Talk:2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 730 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to United States presidential election, 2012.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics: American / Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Should there be a second candidate in the infobox?

A few years ago in this 2017 RfC on the Elections and Referendums project, it was decided that generally only candidates who receive over 5% of the popular vote should be included in an infobox. The one exception to that rule was where that would result in only one person being in the infobox (as is now the case here). It was decided that in that case the second place candidate (whatever their share of the vote) should be included. This issue is now being discussed again concerning Trump in the 2020 Republican Primaries. One would think if Bill Weld is to be included in the infobox there, we should be including the second place finisher here. Not doing so, suggests Obama ran unopposed, which is not true.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think the 2017 RfC is binding on us, unless we establish a clear consensus (and reason) to deviate from it. I noted that previously the 2012 Democratic primaries only had Obama in this infobox. I changed this adding "uncommitted" and John Wolfe Jr. to the infobox and started a discussion about it here. I note that the 1996 Democratic primaries seems to have followed a similar precedent. I also note that there is an archived discussion on this page about John Wolfe not being included in the infobox. There does not seem to have been extensive discussion about including "uncommitted" in the infobox. In any event the 2017 RfC which came after this, seems to be what we should be going from failing a clear consensus otherwise.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there needs to be second candidate on this specific infobox because all the other candidates did not provide much impact on the race. I think that the criteria for adding a candidate on the infobox (or on any US presidential election infobox on Wikipedia) should be:

A candidate has over five percent of the popular vote.
A candidate has over five percent of the delegates.
A candidate has won a contest.

I picked these for the criteria becasue if a candidate meets any of these criteria, then it could be argued that they had a somewhat considerable impact on the race. John Wolfe Jr. did not make much of a splash in the primary, so i don't see why he should be on the primary's infobox. In contests where he won over five percent of the popular vote, like Arkansas, then he should be in the infobox for that specific primary. ThatOneGuyWithAFork (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that none of the other candidates made a significant impact on the race. The reason for including the second place candidate, even when they are <5%, or haven't made an impact, appears to have been that only having one candidate in the infobox suggests that the race was uncontested. Based on the numbers in the infobox, readers should be able to tell quite quickly that it was not contested very well (or that Obama received a landslide). But doesn't removing all the other candidates leave the reader with the initial impression that he ran unopposed? Perhaps final impression if they fail to read on?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that only having one candidate on the infobox will suggest that the race was uncontested at all. A reader may see only one candidate on the infobox, but they will no doubt see that the candidate does not have 100% of the vote. In the case of this article, Obama having 88.9% as the number under him for percentage of the popular vote itself shows that the race was contested by other candidates. ThatOneGuyWithAFork (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could mean that some folks spoiled their ballot, only voted for down ballot candidates or wrote-in random names. That requires a bit of a leap, and reading and making some assumptions about the 11.1% that didn't vote Obama. Not having any other photo there is pretty striking. I think if we want to deviate from the wider consensus in the 2017 RfC we will need to have another broad RfC on the Elections and Referendums project. There does seem to be some overlap with the ongoing RfC on the 2020 Republican primary page, but that one only seems to deal with that specific page. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the 5% rule is essentially about eliminating small fries in competitive races. So Martin O'Malley gaining less than 1% of the vote in the 2016 Democratic Primaries is insignificant, the election was about Hillary vs Bernie. But when it's a lopsided incumbent renomination, the election becomes about "Who challenged the incumbent, at all, and how successful were they in doing so?". Thus, small fries like John Wolfe thus become more significant. Like, with the 2012 Democratic Primaries and 2020 Republican Primaries, what story is there besides "Obama vs Wolfe" or "Trump vs Weld"? I am very glad we are including second-place finishers now, i think it's a great improvement. Koopinator (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 5% threshold was always meant for third place finishers. I was part of those initial discussions and the figure actually derived from Walter Dean Burnham's assessment of what constitutes a successful third party run.William S. Saturn (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree with ThatOneGuyWithAFork because we have someone who got 1% of the vote here, that's totally insignificant. Smith0124 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree 1% is insignificant, but "significance" isn't the test for inclusion. The 2017 RfC is clear. If there would otherwise only be one candidate in the infobox, whichever candidate receives the second most votes gets included in the infobox. They are included whether they have 49% or .5% as long as they are the second best.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the race. Including a candidate that got 1% of the vote and that nobody knows wouldn’t be part of anyone’s summary. I don’t think the standard should change just because there’s only one candidate; the summary here is that of course there was only one candidate because Obama was the incumbent and aside from Jimmy Carter in 1980 presidential incumbents usually go without a significant challenger in the primary. Smith0124 (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017 RfC is binding unless we form a different consensus. That said, I don't think we are deviating from the summary standard. The idea in the RfC seemed to be that including the second place finisher summaries the race by showing that the race was not uncontested and also showing the gap between the candidates. Here the fact that Wolfe did worse than "Uncomitted" also seems to drive home the scale of Obama's win.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

I think this does deviate from the summary standard because we are including information that is irrelevant to the overall summary of the article. And isn’t uncommitted technically a second candidate? Smith0124 (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, a candidate is a person. 'Uncommitted' does not demonstrate that the nomination was contested, admittedly quite poorly contested. Omitting this 'irrelevant' information from the infobox does a poor job of "summarizing the race" because it leaves the false impression that the race was not contested (ie that it was a litteral coronation as opposed to figurative one). The infobox as it sits currently quickly shows that Obama won in a landslide, there was a least one chalenger who faired very poorly and some folks protested by voting uncommitted. That is a fair summary of the race is it not?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

~~It isn’t because you spent half the summary talking about a guy who got 1.7% of the vote. Smith0124 (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say 1.7%, i say second place finisher. I see no reason to make it seem that Obama's primary was uncontested. Koopinator (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don’t think that’s what it says. As said before it does show that Obama got 89% of the vote, not 100%. Smith0124 (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A wise man once said "it could mean that some folks spoiled their ballot, only voted for down ballot candidates or wrote-in random names. That requires a bit of a leap, and reading and making some assumptions about the 11.1% that didn't vote Obama. Not having any other photo there is pretty striking. I think if we want to deviate from the wider consensus in the 2017 RfC we will need to have another broad RfC on the Elections and Referendums project. There does seem to be some overlap with the ongoing RfC on the 2020 Republican primary page, but that one only seems to deal with that specific page." Koopinator (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have a new Rfc as it seems that there is significant disagreement, and those discussing the matter on the Republican page should be notified. Smith0124 (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Koopinator. If there is going to be a new RfC to reconsider the 2017 consensus, I believe it needs to take place on the Elections and Referendums project and should apply to all articles where the second place finisher receives under >5% (ie the customary threshold).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have started an RfC concerning your request. If you believe there is a good reason to deviate from the 2017 consensus, I recommend you make your case there. I agree that it may be wise to put a notice on Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries given the recent discussion of a similar issue there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this section include results for Republicans and Libertarians?

This wasn't a jungle primary was it? I am confused why Ron Paul and others are listed in this section in an article about the Democratic Party primary.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

State Results section

Unsure why it is needed to prominently display the results of these few states, just seems very odd and would probably be better to just delete them.Yeoutie (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]