Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019[edit]

THe democratic candidates who dropped out of the democratic presidential race for 2020 so far, the 14 caondidates, some of their ages are incorrect next to their photos and DOB ,in the list, please correct them. 84.52.41.178 (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The ages are how old each candidate was when they dropped out. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that really makes much sense. In fact, showing the age when the candidate dropped out might be confusing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Otherwise their ages cannot be compared like they are supposed to be.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I adjusted it for all of the withdrawn candidates. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ken Nwadike Jr.[edit]

I would like to suggest that Ken Nwadike Jr. be moved to the "withdrew before the primaries" section under the heading "The following notable individuals who did not meet the criteria to become major candidates have terminated their campaigns ...."

The evidence that he has terminated his campaign is:

  1. His main website, https://kennwadikejr.com/ , makes no reference to him being a presidential candidate.
  2. His campaign website, http://kenny2020.com , is now unsafe due to an expired security certificate.
  3. His campaign committee has not submitted a financial report to the Federal Election Commission for one and a half years; they failed to file for the 3rd quarter of 2018, year-end 2018, the 1st quarter of 2019, the 2nd quarter of 2019, and the 3rd quarter of 2019. (See [1] and [2].
  4. His Twitter page used to identify him as a "2020 Democratic Candidate for President of the United States", but now it no longer does. (The third-most-recent tweet mentions his campaign, but is dated 13 November 2018, more than a year ago.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Do we need an official declaration of termination of a campaign for it to be considered terminated? WittyRecluse (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, I hope we don't. But I'd like to get a consensus on this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
If it has become unambiguously clear that the candidate is no longer actively campaigning, as seems to be the case here, I would agree that that meets the definition of a "suspended campaign". --WMSR (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the “polling of the four early states” section[edit]

This is based off of just one source and doesn’t hold much meaning for the race. Could the graph be removed? Aleaniled (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I would agree with dropping that graph because I don't think it's meaningful. The polling in an individual state may be meaningful, but not the combination of four different states. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I second (third?) this. This poll provides no insight into anything really. --WMSR (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly mind removing the graph, but I do not see the point in removing the link to the overall state-by-state polling. This change is rather significant and makes it a lot harder to find information that was previously readily available. I suggest that the polling section is changed to remove the sub header "Nationwide polling aggregation" and change the subsequent article to "Main articles: Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Primary presidential primaries and Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries". Below the links to these articles, the text above the national graph should also clearly state the graph represents national polling. Fjantelov (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Candidate colors[edit]

With just under a month to go until voting begins, it is probably a suitable time to start discussing color choices for each candidate to be used in maps of election results. Now that several non-viable candidates have already dropped out, I think we have a rather good idea of how the final field will look like in a few weeks' time.

The color hexes chosen for the top four candidates are derived from their official campaign material, except for Bernie's green which is carried over from 2016. The colors for Biden and Warren would also match the logic of assigning colors based on ideology suggested in two previous threads (if it were to be considered at all):

  Buttigieg (official campaign color)
  Sanders (same as 2016)

(     "Liberty green" could be an alternative color for Warren as it's also extensively used by her campaign, but it doesn't contrast well with Bernie's green, especially in vote margin maps.)

Name Born Most recent position Home state Campaign
Announcement date
Total pledged delegates Contests won
Joe Biden (48554137807) (cropped).jpg
Joe Biden
November 20, 1942
(age 77)
Scranton, Pennsylvania
Vice President of the United States
(2009–2017)
Flag of Delaware.svg
Delaware
Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign logo.svg
(CampaignPositions)
Campaign: April 25, 2019
FEC filing
0 / 3979 (0%) 0
Pete Buttigieg by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Pete Buttigieg
January 19, 1982
(age 38)
South Bend, Indiana
Mayor of South Bend, Indiana
(2012–2020)
Flag of Indiana.svg
Indiana
Pete for America logo (Strato Blue).svg
(CampaignPositions)
Exploratory committee:
January 23, 2019
Campaign: April 14, 2019
FEC filing
0 / 3979 (0%) 0
Bernie Sanders July 2019 (cropped).jpg
Bernie Sanders
September 8, 1941
(age 78)
Brooklyn, New York
U.S. senator from Vermont
(2007–present)
Flag of Vermont.svg
Vermont
Bernie Sanders 2020 logo.svg
(CampaignPositions)
Campaign: February 19, 2019
FEC filing
0 / 3979 (0%) 0
Elizabeth Warren by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Elizabeth Warren
June 22, 1949
(age 70)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
U.S. senator from Massachusetts
(2013–present)
Flag of Massachusetts.svg
Massachusetts
Elizabeth Warren 2020 presidential campaign logo.svg
(CampaignPositions)
Exploratory committee:
December 31, 2018
Campaign: February 9, 2019
FEC filing
0 / 3979 (0%) 0

For the remaining candidates, their colors are more or less picked just for the sake of discernability in statewide maps (in the case they win any counties or delegates). If any candidate happens to drop out between now and the Iowa caucuses, their color can be reassigned to another candidate still running, if needed:

Michael Bennet Michael Bloomberg Cory Booker John Delaney Tulsi Gabbard Amy Klobuchar Deval Patrick Tom Steyer Marianne Williamson Andrew Yang
Michael Bennet by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Michael Bloomberg by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Cory Booker by Gage Skidmore.jpg
John Delaney 2019 crop.jpg
Tulsi Gabbard August 2019.jpg
Amy Klobuchar 2019 (cropped).jpg
Deval Patrick 2016.jpg
Tom Steyer by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Marianne Williamson November 2019.jpg
Andrew Yang by Gage Skidmore.jpg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I made a test map of Iowa to show how the colors would display on a statewide results map. Please feel free to suggest any improvements! — Tony Patt (talkcontribs) 19:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I like it, but I don't think there's any pressing reason to decide right now. More candidates may drop out before any voting occurs, and that may free up some more "desirable" colors for candidates still in the race. I also don't think candidates unlikely to win delegates or a majority in any county need a color at all. Regardless, I'm definitely a fan of the colors for the "top four" (using Warren's color, as it's rather muted, could be problematic). I wouldn't be opposed to Warren's official blue tone being used for her and Biden's red being used for him either. WMSR (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! This      is how Warren's color looks with increased brightness; however, I personally think that the present shade contrasts adequately well with the other main candidates' colors on a map. I also agree that candidates who fail to win any counties or delegates should have their colors removed afterwards. I guess we'll have to wait until the results start rolling in before finalizing anything. — Tony Patt (talkcontribs) 23:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I was talking about the "liberty green" color when I referred to "Warren's color", my bad. WMSR (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
When I make map predictions, I use those four colors aswell. However, concurring with past presidential primary articles as well as independent sources such as RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight, I don't think we should give a candidate a "cobalt" or "normal" blue color due to that being the official party color. We could substitute it with a navy blue or a lighter blue.Quvuq0737 (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion on colors[edit]

For consistency, I would suggest using the colors that have already been picked for the polling graphs, without reference to candidates' "official colors", but with good legibility and rather uniform saturation. That's how it would look, in order of current polling (candidates polling under 1% have not been assigned a color):

Joe Biden Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren Pete Buttigieg Michael Bloomberg Andrew Yang Amy Klobuchar Cory Booker Tulsi Gabbard Tom Steyer
Joe Biden (48554137807) (cropped).jpg
Bernie Sanders July 2019 (cropped).jpg
Elizabeth Warren by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Pete Buttigieg by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Michael Bloomberg by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Andrew Yang by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Amy Klobuchar 2019 (cropped).jpg
Cory Booker by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Tulsi Gabbard August 2019.jpg
Tom Steyer by Gage Skidmore.jpg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thoughts? — JFG talk 18:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I support keeping colors consistent between the polling graphs and everywhere else; however, I also support keeping colors consistent between election years. Just as Hillary was assigned yellow for 2008 and again had it in 2016, Bernie was assigned green in 2016 and should again have green in 2020. I support basing the color assignments here off of the ones in the graph, except for switching Biden's and Bernie's colors both here and in the graph to the following color scheme:

Joe Biden Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren Pete Buttigieg Michael Bloomberg Andrew Yang Amy Klobuchar Cory Booker Tulsi Gabbard Tom Steyer
Joe Biden (48554137807) (cropped).jpg
Bernie Sanders July 2019 (cropped).jpg
Elizabeth Warren by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Pete Buttigieg by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Michael Bloomberg by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Andrew Yang by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Amy Klobuchar 2019 (cropped).jpg
Cory Booker by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Tulsi Gabbard August 2019.jpg
Tom Steyer by Gage Skidmore.jpg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Opinions on this? Cookieo131 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The current colors are best, with maybe a couple minor changes, since I doubt the "official colors" chosen by the candidates mean anything to most people.
Bernie Sanders should keep the color green if he had it last time, and it's easy to give him that color again in the 2020 campaign. IMHO, Biden should have roughly the same color as Clinton, since both have been frontrunner candidates in their most recent years of candidacy (and favorites to win the Democratic Party competition) and are within what would be considered the more centrist division of the party, compared to — for example — Elizabeth Warren's farther-left position. Red is a good color for Warren's campaign, as she is one of the left-wing or left-of-establishment candidates. I think other colors could also be assigned based on political stances of the candidates: Steyer could be some sort of green (obviously, however, not like Bernie's color) because green politics is his focus, while Buttigieg should be purple or pink for his stance on LGBT. Of course, for some of the other candidates, they do not have a specific political focus or niche within the party, so they can be assigned any color, and it shouldn't be an issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I would prefer to use a green for Klobuchar, as that is the color she overwhelmingly uses. Shes the only candidate who's campaign logo is overwhelmingly green, and I can't imagine Steyer as a more green deserving candidate than Klobuchar. WittyRecluse (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with green for Klobuchar, but again I think we should wait until votes are cast. It's also a good color for Sanders. SelfieCity, every Democratic candidate has pretty much the same views on LGBT issues. What you are suggesting amounts to assigning Buttigieg pink because he's gay, which is problematic. Gold is definitely a better choice for him, since his campaign heavily utilizes it. WMSR (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I would support Cookieo131's suggestion to swap Biden and Sanders' colors, for consistency with Sanders in 2016. For the rest, I'm wary of assigning colors to candidates based on their perceived political positions. I'm satisfied with the revised lineup. — JFG talk 07:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The color scheme looks good overall, although there might be some issues with Buttigieg's color. I ran the colors through a colorblind simulator and Buttigieg's color came out looking virtually identical to Biden's in some tests; the same could be said for Warren and Sanders to a lesser extent. As this could pose a problem in maps of state-level results, I agree with WMSR's suggestion that gold is probably a better color choice for Buttigieg (comparison).

Joe Biden Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren Pete Buttigieg Michael Bloomberg Andrew Yang Amy Klobuchar Tulsi Gabbard Tom Steyer
Joe Biden (48554137807) (cropped).jpg
Bernie Sanders July 2019 (cropped).jpg
Elizabeth Warren by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Pete Buttigieg by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Michael Bloomberg by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Andrew Yang by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Amy Klobuchar 2019 (cropped).jpg
Tulsi Gabbard August 2019.jpg
Tom Steyer by Gage Skidmore.jpg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

In addition to Buttigieg, I also made some minor adjustments to the other frontrunners' colors:

  • Biden:      Blue     Medium Blue (slightly less "generic" shade, purely for aesthetic reasons)
  • Sanders:      Green     Forest Green (the latter is the exact hex he used in 2016)
  • Warren:      Red     Crimson (performs relatively better in colorblind tests without diverging too far from the original color)

Note that I tentatively changed Kamala's color from orange to purple in order to make her line more distinguishable from Buttigieg's. — Tony Patt (talkcontribs) 22:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I really don't care in the big picture, but seriously, how is it "problematic" to support keeping his polling line purple because he's LGBT? If elected, Buttigieg would be only the second openly LGBT president of the U.S., so it's definitely notable. Whether the color chosen is gold or purple doesn't matter to me, but it's absurd to say that coloring it purple for said reason is somehow bigoted or discriminatory; and when a valid point is made with no discriminatory political motive, it should not be dismissed as "problematic," which doesn't actually explain what's wrong with the supposed purple color. It just makes out that you (WMSR) oppose my statement without a valid reason. I'm happy to hear reasons why purple isn't the best color to use for Buttigieg, but "problematic" with no explanation is not a reason.
Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with the new color choice if it's where consensus lies. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Buchanan was not "openly" LGBT.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
SelfieCity, I thought my explanation was pretty clear: Buttigieg has not specifically associated his campaign with LGBT issues. I feel that assigning him any color because of his sexuality is inappropriate. I want to be clear that I am not accusing you of anything, and I'm fine if his color ends up being purple, just not for that reason. --WMSR (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Support! Big fan of this color scheme, looks very refined. Any proposals to assign candidates based on political positions (or worse, their sexuality) is a bad idea; and although I was fond of purple representing Buttigieg, the color blindness test is pretty overwhelming evidence against using it in conjunction with blue when both are top polling candidates and differentiating between the two is important. I know that its earlier use has no connection to his sexuality (actually, it was simply adapted from RealClearPolitics for the polling graph, with changes made since to the colors to better differentiate the candidates. Coincidentally, the same purple was also given to Buttigieg on electionbettingodds.com, so I still 'feel' that the color represents him. To SelfieCity, I liked the purple color myself, but I also advise you to, in the future, keep in mind that attributing colors based on perceived ideology has been previously criticized as being WP:OR; see discussion of candidate colors in archive 3 for this page. Cookieo131 (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @WMSR: Thanks for a really good explanation for using gold instead of purple. I can now support all of the new colors in the graph. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 12:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Final tweak[edit]

Looks like there is broad agreement on adopting this color scheme. Before we implement it, I would suggest a final tweak on Buttigieg's color: switching from Gold to Goldenrod, because it has better contrast, and blends in well with the others in terms of color saturation. Also moved Biden back to "generic blue" because the "medium blue" looks too close to Gabbard's "navy blue" to my eyes. Here's how it looks:

Joe Biden Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren Pete Buttigieg Michael Bloomberg Andrew Yang Amy Klobuchar Tulsi Gabbard Tom Steyer
Joe Biden (48554137807) (cropped).jpg
Bernie Sanders July 2019 (cropped).jpg
Elizabeth Warren by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Pete Buttigieg by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Michael Bloomberg by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Andrew Yang by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Amy Klobuchar 2019 (cropped).jpg
Tulsi Gabbard August 2019.jpg
Tom Steyer by Gage Skidmore.jpg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
@Tony Patt, WMSR, Quvuq0737, Cookieo131, SelfieCity, WittyRecluse, and Naddruf: Would you agree? — JFG talk 10:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
No, sorry, I've been taking my time with this one because I have a lot of nuanced opinions I wanted to all section here. I have several problems with this color scheme, actually. I am completely satisfied with Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Yang, and Steyer, as Blue, Green, Yellow, Light Blue, and Orange are very prevalent colors in their respective campaigns.
My problem comes in the others. I can tell the other colors were migrated from the National Polling page, but even with that mind I see absolutely no reason why Bloomberg is Brown, Klobuchar is Pink, and Gabbard is Navy.
Bloomberg doesn't really seem to have any colors prevalent in his campaign, he just uses Red, White, and Blue everywhere on his campaign, so I can understand if Brown was chosen at random by pollsters in aggregation, but hes not Brown in any aggregation set I could find. For example, he is Yellow in RCP. Furthermore, that Brown is horribly similar to Warren's Red. Bloomberg also hasn't ever had a previous campaign associated with a color on Wikipedia at least, as the Republican Red was used for all his Mayoral coloring. So what color for Bloomberg then? Well, I plotted all the colors on a hex color wheel and tried to find the named hex color furthest from all the current colors and got something in the purple range. Thus, I decided Medium Orchid is a solid color that should be very distinct from the rest. Oddly enough, it appears to be the same color as the shirt he is wearing.
As a side note, this probably counts as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or something, but so does picking Brown and this was the best way I could find a way to randomly select a color that wouldn't conflict with the rest of the colors.
Klobuchar's color is pink for no reason because that color is not in RCP either (shes Black there) and her campaign color is overwhelmingly Green. I understand that Bernie is already Green for the sake of consistency with 2016, but if we think 3 shades of Blue are fine, surely 2 shades of Green are acceptable. Klobuchar uses a earthy Green, probably to signify the wilderness in Minnesota or something silly like that, but Sanders literally uses Forest Green, so a Light Green is preferable for Klobuchar imo.
Gabbard doesnt use that Navy either, she has the same problem Bloomberg does with not choosing a color outside Red, White, and Blue. I could perhaps see that someone tied her military service to the color, but she was in the Army National Guard and not the Navy. That said, after some serious digging, I found that on her "Events" page on her website, Pink is used extensively, so I would prefer to move Pink to Gabbard. As no one uses the navy, I've moved Biden back to the regular blue.
I would like to note that I have no idea how this works with colorblindness and color saturation and the like, but as far as I am concerned this is a better way to represent actual campaign colors while still keeping the colors distinct and the page visually informative and pleasing.
Here is the updated table for final tweaks I would like (which include all the above tweaks minus the Biden ones for reasons I stated above).
Joe Biden Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren Pete Buttigieg Michael Bloomberg Andrew Yang Amy Klobuchar Tulsi Gabbard Tom Steyer
Joe Biden (48554137807) (cropped).jpg
Bernie Sanders July 2019 (cropped).jpg
Elizabeth Warren by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Pete Buttigieg by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Michael Bloomberg by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Andrew Yang by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Amy Klobuchar 2019 (cropped).jpg
Tulsi Gabbard August 2019.jpg
Tom Steyer by Gage Skidmore.jpg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WittyRecluse (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
This looks great! Here is how the colors appear in the colorblindness simulator and I would say the results came out pretty well. However, I doubt that the lower-polling candidates are going to win any contests at this rate so I don't think it's going to be a major issue after all in terms of mapping election results. I would support this as the final color scheme. — Tony Patt (talkcontribs) 12:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is the one - none of the colors are too similar to each other, and each candidate has a clear distinct color. I support this one completely.Fjantelov (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
WittyRecluse, my only reservation is that Klobuchar's green looks really similar to the "Liberty Green" color that Warren uses heavily in her campaign. I'm not sure whether that matters though. --WMSR (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
WMSR, I don't think it matters, but do you have a color you would prefer for Klobuchar over the Light Green? I don't have anything better, so I think this is best compromise possible. WittyRecluse (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
WittyRecluse I don't think a decision needs to be made immediately. A drop-out may free up a color. --WMSR (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
WMSR Well, in the meantime I think this will suffice. WittyRecluse (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
WittyRecluse, is there a pressing need for a color scheme? Though I agree that this will suffice if this is the slate of candidates by Iowa. --WMSR (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
WMSR, no, no pressing need but it is good to get colors sorted out now. If someone drops out we can mess with their color as needed. WittyRecluse (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

What about these colors?

  •      : Biden
  •      : Buttigieg
  •      : Bloomberg

I think that Biden's blue is still too generic... -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the darker blue for Biden, while Buttigieg should remain goldenrod for clarity. As a higher-polling candidate, I prefer the purple for Bloomberg because it is more important to have contrast with Warren than with Gabbard, who is less likely to win any areas with her current polling.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I agree. As you said, a darker blu for Biden would be better. This shade is too similar to Democrats' meta-color. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed as well. This blue is still close to the Democratic main color, and it's a very bright blue as well. I suggest a darker and duller blue. Quvuq0737 (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
     This is the exact shade of blue Biden uses in his campaign material. — Tony Patt (talkcontribs) 12:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Well I'd think we should use that one, then. WittyRecluse (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
small proposal[edit]

Hello everyone! I know the colors have mostly been chosen already, but I figured I'd just come in here and suggest what I think looks nice. My main objection with the colors is that they're just a little bit too generic and "basic" for me. Here's my proposal:

  Joe Biden

I think purple would be a better fit for Biden than blue. Idk why, maybe bc Obama's color was purple for his 2008 run? Also, right now the Biden blue looks way too similar to the Democratic Party Blue.

  Bernie Sanders

I modified the green (and the red for Warren) to be more aesthetically appealing (imo)

  Elizabeth Warren

Again, more aesthetically appealing!

  Pete Buttigieg

Looking at the thread, it seems that goldenrod is the accepted color for Buttigieg. Feel free to use the color I've listed for Kamala for Buttigieg instead.

  Andrew Yang

This is the one I'm least confident about, but it's probably the least important lol

  Kamala Harris

I know it's pretty late in the game to be considering colors, but these are my suggestions!! Thanks for reading! :)

ALSO!!! If you want a little demonstration of what the colors look like on a map, here's a link to a sample I made.

Beccabecco (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  • The most important thing is that a candidate only needs a color assigned if they win something -- generally a state or a county. With Kamala Harris having dropped out of the race more than a month ago, I doubt she's going to win the vote in her own house, much less a county or state. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Metropolitan90: Actually, all dropped out candidates who appear in the polling graph (including Harris, O'Rourke, Booker, and any others who may drop out and receive no delegates) still need their own color, as the map is supposed to match the graph lines.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Write in Candidates[edit]

When a major candidate is a recognized write candidate, like Yang in Ohio, should they be given a check in the ballot access chart? My personal view is that the check should only be given if a name is actually printed. Since my edit was reversed, what is consensus?ObieGrad (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It definitely should not be a green checkmark if the candidate will not be on the ballot. I changed it to a yellow checkmark, but am not opposed to that changing to an X or something else. --WMSR (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the yellow is a good compromise.ObieGrad (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Please note that in a little over three weeks we are going to rid of that chart, as it will have outlived its usefulness and would be replaced by a modified results chart. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Call for opinions on debate lines in graph[edit]

Editors are invited to voice their opinion at Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Debates in graph. — JFG talk 00:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I think this deserves some fresh discussion now. — PutItOnAMaptalk 19:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone find a source for this statement?[edit]

On this page: Factions in the Democratic Party (United States)#Moderate wing

During the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and caucuses the following major presidential candidates are running as moderates: Michael Bennet, Joe Biden, Steve Bullock, John Delaney, John Hickenlooper, Amy Klobuchar, and Seth Moulton.

Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure the statement you listed, in addition to the statements in the sections for liberals, progressives, and democratic socialists are all original research. I haven't been able to find a source that cohesively categorizes every candidate into a specific faction, but I have found sources that describe a specific candidate as belonging to one faction or another. I do have to say though, whoever added these statements made one mistake, considering multiple sources are identifying Buttigieg as part of the moderate faction, not the liberals.[1][2][3] { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't buy this for a few reasons. First, candidates don't necessarily keep the same political stance through their entire campaign and (potentially) their presidency, so labelling them as "moderate" or "left-wing" isn't necessarily helpful and could, in situations, even express a degree of recentism. It also opens a pandora's box over which candidates qualify as moderate and which don't. That depends on a complex set of qualifications that make debate easy and consensus difficult. Additionally, there are likely some leftists within the party who see Bernie Sanders as moderate, and there are likely also independents and Republicans who see none of the candidates as moderate. Long story short, as I see it, saying who's a moderate and who isn't is too controversial to include within the article.
However, coming from Wikivoyage, I might have some different opinions on whether controversial topics should be included within the content or not. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "A mayor? Who's 37? What are Democrats thinking? Maybe that Buttigieg could beat Trump". USA Today.
  2. ^ "How Harvard Made Pete Buttigieg the Moderate That Progressives Love to Hate". Politico.
  3. ^ "Can Pete Buttigieg's moderate message win over purple Iowa?". The Guardian.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020[edit]

Resize Cory Booker's image to 160px rather than 200px to be consistent with the portraits of the other candidates who dropped out TomatDividedBy0 (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Updated --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Fix Number Typo[edit]

Under the section for withdrawn candidates, the article states 16 candidates have dropped out. This number should be changed to 17 after Booker has been added to the list of drop-outs. TomatDividedBy0 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Updated --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020[edit]

change total candidates in lead and in list from 13 to 12 to reflect booker quitting 148.77.10.25 (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Updated --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Getting ready for the big show[edit]

I noticed that someone removed all the vote totals (currently zero, but easy to plug in numbers) from the candidate charts. Why did you do that? The simple fact is, is that all the candidates still running are on the ballot in most states and six candidates who have withdrawn will still be on the ballot somewhere. In fact, Booker, Williamson, and Castro are on more ballots than some of the people still running, and through the end of March, it's too late to get them off.

Yes, three ex-hopefuls are on just two or four states, but that doesn't mean they won't get thousands of votes. The reason that I put the empty vote totals where they were was to get ready for the big show that's only three weeks away! We want this page not only to be informative to the reader but easy to edit as well, and that means we have to start splitting things up and having space for things that are going to take up bandwidth in the very near future. If you look at the 2012 and '16 republican pages, you will note that there are maps and stuff and that the candidate charts are split up. We should start doing that now, split them up by polling so that in three weeks' time, it's going to be easy to plug in the numbers. It's not a question of "it's too damn early!!!" anymore. The thing is upon us, and early voting starts in Minnesota in 73 hours. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"Objection Pending"[edit]

In IL Bloomberg's ballot filing has an objection pending. https://www.elections.il.gov/ElectionOperations/CandidateDetailEO.aspx?CandidateID=sce0zeFDTGoG32GUJrKemQ%3d%3d&ElectionID=e%2f2KVQBCgW0%3d

Should we note this on the chart, either by a note or by removing the green check for now?ObieGrad (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this another potential use for the yellow checkmark? WMSR (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Does that mean they might cancel his ballot access? If he currently has ballot access, he should still have a green check with a note next to it.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that the yellow checkmark should be exclusively used for write-in access. I would prefer a green checkmark with a note, as stated above. WittyRecluse (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
In theory, doesn't everyone have write-in access everywhere? The question here is whose names are actually on the ballot. --WMSR (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I think if you write in someone who is not an eligible write in candidate, that vote is discounted as void. WittyRecluse (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Turns out it depends on the state, which potentially complicates matters pertaining to Yang's yellow checkmark. For example, if anyone can be a write-in candidate in New Hampshire, should Bloomberg be changed to a yellow checkmark as well? --WMSR (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
This does create a somewhat confusing situation. In states like NH all write-in votes count, in states like OH write-in votes only count if the candidate has registered as a write-in candidate (like Yang has). In the lead into the table, I described the yellow checkmark as a "recognized write-in candidate" to get at this distinction. If necessary, we could add more verbiage to explain this in more depth but given there is only one yellow check mark so far maybe it isn't merited.ObieGrad (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Steyer Indiana Ballot Access[edit]

A recent edit put Steyer on in Indiana, but the reference only supports a submission of signatures, not a verification of them. As such, it is my understanding that Steyer is in the process of getting on the ballot but is not currently on the ballot. Is this correct? WittyRecluse (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. This is the procedure we are following - submission of signatures alone isn't enough. I removed this for now but we should readd IN as soon as signatures are verified.ObieGrad (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
My bad. Thanks for removing. --WMSR (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)