Talk:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

California, Utah, Texas, Arkansas, South Carolina, Iowa, Vermont currently only have Biden in their infobox and should be changed. The second place candidate should generally always be included in an article's infobox per this 2017 discussion and this 2020 discussion regardless of their vote % unless consensus on their individual talk page overrules this. This also is in line with past primaries in 2004 (ex. Louisiana), 2008 (ex. Northern Mariana Islands), 2012 (ex. New Hampshire), and 2020 (ex. Missouri). Yeoutie (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that the other candidate(s), should be included. Otherwise, we won't know what became of the delegates or popular votes in each state, that Biden didn't get. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Pretty absurd that the main infobox doesn't even have Dean Phillips either. Despite him getting quite a lot of votes, I get that he doesn't have a delegate, but that doesn't mean a Samoa caucus winner is more important than someone that got 2nd place in just about nearly every other primary that didn't have an uncommitted option. Borifjiufchu (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Whats the source for the 1,707 Biden delegates in the infobox?

I can see that TGP has Biden at 1,464 pledged delegates, while the AP lists 888.

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

IMO, it should be reverted to what AP says for the moment. You can't just add delegates blindly before races are called or delegates are formally awarded. Auerstaedt (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

After some investigation, it should just be the pledged delegate totals without Delaware/Florida at this point (despite what's been shown on this page at this point – other editors too trigger-happy to include them) as those haven't been allocated as of this point, even if they're expected to ultimately be awarded to Biden in the end. TGP is the most up-to-date source and other election data providers including the Associated Press, Decision Desk HQ, and Edison Research tend to be conservative and slower in confirming delegate totals. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

TGP doesn’t call delegates, and their numbers are just estimates of where they stand given current vote totals. We should use AP. There was a consensus to include Delaware and Florida. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Who ever has the know how. We need a number of states colored blue for Biden. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Biden won the Hawaii caucuses. State needs to be colored blue. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Done for the delegate map. Also, I updated the marker for American Samoa to reflect a tie. I'm still working on the islands themselves... they are so tiny that it's hard to make them look striped so I just left them gray for now. (I was trying to copy the stripes similarly to the Sanders-Buttigieg tie in New Hampshire in 2020).Michelangelo1992 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have updated the American Samoa islands to reflect a delegate tie, but in my opinion it looks pretty hideous. I think the best solution is to change Palmer's color to something with high contrast against Biden's blue. Perhaps yellow? I know that we generally choose a color based on their campaign, but it's just too difficult to distinguish from Biden in such a small area, in my opinion. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Both Hawaii & American Samoa looks great. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Florida & Delaware should be colored either black or blue. GoodDay (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I updated them to both be blue on the "pledged delegates" map. They are black on the "popular vote" map. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think they should be colored grey in the popular vote map like New Hampshire since they kinda have the same notion because no votes will be cast in Delaware and Florida and no delegates were awarded in New Hampshire and they currently have the same color as Uncommitted/None of These Candidates/No Preference which don't have the same meaning as a primary being canceled Punker85 (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If gray on the popular vote map means “primary canceled” and gray on the pledged delegates map means “no pledged delegates, what would you suggest regarding the map legend in the infobox? It doesn’t seem right to me to have one color represent two different things on different maps, but I am open to suggestions. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought something like No pledged delegates awarded/Primary canceled would be the text beside the gray square

But, after reflection, I think my proposition for Delaware and Florida in the popular vote map to be the same color as New Hampshire in the delegates map would be a bit too confusing. While I still think Delaware and Florida should a gray, I think they should be a different shade of gray than New Hampshire one Punker85 (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thing is. The New Hampshire primary took place, even though delegates (for the moment) won't be rewarded to anyone. Where's the Florida & Delaware primaries won't be taking place at all, as there's only one candidate (Biden) & he'll be getting their delegates. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with them being colored blue as long as they're described as "expected" to go to Biden, but given that he will receive all delegates from Mississippi, Alaska, and Indiana, those should likely also be colored blue as well. Noting that no sources tracking delegate totals are actually counting them towards his total yet as he has yet to be officially allocated them, however, so they shouldn't be reflected in the infobox or elsewhere as WP:OR (synthesis of info not reflected in any source tracking delegates). 67.170.42.135 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s not true. There are write-in votes in Indiana, so he’s not guaranteed to receive all delegates, and there doesn’t appear to be a consensus to include Mississippi, where Biden is unopposed but the election is still happening, unlike Delaware and Florida where the election is cancelled. Alaska is newer, but falls under the same category as Mississippi. And per WP:CALC, routine calculations do not count as original research, “provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.” The cancellation of Florida and Delaware is backed up by reliable sources, and several different discussions have at least come close to consensus. Those calculations also take place to determine our popular vote totals, and these have not been seriously contested as far as I can tell.

“Expected to go to Biden” is fine, but all delegates are “expected” because they haven’t been chosen yet, only projected. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 20:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I went back and reviewed the talk page/archive discussions here to get up to speed and I'm not so sure that there is a clear consensus – by my count, I'm noting five users in favor, four against, one with no clear stance, and of those, only some have commented specifically about the delegate totals, even if they're implicit. The main issue here is that the claims regarding delegates already being allocated aren't correct. Via the Miami Herald: Florida is expected to award 250 delegates to the winner of the Democratic primary on March 19.

You're right about Delaware, however – per 15 Del. C. § 3183 (c): (c) In the event that only one candidate files for a party’s nomination by the filing deadline set forth in subsection (a) of this section and no additional candidates are added to the ballot pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, that candidate shall be considered as having received 100% of the vote for that party’s presidential primary election automatically upon the expiration of the filing deadline and thus declared the winner of that election. In the event no candidate files for the party’s nomination, no election shall be held for that party’s nomination.

Given that, I suggest that Delaware should be included in the delegate total, but not Florida until March 19. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, ignore that note above – the Delaware (and Florida) DSP still say that the state's delegates are only to be allocated in April, and as such I re-added the DSP as a reference for that footnote and removed it from the delegate total.

Again, the reason I'm concerned here is not because I substantially disagree that Biden is going to receive the delegates from those two states, but that it would mean that he achieves a majority of delegates on the delegate count in the infobox on March 12 rather than March 19, which is when media coverage will actually describe him explicitly as the presumptive nominee. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears like AP has called Florida and Delaware for Biden, so that's not a concern anymore. I've updated the totals. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 15:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that Biden has been described as the 2024 Democratic presumptive presidential nominee at the 2024 Democratic National Convention & 2024 United States presidential election pages. Noting that he hasn't (yet) won a majority of the delegates & that Williamson has re-entered the Democratic race. What should we do for this page's infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's too early to describe him as presumptive nominee per AP and other sources as March 19 is the earliest day that Biden can secure a majority of pledged delegates. Even if Florida and Delaware's pledged delegates (which are expected to be ultimately awarded to Biden, but haven't at this point) are added to the total, that wouldn't be the case before March 12. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Too early: is challenged on the ballot in future delegate allocating events and has not secured enough delegates to win a first-ballot nomination. SecretName101 (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree Biden isn't yet the presumptive nominee. Seems like it's a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should make him presumptive nominee, it's not like Dean Phillips is going to get a magic boost in the polls and Trump is already listed as presumptive nominee on the Republican primary page, I don't think Dean Phillips is anymore of a major candidate than John Anthony Castro or Sam Sloan in practice Locked641 (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It's being reported that a candidate named Jason Palmer has won the American Samoa primary, based on precedent this means he should be included on the infobox correct? Posting this on the talk page in case there's anyone who thinks it needs to be discussed. TheFellaVB (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, no question about it. He won delegates so he's in the infobox. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I saw someone decided to undo the edit someone made because he isn't second place but the 1996 Democratic Party presidential primaries sets a precedent for including candidates if they win a contest. TheFellaVB (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering John Wolfe Jr. was included in the 2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries while winning just 1.3% of the PV, yes. River10000 (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I oppose including him because it’s clearly not a major part of the election, but we should include him for now while we take the time to have a full discussion. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

While you are correct that it isn't a major part of the election, we have precedent of including candidates who's only notable feat is winning a single contest. Such as the case of Roland Riemers in North Dakota in 1996, or Bob Kerrey in 1992. Finally this is more notable than Riemers win in North Dakota as this stands as the first time an incumbent President has lost a nominating contest since Jimmy Carter in 1980. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of that consensus and that is why we should keep him in at the moment. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Got it! Just putting the point out there so people who aren't already aware can be informed. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point, but due to him winning a contest, he should be in the infobox because his color will be displayed there as well. Similar to how Strom Thurmond and Roland Riemers were there despite winning a miniscule vote amount. NonHydranary (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We should definitely keep him-there's clear precedent across the board that any candidate that wins a contest, regardless of their popular vote share, gets a spot on the wikibox... I mean-Clinton lost ND to Roland Reimers in 1996, who only got 651 votes total (which is significantly less than Palmer has), and he's on the infobox Cas2024 (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree, precedent is clear on this. It shouldn't be a discussion to remove him but instead a discussion on if that precedent needs to be changed. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that the precedent needs to be changed, as if someone wins a contest, their color will be displayed on the map, and it wouldn't look right if a color was displayed on the map without the person it represents also being there. NonHydranary (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying the precedent should be changed. I'm stating that if we were to exclude Palmer it would need to come as a result of altering the precedent. I personally believe the precedent makes total sense and Palmer and Reimers should be included. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe he should still be included despite his subatomic vote total, as he managed to win a contest. NonHydranary (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• At the risk of going against the tide here, I think the precedent should be changed with this case. It seems rather silly to put Palmer in the infobox and leave out Phillips and Williamson, two other Biden challengers who have received far more RS coverage and far more votes. I understand Palmer won a contest while Phillips and Williamson did not, but the American Samoa caucus that Palmer won by a vote of 51–40 could hardly be compared to a state primary where the number of votes needed to win is 3 or 4 orders of magnitude larger (no offense to American Samoa). The infobox is what people in the far future will see as containing the most important candidacies in this election; to put Palmer there without Phillips or Williamson seems wrong.

Thus, I suggest either leaving out Palmer, or including all three. Davey2116 (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I think though that Palmer needs to be included for the sake of the average viewer. If people look at the map of contests and sees that Palmer won one and he isn't in the infobox than that creates unnecessary confusion. Having Palmer there allows for people to easily see who he is in the future without having to skim through the article in order to find him. TheFellaVB (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We could wikilink him in the legend, would that work? So if people were curious about that one contest, they'd see his name there and click through. To be honest, I'm less concerned with whether he is in the infobox at all and more with us giving the misleading impression that he is the second-most significant candidate in this election. Davey2116 (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you on this point, but what does "second-most significant candidate" mean if not delegate count? We can't really use popular vote because of the caucus system. And any change would really have to be across the board, and not just this election. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Who says he isn't the second most significant candidate though? Sure right now he's practically a nobody but in a few years Phillip's and Williamson's bids will be far more insignificant (considering either has struggled to even crack 5% in a contest) than Palmer's outright victory over an incumbent President which has not happened since 1980. TheFellaVB (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Major leap in assumption. Phillips has far more news coverage, money, donations, exposure, and more votes overall in the primary, and he definitely was a challenger. He got more votes than John Wolfe Jr. and I think it would help for reader's and informational sake to have him on there for contextual purposes. Borifjiufchu (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• The national popular vote is irrelevant in the presidential primaries and election. The delegates/electors select the winner. Palmer won a contest and delegates. Prior consensus has put candidates with below 5% into the infobox as they won a contest. Jon698 (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Obviously Palmer should be in the infobox, not only because of precedent but because he's the first candidate to beat an incumbent President in a nominating contest since 1980. However, I don't think this should be used an excuse to add in Phillips, Williamson, or even Uygur in the event that they don't win delegates or break 5% in the PV. We don't want to clutter the infobox, although if anyone disagrees please speak. RickStrate2029 (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the Samoa election was a caucus doesn't that mean Biden hasn't lost a primary? Or shouldn't it say election or something instead of primary. Cantomic66 (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

There has been discussion and consensus on this in the past; we use "primaries" collectively to refer to both in the interest of clarity. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the technical term would be "nominating contests", but colloquially the term primary dominates because of how rare caucuses are now. So "primary" it is. RickStrate2029 (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What counts are the delegates. Put all candidates in the infobox, who've won delegates. GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree to this mindset, in every single democratic primary since 2000 and barring 2016 we've omitted candidates (Kucinich, Edwards, Terry, Rogers, Judd, Gabbard, & Klobuchar) because they won only a few and did not win any contests. Where that diverges from Palmer is the fact that he won a contest. This isn't something we're going to have to worry about though since it doesn't seem like Phillips will be winning any delegates anytime soon but i'd be happy to continue the conversation should he. TheFellaVB (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Everything that has was discussed in this section is moot. See #American_Samoa_is_a_tie below. Zaathras (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Palmer still won delegates, so he stays in the infobox. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The criteria is winning a contest, not winning delegates (see TheFellaVB’s post above). But Palmer still won American Samoa popular vote wise. I’m not super familiar with the consensus, so that might mean he stays in the info box or it might not. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with including Philips and Williamson. However, agree with including Palmer. Rationale: The "2024 Democratic primaries" are not actually a single entity. This page represents a collection of 50ish independent nominating contests. Therefore, winning any of these contests (e.g. Palmer winning American Samoa) is notable, even if said contest awards only a few delegates. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• e.g. Palmer winning American Samoa is not a truthful statement. This is starting to get out of hand. Zaathras (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  We have a first place by popular vote and first place by delegate count and both of those are reflective of the result of the primary. In the 2020 primary we counted Bernie Sanders as the popular vote winner of Iowa and New Hampshire which was included of his total of contests won. TheFellaVB (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It's absolutely true that Palmer won. See AP, ABC, The Hill, etc. Reliable sources are declaring Palmer the winner. Yes, they both won three delegates. However, Palmer won the popular vote. So we go by what the sources say - and the sources are calling Palmer the winner. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Addendum to my previous comment. It's true that Palmer won the popular vote as indicated by RS. It's also true that both won three delegates. Per discussion at the bottom of this page, I think Palmer should stay in the infobox, and would support updating the infobox to include AS as a "Biden win" as well given the tie in delegates as long as the footnote is clear.

But why is Nikki Haley the only candidate (aside from Trump) in the GOP infobox..? Prcc27 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

We’ve pretty regularly removed candidates from the infobox who won just a few delegates and no contests, but not those who won a contest. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Since when has this been a decided precedent though? From what I've gathered it has been more inertia then actual policy. Suffice to say, I'd argue that so long as a candidate has been awarded a delegate (not just won), they should be included. Going by (5%) of the Primary Vote is terrible policy as that is only really effective with the Modern Primary System, with earlier Primaries often having different contests for the Candidates and the Delegates, and the vote totals for the latter are rather difficult to come across. I'd remove the "Winning a Contest" requirement as well, but again that is because I think we should be weighting placement based on the Delegates awarded to the candidates, not how many times they came in first. --Ariostos (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed at this RFC in 2017 and at this RFC from 2020.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Noted, though again, I have to mention that these policies only truly work for the Modern Primary System. I'd be open to establishing a consensus that can be applied uniformly across Primaries for all periods, unless we are going to keep the rules for the earlier and latter periods separate.

Ariostos (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The initial results out of American Samoa were incorrect, Biden and Palmer split the 6 delegates 3-3. The pearl-clutching is really no longer lede-worthy, and there may be other areas of the article that need updating. The Super Tuesday shocker that wasn’t: Biden pulls out a tie in American Samoa. Zaathras (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s already in the article, and Palmer still won by popular vote, so he’s still a winner. It’s not completely moot, although it could impact the discussion. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No, he did not win, and we're not going to lie in a Wikipedia article. Delegates are the determining tally in a caucus or primary, not the raw vote numbers. Zaathras (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

So far, we’ve included both. We can say he won the popular vote without lying. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Palmer won the popular vote. You obviously have a particular political desire, Wikipedia does not care. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. Hint; she wasn't the president, because it ultimately does not matter.. Zaathras (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a footnote to reflect this. It's still worth it to mention Palmer, but we should also make this clear. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 00:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

A footnote is fine, sure. Zaathras (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Check the 2020 democratic nomination page. Buttigieg has Iowa and New Hampshire to his totals even though he didn't win the popular vote in Iowa and tied in New Hampshire, as well as this Bernie also has those states in his total of contests won because of his popular vote victory and delegate tie in New Hampshire. It's that simple. TheFellaVB (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that logic and would support changing Biden's infobox total to 21 wins (for now) including the footnote that Palmer won the popular vote in AS but that they both won three delegates each. That seems to match the situation with Sanders/Buttigieg while still recognizing Palmer's popular vote victory.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, give both Biden and Palmer the win for America Samoa like we did for Bernie and Buttigieg TheFellaVB (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, that has now been changed. I agree that whatever we do needs to be consistent between 2020 and 2024.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Time for a nitpick! The colour for "Primary canceled" in the "First place by popular vote" map shouldn't be black as that colour is already being used for "Uncommitted." The way it looks right now to a glancing eye makes it look like Uncommitted has won the most votes in Delaware and Florida, which is not the case, and that can be somewhat confusing as the movement to vote Uncommitted has been picking up some steam. I would suggest using something like the square seen below so that a canceled primary is made distinctive.

EditDude (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be easier (for me, an inexperienced SVG editor) to simply change the color for uncommitted. How do we as editors feel about that option? Additionally, it looks like uncommitted may drop to <5% of the popular vote so it may end up getting removed from the infobox anyway if consensus remains >5%. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I feel like distinguishing the primary as cancelled on the map is unnecessary, and leaving the states with the standard "blank" light gray color is okay with me. However I know how that appears to a lot of users, so a good secondary option for me is finding a darker gray that isn't entirely black, maybe something like      ? DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

A lot of sources say that write-in blank ballots are to send a message. This is opposed to blank ballots in general, of course, as those could be errors. But CalMatters says that 160,000+ voters voted blank. I think this, combined with other states, is too big to leave out. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Did the math. With available data, which there is little, 167,470+ blank write-ins were cast. The media ascribes the same goals of uncommitted. It's widely seen as a part of the protest movement, and progressive organizations have endorsed it as such.

Only available data is Georgia, California, and Portland, Maine.(1)(2)(3)

The new total would be 628,554+, or 6.3%. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Write-ins should be counted in the "Uncommitted" category if they are in states where write-ins are not counted individually (barring write-in access). In states where write-ins are treated as a blanket category, the write-in category is effectively achieving the same purpose as the "Uncommitted" or "None of the Above" options, meaning they should be included. RickStrate2029 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Normally undervotes and undervotes don’t count in the total number of votes cast as election results count the % of valid ballots cast. By this logic “uncommitted” would win practically every school board race. Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This is different; this is purposely writing in 'blank'. Not blank votes, which could be errors, but someone purposely writing in blank. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I would agree but the CA article referenced was talking about undervotes Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Uncommitted is a ballot option capable of receiving delegates. "Blank" is not. The fact they are for the same reason is irrelevant - every anti-Biden vote is a protest vote at this point, but they are for different candidates and mechanisms and should be shown separately. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

similar to my GOP proposal on Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries I'm proposing below the following color gradients be used for the candidates in the 2024 Democratic Presidential Primary, this will allow us to have a uniform way of creating county maps and distinguishing candidates. below is my proposal but I welcome all suggestions Matthew McMullin (talk)

Update: changed Kennedy color from orange to green

User:CaptMarsMan I do have to agree with you that Green fits better for kennedy than orange, I've updated the gradient to reflect that

Bumping this as to avoid it being sucked into the archives. Matthew McMullin (talk) 11:48, 27 may 2023 (UTC)

Striking out RFK. Jr. --Politicdude (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC) Politicdude (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Are there any potential colors for Uygur and Phillips? Colin.1678 (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The media coverage discussion on Uygur isn't settled yet, but as he's at three polls this is still a relevant question. Expoe34 wrote If consensus favors Uygur as a major candidate, I suggest we use       as his candidate color, although this now seems to have been used for Phillips. I don't know which colour is appropriate, but in light of past derogatory comments online I think we should avoid brown. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest some shade of red. Longestview (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Red should do. In terms of symbolism he is a former Republican. He now identifies as a progressive or a democratic capitalist, which might not fit perfectly. But then the colour doesn't actually need to be perfectly symbolic. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)