Talk:2020 South Carolina Democratic presidential primary

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

Number of Candidates[edit]

What is the precedent on the number of candidates to show on the polling tables? Are we concerned about the table being too wide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgoodwinv (talk • contribs) 02:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Order[edit]

Given that the result is likely to include Joe Biden and Tom Steyer, it seems misleading to not include one of these candidates and put another last. As discussed on the Nevada Caucus talk page, this table should be ordered by polling average order (grabbed from an independent website like RealClearPolitics) so that it can better reflect the primary. User:Rivere123 04:51, 15 February 2020

@Rivere123: Let’s keep this to just the Nevada page. One discussion is enough, it’s the same issue. Though I will tell you again to read WP: CRYSTAL. Smith0124 (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that Tulsi Gabbard's picture isn't here? She's polling quite well at present, and she's the seventh on the ballot. Gnerphk (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox setup is limited to displaying nine candidates; before Yang, Bennet, and Patrick dropped out we had to put a cutoff somewhere since we couldn't fit everyone. Now that there are fewer than nine major candidates it becomes a more subjective question as to whether a cutoff is needed and where it should be if so.Gambling8nt (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This reasoning does not make sense. There are two other major candidates that you appear to be intentionally cutting out - Bloomberg and Tulsi Gabbard. The # being 8 instead of 6 is such a weak excuse for excluding them. - wigbate 2/23/20

While I am somewhat ambivalent regarding the exclusion of Gabbard--I can see arguments in both directions--including Bloomberg does not have the same ambiguity. Bloomberg is not on the ballot, and South Carolina does not permit write-ins.Gambling8nt (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

State Navigation[edit]

Hello everyone. Not too sure if this is the right place for this but here goes. I was just curious to what is gonna be done with the state navigation in the infobox after South Carolina. Currently it just links to the main super tuesday page. Shouldn't it still link to indiviudual states? I know its kinda hard since there's like 14 states on that day but I'm sure we can figure something out. Perhaps order multiple state days like March 3 based on pledged delegates? So California would be next in the navigation then Texas, NC etc. I guess we could also maybe order by poll closings but I thinks its probably easier to do some order of delegates. Ainsworth anderson (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who linked it to the Super Tuesday page, but I like your way better. Smith0124 (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates featured in the infobox[edit]

I am starting this to foster open dialogue since there seems to be a disagreement of who/how many candidates should be in the infobox. My last revert was done to hold it till it can be discussed here. ContentEditman (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbard should not be in the infobox becuase she polls under 5%. This standard is consensus for the Nevada caucus, no reason it shouldn't be the consensus here. WittyRecluse (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All decisions for this article should be consistent with the Navada article, so it makes sense to just have the discussion on this there. Consensus is to not include Gabbard.Wikiditm (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At Talk:2020 Nevada Democratic caucuses#Only 6 out of 7 candidates are featured in the infobox there is consensus to exclude Gabbard, but I'm not aware of a consensus for 5% being the cutoff. Since no one can point to such a consensus, my preference would be to include all seven candidates prior to the primary, and then only the delegate winners after the primary. - MrX 🖋 18:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll write here what I wrote in the Nevada caucus talk page to the vote question whether she should be included. "Yes. Although I'm strongly inclined to say No due to Undueweight, and my strong disliking of her, she is on the Ballot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Ballot_access. Wikipedia shouldn't extend the "non significant" theory into matters of state, as it is a large source of citizens' information. Thus skewing the information from a totally neutral standpoint, would I believe override theories of significance/undueweight etc. I would really like the No's to win out, due to my own bias and hope to skew a visitors' perception a tad towards/away from my bias, but wouldn't in good conscience argue for a No. Hope that makes sense to some of you."--ZombieZombi (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. If we are having discussions on each page, then I'll state that her inclusion in the infobox is undue for Nevada as well as South Carolina. WittyRecluse (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The consensus reached on the 2020 Nevada Democratic caucuses talk page to exclude Tulsi Gabbard from the infobox was incorrect and should not be used as precedent here. The Undue Weight policy is for viewpoints, and the viewpoint that Tulsi Gabbard is a primary candidate in South Carolina is not fringe or contested. Additionally, the 2020 Nevada Democratic caucuses talk page used an arbitrary cutoff of polling at 5%, which is not a recognized standard. This talk page should be used to discuss what's on this Article's page. Jiminyhcricket (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being a primary candidate in South Carolina does not warrant inclusion in the infobox. Being a contender in the primary in South Carolina determines inclusion in the infobox, which is determined via polling %. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates are what readers would expect to see in these infoboxes, and the 'contender' designation is opinion, not fact. The help pages on infoboxes say that what's included in the infoboxes should be arrived at by discussion and consensus by editors for each article, and I don't see consensus here that only contenders should be included. --Jiminyhcricket (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem with your criteria is that the New Hampshire ballot, for example, had something like 20 candidates on it, most of which were polling at 0% and unknown to the public. The infobox is supposed to be a summary, if we had included all candidates there the infobox would’ve been hopelessly large, and it’s a similar case here. That’s why the 5% threshold exists. Also, the consensus on the Nevada page is meant to apply to all the Democratic primary pages. It would be ridiculous to have to go through this discussion 50 times (one for each state). Smith0124 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the exact same thing earlier; there would have to be 55 discussions, actually (American Samoa, Democrats Abroad, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Virgin Islands). It would be untenable to have to hold a discussion for each. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative to 55 discussions would be to come up with a plan that is fair and impartial, an approach that people would not see the need to contest for each article. When there are 9 or fewer candidates, there is no need to exclude any before the contest itself. --Jiminyhcricket (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jiminyhcricket: The current plan is fair and impartial. The plan isn’t “exclude Tulsi Gabbard”, the plan is “only candidates that have a polling average above 5%”. There’s nothing in that that targets one candidate or another and it’s a fair criteria. It not only sets a standard for before the election, but after it as well. Otherwise, as said, the info boxes would be too big. We shouldn’t make an exception just because of the number of candidates. The consistency is more important. Smith0124 (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Smith0124: This absolutely should be based on the number of candidates. Candidates that meet the criteria to be on the ballot should be included unless there are real space concerns, and I don't think anyone could argue in good conscience that a 3x3 table is too large. All ballot candidates must be seen as viable until the votes are counted, otherwise we're influencing the election. --Jiminyhcricket (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We aren’t influencing an election. Gabbard is polling less than 5%. We have a standard and we need to establish consistency. Including Gabbard would be an exception to that standard. Smith0124 (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To play devil's advocate, I think it would be highly unlikely a candidate polling at <5% would still remain in the race long enough to require that many discussions, but the point that there would have to be 20-30 discussions is still valid. WittyRecluse (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point still stands. Smith0124 (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who keeps removing Tulsi Gabbard? This is totally arbitrary and yet another attempt to censor/silence her. Wigbate (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2020 (EST)
@Wigbate: We're discussing that now. No one is trying to "censor/silence her" since this in not a platform for any candidate to have a voice. As you can see, I think we should include her, but others think we shouldn't because her polling is so low. Content disputes are resolved through discussion and consensus. - MrX 🖋 23:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia absolutely is a platform for a candidate to have a voice, indirect though it may be. Tulsi is the ONLY candidate being excluded, as usual, and you all are discussing it as though this is acceptable. - Wigbate 18:21pm EST 23 Feb 2020

@Wigbate: I think it’s unfair to us to say we are censuring Tulsi Gabbard after the many discussions we’ve had on how to do election infoboxes. We’ve established a clear consensus and I’m sorry if you disagree with it, but just accusing us of bias isn’t how to prove a point. In addition, Gabbard isn’t the only candidate “being excluded”. The rest just dropped out after New Hampshire, all of which were excluded from the IA and NH pages for their polling. As for when the results come in, we’ve always excluded candidates who got less than 5% of the vote, which for the first three states included candidates like Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang. Smith0124 (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No because we should keep with the consensus reached in Nevada. She’s well below the 5% threshold established. That has nothing to do with silencing her. Smith0124 (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Nevada Caucus article, and infobox decisions are supposed to be decided per article, as directed by the Wikipedia infobox help. The 5% threshold is not a Wikipedia standard, and new voices are coming into this discussion; consensus and discussion are required for each article. Additionally, part of the reason a threshold was used is that NH had way too many ballot candidates; there, a cutoff made sense, but with only 7 candidates it does not. With only 7 candidates, one is being exclusively excluded, which is not fair or impartial. These changing conditions per contest are the reason why simple rules can not fairly be applied to all 'related' articles, and they must be handled individually. There was a suggestion made on the NH Primary talk page to set the threshold at 10%, which was used originally - if that were used, not just a single candidate would be excluded, Warren and Klobuchar would also be excluded. --Jiminyhcricket (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’d rather have a 10% threshold than no threshold. And the consensus reached, as I’ve said, was for the entire Democratic primary. You can’t just overturn that because you disagree. You can’t just make a fuss when your candidate doesn’t make the cut, plenty of people who worked on that consensus aren’t here and that’s not fair to them. We shouldn’t have to discuss this 50 times. Smith0124 (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better idea is to follow the 5% consensus unless there is an additional factor in a certain state that could warrant inclusion in the infobox (for example, it is thier home state, or RS are saying this state is a candidate's last chance to preform or they will drop out, or a candidate is giving special attention to a state with political ads/focused campaigning, etc). This way, we will have a baseline for further infoboxes without having to discuss this topic a multitude of times, but for certain states discussions can be opened if an editor feels there is an additional factor that warrants inclusion in the infobox. In this specific case, Gabbard has no special relation to South Carolina, so I can't see a reason why she would be in the infobox for that reason. WittyRecluse (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you draw the conclusion that the consensus was reached for the entire primary? I was certainly not aware that discussions pertinent to all primary pages took place on the Nevada primary page, and therefore I didn't voice my opinion there. I'm sure many others who would like to have a voice in this matter also didn't know that these discussions were taking place on a Nevada primary talk page. If that particular discussion was determined to be the deciding one for all primaries, it would seem arbitrary and deeply unfair. Mirek2 (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because there are only 7 candidates left. It made sense to "weed out" candidates who did not poll as strongly where there were a large number of them, so we could have the prominent candidates be displayed. We're down to 7 candidates now--that's not an unreasonable number.Serenity18 (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument on the Nevada Page was that including Gabbard would be Undue Weight, and that argument applies here too. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. However, this seems like a larger debate that shouldn't be being done per-page, but ideally a Wikipedia-wide discussion on election infoboxes overall. The approach taken here has the power to influence elections and therefore should both not be taken lightly as well as shouldn't be in the hands of a few select Wikipedians who happen to be interested in the primaries. My take on this is that, as it stands now, the infobox at the top of the Wikipedia page is deeply misleading, making it seem like only the 6 pictured candidates are running. There doesn't even seem to be any other info about the number of candidates or which candidates are partaking in the primary above the fold, which is always the most commonly viewed part of any webpage (and there usually tends to be a sharp drop-off in views under the area). If picturing all candidates is out of the picture, NONE of the candidates should be pictured to avoid being misleading. Mirek2 (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC) This isn't an RfC. As per Nevada consensus, Gabbard shouldn't be in the infobox here. It would constitute undue weight. The fact she's polling below someone who isn't even on the ballot should say it all.Wikiditm (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Readers would expect the infoboxes to show candidates, not just some arbitrary 'contender' cutoff. Candidates are the ones who have passed the state's party rules to be on the ballot, and before the vote people will be using this article to decide between the candidates- we should not be narrowing this choice for voters. With 9 or fewer candidates, there isn't a need to filter any. After the vote, only including the winners is natural, but before that filtering would be influencing the vote. Jiminyhcricket (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe the consensus on the Nevada page shouldn’t be overturned for consistency and because I believe in the 5% threshold, which has always been used and not just for this primary, if people want to overturn it they should have to get a 2/3 majority like a true veto, and should reach out to those who made the original consensus and have them join the discussion here. That way people have a way to voice concern and changes can be made but it provides us with a safety net from having to discuss this for every single state and territory. Smith0124 (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on the Nevada page has no effect on this page other than being informative. This either has to be decided on an article by article basis, or someone needs to post an RfC at a central location like WP:VPP so that we can get community wide consensus. - MrX 🖋 12:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deciding it article by article isn’t plausible here. Smith0124 (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, this needs to be decided at a central location. Something so pivotal and influential to the primary race should not be decided on the page of a single primary. Nobody expects it to happen there and those that would like to have a voice in this discussion did not know that that's where such a thing would be decided. Mirek2 (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I will see about posting an RfC later. - MrX 🖋 16:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think we should not include any candidates until after the vote or results are available. We should remain as neutral as possible and not look to impose any artificial weight to any candidate. A mistake was made if this was done on the Nevada page. What would we do in states that have very little recent polling information such Alabama?Davemoth (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Reconsidering my earlier post. What polling do we use? If latest SC individual poll then Klobuchar (3%) should be dropped and Gabbard (6%) added. Do we consider the Margin of Error? Even the Aggregate has statistical problems - 270 and RCP have the exact same numbers based on the same polls and we count them twice... This is too easily manipulated unless we use simple criteria for inclusion and sorting. Poll results are not simple and there are Primaries with ZERO polling (AS) or very old (AL) that make polling a mess. Keep it simple and include all active candidates and sort based on Delegate Count (National before results, local after results).Davemoth (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davemoth: It’s based on polling average, not individual polls. Klobuchar’s polling average is 4.6%, Gabbard is 3.1%, so neither reach the threshold. And if there are problems with getting polling numbers for future primaries, we can worry about it then, let’s just worry about this primary. For every past race we’ve used the 5% threshold, and the argument that that standard has no influence here means we have to have this conversation for every single state and territory. Smith0124 (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"For every past race we’ve used the 5% threshold" — that's actually not true, as someone stated, 10% was also used (and there might have possibly been other approaches too). I agree that it doesn't make sense to have this discussion for every primary, which is why this discussion needs to take place at a central place and a codified standard needs to be established. Mirek2 (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I uncommented Klobuchar. No one has established that there is actually a 5% threshold. I think we are getting a bit aggressive in removing candidates without having a consensus for specific inclusion criteria. - MrX 🖋 01:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX:With no consensus yet, I think the choice should be to either remove Klobuchar (as someone has already done after your edit) or include both Klobuchar and Gabbard.Davemoth (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK Davemoth. My preference would be to include Klobuchar and Gabbard. The infobox can certainly hold 7 candidates. - MrX 🖋 19:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc[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 🖋 01:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox ordering per state = polling ordering[edit]

As in previous states, there have been recent edits changing the order of candidates to match pledged delegates won so far. I'm adding this talk section so that anyone who thinks the order convention should be changed can say so here instead of us flicking between orderings in the actual article. In each previous state, the decision has been to order based on polling average for that state, and I think we should stick with that precedent for this article.Wikiditm (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are obviously talking about ordering for up until the results are in. For pre-result ordering I think the sort order should be based on National Pledged Delegate with National Popular Vote as a tie breaker.
For inclusion: At this point I think all candidates on the ballot in that state (plus any eligible/likely write-ins) should be included in the Infobox for future states. This is a slippery slope and we are wise to use caution. There will likely be 6 or fewer active candidates after Super Tuesday so this might be simpler.
For ordering it gets mushy if we use polling. What polling do we use? If latest SC individual poll then Klobuchar (3%) should be dropped and Gabbard (6%) added. Do we consider the Margin of Error? Even the Aggregate has statistical problems - 270 and RCP have the exact same numbers based on the same polls and we count them twice...
What about primaries with no recent polling?
  • Alabama with D- grade pollster in July and other 11 months ago
  • American Samoa with no polls available
Summary: Keep it simple. Include all active and use a solid unchanging criteria that cannot be easily statistically manipulated for sort order.Davemoth (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We aren’t worrying about future primaries here, and both Klobuchar and Gabbard aren’t on the infobox because both their polling averages are <5%. You’re just talking about one single poll, that’s not how it works. Please look through the previous discussion and see the many arguments against having no threshold. Smith0124 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biden confirmed winner at 7pm sharp[edit]

Just so there are no confusions that "it's too early" to put Biden in as the winner, the AP announced this literally two minutes after polls closed. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC News, New York Times all followed. Leonardo Lazov (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate totals[edit]

What is the source for the 39-15 delegate totals? As I have been looking for that information elsewhere, I can only find sources showing 33-11 with 10 delegates yet to be determined. (As of 1:51ET on election night) Anon, a mouse... (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the same old same old issue comes up, and it looks like The Green Papers is the source for these delegates, even though it says on the page "status: unofficial". The AP is at 33-11 but I'm just tired of repeating over and over again that Wikipedia does not use unofficial estimates to report data. Leonardo Lazov (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times indicates a prediction of 39-14-1 (from just before midnight, so after 99% of the vote was in), which is still a forecast rather than final, but is at least a widely regarded WP:RS where some question The Green Papers.Gambling8nt (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My first two concerns with this page were that the primary election results were (a) slightly outdated; and (b) sourced only to media outlets. I have updated the results and percentages, adding SCVotes.org as a source and indicating that the numbers are still unofficial.
My remaining concern is about the delegate count. The two NYT pages on the topic (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/29/us/elections/results-south-carolina-primary-election.html and https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/29/us/elections/results-south-carolina-live-forecast.html) are behind a paywall, but as far as I can tell, one says nothing about the delegate count and the other provides only an estimate. The SCVotes.org page that I added doesn't say anything about delegates. So I don't know where the delegate count is coming from. If it's a media estimate, I don't think we should even include it yet. But the bigger issue is where the media is getting its information, because I can't find an authoritative delegate count anywhere. If there is one, it certainly isn't cited on this page. Accordingly, I have marked the delegate count "dubious". Does anyone know where these delegate numbers actually come from? SunCrow (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leonardo Lazov, that the Green Papers is unofficial is irrelevant. NYT and CNN (edit: and AP) are also unofficial estimates at this point. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CNN has the totals at Biden 41, Sanders 13. Smith0124 (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be surprised if this was true earlier today (there was a while during the state's unofficial count being put up that it appeared Sanders would fall below viability in the sixth district), that does not appear to be the current count at CNN's South Carolina primary listing.Gambling8nt (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pick and choose between sources then:

Publication Biden Sanders Steyer Unallocated
CNN 38 15 0 1
The New York Times 39 14 1 0
NPR 35 15 0 6
Associated Press 35 15 0 6

I say we go with the Associated Press estimate. That's what we used for Iowa and that's what seems most accurate. Final results are still pending, and there's no denying that Biden was the outright winner of this primary. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spiffy sperry I am aware. Which is why I'm advocating for The Associated Press to be used as the source for delegate counts in every upcoming primary. Leonardo Lazov (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poor writing, political bias, errors[edit]

Quote from article: "Exit polls showed that Buttigieg, who won Iowa and did well in New Hampshire, received only 2% of the black vote despite receiving endorsements from many prominent African Americans.Exit polls showed that Buttigieg, who won Iowa and did well in New Hampshire, received only 2% of the black vote despite receiving endorsements from many prominent African Americans." Sanders won more votes, at the very least this sentence is inaccurate and it needs to be specified that he got the most delegates in Iowa but lost the popular vote. Also the statement that Buttigieg did win the most delegates is highly questionable according to this quote from the Wiki-entry on the Iowa caucus. "According to the IDP, errors on the handwritten caucus math worksheets could not be corrected because they are unalterable legal records.“The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process” wrote the party lawyer, Shayla McCormally, according to an email sent by IDP chair Troy Price.[94] Photographs of caucus math worksheets taken by caucus "captains" showed errors in adding up votes for candidates and in calculating "state delegate equivalents".[11] IDP chair Troy Price said that a recount of votes would be required to correct the miscalculations on the handwritten tally sheets from precincts.[13]" The proper way of working would be to not publish any 'result' until this issue has been solved. At the very least this context should be given if the statement is made that Buttigieg would have won Iowa. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses#Inconsistencies_in_votes 145.132.75.218 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There 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 23:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc notice[edit]

Editors 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) 00:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_South_Carolina_Democratic_presidential_primary&oldid=1196863953"