Talk:2020 Colorado Democratic presidential primary
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Smith0124 in topic Rfc notice
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2020 Colorado Democratic presidential primary article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This page describes only process for the presidential election primary
editThe mechanism for choosing candidates for all other offices (federal Senator and Representatives, Colorado Senator and Representatives, etc.) is different. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Source: caucus training provided by the Denver Democrats
Discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes
edit
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. - MrX 🖋 01:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Percentage reporting
editThe primary results are not finally tabulated and not certified by the S.O.S. It is not a rule to just claim that 99% counted is the final result. Can we please wait? --FideKoeln (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- As I keep trying to tell you, it often never reaches 100% reporting, it says 99% forever. Especially in mail-in states. Smith0124 (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- this is pure hearsay and not based on facts or rules. So far there is not even all delegates allocated and the Secretary of State will eventually certify. Sorry, you are being ridiculous --FideKoeln (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- The race has been called by the AP, and as I said many elections stay at 99% reporting for forever. Please don’t make personal attacks, and please don’t continue to edit war, as just putting something on the talk page then reverting again isn’t enough. Not to mention you deleted my message on your talk page, which was meant to be informative, not aggressive. Smith0124 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- yes I deleted it on my talk page, as it belongs here and not on editor’s talk page. It is simply not a good argument that you feel it stays at 99% for many elections. Also, there is still no final distribution of delegates and it looks like you just made up these numbers. Can you provide, where you got them from? --FideKoeln (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- My “argument” that many races stay at 99% isn’t subjective, it’s a fact. Smith0124 (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Proven by what? The fact that we had multiple updates to the vote count today? --FideKoeln (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Proven by previous races of all kind, of which I don’t have the time to provide examples because this isn’t worth that much time. Smith0124 (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- I also don't see anywhere that the Secretary of State hasn't certified the results. That would've made news by now. Smith0124 (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- If you have no time to find a source to prove your claim that it is a fact, stop reverting. Also, you put in numbers again for delegates which are not in line with the numbers reported by the source you claim those numbers came from. If you want to check the secretary of State’s result, check her website [1]/ --FideKoeln (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- You know you could've just read the talk page right? Look at the delegate count section. I said those are the numbers are from the forecast, which is based on the vote already counted. Please revert your most recent edit. You're just mindlessly reverting whatever I do and you're lucky I haven't brought up 3RR. Also, the link you provided is not the secretary of state's website. Smith0124 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- The numbers you cite are not from the link provided (live results), but using the "see our full forecast link" within that site. The delegate count 24/17/14/12 is based on the forecast model of the NYT. If you would read that page entorely, you would see that the NYT writes: "We stopped updating these forecasts at 4:15 a.m. Eastern time on Wed., March 4. Follow the latest results here." So you are basically using data that are based on a forecast model with several assumptions and which also is not updated. You never provided the correct link, nor do you write in the lead that these are neither official nor current numbers. If you continue to enter this information without correct citation and disclaimer, I will raise a complaint --FideKoeln (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- You have nothing to raise a complaint about, you’re just gonna get warned/blocked for edit warring. If you really cared, you would’ve just read the talk page where I told you these were the numbers from the forecast and that if you wanted to change them to the current numbers to go ahead. But nope, you just reverted again. Smith0124 (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- @FideKoeln: if the results weren’t certified, that would’ve made the news, but you’ve provided no source to support that claim. 99% reporting is a done election, most elections end with 99% reporting, not 100%. Smith0124 (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Elections don’t get certified so fast and you will see the news once Secretary of State [2] has done so. Follow the link on her landing page (which I provided above) and it will lead you to the results which are officially in. --FideKoeln (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- You need to stop reverting or you will get in very serious trouble, and it won’t be because I report you cause I don’t care to. Once another editor comes on and sees your many reverts you could get blocked. I strongly urge you to stop. I’ve adapted to your complaints each time, you’re just self destructing now. Smith0124 (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Let's summarize this: You eliminated the 99% status bar repeatedly, although counting was still ongoing and vote numbers are going up. You reversed that multiple times, although I pointed it out to you. Then you added a forecast model results for delegate count used by the NYT, without citing where you got it from. You did not see, that the NYT had a disclaimer, that they stopped updating that model on March 4th. You claim it would have made the news, if the results were not certified. That is flat out wrong, as the county canvas boards by law have till March 22nd [3] to certify their results. I showed you that the Secretary of State on her own page [4] links to the website[5], where she publishes the results and you revert that as unreliable? The state of Colorado is a customer of Scytl[6] which publishes the numbers on behalf of the SOS on clarityelections. You mentioned, that you don't have time to research and just assume. This is not how this should work. You need to stop this FideKoeln (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- You need to stop reverting or you will get in very serious trouble, and it won’t be because I report you cause I don’t care to. Once another editor comes on and sees your many reverts you could get blocked. I strongly urge you to stop. I’ve adapted to your complaints each time, you’re just self destructing now. Smith0124 (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Elections don’t get certified so fast and you will see the news once Secretary of State [2] has done so. Follow the link on her landing page (which I provided above) and it will lead you to the results which are officially in. --FideKoeln (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- @FideKoeln: if the results weren’t certified, that would’ve made the news, but you’ve provided no source to support that claim. 99% reporting is a done election, most elections end with 99% reporting, not 100%. Smith0124 (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- You have nothing to raise a complaint about, you’re just gonna get warned/blocked for edit warring. If you really cared, you would’ve just read the talk page where I told you these were the numbers from the forecast and that if you wanted to change them to the current numbers to go ahead. But nope, you just reverted again. Smith0124 (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- The numbers you cite are not from the link provided (live results), but using the "see our full forecast link" within that site. The delegate count 24/17/14/12 is based on the forecast model of the NYT. If you would read that page entorely, you would see that the NYT writes: "We stopped updating these forecasts at 4:15 a.m. Eastern time on Wed., March 4. Follow the latest results here." So you are basically using data that are based on a forecast model with several assumptions and which also is not updated. You never provided the correct link, nor do you write in the lead that these are neither official nor current numbers. If you continue to enter this information without correct citation and disclaimer, I will raise a complaint --FideKoeln (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- My “argument” that many races stay at 99% isn’t subjective, it’s a fact. Smith0124 (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- yes I deleted it on my talk page, as it belongs here and not on editor’s talk page. It is simply not a good argument that you feel it stays at 99% for many elections. Also, there is still no final distribution of delegates and it looks like you just made up these numbers. Can you provide, where you got them from? --FideKoeln (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- The race has been called by the AP, and as I said many elections stay at 99% reporting for forever. Please don’t make personal attacks, and please don’t continue to edit war, as just putting something on the talk page then reverting again isn’t enough. Not to mention you deleted my message on your talk page, which was meant to be informative, not aggressive. Smith0124 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- this is pure hearsay and not based on facts or rules. So far there is not even all delegates allocated and the Secretary of State will eventually certify. Sorry, you are being ridiculous --FideKoeln (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Smith0124: you just took out the 99% counting again, claiming numbers wouldn't update. That is definitely false. You just needed to check the NYT numbers, which have been updated. Please stop this constant vandalism, especially if you do not bother to research
References
- ^ https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CO/100039/web.241347
- ^ https://www.sos.state.co.us/
- ^ https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Results/ENR/countyMapStatuses.pdf
- ^ https://www.sos.state.co.us
- ^ https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CO/100039/web.241347/#/summary
- ^ https://www.scytl.com/en/customers/state-of-colorado/
Delegate count
editThere was a delegate count added in the info box with no source. Can someone please add the source? Otherwise this should be reversed --FideKoeln (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- @FideKoeln: The New York Times results page shows Sanders 23, Biden 15, Bloomberg 5, Warren 4. Please do not revert again. Smith0124 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
NY Times Reporting Number
editThe NY Times reporting numbers are consistently off and rebuked by all other major outlets, such as ABC and NBC, so please don’t use them. Smith0124 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- this is an opinion and not based on facts. Please also refer to the discussion above, where I Laid out that the Secretary of State publishes the same numbers thru the provider the state hire. You reversed those numbers yesterday as wrong an unofficial, albeit them being published on the NYtimes and referenced as such, only to replace them with the same numbers from NBC. At the same time you left the old outdated percentages in. It is not up to you to decide which numbers are official. Also please explain, why there are only 51 of 67 delegates allocated, if vote count is co Pleite. Many counties, like Denver and Boulder are still tabulating and they have till March 22nd. Please take your time to do research up instead of wasting our time with constant changes to outdated numbers --FideKoeln (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- As you can probably tell I was just not responding to your constant bombardment of personal attacks and threats. I’m not doing that to you. Please look at every other major outlets reporting number and tell me that this isn’t backed up. NBC News is already linked in the results table. Smith0124 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am not constantly bombarding or threatening, I am arguing and presenting facts. The Ny Times numbers are linked too and are a major outlet. clarity elections is the link the SOS uses on her website and it is the service contracted by the state. That is the source which ultimately is used by all the outlets. Also, there is still not all delegates allocated. Explain that please --FideKoeln (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- I’m not sure why all delegates aren’t allocated, we aren’t talking about that. And stop being rude. I want to have this discussion in a respectful manner. If you want to talk facts let’s talk facts. All other outlets aside from NY Times say the results are fully reported. NYT hasn’t updated their reporting number. Link to me another reliable source that uses that 83% number. That is all we are talking about right now. Smith0124 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am not constantly bombarding or threatening, I am arguing and presenting facts. The Ny Times numbers are linked too and are a major outlet. clarity elections is the link the SOS uses on her website and it is the service contracted by the state. That is the source which ultimately is used by all the outlets. Also, there is still not all delegates allocated. Explain that please --FideKoeln (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- As you can probably tell I was just not responding to your constant bombardment of personal attacks and threats. I’m not doing that to you. Please look at every other major outlets reporting number and tell me that this isn’t backed up. NBC News is already linked in the results table. Smith0124 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Here are two sources that say it’s fully reported (99% IS fully reported) Smith0124 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC) [1][2]
- please don’t forget to sign and use paragraphs. 99% is not 100% therefore incomplete. You also finally agree it is not certified, despite your previous claim that we would have seen that in the papers if it was. can you please explain, why the link the Secretary of State provides has a higher total vote count and why the numbers even you publish have just been updated yesterday, if vote counting is complete? I am happy to accept a 99% bar, but erasing it is no based on facts as shown multiple times in the last days. --FideKoeln (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Again, you’re changing the subject and going after me personally. Provide a source or stop attacking me. Smith0124 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am not attacking you, just asking to sign and use paragraphs, so it is easier to follow. I had provided link and background at 06:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC) under Percentage reporting. Would you bother to look at that and enlighten us, about your thoughts--FideKoeln (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- The reporting bar is supposed to go away once the election is over. The election is over. Frequently elections stay at 99% forever. And more sources say 99% than 83%, which is only said by the New York Times, who probably just didn't update the number. Since you can't provide a number other than 99% that is backed up by multiple sources, just leave the reporting bar out. Smith0124 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- I can't find that the reporting bar is supposed to go away, once the election is over. To me it makes more sense to have the reporting line up, while counting and tabulating is still ongoing and new votes are still being added to the total. Is there any rules you refer to? --FideKoeln (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- The reporting bar is supposed to go away once the election is over. The election is over. Frequently elections stay at 99% forever. And more sources say 99% than 83%, which is only said by the New York Times, who probably just didn't update the number. Since you can't provide a number other than 99% that is backed up by multiple sources, just leave the reporting bar out. Smith0124 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am not attacking you, just asking to sign and use paragraphs, so it is easier to follow. I had provided link and background at 06:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC) under Percentage reporting. Would you bother to look at that and enlighten us, about your thoughts--FideKoeln (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Again, you’re changing the subject and going after me personally. Provide a source or stop attacking me. Smith0124 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- please don’t forget to sign and use paragraphs. 99% is not 100% therefore incomplete. You also finally agree it is not certified, despite your previous claim that we would have seen that in the papers if it was. can you please explain, why the link the Secretary of State provides has a higher total vote count and why the numbers even you publish have just been updated yesterday, if vote counting is complete? I am happy to accept a 99% bar, but erasing it is no based on facts as shown multiple times in the last days. --FideKoeln (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Colorado Election Results 2020". NBC News. Retrieved March 5, 2020.
- ^ https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/2020-colorado-primary-election-results/story?id=68409564>
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 Alabama Democratic primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Rfc notice
editEditors of this page are encouraged to participate in an Rfc on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries pertaining to the infobox of this page and all state by state primary pages. The Rfc is about candidates who have withdrawn. Smith0124 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)