![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Anybody wanna help? We need this to look like the 2016 republican primary page in less than a month. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 14:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, ballots are being printed as we type, and early voting will begin in four days (!). Castro and Williamson have withdrawn too late to be taken off in any state taking place through mid-March. while it is easy for editors here to count the multistate vote totals for those withdrawn candidates who are on the ballot in only a few states, for the ones who are on the ballot in almost all the states, it is not. So it is better to put Castro back on the upper chart and leave Williamson where she is. This way, it's easier to plug their state totals than to count the totals to make an accurate national result on the lower chart. If a candidate is on only three or four states, that would be easy, but 26? NO!!!!
In less than a month, candidates are going to be dropping like flies and they will still be getting votes in primaries through April. We cannot and should not take them off the upper chart because, 1) it would make it less accurate, and 2) it would be too much work. So we should put Castro back on the upper chart, and leave the order alphabetical. In the post-Super Tuesday primaries, we can juggle the order to fit who's winning, but we keep all the January 1st candidates because they will still be on most of the ballots through mid-April. We should have the upper chart divided thusly:
The best model to use in observing and planning the page is 1988. It was a glorious muddle through Illinois, then Dukakis won everything. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 13:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Why are the candidates' names rendered in Georgia (the typeface, not the state)? Is this consistent with WP:MOS? WMSR ( talk) 20:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Remember, early voting has already started, that means that thousands of voters (not many, but still), have already voted for him as an active candidate Thus he withdrew DURING the primaries. Considering how long he's been running, he could have lasted a few more days.... Arglebargle79 ( talk) 14:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@ EditDude: I moved Bennet and Yang following precedent; O'Malley dropped out after Iowa in 2016 and isn't in that table. We also have a uniquely high number of candidates to work with here, and the table is hugely bloated right now. I get that it was a bold edit, but in my view, candidates who have dropped out without winning a delegate (which is really the only determinant factor for the nomination) don't need equal billing with candidates who are still in the race and have amassed some delegates. Glad to discuss, but I think the idea of this table is to present information in an accessible manner, and the current situation with the crowded field makes that exceedingly difficult. -- WMSR ( talk) 03:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I had edited the percentages and places for Iowa to reflect SDEs, since that is how national delegates are allocated. It seems that was reverted. Does anyone have any views of this one way or another? In the past, SDEs have been the main metric in Iowa, and we can't really use the 2016 GOP table as a guide since they use a different system. I am in favor of using SDEs, with my second choice being realignment PV. -- WMSR ( talk) 16:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
In the infobox at the top of the page, the map marked "first place by national pledged delegates" marks the Iowa caucuses as "winner not yet declared". Further down the page, however, there are charts on the overall candidate totals and on the Iowa caucus results that include the number of votes and the number of delegates awarded at the Iowa caucuses. If the winner in Iowa isn't yet declared, why does this page include the number of votes and delegates awarded there? Isn't this self-contradictory? Or should the information on the Iowa results be marked somehow to show that it is still tentative? SunCrow ( talk) 17:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Currently, there are issues trancluding sections of other articles onto this page using the {{#section-h:}}
Labeled Section parser function. First, all the 6+ paragraphs of prose and various images on
2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#Results are being included here. Second, the subsection
2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary#Results by county and its table are also being included here, and causing the "Results by county" to also appear on this page's table of contents on the same hierarchical level as the "Early states" and "Super Tuesday" sections. Thirdly, a recent edit on
2020 Nevada Democratic caucuses that changed the header name from "Results" to "Partial results"
[2] caused that table to no longer appear here. Thus, I propose that we go back to what we did in 2016 and
put the results tables onto templates, or else this page will be at the further mercy of the additions/modifications on those separate articles.
Zzyzx11 (
talk)
06:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
This is possibly the only article still using GreenPapers estimates for infobox delegate numbers. Everywhere else is using AP as more reliable, even though more partial. The current counts should be Sanders - 28, Buttigieg - 22, Warren - 8, Klobuchar - 7, Biden - 6. It's also odd that Sanders is down as having won two states. Which two? Buttigieg is down as having won zero states even though he tied New Hampshire. Overall, this box needs fixing in line with all the other dem primary articles. Wikiditm ( talk) 13:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The important statistic from each state is delegates. This determines who won. The shading was in terms of delegate counts but has been changed to "popular vote (or equivalent)" which is nonsensical and could easily (as in Iowa) result in a candidate appearing to come first who actually came second. This shading should be kept at pledged delegates, to provide an intuitive visual representation of which candidates gained what in each state. Wikiditm ( talk) 10:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The legend has now been changed again to the also ambiguous "final expression of preference." It doesn't say what this means in caucus situations (in Iowa, Sanders won final alignment but Buttigieg won on pledged delegates currently). I'm going to reshade following the obvious and meaningful stat of pledged delegates. If you think the metric should be something else, please explain here. Wikiditm ( talk) 09:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
For the love of all that is holy, can we please move Bennet, Yang, and Patrick out of the main table? As the vote numbers have increased, the words "votes" and "delegates" have been moved to new lines, making the rows quite long on my screen and the table significantly less usable. Candidates who dropped out without winning a single delegate really do not need to be in the main table. Patrick and Bennet did not even manage to get 1% in any primary. -- WMSR ( talk) 01:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It's good now, right? If Gabbard drops out with no delegates, even if it's in June, I think she should go in the bottom table too. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 00:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Explanation: the way I see it is, if they dropped out before the primaries, they decided they weren't relevant enough to be included. Anyone who gets no delegates is also not relevant in the main results. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 00:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Bumping this. Bennet, Yang, Patrick, and Steyer are not relevant to the results of the primaries at this point. Their vote counts will be preserved in the bottom table and in individual state primary pages, but they really don't need to be in the main table here. -- WMSR ( talk) 16:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Either way, this should be stated in the note A by "popular vote". Otherwise it's confusing.— Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 00:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Tom Steyer was a major enough candidate that he should stay in the main table even though he dropped out. He got third in SC and should be colored in as so as well. He also may get a few delegates from SC so he should definitely stay in the main table. I would argue all candidates that did not withdraw before primaries should stay in the main table, like the Republican 2016 results page, but at the minimum Steyer should stay in. 100.35.194.5 ( talk) 06:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree Ghostmen2 ( talk) 16:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree that Steyer should be in with the major candidates because he didn't get any delegates. But Buttigieg won a contest, and consistently polled in the top 4-5. I think winning at least one delegate would be a better criterion. Gabbard may get no delegates either, and if so she could go in the lower table. Another suggestion I would like to make is that we color code the lower table to show for which primaries they were still in the race and for which they had dropped out.— Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 23:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Prior to the Iowa caucuses, five major candidates, who had been invited to the debates, had withdrawn from the race after states began to certify candidates for ballot spots: Kamala Harris, Julián Castro, Marianne Williamson, Cory Booker, and John Delaney. Other candidates were able to make it on the ballot in individual states. Some votes for minor candidates are unavailable, because in many states (territories) they can be listed as Others or Write-ins. Since the beginning of the primary season, none of these other candidates have been awarded any delegates.
Other/withdrawn candidates invited to debates | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Candidate | Votes [1] | Date withdrawn | ||||
Kamala Harris | 129 | December 3, 2019 | ||||
Julián Castro | 83 | January 2, 2020 | ||||
Marianne Williamson | 99 | January 10, 2020 | ||||
Cory Booker | 814 | January 13, 2020 | ||||
John Delaney | 434 | January 31, 2020 |
Of the over 200 people who have filed with the FEC as candidates for the Democratic nomination, the following have been placed on the ballot in at least one state.
National popular vote totals for other candidates | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Candidate | Votes | No. states on ballot | ||||
Joe Sestak | 190 | 6 (NH,AR,CA,MA,TX,UT) | ||||
Steve Bullock | 65 | 6 (NH,AR,MA,MN,TX,UT) | ||||
Uncommitted† | 1,787 | Various states | ||||
Other‡ [2] | 371 | Various states | ||||
Roque De La Fuente III | 8 | 6 (NH,UT,CA,AZ,CO,TX) | ||||
Robby Wells | 81 | 5 (NH,TX,MO,LA,CO) | ||||
Mosie Boyd | 21 | 4 (NH,UT,AR,CA) | ||||
Michael A. Ellinger | 53 | 3 (NH,AZ,CA) | ||||
Henry Hewes | 44 | 3 (NH,AZ,MO) | ||||
Mark Stewart Greenstein | 39 | 3 (NH,VT,CA) | ||||
Steve Burke | 96 | 2 (NH,MO) | ||||
Rita Krichevsky | 28 | 2 (NH,CO) | ||||
Nathan Bloxham | 1 (UT) | |||||
Leonard J. Steinman II | 1 (MO) | |||||
Velma Steinman | 1 (MO) | |||||
Bill Haas | 1 (MO) | |||||
David Lee Rice | 1 (WV) | |||||
Tom Koos | 79 | 1 (NH) | ||||
David John Thistle | 59 | 1 (NH) | ||||
Sam Sloan | 43 | 1 (NH) | ||||
Lorenz Kraus | 27 | 1 (NH) | ||||
Jason Evritte Dunlap | 21 | 1 (NH) | ||||
Ben Gleib | 17 | 1 (NH) | ||||
Raymond Michael Moroz | 16 | 1 (NH) | ||||
Thomas James Torgesen | 15 | 1 (NH) |
†Sometimes listed as "None of the Above"
‡Some states don't count some write-ins or minor candidates individually but lump them together.
References
DarkBeforeDawn16, thanks for all your hard work on the lede. With respect, I believe that including a list of 11 candidates in the lede makes it too long and clunky. Similarly, I believe that including a list of candidate departures from the race in the lede makes it too long and clunky. I have removed those edits. If you feel strongly that they should remain, please feel free to discuss the point here. Thank you. SunCrow ( talk) 17:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Right now, the lede says that 1,990 delegates are needed to win the nomination, but the infobox next to it says 1,991. The 1,991 number is sourced, but the 1,990 number seems to make more sense. Can anyone shed any light? The self-contradiction we have now isn't good. SunCrow ( talk) 17:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Klobichar has been at least 12 points ahead in all the latest polling in Minnessota. Early Voting has been going on since January and she only withdrew this afternoon. So how do we depict it if she wins tomorrow? (Howard Dean won Vermont in '04 a month after he left the race). Arglebargle79 ( talk) 20:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
So DarkBeforeDawn16 has unilaterally made massive changes to the article, doing away with the "Withdrew without receiving delegates" section entirely and combining the candidates who are currently running and those that dropped out so that they are both in the "Major candidates" section, which makes no sense to me. This is what it looked like beforehand: [3]. How should we handle this? David O. Johnson ( talk) 23:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
What is relevant now, is that this page is as complete as possible and easy to read. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 18:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The dates of state primaries are incorrect. March 17th for instance is not even listed though that is the day of Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio. For the Democrats, only the Mariana Islands vote on March 14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.76.145 ( talk) 17:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the Washington results are not filled in? Can I transfer them over from the relevant page? -- Ortho rhombic, 19:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Can someone move Connecticut to June 2 in the Major candidates table? I tried doing it myself, but I was doing something wrong, since South Dakota would spill over. Here's a ref for CT changing its date: [4]. Thanks, David O. Johnson ( talk) 04:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Delegate total sum is currently (3/31/2020) 3971 instead of 3979. Is this that a typo or intentional? I think it appeared after states started to postpone their elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:26F:30A0:89B1:E005:9E31:22CD ( talk) 08:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Now the question is, what do we do with ranked-choice voting? Both were used in Alaska and Wyoming and most online publications only show the final total. All the candidates received votes on the first round. So what do we do about it? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 19:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Is The Green Papers a reliable source and should it be used as a reference in this article? David O. Johnson ( talk) 12:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Somehow i got into an edit war because one person insists on a horrible picture of Biden. Why? Don't aesthetics mean somehting anymore? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 11:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Anybody wanna help? We need this to look like the 2016 republican primary page in less than a month. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 14:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, ballots are being printed as we type, and early voting will begin in four days (!). Castro and Williamson have withdrawn too late to be taken off in any state taking place through mid-March. while it is easy for editors here to count the multistate vote totals for those withdrawn candidates who are on the ballot in only a few states, for the ones who are on the ballot in almost all the states, it is not. So it is better to put Castro back on the upper chart and leave Williamson where she is. This way, it's easier to plug their state totals than to count the totals to make an accurate national result on the lower chart. If a candidate is on only three or four states, that would be easy, but 26? NO!!!!
In less than a month, candidates are going to be dropping like flies and they will still be getting votes in primaries through April. We cannot and should not take them off the upper chart because, 1) it would make it less accurate, and 2) it would be too much work. So we should put Castro back on the upper chart, and leave the order alphabetical. In the post-Super Tuesday primaries, we can juggle the order to fit who's winning, but we keep all the January 1st candidates because they will still be on most of the ballots through mid-April. We should have the upper chart divided thusly:
The best model to use in observing and planning the page is 1988. It was a glorious muddle through Illinois, then Dukakis won everything. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 13:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Why are the candidates' names rendered in Georgia (the typeface, not the state)? Is this consistent with WP:MOS? WMSR ( talk) 20:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Remember, early voting has already started, that means that thousands of voters (not many, but still), have already voted for him as an active candidate Thus he withdrew DURING the primaries. Considering how long he's been running, he could have lasted a few more days.... Arglebargle79 ( talk) 14:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@ EditDude: I moved Bennet and Yang following precedent; O'Malley dropped out after Iowa in 2016 and isn't in that table. We also have a uniquely high number of candidates to work with here, and the table is hugely bloated right now. I get that it was a bold edit, but in my view, candidates who have dropped out without winning a delegate (which is really the only determinant factor for the nomination) don't need equal billing with candidates who are still in the race and have amassed some delegates. Glad to discuss, but I think the idea of this table is to present information in an accessible manner, and the current situation with the crowded field makes that exceedingly difficult. -- WMSR ( talk) 03:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I had edited the percentages and places for Iowa to reflect SDEs, since that is how national delegates are allocated. It seems that was reverted. Does anyone have any views of this one way or another? In the past, SDEs have been the main metric in Iowa, and we can't really use the 2016 GOP table as a guide since they use a different system. I am in favor of using SDEs, with my second choice being realignment PV. -- WMSR ( talk) 16:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
In the infobox at the top of the page, the map marked "first place by national pledged delegates" marks the Iowa caucuses as "winner not yet declared". Further down the page, however, there are charts on the overall candidate totals and on the Iowa caucus results that include the number of votes and the number of delegates awarded at the Iowa caucuses. If the winner in Iowa isn't yet declared, why does this page include the number of votes and delegates awarded there? Isn't this self-contradictory? Or should the information on the Iowa results be marked somehow to show that it is still tentative? SunCrow ( talk) 17:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Currently, there are issues trancluding sections of other articles onto this page using the {{#section-h:}}
Labeled Section parser function. First, all the 6+ paragraphs of prose and various images on
2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#Results are being included here. Second, the subsection
2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary#Results by county and its table are also being included here, and causing the "Results by county" to also appear on this page's table of contents on the same hierarchical level as the "Early states" and "Super Tuesday" sections. Thirdly, a recent edit on
2020 Nevada Democratic caucuses that changed the header name from "Results" to "Partial results"
[2] caused that table to no longer appear here. Thus, I propose that we go back to what we did in 2016 and
put the results tables onto templates, or else this page will be at the further mercy of the additions/modifications on those separate articles.
Zzyzx11 (
talk)
06:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
This is possibly the only article still using GreenPapers estimates for infobox delegate numbers. Everywhere else is using AP as more reliable, even though more partial. The current counts should be Sanders - 28, Buttigieg - 22, Warren - 8, Klobuchar - 7, Biden - 6. It's also odd that Sanders is down as having won two states. Which two? Buttigieg is down as having won zero states even though he tied New Hampshire. Overall, this box needs fixing in line with all the other dem primary articles. Wikiditm ( talk) 13:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The important statistic from each state is delegates. This determines who won. The shading was in terms of delegate counts but has been changed to "popular vote (or equivalent)" which is nonsensical and could easily (as in Iowa) result in a candidate appearing to come first who actually came second. This shading should be kept at pledged delegates, to provide an intuitive visual representation of which candidates gained what in each state. Wikiditm ( talk) 10:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The legend has now been changed again to the also ambiguous "final expression of preference." It doesn't say what this means in caucus situations (in Iowa, Sanders won final alignment but Buttigieg won on pledged delegates currently). I'm going to reshade following the obvious and meaningful stat of pledged delegates. If you think the metric should be something else, please explain here. Wikiditm ( talk) 09:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
For the love of all that is holy, can we please move Bennet, Yang, and Patrick out of the main table? As the vote numbers have increased, the words "votes" and "delegates" have been moved to new lines, making the rows quite long on my screen and the table significantly less usable. Candidates who dropped out without winning a single delegate really do not need to be in the main table. Patrick and Bennet did not even manage to get 1% in any primary. -- WMSR ( talk) 01:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It's good now, right? If Gabbard drops out with no delegates, even if it's in June, I think she should go in the bottom table too. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 00:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Explanation: the way I see it is, if they dropped out before the primaries, they decided they weren't relevant enough to be included. Anyone who gets no delegates is also not relevant in the main results. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 00:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Bumping this. Bennet, Yang, Patrick, and Steyer are not relevant to the results of the primaries at this point. Their vote counts will be preserved in the bottom table and in individual state primary pages, but they really don't need to be in the main table here. -- WMSR ( talk) 16:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Either way, this should be stated in the note A by "popular vote". Otherwise it's confusing.— Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 00:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Tom Steyer was a major enough candidate that he should stay in the main table even though he dropped out. He got third in SC and should be colored in as so as well. He also may get a few delegates from SC so he should definitely stay in the main table. I would argue all candidates that did not withdraw before primaries should stay in the main table, like the Republican 2016 results page, but at the minimum Steyer should stay in. 100.35.194.5 ( talk) 06:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree Ghostmen2 ( talk) 16:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree that Steyer should be in with the major candidates because he didn't get any delegates. But Buttigieg won a contest, and consistently polled in the top 4-5. I think winning at least one delegate would be a better criterion. Gabbard may get no delegates either, and if so she could go in the lower table. Another suggestion I would like to make is that we color code the lower table to show for which primaries they were still in the race and for which they had dropped out.— Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 23:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Prior to the Iowa caucuses, five major candidates, who had been invited to the debates, had withdrawn from the race after states began to certify candidates for ballot spots: Kamala Harris, Julián Castro, Marianne Williamson, Cory Booker, and John Delaney. Other candidates were able to make it on the ballot in individual states. Some votes for minor candidates are unavailable, because in many states (territories) they can be listed as Others or Write-ins. Since the beginning of the primary season, none of these other candidates have been awarded any delegates.
Other/withdrawn candidates invited to debates | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Candidate | Votes [1] | Date withdrawn | ||||
Kamala Harris | 129 | December 3, 2019 | ||||
Julián Castro | 83 | January 2, 2020 | ||||
Marianne Williamson | 99 | January 10, 2020 | ||||
Cory Booker | 814 | January 13, 2020 | ||||
John Delaney | 434 | January 31, 2020 |
Of the over 200 people who have filed with the FEC as candidates for the Democratic nomination, the following have been placed on the ballot in at least one state.
National popular vote totals for other candidates | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Candidate | Votes | No. states on ballot | ||||
Joe Sestak | 190 | 6 (NH,AR,CA,MA,TX,UT) | ||||
Steve Bullock | 65 | 6 (NH,AR,MA,MN,TX,UT) | ||||
Uncommitted† | 1,787 | Various states | ||||
Other‡ [2] | 371 | Various states | ||||
Roque De La Fuente III | 8 | 6 (NH,UT,CA,AZ,CO,TX) | ||||
Robby Wells | 81 | 5 (NH,TX,MO,LA,CO) | ||||
Mosie Boyd | 21 | 4 (NH,UT,AR,CA) | ||||
Michael A. Ellinger | 53 | 3 (NH,AZ,CA) | ||||
Henry Hewes | 44 | 3 (NH,AZ,MO) | ||||
Mark Stewart Greenstein | 39 | 3 (NH,VT,CA) | ||||
Steve Burke | 96 | 2 (NH,MO) | ||||
Rita Krichevsky | 28 | 2 (NH,CO) | ||||
Nathan Bloxham | 1 (UT) | |||||
Leonard J. Steinman II | 1 (MO) | |||||
Velma Steinman | 1 (MO) | |||||
Bill Haas | 1 (MO) | |||||
David Lee Rice | 1 (WV) | |||||
Tom Koos | 79 | 1 (NH) | ||||
David John Thistle | 59 | 1 (NH) | ||||
Sam Sloan | 43 | 1 (NH) | ||||
Lorenz Kraus | 27 | 1 (NH) | ||||
Jason Evritte Dunlap | 21 | 1 (NH) | ||||
Ben Gleib | 17 | 1 (NH) | ||||
Raymond Michael Moroz | 16 | 1 (NH) | ||||
Thomas James Torgesen | 15 | 1 (NH) |
†Sometimes listed as "None of the Above"
‡Some states don't count some write-ins or minor candidates individually but lump them together.
References
DarkBeforeDawn16, thanks for all your hard work on the lede. With respect, I believe that including a list of 11 candidates in the lede makes it too long and clunky. Similarly, I believe that including a list of candidate departures from the race in the lede makes it too long and clunky. I have removed those edits. If you feel strongly that they should remain, please feel free to discuss the point here. Thank you. SunCrow ( talk) 17:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Right now, the lede says that 1,990 delegates are needed to win the nomination, but the infobox next to it says 1,991. The 1,991 number is sourced, but the 1,990 number seems to make more sense. Can anyone shed any light? The self-contradiction we have now isn't good. SunCrow ( talk) 17:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Klobichar has been at least 12 points ahead in all the latest polling in Minnessota. Early Voting has been going on since January and she only withdrew this afternoon. So how do we depict it if she wins tomorrow? (Howard Dean won Vermont in '04 a month after he left the race). Arglebargle79 ( talk) 20:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
So DarkBeforeDawn16 has unilaterally made massive changes to the article, doing away with the "Withdrew without receiving delegates" section entirely and combining the candidates who are currently running and those that dropped out so that they are both in the "Major candidates" section, which makes no sense to me. This is what it looked like beforehand: [3]. How should we handle this? David O. Johnson ( talk) 23:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
What is relevant now, is that this page is as complete as possible and easy to read. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 18:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The dates of state primaries are incorrect. March 17th for instance is not even listed though that is the day of Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio. For the Democrats, only the Mariana Islands vote on March 14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.76.145 ( talk) 17:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the Washington results are not filled in? Can I transfer them over from the relevant page? -- Ortho rhombic, 19:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Can someone move Connecticut to June 2 in the Major candidates table? I tried doing it myself, but I was doing something wrong, since South Dakota would spill over. Here's a ref for CT changing its date: [4]. Thanks, David O. Johnson ( talk) 04:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Delegate total sum is currently (3/31/2020) 3971 instead of 3979. Is this that a typo or intentional? I think it appeared after states started to postpone their elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:26F:30A0:89B1:E005:9E31:22CD ( talk) 08:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Now the question is, what do we do with ranked-choice voting? Both were used in Alaska and Wyoming and most online publications only show the final total. All the candidates received votes on the first round. So what do we do about it? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 19:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Is The Green Papers a reliable source and should it be used as a reference in this article? David O. Johnson ( talk) 12:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Somehow i got into an edit war because one person insists on a horrible picture of Biden. Why? Don't aesthetics mean somehting anymore? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 11:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)