Talk:2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 1

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.

Archive 1

Glad to have this back

While it's obvious that Obama will sweep the board, at least eight primary ballots have challengers on them. It would be interesting to see how some of them doEricl (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there will probably be people who would still favor to merge this page to another article just because "we have an incumbent president who is fully expected to sweep the board". But like Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004 article, when incumbent Bush ran largely unopposed to secure the GOP 2004 nomination, it is nice to see a detailed list page displaying all the primary results and how many delegates have been allocated to each state. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that having the stand-alone article is useful, despite the ultimate outcome of the primary race being a foregone conclusion from the get-go.--JayJasper (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is part of WP encyclopedic history, and stands separate. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Background" section of this page is extremely biased.

The background section of this page is biased. Thus, the page itself only exists to share bias rather than to detail the "Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012". The background section should discuss the background and history of Democratic Party Presidential Primaries, not the performance of the current President. The performance of the current President should be discussed on President Obama's article page, not an article on the 2012 Democratic Primaries. The creator of this page should and likely does know that. While the content of the background section is cited, the content itself is inappropriate for the article topic and some citations are blatantly biased (see #4). In addition, if the content of the background section was appropriate (it isn't) and unbiased (it isn't), shouldn't it discuss the history of the current President's time in office more broadly, not just the current and highly selective stats currently used? Not that the current Presidential and Congressional ratings are relevant to this article.

If this article were unbiased, it would do a thorough job listing the dates for all 50 Democratic Party primaries and caucuses for 2012, not just those that have already occurred.

In addition, the "Campaign" section of this article is completely unnecessary and opinion based. That is the purpose of a "Campaign" section for an article on the Democratic Party presidential primaries? The title would suggest that this article should be about actual primaries, not campaigns themselves. The discussion of the "Occupy Iowa" movement has nothing to do with the Democratic Party Presidential CAUCUS (Iowa doesn't have primaries); Occupy Iowa isn't a political party.

In addition, to be a more accurate article that reflects the title of the article, there should be some discussion regarding how Democratic Party presidential primaries are performed in various states.

Finally, why aren't caucuses discussed? Not all states use the primary system.

Funnyhaha71 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone just basically used the same material from the first paragraphs of Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Background there. I do not think that is really relevant here. What we do have is an incumbent President seeking re-election, who is still popular within his own party, and is essentially running unopposed in the primaries. And like the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004 and Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1996 articles before, it suffers from systemic bias -- not many people are interested in editing pages detailing these uneventful races. Otherwise, it would probably be as detailed as like the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008 article. So please feel free to be bold make those changes yourself. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again....(sigh)

A candidate is someone who's actually on the ballot. On extremely, EXTREMELY rare occasions, write-in candidates may actually WIN an election, but that's not what I'm talking about. A person considered a local whacko actually WINS a major party nomination for a statewide office. He gets over a quarter million votes in the general election. Is this not notable? He has an article in which he's a major character. Doesn't THAT count? Jim Rogers might actually BEAT Obama in the Oklahoma primary. The turnout on the Democratic side is going to be extremely low and the possibility of mischief high. Besides, in what is basically a one-man race, NONE of the challengers are "really" running for president now ARE they?Ericl (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus with regard to election articles has generally been that only candidates who meet WP:N and have an actual bio page on WP (not a redirect or merely having been discussed in another article) should be included in the gallery.--JayJasper (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Resolved

Since this is a one man race there is a good chance that all this articles never will be more than a series of stumps. Instead we can make a good article about the whole "race". The different results may be compiled in one table or the different states might have a section each. The different candidates can be presented together in one article, properly explaining why they are running instead of being spread out in a bunch of different stumb articles. I think we have to face it: A one man race simply will not attract the editor manpower to make many good articles. And even if, how much fact of interested will there really be. I think we should merge them all into one excellent article that will actually be read by many. The infoboxes in the articles on the different state races in 2008 can direct all the 2012 state races to this article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. They will always be stubs showing that President Obama won with little or no opposition. There has been relatively little coverage of individual primaries or caucuses in the media or elsewhere. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - In what is essentially a one-candidate race, a single article encompassing of all the primary & caucus elections is far more practical than a long series of stubs. Plus, most of the spin-off stubs are in need of cleanup, a task that would be greatly simplified by merging into one article.--JayJasper (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
50/50 — Why not? It would make this article stronger. —— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong Support There is no need to have 50+ articles that say Obama won the primary caucus with near 100%, as assumed. A single comprehensive article is much more useful than 50 stubs. Reywas92^Talk 02:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree - There is little to say but Obama won each state by a huge margin. Keep them as redirects in case something happens and suddenly there is an actual challenger. Aiden Fisher (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Slightly Disagree There are only five or six states where other candidates have managed to get on the ballot. They should have separate articles. The rest...well, they should redirect here. Ericl (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The primaries/caucuses with multiple candidates on the ballot should be redirected here as well. Unless there are highly unexpected results or extraordinary events (enough to warrant a standalone article) associated with a particular primary race, they are all going to say basically the same thing: Obama wins by overwhelmingly decisive margin.--JayJasper (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. Whoever does the merge should also strive to put together a reliable, complete calendar of all the primaries and caucuses; so far, it's neither, AFAICS. —Nightstallion 16:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Support. Agree that it is unnecessary to have all the individual states having separate articles. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Primary elections/caucuses, like the one in Oklahoma, where other candidates appeared on the ballot, should keep their own pages. Otherwise, yeah, whatever. --SchutteGod (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
50/50 Why? Because if you merged all of the proposed article, it will be SIMPLY too long to be read so, if you want to merged it with these article,

“

Just add the individual primaries article if it's marked as a STUB, not all of the article because it's too long

”

. --Kumpayada (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Walking back my earlier comments about redirecting all the primary/caucus pages to this article. The New Hampshire & Oklahoma primary articles should be kept as stand-alone pages. The NH primary is notable in its own right because of the number of candidates listed on the ballot as well as the higher-than-usual percentage of votes for candidates other than Obama. The OK primary is singularly notable for being the only primary in which a candidate other than Obama won a delegate (and in which another candidate came within a single percentage point of doing the same). The others, which are mostly stubs, should be redirected to this page for reasons stated above.--JayJasper (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Redirect all but NH and OK - Per above. I'd also point out that per at least one estimate I've seen (and the site contains the relevant math), Terry won 7 delegates and Jim Rogers (who came in third) won three (he broke 15% in the three rural CDs in Oklahoma). I'll say the same for all other primaries: Separate them if someone other than Obama wins delegates, since doing so against an incumbent president is somewhat unusual (though hardly unprecedented). Link to the aforementioned site: www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/OK-D
- And I'm a doofus who forgets to sign his stuff once in a while. The above paragraph is me.Tyrenon (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Support I don't know if this is quite a case of WP:UNDUE, but suggesting this year's Democratic primaries were as notable as the Republican primaries is laughable. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Merge proposed. —GoldRingChip 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Support Those primaries can be easily covered in this article without losing vital information. Hekerui (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I am going ahead and merging all of the articles to this one. Reywas92^Talk 18:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Randall Terry

This guy earned delegates in Oklahoma [1]. How many does he have to get before he gets listed in the infobox? Oren0 (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Any should be enough.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. For symettry w/ republican primaries article, we should list actively running candidates that get delegates - however many or few - in the infobox.--JayJasper (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Added. He has a delegate he counts as a candidate. Aiden Fisher (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim Rogers also qualified for delegates. Terry got 7, Rogers got 3 out of Oklahoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.44.153 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that for that?, because this [2] says Rogers fell short of the % he needed to win delegates.--I.C. Rivers (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And this source says neither Terry nor Rogers will get any delegates at all because they didn't comply with the rules.--NextUSprez (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

New York times as well is saying that no one is delegating for Terry. Aiden Fisher (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Washinton post. Aiden Fisher (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Map

Someone should make a map showing the winners in each county, similar to one that exists for the republican page. Obama has lost a fair few counties. --89.100.253.58 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't think that's necessary. Would really be all one color. What counties has he lost? Not getting 100% is not the same as losing a county. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

He lost fifteen counties in Oklahoma. Although, I think that might have been all, to be fair. 89.100.253.58 (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems reasonable for the Oklahoma page (or if that gets merged here, then for the Oklahoma section) to show counties won by others. Don't think it is as necessary or descriptive to the whole article as it would be for the Republican side. I mean, I wouldn't take it out if someone put it in, mind you. Perhaps wait until the primaries are over and see if there are other counties he might lose. Doubtful, but you never know. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Angrybeerman (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

John Wolfe, Jr.

May someone add John Wolfe, Jr to the infobox. He now has won 4 delegates in Louisiana.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/03/after_surprising_showing_in_lo.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.39.18 (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Done--JayJasper (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

President Obama officially wins 2012 Democratic Nomination

CNN just projected he has won the nomination. Can you put that in the primary section and in the general election and put him in the infobox on the general election page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativemind15 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Keith Judd

Keith Judd received 41% in the West Virginia primary and qualified for 1 delegate for the Democratic National Convention.[3] Someone should perhaps consider including this information in the article; perhaps Judd belongs in the infobox now as well? Adlerschloß (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see he's already listed in the article, but not the infobox, and the article lists his delegate count as 12. While it's an unusual candidate and situation, is there any reason not to add Judd to the infobox? Adlerschloß (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't have a picture of him. This image has been used in the media, but I don't know if this can be uploaded.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

He's the undisputed #2 candidate (for now anyway). He is incarcerated at a Federal prison. His mugshot is public domain as a work of a Federal government employee. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the source above, the image is not his mugshot.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Keith judd.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Keith judd.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Keith judd.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Keith judd.jpg

The file File:Keith judd.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Keith judd.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I do not think that either Terry or Judd should be included in the infobox. Although they technically won delegates, neither actually filed names to be delegates and will not appear at the convention. This and this are two sources and I'd be glad to provide more. Furthermore, these are not serious candidates and could not have even theoretically won the nomination, which is the criteria for the main 2012 article. There is no reason to include them in the infobox. Reywas92^Talk 03:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thinking back on this, I in a manner agreed, and was about to switch out Terry and Keith for Wolfe, whom I had believed was going to be awarded actual delegates without issue.

However it turns out that I was wrong, and that the Democratic Party is refusing to issue him any delegates in Louisiana, and has already released a statement declaring that he is not eligible for any delegates in the Arkansas Primary; their reasoning again comes down to "Paperwork" issues that have not been complied with. Thus I find a quandary that has no good answer; technically they should be awarded these delegates based on the people's vote, but the Party is refusing to grant them. --Ariostos (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I say keep them there, alongside "Uncommitted" (and possibly "Write-in"...if there's a "real" primary in CA, the write-in totals there should be interesting to see considering how well the "peanut gallery" and Uncommitted have been doing). Even though they aren't winning delegates "officially", Wolfe could easily break 100,000 votes overall once Texas votes on Tuesday (he's currently at 85,000 between AR and LA). Uncommitted is also, as far as I can tell, probably on the ballot in MT and NM, so...who knows if the numbers there will be in the 10% range or the 20% range.Tyrenon (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles into one article for each state. The proposal is to merge all articles on different state primaries (both democratic and republican) and the articles on the presidential election (where such exist) in to one single article for each state. See United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008 It is possible to see how the 2008 and 2012 articles will look like if this large merges was completed. This issue have been discussed for a month on this talkpage without a clear consensus and the merge proposal is so massive that it would be good to get a wide range of editors to comment on it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"Uncommitted" Ballot Status

As near as I can tell (and I may be wrong about this), but "Uncommitted" didn't get a ballot line in a number of states...whether it does or not seems to vary based on the state laws in question (i.e. it was only Wolfe and Obama on the ballot in AR, it was only Obama and the four named candidates on the ballot in OK, etc.). Also, as some states (VA, NY, etc.) didn't have a primary because nobody filed against Obama, I would argue that "uncommitted" didn't have ballot access, if just because there were no ballots to access.Tyrenon (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Democrats Abroad

Two maps in this article should also contain Democrats Abroad. What do you think? Bielsko (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox update

How does one change the infobox from January 3, 2012 to present over to January 3 to June 5, 2012? GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

John Wolfe Jr. in Infobox

Howdy. I tried removing John Wolfe Jr. from the infobox... He received an insignificant percentage of the vote (~1.7% of pop and <1% of delegates) and he was never considered a serious candidate. We've always gone by a 5% threshold for inclusion which he did not even come close to meeting. Other candidates also won ~1% of the vote but I think it would be crazy to include them. It has long been the precedent to have a 5% threshold. I am going to remove him until consensus can be reached otherwise. PrairieKid (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that he shouldn't be in the inbox. Not only did he not receive 5% or more of the total primary vote, he didn't win even one state, and didn't appear on enough primary ballots to have even a mathematical possibility of securing enough delegates to win the nomination. Placing him in the infobox is greatly misleading to the reader, giving the impression that he was a viable candidate in the primaries, which he most certainly was not.--NextUSprez (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

For the same reasons as above, I would argue that he should be removed from the infobox at Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012 as well.--NextUSprez (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The 5% criteria is meant to be inclusive not exclusive. Why not include the top two finishers in the infobox even if one did not receive 5%? Finishing over 1% and qualifying for delegates is still significant.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not so significant, IMO, in a race with an incumbent president facing no viable challengers. Besides, putting a minor candidate next to the party's nominee in the infobox is undue weight.--NextUSprez (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not undue weight. Wolfe finished in second place. That is a verified fact and that is all the infobox shows. It is aesthetically optimal for the infobox to contain two candidates. Furthermore, we don't need to arbitrarily impose the 5% standard. I proposed that particular standard several years ago in order to include third party candidates on infoboxes. The 5% figure was not arbitrary but based on a statistic from a renowned political scientist who characterized 5% as the threshold for a successful third party campaign. That does not apply here since Wolfe is the second place finisher. Nevertheless, I would argue that Wolfe's candidacy was still significant. He had a vote total of over 100,000 (more than all Republican candidates except for four). He qualified for several convention delegates and had healthy showings in each state where he appeared on the ballot (those with ballot access laws that were not overly restrictive). --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have never heard that the 5% threshold only pertained to third place finishers. The "rule" is that a candidate must have 5% of the vote in order to be in the infobox. Now, that can be (and has been) challenged for certain exceptions but I have no idea why this is one of them. So, we're not "arbitrarily" putting the 5% threshold... That has been the rule I've seen throughout the time I've been on Wikipedia. I've had I would guess about a dozen discussions concerning this topic and that has almost always been the consensus. PrairieKid (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have given you the reasoning behind the standard, which is based in political science. It is not arbitrary. But when applied to second place finishers it is arbitrary because it no longer has any basis in political science. I'd be very interested in seeing the discussions you've had about using the 5% standard for second place finishers. Could you provide any? --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but still not convinced. I think the "2nd place finisher in the infobox regardless" is a bad idea. Suppose Obama had received all but one vote throughout the primaries, and Wolfe had received that one vote. Would Wolfe still qualify for inclusion purely by default? That seems utterly ridiculous to me. I don't think it need be carved in stone that there must be always be at least 2 candidates in the info box. This particular primary was for all practical purposes a mere formality, it was never really in question that Obama would be re-nominated, and none of the little-known challengers even remotely did anything to put his re-nomination in question. Obama was the only truly viable candidate in the primary, and the infobox should reflect that. Placing Wolfe in the infobox gives the reader a first-glance impression that he was some sort of viable candidate or "game-changer" in the race (even if "all the info box shows" is that he finished second). Such an impression is misleading and confusing, especially to an outsider-looking-in (such as someone from a foreign country, or someone who is new to politics) who was unfamiliar with these primaries. Plus, it just seems perverse, or perplexing at best, to say you need > 5% if you place 3rd or lower but if you place 2nd, a mere 1% (or even lower) will suffice.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in the example you provide, it would not be proper to include a second place finisher who only got a couple of votes---for obvious reasons---but that is not the case here. Wolfe won 100,000 votes, which is a significant amount. For a citizen candidate like Wolfe to get that many votes (116,639 out of the 752,811 cast in states where he was on the ballot, or 15.49% of the vote in those states) and win over 1% of all primary votes and qualify for convention delegates against a sitting president is not something that should be ignored or simply written off. It would be wrong to deny that Obama had any challengers. He did have challengers and Wolfe was the leading one.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

So, let's say I go to a meeting of the 2016 Iowa Democratic Caucus. The last time that was competitive was in 2008, when only 2,500 votes were counted for all candidates. So I bring about 2 or 3 dozen friends of mine to this meeting, alongside myself to vote for me so we can "stick it" to the man. While there, a few others realize how unenthusiastic they are about the candidates and decide to "take a stand" too. Maybe some local media catches on and a few more caucus voters throughout the state hear about it and agree that it's a good time to stand up. Hey, even some Republicans switch their affiliation to Democrat to vote for me, even though I have no intention of actually taking office. By the time the votes are counted up, I have over 50 votes, 2% of the vote in total, which would put me past Joe Biden and tied with Bill Richardson. That was basically what Wolfe did. He said, "Look, let's fight the man here. If you're not happy, vote for me!" And a lot of people did. Out of those 117,000 very few were actually voting for Wolfe. Almost all of them were voting against Obama.

As far as ballot access goes, you have to remember that most of the caucuses and many of the primaries have an open ballot. I can vote for anyone. Mickey Mouse gets quite a few votes. Even those that don't have an open ballot will often allow for write-ins. It's also important to remember that his best showing was in Arkansas, which Romney ended up winning by over 20 points. Wolfe did not ultimately receive any delegates. Obama won the nomination unanimously.

Under your criteria, several other candidates would need to be listed. In Kentucky, Obama was almost defeated by "uncommitted" while Keith Judd (a prisoner!) almost defeated Obama in West Virginia. Should they too be included in the infobox? Both of those received tens of thousands of votes. PrairieKid (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To your first and second points, the intention of the voters or even the intention of the candidates themselves make no difference to whether candidates are properly on the ballot and received enough votes to meet either the 5% standard or second place overall to merit placement in the infobox. To your last point, the answer is no. Only those candidates who received 5%, and if none, then only the second place finisher is to be listed. Judd, Richardson, and Terry did not receive 5% or as many votes as Wolfe to be in second place, and so, while Wolfe qualifies for the infobox, Judd, Richardson, and Terry do not qualify. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To the earlier statement "It would be wrong to deny that Obama had any challengers", I agree. The article clearly acknowledges his challengers. The point is that he had no viable challengers, so it is misleading to put Wolfe in the infobox prominently placed next to Obama as if he were a significant figure in the primaries. He wasn't, so I still say it's undue weight. This was, for all practical purposes if not in actuality, a one-candidate primary race, and the infobox should reflect that. Plus, if there had been another challenger in the race that received 5% or more, Wolfe would definitely not be in the infobox and there would be no discussion about adding him, even with the exact same vote totals (or even marginally more) than he has now. So why include him merely because he happened to have the second highest total in a race that had no viable challengers to the incumbent? Again, nowhere is it carved in stone that there must always more than one candidate in the infobox.-NextUSprez (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Where are the territories?

None of the territories, which also have primaries/caucuses, are listed in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.160.52 (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What does NP stand for? Where did the 426,336 come from?

In this table, there is a "candidate" "NP".

What does this stand for? Where did the count "426,336" come from?

A Google search for this number only finds this Wikipedia page, suggesting original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobagem (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. It means "no preference". Nine states offered voters either "no preference" or "uncommitted" as an option.[4] The 426,336 is the combined total of both options. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)