the added information relevant to the context of RFK Jr's announcement? If not I think it should be removed or we should include some more information everyone. Marianne is a best-selling author. Dean Phillips is one of the wealthiest memebrs of congress. 76.147.146.144 (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor. The fact that it is sourced is beside the point. We don't need to place these labels in every article he is mentioned. What is the reason for including them here, given that others aren't treated similarly? --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

We’ve had this discussion on other RFK Jr. - related articles before, but I won’t oppose removing it on this article per the lack of relevancy. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I am only a passer-by of Wiki and I am very put off by the process/politics involved in editing a page. I'd just like to follow up with my request. Can I simply remove the extra labels from RFK Jr? Is your absence of opposition the sole factor involved in allowing me to make those changes? Would you be willing to make them in my place? 76.147.146.144 (talk) 08:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This page is unprotected, so you can be bold and make any edits you want, even before consulting the talk page.

The point of the talk page is to find consensus on contentious edits. If you make an edit and the edit is reverted, it’s best to not revert back and start an edit war, but instead seek talk page consensus. If an edit is believed to be contentious or you want to check with other editors first, then it’s always a great idea to start a discussion here, but you don’t have to. Consensus is not necessarily based on votes, and no editor’s opinion is worth more than anyone else’s, and consensus does not have to be unanimous. Consensus can change, but it usually requires some time and a formal discussion.

After a consensus is reached, edits against the consensus will likely be reverted without much further discussion. We’ve had previous discussions on RFK. Jr. related articles which resulted in the wording that is currently on his main bio page, which states that he “promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories.” My intention of the original edit was to state and enforce that consensus, but it seems like other editors agree it’s not relevant on this page, so I’ll strike my original post. My opinion, for or against, has no bearing on the decisions of this page other than being another voice in determining consensus. I’m not an administrator, and even an admin’s opinion doesn’t count for more than other editors when determining the content of a page. I’m simply another Wikipedia editor who is highly active on this page and happened to stop by your comment with a quick response, and I’m sorry for any confusion I may have caused. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 15:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to agree with the statement calling RFK Jr a conspiracy theorist. He may not have always been one, but he certainly has been for a few years now. EPBeatles (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The question isn't whether or not RFK Jr. is a conspiracy theorist, as there is sourcing that indicates that, but whether that is relevant to be listed in a cursory description of him. I agree with Politicdude that it's not needed in this instance. Kafoxe (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Misleading Verbiage

There are several statements in this article that could use correction. For one, The statement that Biden "might not seek re-election due to his age and low approval ratings." The question has not really been his age, but rather his mental acuity. Two, the three Democratic challengers are listed in a non-biased manner, with the exception of RFK Jr. Were the words "anti-vaccine activist" and "conspiracy theory promoter" necessary, or objective? I submit that they are not, and are intended to skew the perceptions of the reader. These types of terms were not applied to Williamson nor Phillips, rightly so. Thirdly, "Williamson dropped out" is not accurate, as she has actually "suspended" (but not ended) her campaign. She continues to be on 30 ballots which have yet to vote in the Primaries. If voting results improve, there could be a chance she may continue the campaign. On Item #2, I see that I am not the first person to address this. The "reliable sources" themselves are subjective, as a conspiracy "theory" is only a "theory" until it is exposed. The very nature of a conspiracy is to keep it hidden. It remains to be seen whether these conspiracies are merely theories, or not. Those words should be removed. So should "anti-vaccine activist". Kennedy's vaccine activism is actually an effort to promote long-term studies, not to remove vaccines. Kennedy has received every single vaccine, except for Covid, for which there was no proper testing. Grace38383 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

1) Please provide a reliable citation that suggests Biden might have opted out due to "mental acuity." 2) Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theory promoter. The appropriateness of these terms has been subject to prior discussion and consensus. It is true that this may skew the reader, but that is not a reason to conceal objective facts. 3) "Suspending" a campaign vs. dropping out is a technical distinction related to campaign finance. Much like the Kennedy labels, you are advocating for inaccurate, euphemistic language that clouds the reader from the truth, and you will not find support for that here. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

1) Biden's mental capabilities have been in question long before Robert Hur's report, which recently confirmed what most could clearly see. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/-nightmare-special-counsels-assessment-bidens-mental-fitness-triggers-rcna137975 You have suggested that I am using euphemistic language; however, saying Biden's "age" is the reason he may not have sought re-election is highly euphemistic. 2) Kennedy questions the long-term effects of vaccines. This is the objective fact, which you are concealing, not me. Which also supports the legitimacy of the conspiracy claims. 3) I see you changed the language to "suspended" after all, so I have no further issue here. Grace38383 (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. It is clearly true that Trump and Biden are elderly, and there are unquestionably reliable sources that report instances of age-related mental decline in them. The question here is a concept called "voice": who specifically is saying Biden considered not running on the basis of mental decline? We cannot attribute such thoughts to Biden unless he said so. Attributions to some other person should be specific, as it would be (in the Wikipedia sense) controversial. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Florida & Delaware

Florida & Delaware should be colored either black or blue. GoodDay (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I updated them to both be blue on the "pledged delegates" map. They are black on the "popular vote" map. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think they should be colored grey in the popular vote map like New Hampshire since they kinda have the same notion because no votes will be cast in Delaware and Florida and no delegates were awarded in New Hampshire and they currently have the same color as Uncommitted/None of These Candidates/No Preference which don't have the same meaning as a primary being canceled Punker85 (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If gray on the popular vote map means “primary canceled” and gray on the pledged delegates map means “no pledged delegates, what would you suggest regarding the map legend in the infobox? It doesn’t seem right to me to have one color represent two different things on different maps, but I am open to suggestions. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought something like No pledged delegates awarded/Primary canceled would be the text beside the gray square

But, after reflection, I think my proposition for Delaware and Florida in the popular vote map to be the same color as New Hampshire in the delegates map would be a bit too confusing. While I still think Delaware and Florida should a gray, I think they should be a different shade of gray than New Hampshire one Punker85 (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thing is. The New Hampshire primary took place, even though delegates (for the moment) won't be rewarded to anyone. Where's the Florida & Delaware primaries won't be taking place at all, as there's only one candidate (Biden) & he'll be getting their delegates. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with them being colored blue as long as they're described as "expected" to go to Biden, but given that he will receive all delegates from Mississippi, Alaska, and Indiana, those should likely also be colored blue as well. Noting that no sources tracking delegate totals are actually counting them towards his total yet as he has yet to be officially allocated them, however, so they shouldn't be reflected in the infobox or elsewhere as WP:OR (synthesis of info not reflected in any source tracking delegates). 67.170.42.135 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s not true. There are write-in votes in Indiana, so he’s not guaranteed to receive all delegates, and there doesn’t appear to be a consensus to include Mississippi, where Biden is unopposed but the election is still happening, unlike Delaware and Florida where the election is cancelled. Alaska is newer, but falls under the same category as Mississippi. And per WP:CALC, routine calculations do not count as original research, “provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.” The cancellation of Florida and Delaware is backed up by reliable sources, and several different discussions have at least come close to consensus. Those calculations also take place to determine our popular vote totals, and these have not been seriously contested as far as I can tell.

“Expected to go to Biden” is fine, but all delegates are “expected” because they haven’t been chosen yet, only projected. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 20:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I went back and reviewed the talk page/archive discussions here to get up to speed and I'm not so sure that there is a clear consensus – by my count, I'm noting five users in favor, four against, one with no clear stance, and of those, only some have commented specifically about the delegate totals, even if they're implicit. The main issue here is that the claims regarding delegates already being allocated aren't correct. Via the Miami Herald: Florida is expected to award 250 delegates to the winner of the Democratic primary on March 19.

You're right about Delaware, however – per 15 Del. C. § 3183 (c): (c) In the event that only one candidate files for a party’s nomination by the filing deadline set forth in subsection (a) of this section and no additional candidates are added to the ballot pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, that candidate shall be considered as having received 100% of the vote for that party’s presidential primary election automatically upon the expiration of the filing deadline and thus declared the winner of that election. In the event no candidate files for the party’s nomination, no election shall be held for that party’s nomination.

Given that, I suggest that Delaware should be included in the delegate total, but not Florida until March 19. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, ignore that note above – the Delaware (and Florida) DSP still say that the state's delegates are only to be allocated in April, and as such I re-added the DSP as a reference for that footnote and removed it from the delegate total.

Again, the reason I'm concerned here is not because I substantially disagree that Biden is going to receive the delegates from those two states, but that it would mean that he achieves a majority of delegates on the delegate count in the infobox on March 12 rather than March 19, which is when media coverage will actually describe him explicitly as the presumptive nominee. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears like AP has called Florida and Delaware for Biden, so that's not a concern anymore. I've updated the totals. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 15:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV disputed in adjectives qualifying RFK Jr

Hello, I have placed the Model:POV on adjectives qualifying Robert F. Kennedy Jr in this article, even though these adjectives are sourced. Did I do well? Please feel free to tell me your thoughts, this is an opportunity for me to learn about NPOV conventions on english wikipedia. Blocktomo (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Jason Palmer on infobox

It's being reported that a candidate named Jason Palmer has won the American Samoa primary, based on precedent this means he should be included on the infobox correct? Posting this on the talk page in case there's anyone who thinks it needs to be discussed. TheFellaVB (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, no question about it. He won delegates so he's in the infobox. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I saw someone decided to undo the edit someone made because he isn't second place but the 1996 Democratic Party presidential primaries sets a precedent for including candidates if they win a contest. TheFellaVB (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering John Wolfe Jr. was included in the 2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries while winning just 1.3% of the PV, yes. River10000 (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I oppose including him because it’s clearly not a major part of the election, but we should include him for now while we take the time to have a full discussion. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

While you are correct that it isn't a major part of the election, we have precedent of including candidates who's only notable feat is winning a single contest. Such as the case of Roland Riemers in North Dakota in 1996, or Bob Kerrey in 1992. Finally this is more notable than Riemers win in North Dakota as this stands as the first time an incumbent President has lost a nominating contest since Jimmy Carter in 1980. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of that consensus and that is why we should keep him in at the moment. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Got it! Just putting the point out there so people who aren't already aware can be informed. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point, but due to him winning a contest, he should be in the infobox because his color will be displayed there as well. Similar to how Strom Thurmond and Roland Riemers were there despite winning a miniscule vote amount. NonHydranary (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We should definitely keep him-there's clear precedent across the board that any candidate that wins a contest, regardless of their popular vote share, gets a spot on the wikibox... I mean-Clinton lost ND to Roland Reimers in 1996, who only got 651 votes total (which is significantly less than Palmer has), and he's on the infobox Cas2024 (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree, precedent is clear on this. It shouldn't be a discussion to remove him but instead a discussion on if that precedent needs to be changed. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that the precedent needs to be changed, as if someone wins a contest, their color will be displayed on the map, and it wouldn't look right if a color was displayed on the map without the person it represents also being there. NonHydranary (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying the precedent should be changed. I'm stating that if we were to exclude Palmer it would need to come as a result of altering the precedent. I personally believe the precedent makes total sense and Palmer and Reimers should be included. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe he should still be included despite his subatomic vote total, as he managed to win a contest. NonHydranary (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• At the risk of going against the tide here, I think the precedent should be changed with this case. It seems rather silly to put Palmer in the infobox and leave out Phillips and Williamson, two other Biden challengers who have received far more RS coverage and far more votes. I understand Palmer won a contest while Phillips and Williamson did not, but the American Samoa caucus that Palmer won by a vote of 51–40 could hardly be compared to a state primary where the number of votes needed to win is 3 or 4 orders of magnitude larger (no offense to American Samoa). The infobox is what people in the far future will see as containing the most important candidacies in this election; to put Palmer there without Phillips or Williamson seems wrong.

Thus, I suggest either leaving out Palmer, or including all three. Davey2116 (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I think though that Palmer needs to be included for the sake of the average viewer. If people look at the map of contests and sees that Palmer won one and he isn't in the infobox than that creates unnecessary confusion. Having Palmer there allows for people to easily see who he is in the future without having to skim through the article in order to find him. TheFellaVB (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We could wikilink him in the legend, would that work? So if people were curious about that one contest, they'd see his name there and click through. To be honest, I'm less concerned with whether he is in the infobox at all and more with us giving the misleading impression that he is the second-most significant candidate in this election. Davey2116 (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you on this point, but what does "second-most significant candidate" mean if not delegate count? We can't really use popular vote because of the caucus system. And any change would really have to be across the board, and not just this election. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Who says he isn't the second most significant candidate though? Sure right now he's practically a nobody but in a few years Phillip's and Williamson's bids will be far more insignificant (considering either has struggled to even crack 5% in a contest) than Palmer's outright victory over an incumbent President which has not happened since 1980. TheFellaVB (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Major leap in assumption. Phillips has far more news coverage, money, donations, exposure, and more votes overall in the primary, and he definitely was a challenger. He got more votes than John Wolfe Jr. and I think it would help for reader's and informational sake to have him on there for contextual purposes. Borifjiufchu (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• The national popular vote is irrelevant in the presidential primaries and election. The delegates/electors select the winner. Palmer won a contest and delegates. Prior consensus has put candidates with below 5% into the infobox as they won a contest. Jon698 (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Obviously Palmer should be in the infobox, not only because of precedent but because he's the first candidate to beat an incumbent President in a nominating contest since 1980. However, I don't think this should be used an excuse to add in Phillips, Williamson, or even Uygur in the event that they don't win delegates or break 5% in the PV. We don't want to clutter the infobox, although if anyone disagrees please speak. RickStrate2029 (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the Samoa election was a caucus doesn't that mean Biden hasn't lost a primary? Or shouldn't it say election or something instead of primary. Cantomic66 (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

There has been discussion and consensus on this in the past; we use "primaries" collectively to refer to both in the interest of clarity. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the technical term would be "nominating contests", but colloquially the term primary dominates because of how rare caucuses are now. So "primary" it is. RickStrate2029 (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What counts are the delegates. Put all candidates in the infobox, who've won delegates. GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree to this mindset, in every single democratic primary since 2000 and barring 2016 we've omitted candidates (Kucinich, Edwards, Terry, Rogers, Judd, Gabbard, & Klobuchar) because they won only a few and did not win any contests. Where that diverges from Palmer is the fact that he won a contest. This isn't something we're going to have to worry about though since it doesn't seem like Phillips will be winning any delegates anytime soon but i'd be happy to continue the conversation should he. TheFellaVB (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Everything that has was discussed in this section is moot. See #American_Samoa_is_a_tie below. Zaathras (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Palmer still won delegates, so he stays in the infobox. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The criteria is winning a contest, not winning delegates (see TheFellaVB’s post above). But Palmer still won American Samoa popular vote wise. I’m not super familiar with the consensus, so that might mean he stays in the info box or it might not. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with including Philips and Williamson. However, agree with including Palmer. Rationale: The "2024 Democratic primaries" are not actually a single entity. This page represents a collection of 50ish independent nominating contests. Therefore, winning any of these contests (e.g. Palmer winning American Samoa) is notable, even if said contest awards only a few delegates. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• e.g. Palmer winning American Samoa is not a truthful statement. This is starting to get out of hand. Zaathras (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  We have a first place by popular vote and first place by delegate count and both of those are reflective of the result of the primary. In the 2020 primary we counted Bernie Sanders as the popular vote winner of Iowa and New Hampshire which was included of his total of contests won. TheFellaVB (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It's absolutely true that Palmer won. See AP, ABC, The Hill, etc. Reliable sources are declaring Palmer the winner. Yes, they both won three delegates. However, Palmer won the popular vote. So we go by what the sources say - and the sources are calling Palmer the winner. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Addendum to my previous comment. It's true that Palmer won the popular vote as indicated by RS. It's also true that both won three delegates. Per discussion at the bottom of this page, I think Palmer should stay in the infobox, and would support updating the infobox to include AS as a "Biden win" as well given the tie in delegates as long as the footnote is clear.

But why is Nikki Haley the only candidate (aside from Trump) in the GOP infobox..? Prcc27 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

We’ve pretty regularly removed candidates from the infobox who won just a few delegates and no contests, but not those who won a contest. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Since when has this been a decided precedent though? From what I've gathered it has been more inertia then actual policy. Suffice to say, I'd argue that so long as a candidate has been awarded a delegate (not just won), they should be included. Going by (5%) of the Primary Vote is terrible policy as that is only really effective with the Modern Primary System, with earlier Primaries often having different contests for the Candidates and the Delegates, and the vote totals for the latter are rather difficult to come across. I'd remove the "Winning a Contest" requirement as well, but again that is because I think we should be weighting placement based on the Delegates awarded to the candidates, not how many times they came in first. --Ariostos (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed at this RFC in 2017 and at this RFC from 2020.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Noted, though again, I have to mention that these policies only truly work for the Modern Primary System. I'd be open to establishing a consensus that can be applied uniformly across Primaries for all periods, unless we are going to keep the rules for the earlier and latter periods separate.

Ariostos (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Map updates

Who ever has the know how. We need a number of states colored blue for Biden. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Biden won the Hawaii caucuses. State needs to be colored blue. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Done for the delegate map. Also, I updated the marker for American Samoa to reflect a tie. I'm still working on the islands themselves... they are so tiny that it's hard to make them look striped so I just left them gray for now. (I was trying to copy the stripes similarly to the Sanders-Buttigieg tie in New Hampshire in 2020).Michelangelo1992 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have updated the American Samoa islands to reflect a delegate tie, but in my opinion it looks pretty hideous. I think the best solution is to change Palmer's color to something with high contrast against Biden's blue. Perhaps yellow? I know that we generally choose a color based on their campaign, but it's just too difficult to distinguish from Biden in such a small area, in my opinion. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Both Hawaii & American Samoa looks great. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Source for Biden delegate count?

Hi,

Whats the source for the 1,707 Biden delegates in the infobox?

I can see that TGP has Biden at 1,464 pledged delegates, while the AP lists 888.

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

IMO, it should be reverted to what AP says for the moment. You can't just add delegates blindly before races are called or delegates are formally awarded. Auerstaedt (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

After some investigation, it should just be the pledged delegate totals without Delaware/Florida at this point (despite what's been shown on this page at this point – other editors too trigger-happy to include them) as those haven't been allocated as of this point, even if they're expected to ultimately be awarded to Biden in the end. TGP is the most up-to-date source and other election data providers including the Associated Press, Decision Desk HQ, and Edison Research tend to be conservative and slower in confirming delegate totals. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

TGP doesn’t call delegates, and their numbers are just estimates of where they stand given current vote totals. We should use AP. There was a consensus to include Delaware and Florida. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Biden Democratic presumptive presidential nominee

I see that Biden has been described as the 2024 Democratic presumptive presidential nominee at the 2024 Democratic National Convention & 2024 United States presidential election pages. Noting that he hasn't (yet) won a majority of the delegates & that Williamson has re-entered the Democratic race. What should we do for this page's infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's too early to describe him as presumptive nominee per AP and other sources as March 19 is the earliest day that Biden can secure a majority of pledged delegates. Even if Florida and Delaware's pledged delegates (which are expected to be ultimately awarded to Biden, but haven't at this point) are added to the total, that wouldn't be the case before March 12. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Too early: is challenged on the ballot in future delegate allocating events and has not secured enough delegates to win a first-ballot nomination. SecretName101 (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree Biden isn't yet the presumptive nominee. Seems like it's a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should make him presumptive nominee, it's not like Dean Phillips is going to get a magic boost in the polls and Trump is already listed as presumptive nominee on the Republican primary page, I don't think Dean Phillips is anymore of a major candidate than John Anthony Castro or Sam Sloan in practice Locked641 (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is Biden the only candidate in so many infoboxes?

California, Utah, Texas, Arkansas, South Carolina, Iowa, Vermont currently only have Biden in their infobox and should be changed. The second place candidate should generally always be included in an article's infobox per this 2017 discussion and this 2020 discussion regardless of their vote % unless consensus on their individual talk page overrules this. This also is in line with past primaries in 2004 (ex. Louisiana), 2008 (ex. Northern Mariana Islands), 2012 (ex. New Hampshire), and 2020 (ex. Missouri). Yeoutie (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that the other candidate(s), should be included. Otherwise, we won't know what became of the delegates or popular votes in each state, that Biden didn't get. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Pretty absurd that the main infobox doesn't even have Dean Phillips either. Despite him getting quite a lot of votes, I get that he doesn't have a delegate, but that doesn't mean a Samoa caucus winner is more important than someone that got 2nd place in just about nearly every other primary that didn't have an uncommitted option. Borifjiufchu (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

American Samoa is a tie

The initial results out of American Samoa were incorrect, Biden and Palmer split the 6 delegates 3-3. The pearl-clutching is really no longer lede-worthy, and there may be other areas of the article that need updating. The Super Tuesday shocker that wasn’t: Biden pulls out a tie in American Samoa. Zaathras (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s already in the article, and Palmer still won by popular vote, so he’s still a winner. It’s not completely moot, although it could impact the discussion. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No, he did not win, and we're not going to lie in a Wikipedia article. Delegates are the determining tally in a caucus or primary, not the raw vote numbers. Zaathras (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

So far, we’ve included both. We can say he won the popular vote without lying. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Palmer won the popular vote. You obviously have a particular political desire, Wikipedia does not care. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. Hint; she wasn't the president, because it ultimately does not matter.. Zaathras (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a footnote to reflect this. It's still worth it to mention Palmer, but we should also make this clear. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 00:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

A footnote is fine, sure. Zaathras (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Check the 2020 democratic nomination page. Buttigieg has Iowa and New Hampshire to his totals even though he didn't win the popular vote in Iowa and tied in New Hampshire, as well as this Bernie also has those states in his total of contests won because of his popular vote victory and delegate tie in New Hampshire. It's that simple. TheFellaVB (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that logic and would support changing Biden's infobox total to 21 wins (for now) including the footnote that Palmer won the popular vote in AS but that they both won three delegates each. That seems to match the situation with Sanders/Buttigieg while still recognizing Palmer's popular vote victory.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, give both Biden and Palmer the win for America Samoa like we did for Bernie and Buttigieg TheFellaVB (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, that has now been changed. I agree that whatever we do needs to be consistent between 2020 and 2024.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Confusing map

Time for a nitpick! The colour for "Primary canceled" in the "First place by popular vote" map shouldn't be black as that colour is already being used for "Uncommitted." The way it looks right now to a glancing eye makes it look like Uncommitted has won the most votes in Delaware and Florida, which is not the case, and that can be somewhat confusing as the movement to vote Uncommitted has been picking up some steam. I would suggest using something like the square seen below so that a canceled primary is made distinctive.

  

EditDude (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be easier (for me, an inexperienced SVG editor) to simply change the color for uncommitted. How do we as editors feel about that option? Additionally, it looks like uncommitted may drop to <5% of the popular vote so it may end up getting removed from the infobox anyway if consensus remains >5%. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I feel like distinguishing the primary as cancelled on the map is unnecessary, and leaving the states with the standard "blank" light gray color is okay with me. However I know how that appears to a lot of users, so a good secondary option for me is finding a darker gray that isn't entirely black, maybe something like      ? DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Write-in blank ballots as 'Uncommitted'

A lot of sources say that write-in blank ballots are to send a message. This is opposed to blank ballots in general, of course, as those could be errors. But CalMatters says that 160,000+ voters voted blank. I think this, combined with other states, is too big to leave out. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Did the math. With available data, which there is little, 167,470+ blank write-ins were cast. The media ascribes the same goals of uncommitted. It's widely seen as a part of the protest movement, and progressive organizations have endorsed it as such.

Only available data is Georgia, California, and Portland, Maine.(1)(2)(3)

The new total would be 628,554+, or 6.3%. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Write-ins should be counted in the "Uncommitted" category if they are in states where write-ins are not counted individually (barring write-in access). In states where write-ins are treated as a blanket category, the write-in category is effectively achieving the same purpose as the "Uncommitted" or "None of the Above" options, meaning they should be included. RickStrate2029 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Normally undervotes and undervotes don’t count in the total number of votes cast as election results count the % of valid ballots cast. By this logic “uncommitted” would win practically every school board race. Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This is different; this is purposely writing in 'blank'. Not blank votes, which could be errors, but someone purposely writing in blank. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I would agree but the CA article referenced was talking about undervotes Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Uncommitted is a ballot option capable of receiving delegates. "Blank" is not. The fact they are for the same reason is irrelevant - every anti-Biden vote is a protest vote at this point, but they are for different candidates and mechanisms and should be shown separately. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Dean Phillips

Seems possible that Phillips might win some delegates in Ohio. If he does, or in the case that he or Williamson win any in the future, any thoughts on whether they should be included in the infobox? I'd probably lead against including them unless they win a contest, but I can be easily swayed. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Refer to "2020 Republican Party presidential primaries" (Bill Weld) and "2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries" (John Wolfe Jr.) as examples of why Dean Phillips should be included in the infobox. He has won delegates in Ohio, and precedent dictates that candidates who win any delegates against the incumbent get included in the infobox (even if they don't break 5%). RickStrate2029 (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I should also note that the DNC is considering seating the NH delegates, which would give Phillips an additional 3-4 delegates. It hasn't been determined yet, but it is a factor to consider in deciding whether or not to add Phillips now in the infobox (i.e. we might need to later even barring Ohio). RickStrate2029 (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Second place candidates who don't get 5% of the vote are still included, which is why Weld and Wolfe are there. That's why Alf Landon is included in SC in 1936 despite winning 1% of the vote. That exemption only applies to candidates who are in second place. When someone else has 5%+ or won a contest, the exemption is no longer applied. NonHydranary (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, maybe he should've been there no matter what? He's the second place human, which I guess could meet the criteria. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

In every recent presidential primary page where it's an incumbent running for re-election, the "second place human" is included in the infobox. Trump 2020, Obama 2012, Bush Jr. 2004, Clinton 1996, Bush Sr. 1992, Reagan 1984, etc. Some of those were legitimate challenges, but others were nobodies who received 0.1%. Dean Phillips simply being the silver medalist meets the criteria for him to be included based on precedent. RickStrate2029 (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I think Palmer is the second place human - At the moment, he is closer to the nomination than Phillips by virtue of having three more delegates, irregardless of the popular vote. Longestview (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on the Green Papers, Phillips is in-line to recieve 3 delegates in Ohio. [1] Esolo5002 (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a tie then. Longestview (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

So we include both? RickStrate2029 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on the Green Papers tabulations - they are extremely rough estimates and usually off. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

With Uncommitted being an option, if Phillips is to be included so must it, since it won more delegates and got a higher vote total. Uncommitted is also included in the 2012 and 1980 primaries. NonHydranary (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Phillips has three delegates as well (Ohio) RickStrate2029 (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Palmer meets the threshold by winning a race. If not for his little stunt in American Samoa, he wouldn't be here. Uncommitted is not a candidate, its a voting option, and so Philips meets second place criteria for human. Personisinsterest (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

If we are to add Phillips, then we should follow the 2012 model and keep uncommitted, as 2012 displays both Uncommitted and Wolfe. 1996 does as well. However, if Marianne surpasses Phillips in the popular vote, which is likely due to her ballot access, then we would have to add her. That's why I support having neither in the infobox unless one wins a contest or gets 5%. NonHydranary (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Dean has neither won a contest or got 5% of the national vote, he does not belong in the infobox. Getting delegates does not put you in the infobox. If he is to be included then Marianne must be added as well, as she got more votes. Uncommitted's inclusion is also dubious. However, if Dean is added, then we must go back and add candidates such as Tulsi, Klobuchar, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Duncan Hunter, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and many more.This is why simply winning delegates doesn't put you in the infobox. NonHydranary (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The threshold is second place, 5%, or winning a race. Uncommitted is second place right now, and Dean Philips is second place for humans. Personisinsterest (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't support including him. He hasn't won a contest and is behind uncommitted. The fact that he's the second place human might make him worth including, but right now there's too many candidates and it doesn't add much to include him. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Dean Phillips should be in the infobox

The delegate results of Ohio have now been tabulated, Dean Phillips has received three. That ties him with Jason Palmer. Going via precedent, this means he should be in the infobox. In the recent history of incumbent Presidents' primary elections (Trump '20, Obama '12, Bush '04, Clinton '96, Bush '92, etc), there is not one example of the silver medalist candidate not being included in the infobox. Phillips not only got the second-most (tied) amount of delegates amongst the candidates, but also has second place in the PV (3.5%). He should be in the infobox. Thoughts? RickStrate2029 (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The previous precedent has been to only include people if they (1) win a contest, (2) get 5% of the vote, or (3) get 5% of the delegates. Additionally, second place gets added if no other candidate meets the above requirements. This discussion is already occurring in the thread directly above this - I suggest we keep all discussion in one thread to avoid talk page bloat. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)