Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination

	This 2016 US presidential election related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes It contains unsourced statements Tagged since April 2016

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Chafed

Lincoln Chafee has dropped out of the race. Serocco 13:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Who? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The guy who wanted the US to adopt the metric system. Nerd (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Nevada

Some new citations to make it more objective. Bernie supporters did not try to "wrestle away" the delegates unlawfully; John Oliver detailed how Nevada's caucus system is such a clusterfuck and outright said the system is bullshit even though Clinton won fairly as a whole. Ralston, one of the main sources that claimed "violence" occurred, admitted that he did not have evidence of violence, and only heard about it from unnamed eyewitnesses. Snopes also flatly rejected any claims of chair throwing at all. Snopes also pointed out that Barbara Boxer did not "fear for her life," that was a paraphrase adopted by the press, and she did not give the finger to the crowd; she calmly wagged her finger and left after apparently blowing kisses to the crowd. NPR disagreed with themselves about whether or not violence occurred, and Sanders condemned the harassment/disruption anyway. There were also reports of unethical, although arguably legal shenanigans in the convention by the Democrats that purged Bernie (and Hillary) delegates, which prompted the outrage. A Bernie delegate gave his firsthand account of what happened that also flatly rejected violence claims while criticizing misconduct from Bernie supporters and disenfranchisement by the Nevada Democrats, including Roberta Lange, as well. Serocco 16:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

That's wonderful. Please do not hesitate to add this information once the pages for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are no longer "protected" due to a recent edit war. Nerd (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So, Serocco, I took the liberty to add some of the information you suggested to this page. Again, feel free to add it to the pages dedicated to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton once the protection expires or is lifted. Nerd (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Where did Hillary Clinton go?

This article mentions (almost) all the candidates, including some joke ones, but it does not mention Hillary. Why? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why, but for some reason the (presumptive) nominees aren't listed. It's the same at this year's Clown Car.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That's right. They automatically removed Clinton as soon as she was declared the "presumptive nominee." I'm not quite sure what the rationale behind that is, though. Nerd (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Whoever did it must have decided that these pages should focus on the presumed losers only. Is it the same for the 2012 pages?-- Forerunner (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It is. However, there is only a page for the Republican candidates as Obama was seeking a second term. Nerd (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon

Hi, Typhoon. Once again, I am happy to discuss specific issues on this page with you if you are willing to engage in a civil discussion. (I guess you missed the memo on my talk page; it comes after your response to -Mona-.) Nerd (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I've already mentioned every issue in the edit summaries when I was dismantling it step-by-step. Not my fault that you've been ignoring it. Typhoon (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

AGAIN, I've already detailed my objections to Nerd's version. Stop reverting without talking already. Typhoon (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have actually read all of them and disagree. That's why I think we all should talk on this page and try to come to an agreement (or agreements) most if not all of us can accept. Nerd (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I should start. I think we should not make any predictions about which way most superdelegates will lean. Since they have not yet voted, they can change their minds. As a matter of fact, back in 2008, they switched to Barack Obama. So really, Typhoon, it is not pedantic to avoid mentioning anything at this point. Nerd (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

They switched to Obama because he managed to overtake Hillary. This race is not comparable at all to the one in 2008. The superdelegates will 100% not switch to Bernie. Stop inserting your fantasies to the article. Typhoon (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Facts are not fantasies, Typhoon. Superdelegates will not vote till July 25th. Since their support for either candidate is not locked in a ballot, they are free to change their mind from now till July 25th. Again, we are not a live blog. We should only report facts as they are and update them when the time comes. Furthermore, this is considered one of the best articles here at RationalWiki. Please keep it that way. Nerd (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There's also the fact that supperdelegateds never went over from the winner to the loser, and they definitely won't vote for sanders. Enough with your wishful-thinking. Typhoon (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not thinking wishfully. I am pointing out a fact. Superdelegates have not voted yet. It makes to sense to include them in the final count. Nerd (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

We however know that who they intend to vote for. And we also know that there is zero chance for them to change their mind. Keep on dreaming. Typhoon (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

What dream? You are making an assumption whereas I am pointing out a fact. Since they have not voted yet, including them in the final count is factually incorrect. Nerd (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Pledged Delegate Count

I'm not sure where all the numbers in the table are coming from. But there seems to be a substantial discrepancy between the numbers here and those from the New York Times and what the candidates are claiming. Also, do we need such a detailed table? Why not just mention the number of pledged delegates each candidate currently has in bold? What do you guys think? Nerd (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

On "currently has" - I'd like to just inform everybody that while we like to keep things updated, we are not a live blog of any kind. And I'm not saying that's what you meant either Nerd, but I'm just saying - constructing anything around "freshly updated numbers", especially on a page that gets edit warred to shit and sometimes locked for days on end, is a bad idea. And we're not a "live" or "this-just-in" anything. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point Reverend. Thanks! How about an external link to like the one I gave above? They seem to be keeping count properly. Nerd (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No problems buddy. And yes; any credible, mainstream delegate tracker could be given as an external link, sure. We don't need 20 different ones, but we could use one (or maybe two-something, if there's proven to be discrepancies between them). I find the Bloomberg 2016 Delegate Count Tracker to have a convenient overview, especially when set to Calendar View... It's also updated daily, like most trackers. I don't know of any particular pros or cons for it, but it's Google's #1 result for delegate trackers, and the Calendar View is convenient. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Very convenient! Let's wait and see what the others think. Nerd (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep. And waiting precisely nudges my point on how we shouldn't ever try to do any day-to-day "reporting" on anything ^^ We're a slow and steady process, and all for the better... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Rational thinking is a slow and steady process. No need to rush and jump to erroneous conclusions. Nerd (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

True indeed. Though this alleged "rational thinking process" seems to - for some - paradoxially involve a constant "erroneous rushing and jumping"; in the form of edit warring. Let's prove them wrong, old timer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's what talk pages are for. :-) Nerd (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hah! Oh, you sweet summer's child... :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Kerfuffle?

I feel there should be a section in here going over the train-wreck that was the 2015-2016 DNC primary. Or maybe a whole new article? Going over the timeline of what happened, similar to that gamergate thing. The 3-4 debates (on Friday nights), the closing of polling places in Arizona causing queues that lasted well passed midnight, the use of placebo ballots in California, the purging of voters in Brooklyn, the way the media handled it all (Nevada convention, e.g.), how not one but two DNC chairs were forced to quit for corruption and collusion, etc. It was a real flustercluck, and it seems well within the realm of RW's mission to document and source it. Onychoprion (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)