Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Candidate colors

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):

  Biden (official campaign color)

  Buttigieg (official campaign color)

  Sanders (same as 2016)

  Warren (official campaign color)

(     "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		November 20, 1942 (age 82) Scranton, Pennsylvania	Vice President of the United States (2009–2017)	Delaware	(Campaign • Positions) Campaign: April 25, 2019 FEC filing	0 / 3979 (0%)	0
Pete Buttigieg		January 19, 1982 (age 42) South Bend, Indiana	Mayor of South Bend, Indiana (2012–2020)	Indiana	(Campaign • Positions) Exploratory committee: January 23, 2019 Campaign: April 14, 2019 FEC filing	0 / 3979 (0%)	0
Bernie Sanders		September 8, 1941 (age 83) Brooklyn, New York	U.S. senator from Vermont (2007–present)	Vermont	(Campaign • Positions) Campaign: February 19, 2019 FEC filing	0 / 3979 (0%)	0
Elizabeth Warren		June 22, 1949 (age 75) Oklahoma City, Oklahoma	U.S. senator from Massachusetts (2013–present)	Massachusetts	(Campaign • Positions) 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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

@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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I'd think we should use that one, then. WittyRecluse (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Perfect! Let's use this shade. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Just throwing this out here, but I'd also like to suggest      "Heartland Yellow" for Buttigieg as well, as 1) it's stated as an official color on his website and 2) goldenrod (#DAA520) is extremely similar to the color (#D4AA00) Clinton and Cruz used during the 2016 primaries, so in my opinion it came off as a bit overused and might potentially (though unlikely to) cause some confusion. — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 15:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

small proposal

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2020

Remove John Edwards from the Declined to run for President in 2020 Section as I have read the article and it didn't say anything about John Edwards declining. -Ishan832 (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed Edwards. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Why does the chart not list who is on the ballot for NYS's April 23rd primary?

Why does the chart not list who is on the ballot for New York State's April 23rd primary? Elizabeth Warren's campaign sent out an email about needing to get enough signatures to get on the ballot by the deadline. WordwizardW (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Correction: NYS's April 28th primary, not April 23rd. WordwizardW (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Because the deadline isn't until February. --WMSR (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Not on the ballot anywhere

What exactly is the point of having a separate category for candidates who are not on the ballot anywhere, and what are the criteria for inclusion in that category? Currently the only name listed is Harry Braun. If he's not on the ballot anywhere, I assume he is at least a recognized write-in candidate somewhere? If so, shouldn't there be a source for that? Jah77 (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Candidates who are notable but are not on the ballot anywhere are listed there. WittyRecluse (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you aren't on any ballot, are you really running? Semi-serious question. --WMSR (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

My point exactly. A candidate who isn't on the ballot or a recognized write-in anywhere isn't really a candidate at all. That's why I think Harry Braun should be removed unless there's evidence that he has at least recognized write-in status in at least one state. Jah77 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Braun should be removed. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I was simply stating what I thought was prior concensus. I agree with this one here. Braun should be removed. So, I have removed him. WittyRecluse (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding here because it's kind of related: Should the article distinguish between minor candidates (notable or not in the Wikipedia sense) who might end up technically appearing on enough ballots to win the nomination, and those who won't? To clarify, if you sum the numbers of pledged delegates allocated to states that haven't published their ballots yet, and those without ballot access requirements, and the number of superdelegates, it comes to a minority, which means that any candidate who isn't on any of the ballots that have been published so far, even if they were to get onto all the remaining ballots, and if they won all pledged delegates in all of those districts and all the ones with unlimited ballots, and then received the votes of all the superdelegates at the convention, they still wouldn't be able to win, if I understand the rules right. The same is true for any candidate who's only on one of the ballots so far, even if they were to get onto all of the remaining ones, and even though they're on multiple ballots, also for Burke, Greenstein, Hewes, Krichevsky and Wells - but not so for Boyd, for example, who as of 27th January if she gets onto all ballots she hasn't been excluded from yet, and then wins all pledgeds in all the ones she's on the ballot for, and also all the supers, can still win a majority at the convention. Apart from Boyd, the other minor candidates to whom this still applies on 27th Jan are De La Fuente and Ellinger. Obviously nobody expects any of these three to actually get many delegates anywhere, but the same could probably be said of Bennet, Delaney and Patrick, whereas arithmetically if in no other way, De La Fuente, Ellinger and Boyd are more 'actual' candidates than all the other minor ones (at least until the rest of the states release their ballot lists) Adam Dent (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I expect a critereon for the minor candidate label is "is not considered a serious contender for the nomination by anyone of note in the field of politics", and thus the distinction of can or cannot win the nomination mathmatically is irrelevent. WittyRecluse (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As much as I hate slippery slope arguments, that's sort of a slippery slope. If the nominee isn't decided after the first ballot at the convention, literally anyone could be the nominee, even if they haven't won a single delegate. --WMSR (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

My reaction to somebody being able to get a majority at the convention if she "gets onto all ballots she hasn't been excluded from yet, and then wins all pledgeds in all the ones she's on the ballot for, and also all the supers", was expressed by Shania Twain in a completely different context: "That Don't Impress Me Much". My advice to those candidates is "Become notable, and then Wikipedia can have an article about you, and you can move up to the status of being a minor candidate which you haven't even achieved yet." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't fully understand the way subsequent votes at the convention work. In fact, having read the article on the convention, I still don't know what the rules or processes are: the pledged delegates vote, and then if no candidate gets a majority of those then there's another vote with all delegates including unpledged (are some candidates excluded from the second one? and if they are, do the delegates that had been pledged to them get to choose whichever other candidate they like to vote for?), and if no candidate gets a majority in the second vote either, then there's another vote... but with more different candidates to choose from? or some or all of the pledged candidates are allowed to change their votes? and again, do the people who happen to be the delegates just get to choose at that point? Adam Dent (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Why does the polling list the New York Times?

All other polling sources seems to be from aggregates, so the addition of the NYT seems odd. Is the NYT doing their own aggregate now, and where was it decided to include it with the other four?

The New York Times does have an aggregate. It was in the list until September 2019, when it was removed by this edit due to infrequent updates. It was put back in the list today, with no discussion. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

John Kerry

Apparently Kerry is considering another campaign [1] Quvuq0737 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

He is categorically not. https://twitter.com/JohnKerry/status/1224088712058937344 --ZombieZombi (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Delaney

Did Delaney withdraw before the primaries or during? This stage says he withdrew before, while the results page says he withdrew during. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.176.46.59 (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we're counting him as withdrawing during the primaries; early voting already started by the time he dropped out. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Campaign finance section's table not sorting correctly, mislabeling of COH column

I never usually talk/edit on Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I do something wrong. I don't know why, but Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Sanders, and Steyer are all at some point out of place what sorting by the different columns:

• Sanders, Bloomberg, and Steyer are at the bottom of the "Total raised" column, but they should be at the top
• Steyer and Sanders are 2nd and 3rd to bottom of "Total individual contributions," but they should be 17th and 1st respectively
• The same is true for "Unitemized individual contributions," where they should be 13th and 1st.
• Steyer and Bloomberg both have debt, but are among those without any in the "Debt" column (they have the 5th and 1st most debt)
• Steyer, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg are at the bottom of the "Spent" column, but they are 1st, 2nd, and 5th respectively
• Steyer and Bloomberg are 2nd and 3rd from the bottom with most "Cash on hand", but they are 6th and 4th

Also, the explanation of "COH" that appears when hovering the cursor over it still says October 15, 2019, but the information is from December 31, 2019 (according to the paragraph before). SamuelBoshier (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: It was fixed at some point SamuelBoshier (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Delegates, Percentage, Total Votes, Percentage

The infobox is lacking the usual spot for percentage of delegates, which is the all-important number that CNN (and probably others, but I don't get a lot of channels) has been going by fairly exclusively in their coverage rather than the raw number of delegates. Was there a conscious decision to omit the delegate percentage from the infobox and instead insert the vote percentages? It's my thinking that percentages of both metrics should be fairly included. Omnibus (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I answered my own question. CNN is displaying state delegate equivalent (SDE) percentage, not overall primary delegate percentage. Omnibus (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

Only show the candidates who have gained delegates in the info box. This is what has been done in past elections. 162.129.251.87 (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought the general rule was >=5% of the total popular vote without regard for delegates. This is why Edwards is not listed in the 2008 infobox despite winning delegates in several states. --169.232.119.37 (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This will likely be done eventually, but we don't actually know how many delegates each candidate won in the Iowa contest at this time.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 02:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

2020 Vote Totals/Delegates

Hi all. We've used Green Papers to report vote totals and delegate totals in the past for prior elections. Can we go ahead and add the vote totals and the delegate count to the info box and the article using this? Not sure why it hasn't been added already and I didn't want to add it if people had a discussion about this already. Here is the link: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P20/D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.40.129.20 (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is, is that the Green Papers' delegate numbers are preliminary in Iowa and are their estimate of the delegates is their own, not anyone else's. The whole Iowa debacle will probably not be repeated in Nevada and 80% of the rest of the states and territories are going to be primaries, so it doesn't really matter.This is a unique situation.Arglebargle79 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

In the Ballot Access table, please change the date of the Indiana Primary from May 12 to May 5 (source: https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2403.htm) Poisiod (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Planning for future election articles

At Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries, there has been some discussion of holding a Request for Comment in November 2020, right after this year's election, to discuss what the criteria for being a major candidate should be. My thinking is that holding the discussion for 2024 before we know who the candidates will be should enable us to hold a more objective discussion, rather than trying to set the rules to include or exclude certain people from being considered major candidates. At this point, I'm just looking for support for the idea that we ought to hold such an RFC in November. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's actually against that notion...Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

True, but I wanted to make sure that the editors who have been reading this talk page and not the talk page on the Republican side would know about this suggestion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

Display contents won 128.220.159.92 (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

Under the Timeline section, remove declaration that Buttigieg won SDEs- per current NYT Upshot forecast it is unclear whether this is accurate pending final results. CheckeredYeti (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: Updated with the final results from two weeks later. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Majority or proportional distribution?

I think this article should mention if majority or proportional distribution of delegates is used, or if it varies?

Iowa looks to have local one delegate constituencies. How is it with the rest of the primaries?

I think it is so important it should be mentioned in the beginning of the article. If it varies be checked in the primaries table. --Zzalpha (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Iowa is unique. Nevada is doing something like ranked-choice voting in a firehouse primary. 90% of everything else are primaries and will do a standard formula for statewide and congressional district distribution. I know that people are freaking out over Iowa's debacle, but reporting of results should be normal for the rest of the primary.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

All primary states are proportional, but the delegates are allocated both on the statewide and congressional district levels with a 15% viability threshold. CheckeredYeti (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Planning for the future of this article

Please compare the 2016 article with this one. I know all about the clusterfork with the Iowa caucuses and all, but refusing to have results except for the upper right-hand corner isn't a good idea. Why did the person take off the vote totals in the candidates' chart? Just wanting it to look nice as transclusion on the main election page just isn't enough. In fact, going forth, it's downright bad.

We should totally revise the timeline. The "invisible primary" and debate seasons are over, and it should reflect that. Two paragraphs for until the debates started and four or five on the debates. more than half the candidates left the race during this time. I would do it myself had I not been sure that someone here would immediately revert it.

We should divide the candidate chart to a top six and a bottom six. The top five people who got delegates (under the rules, Biden and Klobuchar got some) in Iowa, plus the two billionaires. The top boxes should look like this:

Candidate		Most recent position	State	Candidacy	Total pledged delegates	Contests won
Bernie Sanders		U.S. Senator from Vermont (2007–present)	Vermont	(Campaign • Positions) FEC Filing	1846 / 4051 (46%)	23 AK, CO, DA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MN, MT, NE, NH, ND, OK, OR, RI, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY

Take the "people who were mentioned but didn't run" section OFF the page and transfer it to the "candidates" page. The "but it's transcluded" argument doesn't hold water. Transferring the data is easy and we don't need it here anymore. We don't need the "ballot access" section either. The reason I put it there (as I've said countless times) is so the casual reader would know the state of the race at a glance. The 11 candidates who are still running are on every ballot, so it's now unnecessary. Get rid of it.

Make the "Primary and caucus calendar" the UPCOMING " Primary and caucus calendar" and get rid of ones that are about to or have already taken place. We don't need to know when the Iowa caucuses will be once they are over. People mark off calendars all the time and so should we. Once they are over, get rid of the section entirely. I've been trying to do this but keep getting reverted.

Remember, until the primaries are over in June, the article is fluid. There is no reason to keep it as it was prior to the voting. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• While I understand your interest in restructuring the article, I don't agree with all of these suggestions. IN particular, it's not true that the 11 candidates who are still running are on every ballot. Bennet and Patrick missed 3 upcoming ballots, and even if we don't care because we expect them to drop out shortly, there are also the facts that Bloomberg skipped the next 3 ballots and won't be on the ballot anywhere until Super Tuesday, and Yang missed the Ohio ballot. We should leave the ballot access table in place; we don't have a space limit. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is becoming rather difficult to navigate. We should probably transclude some of the sections similar to what we have for Political Positions.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Tell me about it. @Met90, by gradually turning the ballot access chart into a results chart, that problem would be solved. As to Bloomberg, he's spending more money in New Hampshire (okay, eastern Vermont and Boston Metro), than Biden is, and some polls show him at six to eight percent. Write-ins are popular in NH and always have been. So leave him with a "no" on the chart for those two and for those where Yang and Bennet aren't on the ballot. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Having Biden’s photo as the main pic of this page is biased

I think a picture of something else or of more of the candidates (say at a debate) would be more appropriate and fair. Reverseinterrobang (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Unless you add a random image, Biden will be the image preview as he is the first image (in the infobox). Whoever wins Iowa will likely be the preview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is Biden's picture still first, even though his photo is not first in the article? --ZombieZombi (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Info-Box on candidates

I always thought the Wiki-rule about candidates on a current election article is that they have to be polling at an average of 5% to be allowed in the info box. As of today: Gabbard, Yang, Steyer, and Klobuchar are polling below 5% nationally. "Real Clear Politics", "NY Times", "CNN" among numerous others don't have them polling at a consistent 5%. Because if we include them why aren't we including Patrick or Bennet?(They're also major candidates still in the race.) Excuse my stupid edit, it was just an accident from not paying attention. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you link to the Wiki-rule? I do agree that there should be a cutoff, whether it be 3%, 5%, 7%, etc. People like Tulsi Gabbard aren't serious candidates at this point. Omnibus (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I know it has been debated a lot in the past, but I can't find the specific rule. I know it applies after the election, but I was under the assumption it also applied during, IE:After an election any candidate that recessives more than 5% of the vote may be included in the info box:(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_threshold) Its been debated before as what qualifies as a "major candidate" so hundreds of people aren't in to info-box before an election. Give me sometime and I'll see if I can find the thread or article that mentions the cutoff/threshold as being 5% polling before the election to be included. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like the right time to implement that rule; as an example, Yang got 5% in Iowa by first alignment (the closest thing we have to a popular vote there), yet he's polling well below 5% nationally, as mentioned at the top of this thread. Bloomberg is also not even running in early states yet polls very well nationally. Discrepancies like these make a this rule difficult to implement so soon, as any implementation of it will feel arbitrary. GrapevinePoly (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yang shouldn't even be included in the info-box not receiving more than %5 in the first round of voting...Benjamin.P.L (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Current vs Estimated

Shouldn't the sidebar say "Current delegate count" rather than "Estimated delegate count"? It sounds like it's estimating what the total is going to be right now. Nablais (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

What an absurd mess

This whole article is such a mess full of non-encyclopedic nonsense and pointless charts that it is possibly even non-NPOV by being an intentional mess. That's how bad it is. For comparison, the 1992 Democratic Primary article is easy to read and presents only the relevant information for a quick reference.2601:1C0:CD00:184D:85EB:3E5D:8756:1327 (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been trying to do that, but we're at the midpoint of the primary (the debates have been going on for a year almost), we're going to have even more of it and there's little we can do. There are three more contests before Super Tuesday. You all can help improve it by turning the timeline from 2017 through the January Iowa debate into about nine or ten succinct paragraphs telling the story of what happened. How the debates worked, how half a dozen candidates were forced out, and the like. I've been advocating a schedule for making major changes and how to do it for the entire season. As to 1992, that predates Wikipedia. The readership/editorship wasn't following it in real-time, and thus, there was a beginning to end narrative that could be planned out beforehand.

This is different. Nobody could have predicted what a mess Iowa would become, or that Biden would totally crash (the latest tracking polls in New Hampshire show him falling like a rock and Mayor Pete catching up to Sanders.), so there is conflict among the editors. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The other articles list the candidates first. The 2016 Democratic Primary page also has the polling section just above the Campaign Finance Section. To clean things up, we should cut the Declined to be Candidates section and heavily prune the list of events underneath the timeline. We already have a visual representation of when candidates entered and exited the race. This page is long enough.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree, there needs to be two articles, one on the race, one on the primaries. The title of this article indicates it's about the primaries, but the actual information relevant to the title is deeply buried. CitiCat ^♫ 19:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I have tried on several occasions to transfer (not transclude) the "declined to be candidates" section to the candidates' page. You will notice that there is one now. We don't need it here and we need it there. Someone should (I've tried and have always been reverted by the usual suspects) to cut down the 2019 timeline section to a five-paragraph narrative entitled "debate season," condensing the debates article, or something like that. Arglebargle79 (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Use the popular vote to determine the winner, or have one map for the popular vote winner and one for the winner of the most delegates. Prcc27 (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

In primaries, the popular vote winner is the delegate winner. Iowa is unique in that it isn't.Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Iowa Primary

AP and other official orgs. call the primary based off of SDE's, therfore the iowa primary currently should be marked as won by buttigieg rather than sanders. Furthermore i recommend adding "Contests Won" in the box as a stat for all candidates. The main concern however is misinformation about iowa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John12082020 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't have 100% of precincts reporting yet. Nobody should be declared the winner yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I feel at least no winner should be marked then-- at present it looks like bernie won on the page, which if in agreement with you is inaccurate John12082020 (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Now we have 100% of precincts, can we please get the Bernie people off and mark Buttigieg as the winner already?? 165.127.14.19 (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of declaring winners prior to announcements from reliable sources. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Correct, So can someone change the map to make iowa gray again rather than greenJohn12082020 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The map will show the results of both primaries and caucuses. If we choose to use the SDEs to show who won a caucus, two different methods will be used to determine who won a race, depending on if it was a caucus or a primary. I believe that this would be very confusing, especially as this article is not meant as an in depth discussion of who won a certain caucus, but rather to provide people with a quick overview of the primaries. Therefore, we should only use one measure for all races so that the results remain easily understandable. As there are no SDEs in primaries and there is also no second alignment, I suggest we use the first-instance vote for both caucuses and primaries, as the first-instance vote is the only measure which we can apply to both types of races (primaries and caucuses). Alternatively, we could use the delegate count which is also applicable to both types of races. However, the delegate count can also be confusing as not all delegates carry the same vote (democrats abroad have 1/2 a vote). Therefore, I believe we should use the first-instance vote as it gives the clearest indication who won a contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.98.235.10 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The clearest indication of who won a contest is the number of pledged delegates won, and the map should reflect a tie if necessary (preferably striped lines, showing which candidates tied). If a candidate wins most delegates but not the popular vote, it can and should be noted, but winning a contest within a state is really a measure of the delegates they received. This metric can easily be applied to primaries and caucuses alike. Even while some contests' delegates' votes are worth less, it doesn't really matter for the purposes of the map; it's not like every state has the same number of delegates either. If it is enough of an issue that first-instance votes and delegate allocations do not match up, we could make a separate map for each. Cookieo131 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Sanders wins the most votes, but Buttigieg wins the most delegates? GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Sanders received the most votes on both the initial and final alignment. He is the winner.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The popular vote does not necessarily determine who gets the most delegates to the national convention. National convention delegates are the important metric because they are the people who elect the party’s nominee.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Delegates are what determine the winner and they always have been in past primaries. Pete gets 13 delegates and Bernie 1 according to the Associated Press. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral so someone please reflect Pete as the winner (I'm personally a Sanders supporter). 2607:FEA8:BDA0:34:18C7:110D:D0BD:DDB (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries page, you'll see that there are two maps: one for "first place by first-instance voting" and another for "first place finishes by convention roll call". By the first metric, Sanders won by a comfortable margin.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Why not add two maps then? One for National delegates/convention roll call, and one for popular vote? However, if we are going to have only a single map in the info box I think it should show winners by national delegates, with stripes for tied states. Popular vote is an important metric, but it ultimately doesn’t get the nominee elected at conventions. The national delegates do that. I don’t believe that reliable sources have called an Iowa winner by national delegates yet, so my preference would be to leave the map blank for now.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Two maps would be appropriate. Not sure if we should call the winner for either counts yet though. There doesn't appear to be a clear winner universally agreed upon.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, two maps would be the best solution (and would appease all sides). One map showing winner by most "National pledged delegates". And another by popular vote. Does someone want to add this? 2607:FEA8:BDA0:34:18C7:110D:D0BD:DDB (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

And Bernie is clearly the popular vote leader. Pete is leading National delegates 13/12 so I would put him as the winner in terms of national delegates according to the AP (if it changes we can always change the results). 2607:FEA8:BDA0:34:18C7:110D:D0BD:DDB (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems like the best approach Connor Lovatt (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I put in a blank map for national pledged delegates. Not perfect, but at least the formatting is basically there.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hold up. Iowa is the only state with this system. We do not need to add an additional national map for one state with a skewed result. SDEs are used to determine the winner in Iowa; regardless of whether that should be the case, it is. It certainly should be noted in the article that Sanders received more votes in Iowa, but for better or for worse, in this country, more votes does not a winner make. --WMSR (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Then I think we should just keep the national pledged delegate winner map then. This is the most relevant map as delegates are what will eventually select the nominee. Connor Lovatt (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Iowa may be the only state with its specific system, but with delegates being awarded based both on the statewide total and by congressional district, the winner of the most delegates may differ from the winner of the popular vote in other contests, so it is still appropriate to have two separate maps.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The odds of that happening in any other state are slim to none. And if it does, the number of delegates is really the only important number here. The total popular vote will still be recorded. --WMSR (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The nominee is chosen based on delegate count. While this will likely be the popular vote winner, the delegate count is the official number that matters. A map of the primary should show the delegate winner of each state. TheSubmarine (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In favor of a 3 map solution, one for first instance vote as has been the precedent on Wikipedia for primaries, one for national level delegate allocation, and in the future a convention role call vote map which would be added with the convention role call. I think this is the best solution as 1) it's what has been done in the past and 2) convention role call is really what selects the nominee and that has also been the precedent in the past. Bandersenbrian (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Also until the deadline for a recanvass passes I do not think we should have any maps on this page to avoid confusion. Bandersenbrian (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Why would we only have one map..? Both the popular vote and the delegate count are important and relevant, so there should be a map for *both*. Prcc27 (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and even if only Iowa has a discrepancy between popular vote and pledged delegates, that should still be cataloged through using multiple maps. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with many of the above comments that displaying multiple maps is the best & most informative decision. In 2016, a map displaying the first place winner of the popular vote was the only map until the convention as the winner of the popular vote in any given state was also the winner of the greatest number of pledged delegates. A second map was then added after the convention when there was a difference between the winner of the most pledged delegates & the winner of the most delegates overall, as the superdelegates changed the winner of several states. The original pledged delegate map remained in the infobox despite the fact that it no longer was the map that mattered in the end when the winner was determined. We certainly should use more than one map in the infobox. There's precedent to do so and it simply helps the reader to have more data at a glance.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 07:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Why on Page Previews J.Biden face is shown as 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries image?

On Page Previews J.Biden face is shown as 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries image instead of Democratic Party flag. Can anyone edit the page and fix this? --Filippos (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Just because the preview automatically shows the first image in the article, and the images at the top of this article are the candidates currently polling above a certain threshold (or just the nine currently highest-polling candidates) in order of average current polling figures, and Biden currently has the highest average polling figures. Presumably, after the Iowa caucuses, they'll be in order of who currently has the most delegates pledged to them, which of course may well no longer be Biden, or it may still be him, or it may be someone else initially and then he may win more in states with later primaries and become the first picture again, or vice versa, until either one candidate wins the nomination at the convention or one candidate becomes the presumptive nominee before the convention, if they already have a majority of pledged delegates or if all the other candidates have suspended their campaigns, etc., after which that person's picture will be the first one in the article and will probably not change again. Adam Dent (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I had assumed that Biden's picture was the default because it was the first picture in the article, which it was for some reasonable reason before the results; however, now the pictures are ordered by delegates and ones with the same numbers of delegates are ordered by popular vote (which is definitely how they should be now that some results are sort of in), which puts Buttigieg first followed by Sanders etc., but Biden's face is somehow still the one I'm seeing in big at the top on mobile. Why is that then, and how do we fix it? Adam Dent (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Biden cannot be fixed :) Filippos (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

PagePreview takes image for a preview from page's basic information (for example) which is supplied by PageImages and the latter uses certain algorithm to detect what image should be taken. So if image of the Democratic Party flag should be shown as page preview image, it has to be in the first four images of this article and at the same time has to have greater score by PageImages algorithm than other three images. A.I.K. (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I purged the page's cache, and now the preview image is the state-winners map. I'm not sure if this is because of my purge or if someone else had changed it by some other means before I refreshed. Either way, we're no longer stuck with Biden. Adam Dent (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I did the same thing for the Iowa caucuses article and it still has Biden, so it must not have been me on this one. Anyway, as I say, someone has fixed it for this article. Adam Dent (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

request for March 4 RFD

I was kind of expecting this...what I'd like to do is have a discussion on the day after super Tuesday to figure out what exactly do we want this article to look like on June the first and beyond. We will know on that day whether or not the race will be over or there will be an epic battle going all the way to the convention. We don't know that now.

I've had problems with the Republican side of things. They still want to make it seem like it's a competitive race and that Trump could still lose in the places he's running uncontested. We should have it out about how to design the entire series on the subject. What do we want everything to look like come summer...or even November. March 4th will be great because we will be able to see things clearly. Arglebargle79 (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like an exercise in WP:CRYSTAL. We'll have to wait and see what the situation is at the time and report accordingly. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Schedule and Results

When will the Schedule and Results section be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There is already a schedule section at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Primary and caucus calendar, and the results are at Results of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a See also section for the results, like the Republican party primaries article has.David O. Johnson (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that a see also section is a good idea. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I added it.David O. Johnson (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

The winner of the Iowa Caucus was a tie between Sanders and Pete. Can you add that to the map? Please. 2601:401:C401:9850:3981:7E1C:6624:4D12 (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The subsection above this one is currently discussing this topic. It will be done if a consensus is reached there.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Wording in Timeline section

Hello,

I was wondering why for Andrew Yang and Michael Bennet dropping out it says, "drops out of the race following poor performances in Iowa and New Hampshire." but for all other candidates (including Deval Patrick, who competed in both Iowa and New Hampshire) it says, "[Candidate X] dropped out of the race." Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosDanger2024 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The media coverage around Sanders and Bennet dropping out specified their poor performances in Iowa and New Hampshire as the reason for doing so, but you are right, the same sentence should be added to the bit about Deval Patrick dropping out. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Why has the map been updated to show Sanders as the winner of NH?

The map should show a tie! Connor Lovatt (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

What we should do is create two maps, one for national pledged delegates and one for popular vote, as was done in the 2016 primaries page and was supposed to have happened here as well, but no-one has gotten around to it yet. Until someone does, the map should be left as status quo, since labelling Pete and Sanders as having tied would not be an accurate way of portraying the coverage of the New Hampshire primary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I edited the map earlier today to show Sanders as a winner, when I have a bit of time I'll make sure to add a second one to separate results by popular vote VS. pledged delegates. Antihorarios (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sanders was called as the winner of New Hampshire, although the delegate count was tied. If someone wants to make a map for popular vote finishes and a map for pledged delegate totals then that's fine. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That's what I meant to do, however it seems I can't actually edit the page as it's semi-protected. Even though I've contributed to the Spanish Wikipedia it seems that's not enough to let me edit the source. Antihorarios (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed 100% on two maps. Pledged delegate total is more important for the nomination since the Democratic Party's delegate system isn't winner-take-all. Especially after Super Tuesday we'll get into "cold, hard reality of the delegate math" being way more important.Froo (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have uploaded a map by first-instance vote over at Media:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_first_instance_vote,_2020.svg, if anyone would be so kind as to add it to the article I would appreciate it. Antihorarios (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I added it (not without a lot of confusion over how on my part), but the NH delegate total is still incorrect and I cannot figure out how to portray a tie so someone still has to do that. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is it first instance vote instead of popular vote? I believe it would convey itself better if the map says popular vote instead of first instance vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauldGOAT13 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The best solution for the pledged delegate map would probably to have alternating coloured stripes to indicate that NH was a tie between Sanders/Buttigieg, if we can figure out how to do that. I sure don't know how. Otherwise, listing it simply as a tie leaves the question of "who tied?".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Good work. I see this has now been done.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Buttigieg and Sanders have the same amount of pledged delegates according to Wikipedia article of 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary. Yet according to the map, first place by pledged delegates was given to Sanders. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashawindowless (talk • contribs) 10:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

Please move the check mark in the Northern Mariana Islands row of the ballot access table from Sanders' column to Steyer's. This is consistent with the source and the alt-text, but I think someone accidentally misaligned it.

Also the row arguably gives the impression that Steyer will be the only candidate on the ballot in the CNMI, but I can't find an official source that lists the candidates there. Maybe a tweet from one campaign isn't a sufficient source? I don't know. 209.249.12.13 (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Done! WittyRecluse (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Map

Sanders and Buttigieg tied for national delegates. Shouldn't the map reflect that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthwestChief90 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There should be two maps, one showing popular vote result and one showing pledged delegate results. Does anyone know how to color a state in as being striped to show a tie, ie NH in delegates? Cookieo131 (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a map for first instance vote and for delegate allocation, just like there is on the wiki page for the republican primaries of 2016. --HoxtonLyubov (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is it called "first instance vote" instead of "popular vote"? I believe it would be more clear about what the map is saying if it said "popular vote". — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauldGOAT13 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Because it's called "first-instance vote" in all previous articles. Antihorarios (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not a good reason. If it's more confusing, we should change it.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We need the map to be like the one on the 2016 page where it has the winner and the number of delegates they won, as well as colored circles with each of the other candidates to get delegates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauldGOAT13 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

the first instance vote should be determined by State Delegate Equivalents, which Buttigieg is presently leading and in line with past primaries. Therefore, while Sanders won the popular vote in Iowa, he is trailing Buttigieg in terms of first instance vote in Iowa. Pyruvate (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There should be two separate maps! One for first-instance vote and one for national delegates. Who keeps changing it back from something that makes a ton of sense?? Beccabecco (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a separate discussion going on in the template talk page. I can’t link because I am on mobile, but we should combine the discussions. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's a link to that discussion: Template_talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Maps.David O. Johnson (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

First instance voting refers to popular vote, it wouldn't make sense to show the winner of every state by popular vote but have Iowa (and I believe Nevada?) show popular vote differently. However if Buttigieg is declared the winner it should show up as such in a national delegate map. Antihorarios (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC participation invitation

? : Please participate in the RfC about change proposal for infobox for caucus results. Xenagoras (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Gabbard+?

Where are the results for Tulsi Gabbard and the other candidates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.145.253 (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It's here: [2] (there's a link in this article in the Results section).David O. Johnson (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Map in Infobox is incorrect

The map marked "first place by pledged delegates" shows New Hampshire being won by Sanders, but he tied with Buttigieg.Wikiditm (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Ballot access table

At 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Ballot access, We have been removing columns for candidates who drop out of the race, which I believe has been the correct thing to do. However, I don't think we want to keep doing that after the caucuses and primaries actually start. Otherwise, by early June we might wind up with columns for only one candidate and "Other" to cover everyone else. I suggest we set a deadline that we will remove the column from the "Ballot access" table only if the person withdraws from the race before 7 PM Central Time, February 3, which is when the Iowa caucus begins. After that, we leave the column in place. (If we want to consider using a different symbol or color to indicate that the candidate is still on the ballot but has withdrawn, that should be fine with me.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest having the names of candidates italicized and moved to the right end of the table, sorted from right to left by order of dropping out (yellow arrows only used as placeholders, perhaps we can decide on a unique symbol/color later): — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Primaries and Caucuses

State/ Territory	Date	Biden	Bloomberg	Buttigieg	Sanders	Warren	Yang	Steyer	Klobuchar	Gabbard	Bennet	Patrick	Other	Ref
NH	Feb 11
NV	Feb 22
SC	Feb 29
AL	Mar 3
AR	Mar 3
CA	Mar 3

That looks excellent, I think it should be implemented. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this a great idea, one minor addition . . . if two candidates drop out before the same contest we should sort them by name rather than by date. So, for example, if two candiadates drop out between IA and NH, they'd be sorted by name.ObieGrad (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I'd just keep it sorted by date dropped out. There isn't really any reason to sort by name as opposed to date. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

We should replace the checkmarks with percentages, and turn it into a results chart. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that we should present detailed view of all candidates instead of "Other" Filippos (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That would result in way too many columns, most of them only for the NH primary which is already over. But I did think it might be good to split 'other' into two columns, one for 'major candidates who withdrew before February' and one for 'minor candidates'. Adam Dent (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

First alignment vote

Shouldn't we be using the first alignment vote for the candidates? Given that that's a more accurate representation of the popular vote, and that this is new information given to us by Iowa for the first time ever, I think that this is the best method to use. SDEs and national delegates will be decided and recorded anyway. TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. The winner of the Iowa caucuses is the winner on SDEs, according to those who hold the caucuses and how it's reported by nearly every media source and all previous primary season articles on Wikipedia. That's also how delegates are divided; nothing to do with popular votes. SDEs are the important metric in Iowa and while it's nice to have additional information this year, that's exactly what it is. Additional information for further down in the article. Omnibus (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Iowa's winner has always been traditionally reported as winner of SDEs, including in previous primaries on Wikipedia. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caveman Caveman Caveman (talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I also agree the first alignment vote is the most appropriate of the three results. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

We should put the first alignment, final alignment, and the SDEs in the article. All of that is relevant information. As for the map.. it says "first instance"; I'm not exactly sure what that means.. However, I think the final alignment popular vote is what matters most, and I think we should consider using that to determine the "popular vote winner". Prcc27 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, if we put the SDE it will only be confusing as they only exist in caucuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.140.137.80 (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Green papers use the second alignment as the basis for the "popular vote" I think the first should be. But the SDEs are what counts. But that's for the Iowa article, not this one. For this one we should just use the SDEs and briefly mention the popular vote. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You mean for this article we should just use the pledged national delegates and the popular vote and briefly mention SDEs? The only relevance Iowa SDEs have to who wins the presidential nomination is indirect via the affect of SDEs on the allocation of pledged national delegates from Iowa; I would say that the first alignment vote in caucuses like Iowa's is the best indicator of 'popular vote', the equivalent of first-choice votes on a ranked voting ballot. Final alignment and SDEs are both just intermediate steps between the relevant (to this article) pop vote and national delegates, for me. Adam Dent (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the fellow Adam above for the same reason. Ranked Choice articles often list first-preferences in the infobox as it often makes little sense to list later stages. Filinovich (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In Iowa, SDEs are considerably more important than first alignment votes. A candidate could get 99% first alignment vote and come last in SDEs, so lose the state. There is no way to lose the state with the majority of SDEs though.Wikiditm (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That's why the SDEs are the most important result of the Iowa caucuses. But my point was that they are less important than national delegates in the overall presidential primary for deciding who wins in the end (e.g. Buttigieg got two more SDEs than Sanders, but if they end up allocating the 41st national delegate to Sanders then they will both have the same number of national delegates so the SDEs won't matter any more), and they are also not as important as first alignment for comparing popular vote (which is always done for elections even though in many, it's not the direct way the winner is elected). Adam Dent (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

What is the best way to represent a tie between candidates?

I thought the current method (using alternating green and yellow stripes to show that Sanders and Buttigieg won an equal number of national pledged delegates in New Hampshire) is kind of hard to see, and that it wouldn't work well if an even smaller state produced a tie, so I decided to come up with a few ideas for how else we can approach this. This isn't a huge issue right now, and the problem could solve itself if enough candidates drop out that we don't need to worry about other ties between other candidates, but as of right now the field is large enough that it's difficult to find a good way to display the ties. There's a lot of candidates with a lot of colors, and a lot of states aren't big enough for stripes. If anyone else has other suggestions, please do share them.

Here's an image with a few different suggestions:

1. The current version (alternating stripes)
2. Using new colors for ties which combine the candidates' colors
3. Displaying ties in gray
4. Changing the kind of map we use

Do any of these seem like they'd be worth consideration?

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Although I was pushing for the stripes, I admit that they are obviously very flawed in practice. What if we use a map more like this one from 2016? Tied states could be colored grey and all candidates receiving deleegates would have colored dots outstanding.

with that aside, here are my thoughts:

1. If a state (or any other contest) any smaller by area than NH has a tie, stripes won't work, but I think that stripes can be kept in place as long as there are not ties in smaller areas. I also suggest tilting the stripes at an angle rather than them being horizontal (for aesthetic reasons), but that doesn't solve the issue.
2. Does not really work imo, we would just have to add more colors to the key anyway. Also imagine if, say, Warren and Biden tie in a state; from the purple color produced, would it be immediately obvious that Bloomberg wasn't the sole winner? (The average color between Biden and Warren is #9155A3; Bloomberg's color is #8041DB. Distinct but still similar.) Many complimentary-colored ties could also end up producing vague browns.
3. With a footnote, this is reasonable, although I personally dislike it without having an indication on the map itself showing who the tie was between.
4. The cartogram is a cool idea, if anyone wants to work on it!

Wasn't this used to show the final delegate votes at the Republican convention? Since this includes unpledged delegates, it'd probably be very confusing to make such a map so far out from the convention since we have no idea how the unpledged delegates are going to vote. Antihorarios (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I also recognize that my opinions are probably bad, and I have been acting too aggressive on these talk pages lately only for it to work out great when my opinion is discarded. Cookieo131 (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the stripes work very well as long as the states are big enough to be seen. Is there a way we could have a map with a zoomed-in version of New England on the side? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that the stripes work very well and should be used until the problem is encountered with tiny states. 79.44.114.140 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I would support the map with colored dots, which was deemed useful and clear to read during the 2016 Republican primaries. — JFG ^talk 19:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidate colors

Some candidate colors are too close to distinguish, especially on maps. See for example the New Hampshire results by town, where Bloomberg's light purple is easily confused with Klobuchar's pink.

In January there was extensive discussion among editors to settle on an appropriate color scheme, as follows. I see no later discussion to apply other colors, such as the ones currently in use. I would suggest switching to the consensus scheme and sticking to it for all relevant articles and maps. We could even create a template with color codes for each candidate linked to their name, so that if another color change is later agreed, there would be only one place to update the articles (the maps would still need work). — JFG ^talk 06:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden	Bernie Sanders	Elizabeth Warren	Pete Buttigieg	Michael Bloomberg	Andrew Yang	Amy Klobuchar	Tulsi Gabbard	Tom Steyer

I argued for the above color scheme extensively, as it strikes the perfect balance between giving each candidate a color related to their campaign, keeping the colors visually distinct so as to create as little confusion as possible, and being visible to those who are color blind. I would like to use this color scheme everywhere the candidates appear related to the 2020 election. That is, on this page, the Iowa and New Hampshire pages, the debates page, maybe even the polling page, etc. WittyRecluse (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m fine with changing the color scheme, with the suggestion that we not use red for Warren. We already have two shades of green (Sanders and Klobuchar), and that will make things too difficult for red-green colorblind readers. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Since Yang has already dropped out and didn’t win any delegates, we could use his light blue color for someone else. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe it would fit Warren rather well. I support this change and I'm willing to edit the Iowa and New Hampshire maps accordingly. Antihorarios (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I tried using the proposed colors in the map for Iowa's SDE results by county and if I'm honest, Biden's looks way too saturated and pops too much. I feel like the proposed colors work rather well *except* for Biden's and we should stick to the current shade of blue. Antihorarios (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I fully support making Klobuchar green (though possibly slightly bluish to better differentiate her from Sanders) and Gabbard pink. I suggested something similar at Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses/Archive 1#Colors revisited. Here's a couple of suggestions from that talk archive:

Version A from the talk archive

  Amy Klobuchar

  Tulsi Gabbard

Version B from the talk archive

  Amy Klobuchar

  Tulsi Gabbard

At the Iowa discussion we also had a lot of discussion about what to do with Warren, but with less agreement; that could be a discussion of its own. I do think, however, that we've got a a decent consensus to change Klobuchar to green and Gabbard to pink if anyone wants to go ahead and do it. I'm supportive of this change regardless of which shade we end up using, but if anyone thinks a particular shade would look the best on the map, then we can of course go with whatever the consensus leans in favor of.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Gabbard has been using this color   which for me is better as it doesn't fall within the same pattern of colors and it cannot be confused with other colors. I also suggest keeping Klobuchar pink as there’s no problem with that color hence don’t see why we should change it along with all the maps and graphics. Davidmejoradas (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

In general, we should stabilize the color assignments soon, to avoid having to redo maps. If needed, we can swap a color with Booker or Harris to get gray or orange. There was also some discussion about a darker blue for Biden. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have begun moving Klobuchar to LightGreen and Gabbard to HotPink. WittyRecluse (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I cannot edit the graphs for towns and delegates on the New Hampshire and Iowa pages becuase I lack the software neccessary to do so. Can someone either replace Klobouchar's pink with Light Green or show me an easier way to do it than downloading the images and trying to edit it myself? WittyRecluse (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the New Hampshire maps and page, I'll update the Iowa ones soon. Antihorarios (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion to fix the color issues would be to keep Amy pink but make Bloomberg orange. Then every major candidate has a pretty distinct color. Beccabecco (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Steyer is already Orange, though. WittyRecluse (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind a color change for Klobuchar as I'm not a huge fan of the bright pink either, but I'm not too sure about assigning a lighter shade of green to her despite being a color heavily associated with her campaign. After developing a gradient sample for maps showing each candidate's received vote share (like this one), I realized that using light green for Klobuchar would make the maps even more confusing to readers by being virtually identical to Sanders's green in lighter and darker shades. I think Vanilla Wizard's suggestion to use      a lighter shade of teal for Klobuchar is a good compromise, as it doesn't stray too far from the originally proposed green while remaining distinct from the other candidates' colors.

If Bloomberg's color is still an issue, I propose changing his color to      MediumPurple; other than that I would support maintaining the status quo for all the other candidates' colors as they have already been thoroughly discussed before and works well as is. I'm against changing Warren's color based on the original reason given at the Iowa talk page as assigning colors based on perceived ideological position constitutes WP:OR and was frowned upon in another previous discussion. Please let me know your thoughts on this color scheme. — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidate	Hex	In use?	Reason
Joe Biden			Exact shade used in his campaign logo; not too close to the "generic" shade of blue used for Democrats
Michael Bloomberg			More distinguishable from pink compared to his original color
Pete Buttigieg			Official campaign color according to his website
Tulsi Gabbard			Reassigning Klobuchar's old color
Amy Klobuchar			Compromise between color relation to campaign and display problems
Bernie Sanders			Keeping color consistent with 2016
Tom Steyer			Consensual decision (currently unused in any maps as he has yet to win any delegates)
Elizabeth Warren			Derived from one of the secondary colors used on her campaign website

I think this suggestion is much more reasonable. Light green doesn't work if we color code by margin of victory.—Naddruf

That's a good point, it seems like Klobuchar's current light green would clash too much with Sanders' in those maps. Antihorarios (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)(talk ~ contribs) 17:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I support this, a more turquoise green for Klobuchar stands out nicely and still fits with her campaign colors.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Support this color scheme. Let's get it done before the next vote. — JFG ^talk 08:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I support this color scheme. With Yang out, Klobuchar has no conflict with his light blue. WittyRecluse (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Since Yang has dropped out, to better represent campaign colors could we use light blue for Biden, dark blue for Sanders, light green for Warren, and dark green for Klobuchar? That’s all their campaign colors. Smith0124 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

When we do the margin of victory maps, it uses lighter colors for less votes and darker colors for more votes. This wouldn't work.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok Smith0124 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Klobuchar color change

Why did we go from pink to lime when all the primaries so far still have her represented by pink and the lime is simply un appealing Ncooksey12 (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion before creating a new talk section. This change was only made because several editors have suggested it in the past and agreed to it. Editors at the Iowa Caucus talk page criticized how bright the pink is, and Klobuchar's main campaign color is green.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverted back to pink. If we're to do a color change, all other articles need to be updated. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the colours need to be changed again, because Klobuchar's and Yang's lines in Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries are hard to distinguish. Maybe Yang's and Gabbard's colours could be swapped? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I changed Yang's color on that graph, Gabbard has no line, so no issue until she cracks 3% (if ever). — JFG ^talk 16:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Winner not yet declared

I started a discussion on the "winner not yet declared" color here. Prcc27 (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Economist aggregator?

It just disappeared from the list. It was highly skewed towards Bloomberg. Showing him at 21, while the avg of the other 3 is 16.3, and none of Economist polls show him at or above 21. Which would make it even strange to average at 21. Is there an official reason for its removal and whether it'll be included in the future? --ZombieZombi (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That table is simple reproduced from the Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries article. It seems one of the editors there was concerned about the methodology. I suggest you raise your concerns on the talk page there and discuss.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on February 19, 2020

The phrase "no-excuse, in-person absentee voting" is used ten times here and I was surprised to find no resource in this article explaining what, exactly, that means. I thought it meant that, if you failed to cast your absentee ballot by a deadline, no explanation would work and they would not allow you to cast it late. Turns out, that's wrong: it means you can request an absentee ballot without needing to provide a reason you can't cast your vote in person.

Obviously it wouldn't be appropriate to just add a sidebar explaining it but a link would help. The first use of that phrase is in the timeline entry for January 17, 2020; could someone add a pipe to "no-excuse" there with a link to Absentee ballot#United States please? 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724 (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I added the pipe.David O. Johnson (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson: You did! Thank you very much. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Maps

The "Maps" section of this article needs to have a legend near it to indicate which color belongs to which candidate. I realize that one can click on the map to see what color is for which candidate, but many users might not know that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2020

The location of Gillibrand's NYC campaign launch rally on March 24 2020 was not outside Trump Tower (5th Avenue/Central Park East) but instead in front of the Trump International Hotel in Columbus Circle (Central Park West/8th Avenue). The article states the tower and links to it, which is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.169.134 (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Article preview photo inconsistency

So, before Bernie took the delegate lead, Biden was the article photo preview for some reason. Now that Bernie has the lead and is the first photo in the box, the map is shown as the picture preview. Any reason for these inconsistent shenanigans? --ZombieZombi (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You've asked this question a number of times now. We don't control the preview photo.Wikiditm (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding Primary election and Caucus links

I suggest to add primary and caucus links in this sentence : "The following primary and caucus dates have been [...]" (Primary and caucus calendar section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavoie.eric (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adjusting the links so it will read like so: "The following primary and caucus dates have been." Hope you don't mind. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Nevada called

The decision desk has called the Nevada caucuses for Bernie. Should we update the article, and do we know if this projection applies to the popular vote or just the delegate count? [3] [4] Prcc27 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait until a news organization calls it, and also make sure we properly cite it in the article. - MrX 🖋 00:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't update it. MrX, here's NBC calling it: [5]. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but the AP has called it as well. [6].David O. Johnson (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's moot now. I just wanted to make sure we could cite a source. - MrX 🖋 01:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit of a landslide, so to the guy reverting the colors, stop it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)