Talk:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Candidate colors/gradients

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)[reply]

Are there any potential colors for Uygur and Phillips? Colin.1678 (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I suggest some shade of red. Longestview (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Write-in blank ballots as 'Uncommitted'

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)[reply]

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

Dean Phillips

Seems possible that Phillips might win some delegates in Ohio. If he does, or in the case that he or Williamson win any in the future, any thoughts on whether they should be included in the infobox? I'd probably lead against including them unless they win a contest, but I can be easily swayed. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to "2020 Republican Party presidential primaries" (Bill Weld) and "2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries" (John Wolfe Jr.) as examples of why Dean Phillips should be included in the infobox. He has won delegates in Ohio, and precedent dictates that candidates who win any delegates against the incumbent get included in the infobox (even if they don't break 5%). RickStrate2029 (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that the DNC is considering seating the NH delegates, which would give Phillips an additional 3-4 delegates. It hasn't been determined yet, but it is a factor to consider in deciding whether or not to add Phillips now in the infobox (i.e. we might need to later even barring Ohio). RickStrate2029 (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second place candidates who don't get 5% of the vote are still included, which is why Weld and Wolfe are there. That's why Alf Landon is included in SC in 1936 despite winning 1% of the vote. That exemption only applies to candidates who are in second place. When someone else has 5%+ or won a contest, the exemption is no longer applied. NonHydranary (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And where does this rule apply? Where does it say this? Or are you just wishcasting based on inconsistent policy and lack of clear precedent? Borifjiufchu (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have asked "where the rule applies", the answer to that question exists on every page involving the primary contests faced by an incumbent President. See 2020 Republican presidential primaries, 2012 Democratic presidential primaries, 2004 Republican presidential primaries, 1996 Democratic presidential primaries, 1992 Republican presidential primaries, and 1984 Republican presidential primaries for reference. RickStrate2029 (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think of it, maybe he should've been there no matter what? He's the second place human, which I guess could meet the criteria. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In every recent presidential primary page where it's an incumbent running for re-election, the "second place human" is included in the infobox. Trump 2020, Obama 2012, Bush Jr. 2004, Clinton 1996, Bush Sr. 1992, Reagan 1984, etc. Some of those were legitimate challenges, but others were nobodies who received 0.1%. Dean Phillips simply being the silver medalist meets the criteria for him to be included based on precedent. RickStrate2029 (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Palmer is the second place human - At the moment, he is closer to the nomination than Phillips by virtue of having three more delegates, irregardless of the popular vote. Longestview (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the Green Papers, Phillips is in-line to recieve 3 delegates in Ohio. [1] Esolo5002 (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a tie then. Longestview (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we include both? RickStrate2029 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't rely on the Green Papers tabulations - they are extremely rough estimates and usually off. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With Uncommitted being an option, if Phillips is to be included so must it, since it won more delegates and got a higher vote total. Uncommitted is also included in the 2012 and 1980 primaries. NonHydranary (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phillips has three delegates as well (Ohio) RickStrate2029 (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Palmer meets the threshold by winning a race. If not for his little stunt in American Samoa, he wouldn't be here. Uncommitted is not a candidate, its a voting option, and so Philips meets second place criteria for human. Personisinsterest (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to add Phillips, then we should follow the 2012 model and keep uncommitted, as 2012 displays both Uncommitted and Wolfe. 1996 does as well. However, if Marianne surpasses Phillips in the popular vote, which is likely due to her ballot access, then we would have to add her. That's why I support having neither in the infobox unless one wins a contest or gets 5%. NonHydranary (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Palmer mattered that much, people would find out about him through the American Samoan contest. I don't see how it's of any general viewer's interest to show Jason Palmer and not Dean Phillips. Wikipedia should be informative. Borifjiufchu (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dean has neither won a contest or got 5% of the national vote, he does not belong in the infobox. Getting delegates does not put you in the infobox. If he is to be included then Marianne must be added as well, as she got more votes. Uncommitted's inclusion is also dubious. However, if Dean is added, then we must go back and add candidates such as Tulsi, Klobuchar, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Duncan Hunter, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and many more.This is why simply winning delegates doesn't put you in the infobox. NonHydranary (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold is second place, 5%, or winning a race. Uncommitted is second place right now, and Dean Philips is second place for humans. Personisinsterest (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support including him. He hasn't won a contest and is behind uncommitted. The fact that he's the second place human might make him worth including, but right now there's too many candidates and it doesn't add much to include him. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree we should include Phillips as he's won delegates (and indeed, for human candidates, is second-place in terms of delegates). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Winning Delegates has never been a qualification for the infobox. Precedent is that you need 5% of the votes or to win a contest. You also need to come in second if none of those previous ones are met. Since Palmer already meets one, Phillips shouldn't be included. NonHydranary (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but it doesn't make sense to include Palmer but not Phillips, given that Phillips has won more delegates and a larger share of the popular vote (as well has having received significantly more media attention). I'm aware of the general guidelines but strictly applying them to presidential primary pages doesn't make sense, given the unique conditions present in each election. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Palmer won a contest, if it weren't for that he wouldn't be on there. Again delegates don't matter when it comes to the infobox. Palmer won a contest, and Uncommitted is in second, Phillips doesn't have any colors on the map or a significant vote share. The only reason Palmer is there is American Samoa, if he had not won it of course he wouldn't be included. If Phillips is included, Marianne must be as well since she meets the same requirements he does. That would also mean including dozens of candidates in other pages that weren't consequential in their elections like Ben Carson, Amy Klobuchar, and John Edwards. NonHydranary (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that Phillips and Palmer are currently tied when it comes to delegate count, with 3 each, unless NH's delegates are seated, which has not been confirmed yet. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 00:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Philips is more deserving, but we're going strictly off the criteria here. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to strictly follow "the criteria". I disagree that such strict criteria are particularly useful regarding presidential primaries. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you’ve recieved nearly half a million votes and multiple delegates, you ought to be included. Many cases of much less significant people have been included, such as Weld in 2020 NathanBru (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the number of votes, it's the percentage. Weld is only there because he came in second place. Phillips has not gotten above 5% of the vote or won a contest. Do you think Ben Carson and Rudy Giuliani should be included in their pages? NonHydranary (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. NathanBru (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He should be included as he has won delegates. This isn't like 2020 where 8 different candidates have delegates, there is room in the infobox. Yeoutie (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Phillips should be in the infobox

The delegate results of Ohio have now been tabulated, Dean Phillips has received three. That ties him with Jason Palmer. Going via precedent, this means he should be in the infobox. In the recent history of incumbent Presidents' primary elections (Trump '20, Obama '12, Bush '04, Clinton '96, Bush '92, etc), there is not one example of the silver medalist candidate not being included in the infobox. Phillips not only got the second-most (tied) amount of delegates amongst the candidates, but also has second place in the PV (3.5%). He should be in the infobox. Thoughts? RickStrate2029 (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous precedent has been to only include people if they (1) win a contest, (2) get 5% of the vote, or (3) get 5% of the delegates. Additionally, second place gets added if no other candidate meets the above requirements. This discussion is already occurring in the thread directly above this - I suggest we keep all discussion in one thread to avoid talk page bloat. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why Jason Palmer qualifies. That's the equivalent of adding Faith Spotted Eagle because she won an electoral vote. If he was that curiously aligned with reader's interest, they'd click on the American Samoa contest. At least Dean got 3% of the vote. Borifjiufchu (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map update

I think Alaska & Wyoming need to be colored Biden blue. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Palmer dropped out

Jason Palmer has withdrawn from the primary and endorsed Biden. I would change it myself, but I lack the skill to do so. [1] ThatOneGuyWithAFork (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer has not yet suspended his campaign, so he's still in race for now.
[2] David O. Johnson (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should still mention that he endorsed Biden, at the very least. Prcc27 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Uncommitted" movement description

In the section describing why the Uncommitted movement developed, the only reason established is anti-Israel sentiment (I'll include the verbatim below). I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks, but I think there are additional reasons why the movement developed (most notably Democratic support for RFK Jr. despite him not being on the ballot) and that we should develop a larger section for the causes of that movement.

Section verbatim as is: "Additionally, in 2024, some

Muslim Americans, Arab Americans, progressives, and socialists began advocating for a 'uncommitted' vote as protest vote against Biden due to his support of Israel during the Israel–Hamas war." RickStrate2029 (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/educationpalmer/status/1779840819127611441?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=1220711620"