Talk:2020 Nevada Democratic presidential caucuses

Nevada Debate and Steyer

From the Campaigns section: "With the early voting phase over, the 9th official debate between the candidates on the ballot will take place on February 19.[18] Steyer, who is in double digits in several polls in Nevada, may not qualify for the debate.[19]"

It seems editorial to only mention Steyer as missing the debate, when other candidates did not meet the thresholds to be included as well (Gabbard). Would it be more impartial to list all of the candidates that made the debate and those that did not? Rivere123 02:38 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox order

There has been some dispute over the ordering of the infobox, so should we order it by

A): Nevada polling average, or

B): National Delegate count

Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

A because delegate totals are only compiled from two early states, and give little information. National and state polling may not be perfectly reliable, but it is highly preferable to delegate counts from only two states. The current method does not reflect any data we currently have in Nevada, and it also leaves out Steyer, who is likely to place within the top five candidates even when accounting for changes in polling averages. This method is also at odds with the South Carolina article. User:Rivere123

Comment @Rivere123: The South Carolina article was updated by me right before your comment was posted. Also, I advise you to read WP: CRYSTAL for more information. Basically, it says that we cannot make edits based on predictions. Tom Steyer may do well, but that’s not for us to predict. Using the raw numbers is the most encyclopedic.

Comment @Smith0124: There is a certain level of forecasting inherent to creating a list of candidates for a future primary. The only way to get rid of prognosticating completely would be to order the candidates alphabetically — even then, there is the choice of which candidates to include. without taking predictions into account, the New Hampshire Primary and Iowa Caucus have no more bearing on the results of the Nevada Caucus than the 2000 Presidential Election, or any other preceding election, so their results should not decide the order for the candidates in this way.

Comment @Rivere123: Polling doesn’t really have a bearing on the race either. The results of Iowa were much different than what the polls predicted. They’re just as unreliable, at the very least putting delegate count is more encyclopedic. Plus, as said before, the delegate count is what really matters. Thank you for discussing this with me by the way, I appreciate it! Smith0124 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

B because national polling is not reliable. Not only is it often wildly inaccurate (as it was in Iowa), we also just don’t have enough polls post IA and NH for the polling average to be consistent with the state of the race. Smith0124 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

B because delegates are what matter WittyRecluse (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No images - Why not avoid the argument entirely. Have no images in the infobox, until the results are in. This should be the practice for each primary & caucuses articles. GoodDay (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment If we order by national delegate count, Warren should be above Klobuchar as she has more delegates. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A until the results come in. This was the case with the previous two states. With B, you could theoretically have someone's face in the infobox who isn't even running in that state, which would be absurd. No reason not to stick with precedent.Wikiditm (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A per Wikiditm. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A Until the results are in.  Nixinova   T   C   19:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

A This should be obvious, no? What matters for this article is Nevada. So National polling or National delegate count that is a result of 49 other territories should have 0 influence on the ordering for the state's Caucus/primary. Please people. Don't let your politics bias you. After the results are in, order it by that. Or would you order it by national delegate count? I don't mean to be snide, but come on. --ZombieZombi (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A until the results are in, then delegate count for the state (I guess that's option C). - MrX 🖋 18:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A Doesn't make sense to put Buttigieg first when he is narrowly placing third in Nevada polls, well behind Sanders and to a lesser extent Biden. Master of Time (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

How does it make sense to have a live update disclaimer on the top of the page, but then a rigid A or B ordering, which is outdated the second that the first results are coming in, which is the key time for web traffic? MichaelRS (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

We update it as it comes in.David O. Johnson (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

A I agree with MrIdealigic (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Only 6 out of 7 candidates are featured in the infobox

I note that, while there are seven candidates on the Democrats presidential ballot in Nevada, photos and information are only shown for six of them. I have no particular axe to grind for her, but why is Tulsi Gabbard not included, as she similarly qualified to be on the ballot? Surely this displays unacceptable discrimination prior to the ballot this week? Rif Winfield (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

According to RealClearPolitics, she's polling far below everyone else in Nevada. Also the infobox has rows of three so it would look strange if there was only one person at the bottom.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It would seem better to have Gabbard in the bottom table row, centered, instead of excluded -MKwptfe (talk • contribs) 22:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Debate is tomorrow night (ie. more voters will be looking at this page), so went ahead & added Gabbard to the table MKwptfe (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I can see the argument for Tulsi Gabbard's inclusion, but note that previous states have no had all candidates also. She isn't actually included in some polls for this caucus, and her voting intention is frequently grouped into "other." I don't think there's much need to include her in the infobox, but she is in the full list of candidates further down the page.Wikiditm (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

As is, there are 4 males and 2 females included. If Tulsi replaced Steyer, then this would balance out the male-to-female dominance... Neither one of them has earned any delegates yet anyways. 137.226.152.81 (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no male-to-female ratio standard here. In Nevada, Steyer is currently polling an order of magnitude higher than Gabbard, so such a switch would be unwarranted. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? This is about polling averages, not gender.  Nixinova   T   C   01:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Generally, the accepted standard for inclusion in an infobox is 5%. Since Gabbard is not polling at that, she should not be on the page, but Klobuchar is polling at 4% in South Carolina is she is on that infobox, so either Gabbard should be included here or Klobuchar should not be included there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2002 (UTC)

Devonian Wombat, can you link to a source for the "accepted standard for inclusion in an infobox [being] 5%" ...personally, I don't think this is going to change anyone's voting behavior, but this has the potential to rebound badly for Wikipedia ...not interested in Wikipedia being part of a story about erasure MKwptfe (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe it’s a policy, per se, just what is automatically defaulted to when people have to decide on which candidates are in the infobox. (For example; 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries) It isn’t set in stone, especially because it usually applies to the percentage of votes a candidate gets, not their polling average, and changing the rules for this page to include Gabbard is definitely an option, but I do not think it will cause any real problems, since there is always someone who will be angry about what is done. Also, in my opinion the reason for Gabbard not being included is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, as since Gabbard is polling so much lower than the other candidates including her would be misleading, similar to including Minor or Withdrawn candidates. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey I'm a very sporadic editor (always forgetting my previous username & creating a new one like this), so I don't know the best way to move along this discussion in a timely fashion. Just added Tulsi Gabbard to the table of active candidates. This change was immediately reverted by one editor & commented on by another. This may have been done for a good Wikipedia reason ("There has to be consensus to overturn the status quo of Gabbard not being on the page, and that consensus does not currently exist"), but this will not play well outside of regular Wikipedians. What if the status quo is wrong, how can we demonstrate "consensus" for adding Gabbard's image in a timely fashion (i.e. in less than 24hrs since the NV debate is happening tomorrow night)? I imagine there is no way for a Wikipedia process to move that fast, but this is a problem. It is wrong for Gabbard to not be included. What is the correct procedural way to do this? MKwptfe (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Gabbard as a singleton looks odd, but adding File:NOTA_Option_Logo.png for explicit uncommitted would be an option and would balance better... ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 23:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

"[T]his will not play well outside of regular Wikipedians [...] It is wrong for Gabbard to not be included." - Why? What are you talking about?  Nixinova   T   C   01:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Vote

In order to streamline this process, and as an editor has added Gabbard back in, I think we should hold a Yes or No vote on Gabbard's inclusion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll start it off by voting No, as I believe that including Gabbard in the table would constitue Undue Weight due to her low polling average. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I additionally vote No for the same undue reason. WittyRecluse (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I vote No as she is low in the polls.David O. Johnson (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No. According to the Polling averages she's only at a tiny 1.3% behind even Bloomberg with 3%. Why should she be included?  Nixinova   T   C   01:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure we should use an arbitrary cutoff to exclude the one candidate at the bottom of the list. Can anyone point to previous consensus? I think someone mentioned 5% in polling. - MrX 🖋 18:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Although I'm strongly inclined to say No due to Undueweight, and my strong disliking of her, she is on the Ballot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Ballot_access. Wikipedia shouldn't extend the "non significant" theory into matters of state, as it is a large source of citizens' information. Thus skewing the information from a totally neutral standpoint, would I believe override theories of significance/undueweight etc. I would really like the No's to win out, due to my own bias and hope to skew a visitors' perception a tad towards/away from my bias, but wouldn't in good conscience argue for a No. Hope that makes sense to some of you. --ZombieZombi (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No. Her polling numbers are low. So far, she doesn't have a national delegate. She did not qualify for the Nevada debates. Currently, she is not qualified for the next debates in South Carolina. I think these are all good reasons to exclude her, in addition to the style concerns that seven is an odd number for the table and would put her on the bottom row.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is Biden in the article preview even though Bernie's picture appears first in the infobox based on polling, as on the South Carolina primary article?

That's not normal. Can someone please fix that? --ZombieZombi (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the editors of this article do not have direct control over which image is shown in the article preview of your browser. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

At this point, it's Pete Buttigieg's image that shows up, even though he came in a distant third. I don't know how, but can someone make Bernie the preview image, please, given he won the caucus? Jamesiepoo88 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I am once again asking for your understanding. We do not control the preview image. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Point Blank poll

"Point Blank Political" is not a credible pollster. Nothing I can find positions them as a credible organization with any kind of legitimate track record. These results should not be included. I'd remove them myself but I don't know how to do it without breaking the table :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.140.244.122 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed it pending consensus to include it. - MrX 🖋 18:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, I notice that you also removed the poll just below the Point Blank poll. If this was your intent, could you kindly mention your reasoning here? Thanks. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No, sorry that was a mistake. Thanks for catching it. It looks like someone already fixed it. - MrX 🖋 19:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I put it back, and here are my reasons: It was made public and might have had an impact on the race. Also, it was touted loudly on the internet and other mass media and was thus quite notable. That it screws up a bunch of trendlines and looks weird doesn't change that. You have to remember that the early voting ended prior to the debate and the PB poll may in fact reflect what was happening then. Early voting skewers the results when it comes to polling, and on a side note: Someone mentioned that all the polls were wrong in 2016. No, all the national polls in 2016 were right! Hillary got three million more votes than Trump in the popular vote. The votes in the final polls in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pensylvania were all within the margin of error. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, can you cite some good sources that touted this poll. (I don't care about internet forums and social media). The fact that it has such a small sample size and resembles a statistical outlier are factors that lead me to believe it should left out, but if you can back up your claims, I won't remove it. - MrX 🖋 16:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There's always twitter], which shows that several campiagns touted the poll. There was 538, which included it, and if you google Point blank poll, Nevada you will find 21 thousand links. It trended. Here in the 21st century, trending is important. AS to how you define 'good sources' i don't know, but sources there are and these can affect the results, and 88 thousand votes were cast before the debate.Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Funny.Wikiditm (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, this poll was not scientifically conducted, and hasn't been referenced by any reliable source. The fact that people on twitter are talking about it is totally irrelevant. So is "21,000 google results." Please stop adding it to the article.Wikiditm (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

You are correct that twitter and google results are not particularly relevant. But as mentioned above, this poll is listed on fivethirtyeight.com, a reliable source, and presumably used to calculate their average which is featured on this page. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

What's so funny about it? Things like that effect elections in major ways. Keep the damn poll where it is. Google and Twitter trending is how things work nowadays. This is not 1968 where only local newspapers and Walter Cronkite were the be-all and end-all. It is part of the record, and getting rid of it is harmful to the record Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"Google and Twitter trending is how things work nowadays." It's not how wikipedia works. The article should not be including things on the grounds that they trended on twitter. I said funny because this argument is just ridiculous. Wikipedia has standards and saying something should be included "because it trended on twitter" is comedy.Wikiditm (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• In an effort to curtail an edit war, I have started an RfC below. - MrX 🖋 14:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Use of popular vote or county delegates to calculate results

The third paragraph ends "but it is not yet known whether delegates to the national convention will be distributed proportionally based on the popular vote in the caucuses or the number of county delegates.[4]"

Is this still true, or is it not the case that the number of county delegates will be used to calculate the proportions for each congressional district. I have seen some statements that county delegates will be used, but cannot find an authoritative source.

Can anyone help with this? With only two days to go before the Nevada caucus, I feel that someone must know. I apologise if this question has been answered already.

Redhill54 (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The caucuses are now tomorrow. There's going to be a bruhaha over possibly invalid early ballots (if you don't have a second or third choice your vote may not be counted), and as to the delegates, we will just have to find out tomorrow afternoon. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of very shortly appearing very foolish, the delegate selection plan Section III, part A states

16.Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference

a.Nevada is a caucus/convention state. Accordingly,national delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated so as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the caucus participants in each district. Therefore, the national convention delegates elected at the district level shall be allocated in proportion to the percentage of the county convention delegates won in that district by each preference at the first determining step, except that preferences falling below a 15% threshold shall not be awarded any delegates or alternates. (Rule 2.K.5, Rule 14.B & Reg. 4.30)
b.Within a district, if no presidential preference reaches a 15% threshold, the threshold shall be half the percentage of the vote received in that district by the front-runner. (Rule 14.F)

c.District-level delegates and alternates will be selected by a caucus of state convention delegates from the district who signed statements of support for that presidential candidate. (Rule 2.K.5)

Section III, part D states

4.Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference

a.The At-large delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated among presidential preference according to the statewide division of preferences among convention and caucus participants, at the first determining step of the process provided that no person participating in the allocation shall automatically serve by virtue of holding a public or Party office. (Rule 9.B, Rule 11.C & Reg. 4.19)
b.Preferences which have not attained a 15% threshold on a state-wide basis shall not be entitled to any at-large delegates. (Rule 14.E)
c.If no presidential preference reaches a 15% threshold, the threshold shall be half the percentage of the statewide vote received by the front-runner. (Rule 14.F)
d.If a presidential candidate otherwise entitled to an allocation is no longer a candidate at the time of selection of the at-large delegates, their allocation will be proportionally divided among the other preferences entitled to an allocation. (Rule 11.C)

e.If a given presidential preference is entitled to one (1) or more delegate positions but would not otherwise be entitled to an alternate position, that preference shall be allotted one (1) at-large alternate position. (Rule 19.B, Call I.I & Reg. 4.33)

And finally Section III, part C

4.Selection of Pledged Party Leader and Elected Official Delegates
a.The pledged PLEO slots shall be allocated among presidential preferences on the same basis as the at-large delegates. (Rule 10.A.2, Rule 11.C, Rule 14.E & Rule 14.F)

Which seems entirely clear that the district level delegates depend on county delegates... and is about as clear as mud to me on whether the state level delegates use popular vote or county delegate counts.Gambling8nt (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Redhill54, you may be interested in reading this Vox article about the caucus rules in Nevada [1]Xenagoras (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the comments and links, which seem to me to clear this matter up. Redhill54 (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Redhill54, Gambling8nt, and Xenagoras:: Yes the state delegate selection plan was for an unknown reason unclear/silent about how PLEO+At-large pledged delegates shall be elected. The Nevada Indpendent however wrote the following lines outlining their election solely depends on the number of caucus elected CCD's (which I propose shall be reformulated and added into the procedure chapter of the article):

• "Previously, only district-level delegates were apportioned based on the results of the caucus, while PLEOs and at-large delegates were divvied up based on the number of delegates representing each candidate that showed up to the state convention, a process that resulted in bitter divisions in 2016. The new delegate selection plan, party officials said, will lock in not only the district-level delegates based on the caucus-level apportionment but the PLEOs and at large delegates, too."

Danish Expert (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include the Point Blank Political poll?

The consensus is that the poll should not be included because it was not reported by any new service, that it had a small sample size and large margin of error, and that the organization does not have a record of historical accuracy or methodology.

Cunard (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Should the article include the February 13-15 Point Blank Political poll? - MrX 🖋 14:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Poll source	Date(s) administered	Sample size	Margin of error	Joe Biden	Cory Booker	Pete Buttigieg	Kamala Harris	Amy Klobuchar	Beto O'Rourke	Bernie Sanders	Tom Steyer	Elizabeth Warren	Andrew Yang	Other	Undecided
Point Blank Political	Feb 13–15, 2020	215 (LV)	± 5.6%	14.3%	–	12.6%	–	15.6%	–	13%	18.6%	7.1%	–	1.7%	17.1%

---

• Yes. FiveThirtyEight is a reliable source and includes this poll in their list of Nevada polls. We feature the FiveThirtyEight average on this page. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• No. This was not a scientifically conducted poll. It has the same value as a twitter poll. The fact it wasn't reported by any news service whatsoever and did not abide by any set of polling standards makes it absurd to include this.Wikiditm (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikiditm, just curious, but what is your source for claiming that it is not scientifically conducted and does not abide by polling standards? Also, remember that edits to content under RfC discussion is contrary to WP:RfC. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

For example, methodology and tabs haven't been released.Wikiditm (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• No, based on the organization not having a record of historical accuracy or methodology.[2] The small sample size and large margin of error are also indicators that this poll is not noteworthy. If FiveThirtyEight uses this poll in their averaging, it probably has very little weight.[3] - MrX 🖋 16:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, based on the fact that it was widely disseminated and had an actual, if small, impact on the campaign. Why do people publish poll results? To keep score in elections where the voting hasn't happened yet. After all, it was poll results that drove who got on the debate stage. An entire year of the campaign was based on these things. Accuracy and methodology and the like is all well and good, but if a poll has an impact, as this one has had, trumps that. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• No, not rated on 538, very small sample size and very large MOE. I think it shouldn't be included due to Undue Weight. --ZombieZombi (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• No, this is not the 538 fanclub polling aggregator, a poll as obviously unreliable as this should be included any more than random straw polls should be. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Current order in infobox

MichaelRS, what are your sources for the current infobox order? According to the NYT [4] ,the descending order is Sanders, Biden, Warren, Buttigieg, Steyer. If you look at the Results chart, the order is the same as well. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC) CNN MichaelRS (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Article preview photo

Why is it Biden if Bernie is the first photo in the infobox? --ZombieZombi (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The preview photo is not controlled by us. I guess whatever search engine you use hasn't updated since the first photo was of Biden.Wikiditm (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

See also: #Why is Biden in the article preview even though Bernie's picture appears first in the infobox based on polling, as on the South Carolina primary article? - MrX 🖋 12:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

National Delegate Counts

The New York Times is not reporting national delegates and The Associated Press has only allotted 7 to Bernie Sanders. Where are we getting these numbers from and should they be up with only 50% of the results in? Leonardo Lazov (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The source cited is CNN. I'm going to move it to the top. - MrX 🖋 12:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

I have added an data-based efn-note to the infobox, which highlight how many pledged delegates were calculated according to the The Green Papers and CNN respectively. The entire efn-note is now also visible as inline text in the Partial results chapter. When two reliable sources disagree, the correct solution is to create this kind of efn-note to highlight the disagreement between reliable sources. I do not care/object if you prefer to list CNN figures in the infobox over TGP figures (despite the fact that I consider TGP to be more reliable and precise compared to other sources). Mys only requirement is, that the efn-note shall be kept for as long as we have this disagreement between reliable sources about the correct preliminary decided number of pledged national convention delegates. BTW my efn-note has not been removed or disputed by anybody, so I consider this debate to be solved. Danish Expert (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I object. Please seek consensus for that idea. Policy is that we have to the best available source. See below. - MrX 🖋 14:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Even if you disagree with me whether or not TGP is a reliable source, then we still have a situation where at least AP/NPR (10-0-0) and CNN (13-2-1) disagree about the preliminary calculated figures for pledged delegates. Normally we resolve these situations, where two or more reliable sources reach a different conclusion, by adding the exact efn-note that I created and added to the article earlier today. Alternatively consensus can also be reached to display a TBD (which is currently displayed by the infobox of the article), until we receive the final official result from the official result webpage. AP/NPR is not preferred to be used over CNN. Both sources are reliable, and hence adding an efn-note about their disagreement is warrented and actually highly needed! Danish Expert (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There are two possible courses of action when reputable sources disagree. Leave the information out entirely, or "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." as instructed by WP:YESPOV. For example, we might write: "CNN projects X and AP projects Y". We can't attempt to analyze the discrepancy ourselves and place that analysis in the article. - MrX 🖋 22:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I never proposed "to analyze the discrepancy ourselves and place that analysis in the article". In fact my proposed efn-note was only about listing the data results from those reliable sources we found had disagreed about the calculated preliminary data for pledged delegates - until the point of time when 100% of the official result had been reported. Hence, I am perfectly OK with your position that the note should only enatil this information: "CNN projects X, AP projects Y and TGP projects Z". Such note could also be placed after writting "TBD" in the displayed data cell, and would provide helpful clarity for all editors and readers, and lead to an overall improvment of future election result articles. Danish Expert (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, CNN is currently not a reliable source for the delegate counts. CNN has not updated their numbers for a while now (they're still stuck at 50% reporting, but we have 72% of the results published). The Associated Press is most reliable, if you ask me -- sure they're stuck at only 10 delegates for Bernie but they seem to be very careful with publishing delegate counts so why not follow their reports? Leonardo Lazov (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Leonardo Lazov: FYI, a few hours ago AP updated their number of calculated pledged delegates to the earlier released CNN calculation (which I reported above): 13-2-1. On 24 February 02:38 EST, CNN however again updated their calculation based on the current 88% of the reported results to: 18-7-1. TGP meanwhile updated their calculation from 11-5-3 (yesterday) to 21-8-3 (with only the remaining 4 delegates yet to be determined), based on the same 88% reported result on 22:47 EST 23 February.

When we watched the Iowa-results being updated, then we had a similar observation. AP was slowest to updated their calculation of pledged delegates (sometimes being up to 12 hours late), CNN was faster, while TGP was actually the fastest and most accurate source. When all 100% results had been reported by the IDP official result website, then their was a 100% match in how CNN+TGP+IDP had calculated the number of won pledged delegates (and during the preliminary process TGP never awarded pledged delegate that it later had to withdraw, so at least for this race their calculations of certainly won pledged delegates was always spot on). CNN+TGP and the IDP official result website published their calculated result for pledged delegates before potential changes enforced by a recanvass/recount on February 9, and arrived at the exact same calculation result when 100% of the precinct results had been reported. AP however refused to award the last delegate in the race, as they "did not want their delegate count to reflect the official result before the additional result of a recanvass/recount had also been conducted and factored in". In the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses we created an efn-note to explain this "pledged delegate result difference" being reported between reliable sources.

I still think, that the best approach would be to add my proposed efn-note behind any kind of data in the infobox and result table. To be frank, I do not care whether or not the infobox display TGP data (1) / CNN data (2) /AP data (3) or "TBD" (4) for the pledged delegate count.

My only demand is that for which-ever of the four data types being displayed, this data should be followed by my written efn-note, so that we explain to the readers that the result is only preliminary calculated and subject to change, due to the fact that only 88% of the result has been calculated, and that based on conducted analysis of the first 88% of the results we have several reliable sources (AP+CNN+TGP) in disagreement about what the calculated number currently is for "certainly won pledged delegates". Danish Expert (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WP:NOR does not allow us to explain anything to readers unless it is directly verifiable in a reliable source, without editor analysis or synthesis. - MrX 🖋 12:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Danish Expert: I've made this argument time and time again and I'll continue to do so -- it's not our job to be first or break news since we are not a news organization. What is on us is to provide accurate and official information and there is no better source than the Associated Press for these things. I agree that their reporting may be slower (when compared to CNN), but that is a result of their commitment to publish official and verified information, not calculations or projections. Projections can easily change as new results come in (especially in the beginning), add to that the obvious difference in different sources (MSNBC is reporting one set of numbers, CNN another set of numbers and the AP a whole different set of numbers) and the Wikipedia page becomes a total mess since editors can't agree on which source to follow. Let's stick to the official information -- we may be last, but at least we're accurate. Leonardo Lazov (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Leonardo Lazov: I understand your WP:NOTNEWS argument, but it goes against the consensus of how editors contribute with updates to all "ongoing event" articles. If your argument should be obeyed, then there should be absolutely no partial preliminary results for votes/delegates displayed, for as long as only 1%-99% of results have been reported. Instead consensus however developed to display preliminary results followed by the "percentage progress bar" to display that the preliminary results only relates to the first 96% of the reported results.

As for your projection versus calculation comment, I can inform you that neither of the pledged delegate numbers from CNN/TGP (linked earlier) have been projected. AP+CNN+TGP all calculated the number of "certainly won delegates" according to the lastest chunk of reported results. The 3 sources however differ slightly in how they calculate (i.e. they could use different calculation methods or perhaps they estimate various levels for the size of the remaining number of votes, or perhaps they apply a different scale of confidence interval for the calculated certain result). All 3 sources however attempt the best way they can to calculate the "certainly won delegates" based on the latest results (see below for the latest results):

• TGP (24 feb. 21:39 EST, based on 100% reporting): 24-9-3, with 0 still TBD.
• TGP (24 feb. 10:52am EST, based on 95% reporting): 24-9-3, with 0 still TBD.
• TGP (23 feb.23pm EST, based on 88% reporting): 21-8-3, with 4 still TBD.
• TGP (23 feb. 1am EST, based on 50% reporting): 11-5-3, with 17 still TBD.
  • CNN (26 feb.14:58 EST, based on 100% reporting): 22-7-3, with 4 still TBD.
  • CNN (24 feb.15:47 EST, based on 100% reporting): 22-7-3, with 4 still TBD.
  • CNN (24 feb.6AM EST, based on 96% reporting): 18-7-2, with 9 still TBD.
  • CNN (23 feb.1AM EST, based on 50% reporting): 13-2-1, with 20 still TBD.
  • CNN (22 feb.22:31 EST, based on 23% reporting): 9-0-0, with 27 still TBD.
    • AP (24 feb. 15:47 EST, based on 100% reporting): 24-9-3, with 0 still TBD.
    • AP (24 feb. 10AM EST, based on 96% reporting): 14-4-2, with 16 still TBD.
    • AP (24 feb. 6AM EST, based on 96% reporting): 14-2-1, with 19 still TBD.
    • AP (24 feb. 2AM EST, based on 88% reporting): 13-2-1, with 20 still TBD.
    • AP (23 feb. 8:49 AM EST, based on 60% reporting): 10-0-0, with 26 still TBD.
    • AP (23 feb. 8AM EST, based on 50% reporting): 7-0-0, with 29 still TBD.
    • AP (22 feb. 19:47 EST, based on 4% reporting): Sanders won, with 36 still TBD.
    • AP by the way added this disclaimer to their figure: Delegate numbers shown are maintained by the Associated Press and are provided via an automatic feed. Because some counts are unofficial, numbers shown here may differ from what is reported elsewhere.

In a similar way, we also need to add an efn-disclaimer-note behind any reported delegate figures in the article (NB: currently other editors updated the results table and infobox with the CNN figures, while we have debated), so that the note inform readers of the fact that we have several reliable sources in disagreement about the calculated number of "certainly won pledged delegates" based of the 96% reported results. When we have agreement between reliable sources, then we of course remove that efn-note again.

Adding the explaining efn-note is the best way to solve this problem. We have tried "leaving blank data cells" or write "TBD" without adding any efn-note, and this quickly gets updated by other editors with real figures from various reliable sources. Without the efn-note, editors will continue to update back and forth with various figures from different reliable sources. So I still insist that we should include my efn-note. As I said above, I do not care what the infobox or result table actually displays, meaning that I can accept if we display "TBD" instead of a TGP/CNN/AP figure - as long as its only followed by my explaining efn-note. If we instead display a CNN/AP figure this is also OK, but only as long as we add the explaining efn-note behind the figure. Danish Expert (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

No surprise! After 100% of the result now has been reported, we can for the third election race in a row now conclude, that The Green Papers was spot on when doing their calculation for "certainly won pledged delegates" (see my reply above)! I sincerly hope (MrX and Leonardo Lazov), that we do not need to repeat this same discussion multiple times again, whether or not efn-notes should be added for pledged delegates for all the remaining 54 races of the Democratic primaries. I predict, that we will continue to see the exact same TGP+CNN+AP result pattern for future election races, as the TGP+CNN+AP result pattern for the Nevada race (documented by my reply above); meaning that The Green Papers will again and again be prooven to be both the fastest and most accurate source, that always provide correct calculations for the "certainly won pledged delegates", for those situations where less than 100% of the official result has been reported.

I accept, that we never use the TGP-source as our sole data source. I however insist, that we at least temporarily include an efn-note behind the prelimary displayed CNN/AP/TGP figures (until 100% of the result has been reported), where we list all the latest calculated preliminary "pledged delegate" figures from TGP+CNN+AP, so that readers become aware of their preliminary calculation disagreements.

For the Nevada article, our debate problem has now solved itself, as we now have a 100% reported result and full agreement between TGP+CNN+AP about the number of calculated pledged delegates. Once again, AP had to admit their figures calculated earlier today based on 96% of the results were way too conservatively performed (as they had left a massive 16 delegates with a status still TBD), while The Green Papers when performing their analysis based on the same 96%-result were proven to be able to calculate the exact correct final result (with 0 delegates with a status still TBD). Danish Expert (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Danish Expert: No, we don't have to repeat the discussion if we simply stick to best available established sources and not try to get out ahead of the story by using lesser sources and explanations cobbled together with WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Wikipedia is not here to take the lead on getting information out; we are here to preserve it. Like everything in an article, even footnotes have to be directly verifiable in reliable sources. If there is doubt about this, we can certainly discuss it with the rest of the community at WP:ORN, where I'm pretty sure they will say the same thing. - MrX 🖋 22:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX:: Nobody proposed adding any WP:OR! Clearly, you have missed the entire point of this debate! I have now for 3 wikipedia articles in a row (Iowa+New Hampshire+Nevada) witnessed, that a plethora of my fellow editors (including you and Leonardo Lazov) are updating back and forth the article with preliminary figures for calculated pledged delegates. Some prefer AP. Others prefer CNN. While a third group prefer TGP. I have even tried myself back in the Iowa article to replace your preliminary figures with the text "TBD" (supposed not to be replace by any calculated figures until 100% of the result has been reported), but never succeeded to keep it like that.

Then I have now proposed a simple logic solution (which I am pretty sure most editors will eventually support in full): To write TBD (or one of the preliminary figures from TGP/CNN/AP), but only IF we also add the efn-note that I created 34 hours ago. The note will not explain why several reliable sources disagree, but simply just for each source give a summary of their calculation result for pledged delegates. I have observed myself, that all reliable sources (AP+CNN+TGP) will eventually agree about the calculation of "pledged delegates" once 100% of the result has been reported, but I will of course never add this WP:OR observation into the efn-note. The data statistic featured by my reply above, however help to proof to you and other stubborn editors, that these data are indeed preliminary with the results differing between various reliable sources, and that we therefore for future US articles dealing with a preliminary reported election result need to put or hide this data into my proposed efn-note. Danish Expert (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The Green Papers (again)

There is a push to keep inserting the Green Papers into this article, and cite them as authoritative. They are not. We have to stick secondary sources, like major newspapers and news orgnizations for official counts, as was discussed at WP:RSN and on previous articles. - MrX 🖋 13:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I feel like this is a problem every time there is an ongoing election. I just don't understand why do certain people feel the need to push this one source time and time again. Leonardo Lazov (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

My theory is that some of the people pushing this website are affiliated with it. - MrX 🖋 14:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX:Your theory is wrong and way out of line. Accusing this stuff towards other editors like me, violates the wikipedia policy about how we are supposed to behave! Danish Expert (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Although I am against any insinuations, I too cannot explain why you are so hellbent on using The Green Papers as a source when there are plenty of others out there who clearly are reporting very, very different numbers. There is literally a disclaimer on the page you are referencing saying the reported information is a "combination of official, unofficial, and estimated data". The efn-notes (which we already have thousands of) create confusion and chaos. Wikipedia is one of the first articles that comes up when you google "nevada caucus" so we have a responsibility to provide official and accurate information. Anything in-between to me is just plain embarrassing. Leonardo Lazov (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Danish Expert I never mentioned your name here. When an IP from Croatia only makes edits that spam an article with a link to specific website, it is reasonable to question whether there may be a conflict of interest at play. - MrX 🖋 14:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX: Okay, then I will WP:AGF. I can see you indeed only reverted the post from the Croation IP, which by mistake had updated my earlier added TGP figures, with a brand new set of incorrect figures from the TGP source (those displaying how delegates would be allocated when assuming the 50%-result would be exact equal to the final 100%-result). FYI, I however do not suspect the Croation IP to be affiliated with the source, as he proofed himself to have misunderstood the TGP published figures. FYI, my own IP and account is from Copenhagen Denmark. I am a Danish citizen with technical skills and a great interest for American Politics, without any kind of affiliation with TGP or any other media sources from around the world. Danish Expert (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Please don't replace a CNN cite with a cite to the Green Papers. See my note below from Arbcom. If you disagree, wait until the RfC at RSN is closed, or start an RfC here and wait for consensus to include it. A read of this discussion makes it pretty clear that there is not consensus at this point. - MrX 🖋 15:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX:: Please stop accussing me for something that I did not do! In opposition to what you just did, I did not remove the CNN source and its figures. The moment when I discovered we had a disagreement about the preliminary calculated pledged delegates between two realiable sources (CNN+TGP), then I moved on to create a clarifying efn-note to display that we temporarily have a situation with temporary disagreement between the two reliable sources. Then you however moved on to object the use of my efn-note, despite the fact that you subsequently found a disagreement about the calculated figures to exist between AP and CNN (through the edit-war you almost now have started with David O. Johnson).
You are mixing up all the arguments. Even if you disagree with me whether or not TGP is a reliable source, then we still have a situation where at least AP+CNN disagree about the preliminary calculated figures for pledged delegates. Normally we resolve these situations, where two or more reliable sources reach a different conclusion, by adding the exact efn-note that I created and added to the article earlier today. AP is not preferred to be used over CNN. Both sources are reliable, and hence adding an efn-note about their disagreement is warrented and actually highly needed! Danish Expert (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The Green Papers should not be used when their numbers contradict established reliable sources like AP. Generally, they are a good source, but sources with editorial oversight will always be preferred.Wikiditm (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC

This RFC about the question was launched by MrX two weeks ago. The result of the RFC was per today, that 5 out of 7 found The Green Papers was a reliable source, while one found it not to be reliable but still allowed to be added for wikipedia articles per IAR, and with the last editor MrX today voting that the source is not reliable and should never be used. To be frank, I do not see any need for this debate to be reopened again. We have found a nice solution where we add an efn-note to explain the disagreement about the prelimiary calculated figures between CNN and TGP (see my reply in the debate above about the infobox listed number of pledged delegates). Danish Expert (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't count votes (see WP:NOTAVOTE). Consensus is evaluated on the strength of arguments and their basis in Wikipedia policy. We should always use the best available sources, and never use information from a self-published website overfrom an established, reputable news organization. - MrX 🖋 14:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this has been adjudicated by Arbcom. See WP:ARBAPDS#Neutrality and sources "Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight." - MrX 🖋 14:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the policies you just linked to. However, I would recommend that neither myself and neither you should start the same debate all over again, here at this talkpage. You can find my considered and logic evaluation of the quality of the TGP source and why it is a reliable source posted at the above linked RFC debate. It will be a waste of time, if we now start to repeat our arguments back and forth in this additional talkpage debate. To say it short, The Green Papers has a track record of being more accurate and transparent in regards of how they calculate pledged delegates (compared to newspapers), and TGP also have a track record of always updating the calculated figures into the final figures several weeks after the election has ended (where many newspapers have lost interest and often forget to update their months old result articles). Danish Expert (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you are aware that we are required to use the best sources. Your "logic" seems to be mostly bare assertions such as "When used along with a primary official result website source (i.e the IDP website), then The Green Papers source add quality to wikipedia" and "it is also of a unique high quality". Unfortunately, without evidence of the source's fact checking, corrections, of editorial oversight, those assertions are no more convincing than any other opinion. - MrX 🖋 15:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Here is an indication of editors think about using the Green Papers over a reliable source: Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses/Archive 1#Poll: Should The Green Papers estimates for pledged delegates be used in place of those from major sources like the New York Times?. There is overwhelming consensus against it. - MrX 🖋 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Stop! You are mixing it all up again! The poll-debate-question you linked to above, was whether or not a freshly updated TGP-source in the Iowa-article should be used instead of an outdated NYT-source. Eventually this question resolved itself, when the outdated NYT source later got updated to match the same figures calculated earlier by the TGP-source (meaning their disagreement disappeared). The poll was not about whether or not TGP was reliable (although some posted their opinion to which degree they considered it to be reliabe). I accept TGP shall never completely replace the data input from other provided newspaper sources. However, our present talkpage debate is not about replacing your preferred reliable source with my preferred reliable source. Right now our main disgreement is only about, whether or not we should add an efn-note when finding disagreement between two or more reliable sources. In addition you do not think TGP qualify as reliable. However, we still right now have found calculation disagreement between at least two other reliable sources (AP+CNN), which should justify that you now accept my written efn-note to be added. Danish Expert (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

See my response below regadring original research. - MrX 🖋 12:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Even though TGP is a reliable source, it is clearly not at the level of AP or CNN and should not be used in favour of those sources.Wikiditm (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

How reliable TGP is is irrelevant. We have a disparity between two RS who aren't TGP, so we should add an efn-note to the effect that the results are disputed. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't allow original research. If you want to explain why two sources are reporting different numbers, that explanation needs to appear in a reliable source. - MrX 🖋 12:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Map source

@Smith0124 and Tony Patt: I have added a link both on this page and in Wikimedia Commons that tells us the source of the information in the map. In the name of Wikipedia, I demand that we always add a link to the source every time. Us ignorant rubes want to know where the information is coming from. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

That’s totally fair! Smith0124 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for enduring my abuse here! I have noticed that some of the results used on old electoral maps were never given a clear source and now it's hard for me to find the source for the data. For instance, the original source used for Wikipedia's results-by-borough map for the 2016 US Presidential election in Alaska is not too clear to me. I hope that by putting a little more emphasis on making the source 1000% specific in today's election that we make things crystal clear not only for the readers today but also for the readers in ten years who want to review what happened in the election. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Smith0124 and Tony Patt: Hello again and thanks for your time. I'm glad this page is directly telling readers what the source is for the results-by-county map- in Wikimedia Commons at least. But now I'm concerned because the map part of the NYT article is not saved by archive.org [5]. If the NYT takes down their page, it seems to me there would be no way to source the Nevada county map up to Wikipedia standards. Am I wrong? Is there anything that can or should be done to make this map sourced in a more authoritative and long-term way? Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This is kind of an aspirational hope or goal- that the source of the data for Wikipedia mainspace maps can be very, very clear and beyond any question whatsoever forever. If it can't be done, oh well. But I just feel like we are lacking something that is really needed for a truly legitimate, high quality Wikipedia article. The data by county isn't included on Wikipedia as far as I can see. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m not really sure how this stuff works, but if there’s a similar map on archive.org, I don’t see any problem with replacing the current map with a similar one. Whatever you think is best. Smith0124 (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it takes a while for the page to load properly, as I checked the archived NYT webpage and the map seems to work just fine. In this case, the results page on Politico and CNN should be archived too, as NYT only reports the number of CCDs received by county (if we are aiming to create a comprehensive resource for the caucus results). — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 11:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sanders popular vote winning claim

While the claim has since been removed, it has been floating around that Sanders is the first presidential candidate to win the popular vote in the first three contests. (Most recently, referencing this Newsweek article repeating the claim.) On the most charitable read this would seem to be quite conceivable given that until this election caucuses did not report popular vote results, so the popular vote is not known for all three of the first contests for many elections.

Unfortunately for this claim, even setting aside cases with caucuses like Gore in 2000, and Clinton's reelection in 1996, John F. Kennedy's first three contests in the election of 1960 were all primaries, which he won (and thus won the popular vote). (New Hampshire going first, and Illinois going third already have pages and references. Wisconsin, going second, can be referenced here.)

This question might be worth revisiting if Sanders wins South Carolina, since JFK did not compete in the fourth contest of 1960 (New Jersey instead was evidently sending a selection of unpledged delegates intending to support Governor Robert Meyner.) unless another example exists wherein a candidate clearly won the popular vote in the first several contests.Gambling8nt (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Going through the primary pages here that have enough information, I found the JFK one, plus others which arguably match the claim. Nixon won the first three contests in 1968 and Roosevelt won the first five contests in 1932 (although the first win in NH was apparently uncontested). --Spiffy sperry (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so to summarize:

1. The claim is demonstrably false.
2. Even if true, it would be meaningless or misleading.

I would add: 3. Even if true and straightforward, it would still be a trivial factoid which does not contribute meaningfully to the article.

Therefore, I would call for consensus to simply strike the sentence. Anon, a mouse... (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The claim as it appeared in the article is just not true, so I've removed it.Wikiditm (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

An updated version of the Newsweek article linked above may shed some light on this. It continues the disputed claim, while referencing the 2000 Democratic race with Gore, saying he "only faced one opponent" (apparently dismissing LaRouche). Even with this version of the "competitive primary" term, I think the 1968 Nixon example still rebuts the claim. At this point, maybe the Newsweek entry in WP:RSPS is pertinent. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Although I have already stated this in the comments of my edits removing the information I just want to make sure that nobody accidentally forgets about it and I would like to expand upon it. In 2004 Senator John Kerry won the first three primary states before losing to Senator John Edwards in South Carolina making John Kerry the first Democratic presidential candidate post-1972 reforms to win the first three primary states with competition not Sanders. However, the 2000 campaign can also be considered the first as if you are willing to consider Pat Buchanan's 1992 primary challenge to Bush as competitive (as most political historians consider) then you would have to consider Bill Bradley's 2000 campaign against Al Gore as competitive as well due to Bradley's performing in the 40%s in multiple early primary states before dropping out.

TL;DR the claim of Sanders being the "first" to win the popular vote in the first three primary states is true with too many qualifiers and the claim of being first can be endlessly debated due to it being more trivial information than encyclopedic. - Jon698 (Talk) 17:51 24 February 2020

Agreed. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of Analysis section

As in previous states, there should be an analysis section for this article. I have created this, but it keeps on being deleted and the paragraphs shifted up all the way to the intro, where they don't belong in my opinion. If you feel there shouldn't be an analysis section in this article, please explain.Wikiditm (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not deleting your section but I do think reports of inconsistencies don't fall under the term "analysis" (see previous articles). "Analysis" is usually where a breakdown of the results should be put (exit polling, individual performance, etc.). Maybe a subsection under "Results" would be more appropriate? Leonardo Lazov (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Again the face of Biden is shown as favorite in Nevada

Is Biden the first? No Who is first? Sanders Why do we see Biden's face? Hmm Filippos (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

People, please stop posting this. We are not in control of what image the software chooses to display for the page. Nixinova   T   C 19:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes people, please stop posting these vague complaints that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 22:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the software AI? Filippos (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sanders image is first and should be on popup preview, but Biden's face is shown! How do we change that? Filippos (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidate Inclusion in Infobox

What is the criteria for this? I've seen the 5% cutoff be referenced but is this 5% of county delegates? If so, why? Why not pledged delegates (wouldn't include Warren) or first alignment vote (would include Steyer and Klobuchar)? It seems odd to me to base the cutoff on the middle measure of county delegates.Wikiditm (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. Nixinova   T   C   04:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Early vote realignment caos

I did a careful read of the official caucus math file and early vote file. The entire procedure can be understood and is well explained by examples. Exept for one important point concerning the "procedure for realignment of early votes", which I hope some of you can find some clarifying info on.

Early vote participant preferences (required to give minimum 3 ranked preferences, but allowed to give up to 5 ranked preferences) will be combined with all the in-person caucusgoers preferences, in order for each precinct to determine the presidential preference group viability number on Caucus Day. We have clarity and no problem for the calculation of the viability number for the "first alignment" (as the first choice of early voters in the precinct is simply added to the first choice of the present caucusgoers in the precinct).

As I understand it, we however have a major problem for the second realignment round. The linked NDP-source above have only written the following procedure rules:

1. If there is only one non-viable preference group at the conclusion of the first alignment, all voters in that group must realign with a viable group. Early vote participants will be automatically realigned with their next viable choice in the room.
2. If there are multiple non-viable groups in the room, those groups may join an already viable group, or, if they are able, form a viable group with another nonviable group(s). The Permanent Precinct Chair will not announce the second or third preference choices of early vote participants prior to the realignment of in-person participants.
3. In the case that a non-viable preference from first alignment becomes viable in a second alignment, that preference group will retain the early vote participants who selected the preference group as their first choice.

Rule 1+3 is clear and does not create any problems.

Rule 2 (the bolded part), however is problematic. Because how can caucusgoers in an "after first alignment non-viable group" get together with other caucusgoers of another "after the first alignment non-viable group" for the purpose of making it viable, when they do not know how many "early votes" exactly will follow from the 2nd+3rd+4th+5th ranked choice of the early votes? Shouldn't those ranked choices of early votes be included when dertermining viability in the second alignment round? As I see it the posted rules does not sufficiently describe how this process shall be done; which mean that the rules above open up for multiple ways to do this last procedure step for the early votes resulting in different kind or disputed end-results (i.e. some precincts could organize uptil 5 realignment rounds to count in how the shifting of early-vote ranked choises affect the viability for those groups who were deemed non-viable after the respectively first, second, third, fourth and fifth round; while other precincts could skip this kind of process). Danish Expert (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

To be more specific, I suspect that the Nevada procedure for how to handle "early votes" also include this unwritten rule:

• Only the first ranked choice of the early votes will be considered when determining whether or not preference groups met their viability threshold in each pricinct, during the entire process of both the "first alignment" and "second realignment". The "second realignment" is a proces that can result in new viable groups being formed as per a second viability threshold calculation determined by adding up the count of the locked first ranked choice of all early votes in the precinct along with the unlocked second round realignment votes from those in-person caucusgoers who supported a non-viable group in the "first alignment" round. Only after the "second realignment" has concluded, then as a last third step the 2nd+3rd+4th+5th choices of "early votes" will be applied for those "early votes" being found not to have a "first ranked choice" supporting a viable group after completion of the "second realignment" - with those votes being automatically realigned with their next viable choice in the precinct room (found when first checking their 2nd vote, but if the 2nd is found non-viable then the 3rd, and if the 3rd is found non-viable then the 4th, and if the 4th is found non-viable then the 5th, and if the 5th is found non-viable then the "early vote" will not be aligned to any viable group).

Hope some of you can help me finding a source, that can tell us whether or not the above "unwritten rule" is correct. And if not, then perhaps other sources elaborating on the subject of "unclear rules" in regards of how the ranked-choice of early votes was handled. Danish Expert (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. - MrX 🖋 01:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Amy Klobuchar's omission from the infobox?

Why is Klobuchar not included in the infobox? She hit 7% in the final vote alignment, and we generally put candidates with over 5% in the infobox. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree she should be included. She received over 5% of the vote on first and second alignment. Arguably, Tom Steyer should also be included (as he received over 5% on the first alignment, but not second). You should note however, that this issue is being discussed on the main page in an RfC, and here, and also here. I hope a calmer, clearer consensus will be forthcoming after the results from today are known. The fact that there are at least three conversations going about this does not seem to be helping.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 Alabama Democratic primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Rfc notice

Editors of this page are encouraged to participate in an Rfc on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries pertaining to the infobox of this page and all state by state primary pages. The Rfc is about candidates who have withdrawn. Smith0124 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)