Talk:2016 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Iowa / Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

Source on Democratic candidates

Is the big list of names everyone who has entered the race in general or people actually running in Iowa, like with a form of ballot access if the caucuses used ballots? I see no reason to include all the non-notable names or anyone who wasn't running in Iowa in particular, especially without sources specific to the caucus. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic results map inconsistencies

@Ali Zifan: There are three counties, according to the results website, that recorded a tie of delegates for both Sanders and Clinton: Buena Vista, Calhoun and Henry. Is it possible the map could be updated to reflect the draws in these three counties instead of a win for either Clinton or Sanders? Philip Terry Graham 09:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty recount

This material has been moved here for discussion. The video used as source does not seem to support the text. It does provide a glimpse of the caucus process, that might be helpful in the page somewhere. --Artaxerxes 17:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A video captured by C-SPAN at a Democratic caucus in Polk County shows that following a recount of Sanders supporters, a Clinton precinct captain reported the number of Clinton supporters without conducting an actual recount.^[1]

The important problem is that the Sanders counter recounted everyone, while the Clinton counter was recorded telling the organizer that she only added newcomers to the count she had before, and then when asked if she recounted everyone, she lied to the organizer and said "Yes". This means that if anyone left the caucus site who was supporting Sanders, then they were removed by Sanders's recounter, but any Clinton supporter who left the caucus site was treated as though they were still there for the purposes of the recount. Thus, artificial inflation of her numbers occurred unless everyone who left was a Sanders delegate, on top of the Clinton campaign surrogate lying to the organizer to cover up her mistake. The organizer then refused to conduct a recount of Clinton supporters despite complaints from the Sanders supporters. Instead, he left it up to a show of hands. This story has been covered by many new outlets such as Fox News. Here's a more complete clip of the what took place in Polk County - [1]. --Miunouta (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Path of least resistance on this is to wait until the "mainstream media" press cover it—for a number of reasons. Video is extra work—viewing/transcribing/etc.—and interpreting by the editor would seem to be an issue. Review article's reference list to get a sense of what sources tend to fly on politically-related pages. --Artaxerxes 19:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Anonymous (1 February 2016). "Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus: Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus". C-SPAN. Retrieved 4 February 2016.

Democrat Caucus

Below the results table we have this text:

Votes from precinct 42 in Iowa were still missing the following morning. Democrats "from that neighborhood scrambled to find party officials" to report that Sanders won by a margin of two delegates over Clinton. This narrowed Clinton's "excruciatingly close lead" even further, making the final tally for "delegate equivalents": Clinton: 699.57; Sanders: 697.77

If this is the "final total" should it not be in the table?

Frinton100 (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this confusion out. I've now clarified in text that tally was to that point. --Artaxerxes 19:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not over until the 'fat lady' sings. Note the controversy noted above. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed state delegate equivalents x 100

Multiplying the state delegate equivalents by 100 is meaningless, those figures never existed. That would suggest turnout was just over 140,000 when the Iowa Democratic Party has reported turnout was actually 171,109.

A better approximation of the popular vote would be 171,109 multiplied by the percentage of state delegate equivalents received, which would be:

Clinton 85,278 (49.8%) Sanders 84,846 (49.6%) O'Malley 929 (0.5%) Uncommitted 56 (0.0%)

However, this is still only a guess, the popular vote totals will never be known publicly, and the article should not include guesses about the totals. Green Papers have done so but there is no need to repeat their mistake.

Awnisbet1 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the popular v

These results are missing both turnout count, and how the votes totaled before rolling up to the delegates. This is like ignoring the popular vote and only talking about the Electoral College results in Presidential elections, and is therefore misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.5.45 (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Closed as move, anyone may implement this close. Zzyzx11 Do you know an efficient way to move fifty pages? I don't, but also I don't see the point of letting the discussion continue because of WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not that I know of. Have to do it manually. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– Same as Talk:2020 Alabama Democratic presidential primary#Requested move 3 June 2020: Adding "presidential" to these article titles would provide more clarification and precision because the various U.S. states and territories also conduct primary elections for their respective state and local offices Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 100% per nom. Clarity and consistency are key! ...Consistency with the previous move consensus, ...consistency with the 2004 and 2020 articles, ...consistency with article titles of "2016 Democratic presidential primaries", etc. (...User:MisterElection2001 put it well – some party primaries for other offices "[may] warrant their own articles in the future, which makes adding qualifiers to the article titles all the more necessary.") Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pinging all participants of the previous similar move discussion (who may want to voice their opinions here as well):

...Pinging the previous Support voters: @Muboshgu, 331dot, MisterElection2001, Tartan357, Kedarmpster, LSGH, Ortizesp, Waidawut, Woko Sapien, Paintspot, UCO2009bluejay, Smith0124, PCN02WPS, Cookieo131, Thesavagenorwegian, Michael E Nolan, Skappy, Starzoner, and 1.Ayana:...

...Pinging the previous Oppose voters: @GoodDay, Spiffy sperry, and Darryl Kerrigan:...

...Pinging individiuals who commented on the requested move: @Elliot321:... Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the previous RM. And I think we can consider this a consensus that also applies to all previous election cycles. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Strong support as with 2020 election moves. I agree with 1.Ayana's comment from the previous RM that we should go ahead and move all previous years articles as well for consistency. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - With the 2020 counterparts already moved to include presidential, the results here is a foregone conclusion. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Starzoner (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support reaffirmed — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 19:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me! --Woko Sapien (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The changes to the 2020 article titles should obviously be accompanied by changing the titles of the rest of the primary articles. --MisterElection2001 (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support As with the 2020 pages, this makes sense Cookieo131 (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes -- if it makes sense for one primary (which it does), it makes sense for all primaries in which other offices are on the ballot Waidawut (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as other significant primaries were held, not only presidential primaries.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Glitch when clicking the arrow button to go to the 2012 Democratic Iowa Caucus.

In the top right box, if you try to navigate to the 2012 Democratic caucus in Iowa, it routers incorrectly to the 2012 general election in Iowa.

For "previous_election" it has "2012 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses" but when you click it, it takes you to "2012_United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa#Democratic"

So the wiki is written correctly, but it routes to the wrong place.

| previous_election = 2012 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses

| previous_year = 2012

| election_date = February 1, 2016 (2016-02-01)

| next_election = 2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses

It's very bizarre.

Moebiusdad (talk) Moebiusdad (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Anonymous (1 February 2016). "Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus: Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus". C-SPAN. Retrieved 4 February 2016.

[1]