Jump to content

Talk:2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Sum of total delegates now is 4049

The sum of total delegates for each states (including guam, puerto rico, samoa, dem abroad, virgin islands, DC) is not 4049, but 3997. 52 delegates are lacking... What's the problem? --Subver (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a lot of errors in the tables... i'm correcting following this http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml so that the sum is actually 4049. --Subver (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Done! I corrected a lot of errors in the tables! Now the sum is perfectly 4049! I've also added the 4 unassigned superdelegates in the last table. Enjoy :-) ! --Subver (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The top of the article says 4096. This isn't correct right? 128.113.113.125 (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed. Moreover this: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/superdelegate-number-is-now-718794.html suggest that number of delegate votes could decrease...--Subver (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If total delegate count for required simple majority is 4048 (as shown in the article main page) why the sum of pledged, not assigned and remaining delegates does not add up to this number? We have 1591 for Obama, 1473.5 for Clinton, 26 for Edwards, 11.5 uncommitted, and 693 remaining. These add up to a total of 3795. A simple majority of these would be 1897.5 not 2024.5. Starzykj (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You're missing some superdelegates in your count of the remaining votes. We have 1,592 Obama, 1,473.5 for Clinton, 26 for Edwards, 11.5 uncommmitted, and 945 remaining (599 pledged delegates + 346 superdelegates), which adds up to 4,048. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What to do about Edwards's Iowa delegates

Here's another tricky issue regarding the state results tables... The Iowa county conventions are coming up on March 15, and some of the projected Edwards delegates will likely defect to Obama or Clinton. To a lesser degree, this may occur in other states as the season goes on. How do we report this information? Do we provide an encyclopedic record of what happened in the initial round of caucuses? Or do we erase Edwards from history and keep a current delegate count that reflects changes in the delegate projections? Do we rely on footnotes to cover one of these two data points? Or do we find a way to do both in the tables? Do we wait to see what CBS does? Something to think about... Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually delegates here listed are only unofficial estimates, all the more so for Iowa, which no official sources ever indicate delegate counts. We have to keep official results, and so if Edwards delegates will be relocated we'll follow that. A footnote or something similar would be nice. DCW indicates the 14 "Edwards" Iowa's delegates as "Unknown". Moreover we should remember that Edwards is not withdrawn but he suspended his campaign. So the decision to relocate his Iowa superdelegates is not certain. --Subver (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
On this page I propose leaving them as is until March 15. When the new projections come in just change the Iowa line to the new projection and adjust all totals accordingly. While on the details page and a new line for Iowa for the county conventions, show the new projection on that line and use strikeout text on the previous Iowa cacus line. Jon (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Two rows for Washington?

Now that consensus has been reached that Texas should have two table rows, shouldn't Washington state also have two rows? Of its 78 delegates, 51 are allocated on May 17, and 27 are allocated on June 15. I propose that:

  1. The Washington row for February 9 should be deleted from the "February" table.
  2. Two separate rows for May 17 and June 15 should be added to the "April and beyond" table.

Wdfarmer (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Washington should have two rows. The rows in this article's result tables summarize state results, not event results. The more detailed Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries provides rows which summarize specific events. Texas was split in this article (and not entirely split) because it is a unique case in which two separate kinds of elections take place that have yeilded conflicting results. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe you misunderstand Washington's process, WDFarmer. You're not alone!
Washington had only one delegate-selecting contest - the 2/9 caucus. All unpledged PLEO and At-Large are determined at the summer's state convention by the delegates selected at the caucus. The primary was purely a beauty contest.
FYI - caucuses are arranged by the state parties whereas primaries are run by election authorities. For that reason, you'll typically see a primary even when the state holds a caucus for delegate selection -- and yes, it never counts. You might object that this is a "lame system" but it's the system. For all the criticism of Texas, they're actually doing a better job in this regard than the other caucus states. ...in my opinion.
Regards, and thanks for contribution. --Scantron2 (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Get Rid of Gravel

Gravel dropped out of the race. take him of the list!--69.51.160.106 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Give us a link proving the official withdrawal. CNN/CBS don't indicate him as withdrawn. --Subver (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Gravel is still in the race, and still (somewhat) active. Here is a recent press release from the campaign that indicates, among other things, that Gravel has not elected to concede anything: [1] (ESkog)(Talk) 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to pass along that I changed the table, though I invite you to revert it. Gravel's place in this list suggests he has a greater role in the process than Edwards has, when by virtue of the metric established by the table, Edwards has a far greater one. Tell me what you think. Already did something similar on the GOP side (with its comparable candidate, Ron Paul.) -- Kallahan (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to this but hesitant. The problem is that now it seems like we're in the business of deciding who "has a greater role in the process." By that metric, it becomes less clear why Gravel is above Richardson, Biden, et al. Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but by that metric, it's clear that Gravel is below Edwards. It's also worth noting that if you don't play, you can't win, and withdrawn candidates have sacrificed their delegate-taking opportunities; as unlikely as it is for Gravel to get a delegate, he's the only one left of the zeros. But that second debate can happen independently of this fundamental interpretation of the delegate metric for those whose delegate count is greater than goose egg. -- Kallahan (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The issue of how to initially sort this resortable table, particularly in regards to Edwards' placement vis a vis Gravel has been repeatedly debated in the past on this article's talk page and history. In each case, we arrived at the consensus that we should list current candidates first, ordered by pledged delegate count and withdrawn/suspended candidates next, ordered alphabetically by last name. Do we really need to revisit this issue once again? I'm going to revert Kallahan's change until we decide otherwise. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I obviously think we should. Conceivably Gravel could show up as third in this list through the convention, which is 1.) not informative for readers and 2.) misleading. It is less NPOV to have tiers of candidates based off of an arbitrary "by delegates for those in, then by name for those out," rather than by delegates for all. If sortable, why not have it completely by name? Because a value judgement has been made by the editors that puts delegates over name (in some cases.) I'm advocating we just apply one standard to all. Readers don't come here to see who's in; they come here to see who's winning, and putting Edwards far below the fold is an impendament to finding that information. -- Kallahan (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
First off, please pardon my grumpiness before. You present some good arguments. Here's my rebuttal, but my focus is not really on the force of your arguments. Because the list is sortable, it doesn't matter much which criteria we use for the table's initial state. I think therefore that in this case what matters more is stability and resources. The article is less useful to repeat visitors and regular editors if its structure changes too often. It uses editor resources that might be put toward other content issues if they spend their time repeatedly re-discussing the same aspect of the article. I am not saying that once consensus is reached on a matter it should never be revisited. I am saying that because this matter is not terrifically significant and has already been discussed several times that we should perhaps be a little more conservative in our willingness to revisit it. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I support Bryan's point of view. Wdfarmer (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. Gravel's a non-factor, but at this point, Edwards has become essentially a superdelegate with posse. The break between current and withdrawn candidates, and the color-coding, conveys the race situation clearly. And no, I'm not a Gravel supporter. But I think we should respect the fact that he's still in the race (even if he's no longer invited to debates). --Scantron2 (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Pledged Delegate Column/Switch from CBS to Wiki Results

I'm going to update the source for the "Pledged Delegate Votes Awarded" and "Pledged Delegate Votes Estimate by CBS" columns; I'd like to just pull the numbers from the individual primary articles.

I'll make a note similar to what is already on the above mentioned results page. Andareed (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose to totally switch from CBS to single states Result Pages (as done by the Results page). --Subver (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Switch

That would seem to go against the consensus reached above. I suggested the pledged delegate solution as Option D-2 (with Texas as one row) or Option E (with Texas as two rows). Neither seemed to have much support. Specifically, Andareed and Scantron opposed highlighting delegate winners. What is the practice on the state results articles? Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to revise consensus or open a can of worms. CBS marks winners according to popular vote. I thought if we dumped CBS, we'd be free to use whatever we want. The "results" article uses pledged delegates. Because the state results articles display popular vote and delegates, they highlight (in bold) the highest in each. Because delegate count, not popular vote, is used to determine the nomination, I say we should highlight delegate count. But I don't want to cause a stir or delay this CBS/Wiki vote. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
My preference is for marking the popular vote. Where the delegate total is different, I see this as a plus because we are conveying fuller information (e.g., that Obama won MO, Clinton won NH, or that Clinton won NV but lost in the delegate race.) It also makes for consistency with the color-coded map. But I feel like Bryan that I don't want to muddle consensus. Just my two cents. --Scantron2 (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm for continue using the popular vote to determine the winner. And I'll also propose it on the result page. --Subver (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Continue with CBS source

  • Is this a section or a conclusion? Anyhoo, I'm fine with CBS as the source. I'd be happy with a different single source as well, but I think we should use one and that it should be outside of Wiki. If we go with individual state Wiki results pages, we're opening ourselves up to a whole hodge-podge of sources that vary by state -- which is, at best, kicking the ball down river and at worst makes for state-by-state battling over sources, claims of bias, etc. My hope is that Subver's right and that this becomes a non-issue issue. --Scantron2 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Subver meant for editors to use this section to register their votes to continue using CBS as a source, which is just what you did (I'm not, I'm just responding to your comments. Because the editors of the "results" article have offloaded their sources and detail tables to the state articles, we've ended up working extensively on those articles as well. We've been fairly conscientious about applying a uniform method in our choice of sources for these articles. To the greatest extent possible, we use only primary sources for the results data, gathering it from each state's Democratic party or secretary of state web site. Where data is lacking from those sources, we've been filling in the gaps using the excellent secondary source The Green Papers. Our choice of that source is based largely on the detailed and clear explanations it gives for its sources and calculations. The Green Papers itself strives to match its data closely to direct state party sources. A standout example to look at of the state articles we've been working on is Texas Democratic primary and caucuses, 2008. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes it was a voting section. I agree with the motivations by Bryan. The result pages are really well done and they use the most updated available source. --Subver (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Scantron2 (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
...having a hard time getting to sleep. Bryan - you and the folks working those tables are the experts. If the approach to sourcing is consistent, then I don't see a problem. I just didn't want the Wikis to get self-referential or wishy-washy, but I guess this isn't the case. I'll withdraw my preference for CBS. Thanks for the reply. Regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus reached

Consensus reached: pledged delegate estimates should now be consistent with individual state results articles, using the reliable sources at those articles. No consensus reached on whether to continue highlighting "states won" by primary vote. Status quo for now is primary vote. Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

About those state results...

Now that we're making the switch to using state wiki numbers, I'm taking a look at those articles for the first time. Maybe this is the wrong place to bring this up, but one thing I find lacking in the state templates is the cell for "not assigned yet" that we have here. I guess we can keep doing the math ourselves by subtracting from the total available delegates, but I find the "not assigned yet" column essential to understanding state results. Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And can anyone explain what's up with Colorado? It's been a month now that they've had 10 delegates outstanding (I see the state article says 9). Do they have another contest? Seems like we should have a footnote to explain what's going on there. Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Gee, I hope I didn't misrepresent the shape the state articles are in. Some of them still do need work. But, hey, now the regular editors of this article will be motivated to help out, right? Right? Anyway, some of the state result tables contain a row at the bottom called "Undetermined" that contains the delegates that aren't assigned (see the Texas precinct conventions table for an example. More of the state result tables need to include this information, though. As far as Colorado goes, I've wondered that myself, but haven't gotten around to looking into it yet. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you summarize the preferred practice as far as sources goes on the state articles, for those of us who are new to it? I just started updated the tables but gave up when I got to Idaho... where the state article is showing 10-2, rather than 15-3. It seems like a bummer to start giving LESS complete results than we had with CBS. Am I correct that state official results are the preferred source, followed by Green Papers? On green papers, are we using the "soft pledged" or the "hard total"? Anything else I should know about preferred practice? Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You are correct about using the state official results followed by the Green Papers. On the Green Papers, we usually use "soft pledged" as "hard total" is not usually completed until late in election cycle and includes non-pledged votes. Sometimes, like in the case of Texas, you'll need to scroll farther down the page to see their breakdown. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we need some work to uniform delegate counting on these pages. Firstly, in the past, I saw some pages with proportionally assigned delegates. I think this is not what we want. I don't know if there are still countings like that. Secondly, establish the best sources. In order I think they should be 1) official source when available (es. Texas primary); 2) NYT only when complete (no "not yet assigned"); 3) highest numbers among CBS,AP,CNN. I don't know if a similar discussion has been already done. (and obviously keep "not yet assigned" column"). --Subver (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted a plan of action for sweeping through the states at Talk:Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries #Results Checklist. If we all take a few states, we can sweep through everything quickly. I'm reposting your comment there, Subver. That seems like the best place for this conversation. Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
More commenting on the state pages. While using those pages should work good most of the time, on an election night in state(s) that are being counted, it doesn't work well on election night itself as the state pages tend to be much less frequentely viewed than the main page. This has resulted in MS delegate count going back in time about 2 hours. Jon (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegate discrepancy

Is ot 794 or 795? We've got both numbers in this article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. Nice catch. It's 794. I've revised the article to fix this inconsistency. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If Bill Foster beats Jim Oberweis in the special election today in IL-14, it'll go back up to 795. --63.95.36.13 (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

He did and the article has been updated to reflect this. Thanks. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Consistency reached

Now the single state pages, the Result page and the Primaries page are consistent. Please we'll maintain so :-) --Subver (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Change in Super total?

Looks like Bill Foster just won IL's 14th seat [2]. This changes the total, and considering the guy was endorsed by Obama (even doing commercials for him), I would think he would return the favor. I think there's some special elections in other places too soon, so that might change the total again. -Aknorals (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I've updated this article accordingly. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm 90% sure that he is NOT a superdelagate., because he missed the deadline for qualifying. Please find a source.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 19:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Good thing you left yourself 10%. DNC rules clearly allow changes up to the start of the convention. This post references the specific sections of the DNC Call to the Convention which make this clear. Simon12 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I added a note to the "Superdelegates" section that changes may take place up until the start of the convention. I also included a reference to the relevant section in the DNC's 2008 Call for the Democratic National Convention. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I Was right about him missing the deadline, but of course wrong in assuming that my beloved Democrats wouldn't leave a backdoor open for changing the rules. Flipside me.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 04:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
While he is the newest super delegate per above and was endorsed by Obama, he would have to in turn pledge to vote for Obama to be considered an Obama superdelegate. Until he does so he's an uncommited superdelegate. I think it's better to wait for the source we've been using to start saying he's supporting Obama than to simply assume it. Jon (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing the US Congress page, the last time that page was udated, he was only US-Representive elect and hadn't been sworn in yet and so isn't yet a superdelegate. So the superdelegate change here was a bit premature, but I'll leave it in place since events on the ground will catch up to the article soon. Here's the other current vacencies and the scheduled dates of their elections (IN-7 March 11, CA-12 April 8, MS-1 April 22, LA-1 & LA-6 May 30). Jon (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Last I heard, Puerto Rico had only proposed to move their date up a couple of weeks (and change from a Caucus to a Primary) and were awating DNC party approval before doing so (expected to take a month), so I think the PR edits were very much premature. Jon (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

DemConWatch suggests that the change has already been approved. Andareed (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It was the CNN broadcast sometime Saturday afternoon during the Wyoming cacus where I heard about P.R. so I don't have a link on hand. As I recall though they said that approval by the DNC was expected but that it would take a month to be formally aproved. Jon (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As the citation in the article clearly specifies, the FEC has approved the 1st, not the 7th, as Puerto Rico's election date. [3] --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 16:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jSubRkepCz5lauZVfI1WLTp5gmegD8V8N5000 http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/07/politics/horserace/entry3917878.shtml http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0762582620080308?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/07/puerto_rico_democrats_seek_to.html

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/PR-D.phtml

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/07/oops-puerto-rico-primary-isnt-the-last/#comment-87330

(Seablade (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Article scope discussion on results page

A significant and comprehensive discussion on the scope of both this page and the results page has begun at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Redistributing nomination results among the articles. Please contribute to this discussion as it could have ramifications for the content of this page as well. Thanks. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Effect of Spitzer's resignation

This article on Politico [4] indicates that Spitzer's resignation would drop the total superdeladate total by 1, as Spitzer would lose his Super status, Paterson, his replacement already has Super Status, and no one can fill the role of Lt. Gov in NY to fill Patersons spot.

So 4048 would become 4047. Assuming he drops. an FYI.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 14:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

News sources have been are all over the map on Spitzer on weather or not he will resign since yesterday evening and still appear to be so. That said, if he does (which I think is more likely than not), then the count of Super Delegates would indeed decrease by one. But check out the list of special elections in an above section that have the potiential to increase the super delegate count. There's also some thought that Spitzer may have been pledged to Clinton, if the site we're using for tracking super delegates lists him as such then a resignation from him would also drop her pledged super delegate count by one. Jon (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, CastAStone.
  • The count won't go down. Paterson is an at-large delegate for the NY DNC. If he becomes Governor, that at-large seat becomes vacant and will be filled by the state party. The 795 count we've been using includes current vacancies and TBD add-on delegates. So no worries.
  • The effect would be a temporary reduction by 1 to Clinton's super-count while that at-large seat is vacant. We won't make this change -- demconwatch will, and we'll follow their lead. Long-run, the new at-large delegate will presumably back Clinton, restoring her current total. For more information, go to www.demconwatch.blogspot.com where they have a full description of the situation. --Scantron2 (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Paterson could keep his DNC seat even as Governor. If so, the superdelegate number goes down 1 permanently. And if he does give up his seat, the DNC gets to pick the replacement, not the state party. It's a national "at-large" seat - it's not assigned to New York. (at least not officially - they might certainly give it to a New Yorker to keep the numbers status quo - but the DNC doesn't have to). Simon12 (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the note

I think putting the page (33) of the DNC document in the footnotes was better. After each note is confusing...I'm reverting. If manual of style, or something similar say to do differently, please let me know. --Subver (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw the note for superdelegates. Mmmm I think it's better to split. --Subver (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pledged delegates Chart

I don't think that both of the charts at the top of the page are necessary. The comparative number of delegates between states doesn't need to be rendered graphically. Also, its not helpful at all to group them geographically since the inherent size distortion messes up the layout so much. Also, you can barely tell which candidate won each state due to the size of the charts as a whole. The wording is too small to be easily readable, and no one would even be able to tell which color represents which candidate without cross-referencing the image below or viewing the full-size image. This info might be better displayed as a pie chart, w/ the total delegates of all the states together being the whole pie. I think that one or both of them should be deleted, or at the very least, moved to a less prominent location on the page. Michaelk08 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree (though I made these charts). I made them to replace a previous cartogram which was even less readable. There has been some discussion about these images on the talk pages of the images, as well as on Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, where they are a better fit. Some people like to be able to see the states won represented graphically, so they can visualize the "Clinton has won large states / Obama has won more states" thing. Others insisted on the geographical arrangement, so I did both because of concerns about the "states won" ambiguity of TX, MO, NV, and NH. I am working on a better representation of pledged delegates, which I will upload later this week after the MS results, and then I will move these graphs or delete them. In the meantime, I think it's good to leave them there, as it's problematic to have a popular vote map only at the top of the page. We could delete all images but then we lose some layout interest. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
New maps are up there now. The cartograms have been deleted here. They can still be found at [Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries]]. Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Context

Added content relevant to the context of this event. It did not just happen in a vacuum. The Florida House Bill passed in 2007, (HB 537) was not even made with the express purpose of rescheduling ANYthing. It was made to mandate a paper trail for voting in Florida. Amendments were added during the legislative process, presumably so that other representatives could get things passed on the coat tails of something that had such popular support.

Whatever the case may be, all the content on the Florida primary in 2008 has made it sound like Florida was changing the date to be feisty or rebellious or for some random reason, when in fact, what you have is a bill co-sponsored by 20 Republicans and 6 Democrats, that was passed with a crap load of riders, ONE of which, changed the date for the primary.

So now this article reflects the context.

Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk)

That does read much better. Much more ecylopedic. Now we just need a similar rewrite for Michigan to show it's legislative history. Jon (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


No need to spend millions for Florida's vote. The poeple have spoken and the party chose to ignore the outcom. We the poeple of Florida are getting used to be cheated out of their votes. Elders have fauth for the capability to vote and be able to have a vote on our future. I have taken the time and effort to go vote but the powers to be say that my vote does not count well I believe that the work of elders was in vein. Thank you for reading these comments Rolland of south Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.77.91 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Democratic Primary

I am trying to get a decent article about Pennsylvania's democratic primary. I would appreciate any help! Pennsylvania state elections, 2008#Democratic Primary.--RedShiftPA (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking for source material or are you asking for help editing the Wikipedia article you mentioned? If you're looking for sources, you might try looking at the ones used on Pennsylvania Democratic primary, 2008. The most authoritative source would probably be either the Pennsylvania Department of State's web site or the Pennsylvania Democratic Party's web site. You can get the nitty-gritty details about the delegate selection process from the Party's Delegate Selection Plan. I have found The Green Papers web site to be a good distillation of each state's Selection Plan documents. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Has Gravel Really Withdrawn?

We have discussed this same issue at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Remove Gravel? as well. I'm not sure it's appropriate yet to portray Gravel as withdrawn on this article prior to any formal announcement. I notice the article Mike Gravel contains the statement "In March 2008, Gravel continued to remain in the Democratic race but additionally endorsed a Green Party candidate for president, Jesse Johnson." The assertion that he remains in the race isn't sourced, however. I could likewise find no sources that confirm he's withdrawn. Does endorsing another candidate necessarily equal withdrawal? Is this the same as Edwards' formal announcement that he's suspending his campaign? Or is it different? I don't know the answers here, but thought I'd at least pose the questions. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no formal withdrawn, but I think he will never do that. Gravel pick up much much less votes than already formally withdrawn candidates by long time. In my opinion, the endorsement of another presidential candidate is sufficient to consider him really out of race. --Subver (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Reordering Proposal

  • Ordering:
    • The candidates are ordered by pledged delegate count and then alphabetically by last name
    • To re-sort this table, click on the double-arrow symbol at the top of a column

I know the discussion is very old and long. But I think this should resolve some edit-wars and bypass Gravel problem. Moreover there is a discrepancy in what has been done and what is written in the "summary of talk page consensus".--Subver (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Conditional support. Ugh. I do get tired of repeatedly revisiting this issue. It's trivial because the list can easily be re-sorted, so we're really only ever deciding on the default order. However, I suppose it's been over a month since we actually changed it. I would support this proposal if we agreed to two additional conditions:
1. We remove the gray background on the "withdrawn" candidates. That would elmininate "either/or" arguments over whether or not someone has withdrawn. A candidate's status can be treated with more nuance in the Campaign status column.
I like the idea of removing the grey for all. Whenever the nomination process is over, it makes sense at that point to bold the winner, rather than grey everyone else. Andareed (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
2. We set a one-month time limit on revisiting the subject of default candidate order. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok for one-month limit. Ok to remove grey color on Gravel, but I would keep on others (their situation are not ambiguous). --Subver (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Kallahan (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Support for the sake of consensus (though I still do prefer my suggestion below) Andareed (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How about ordering by delegate count first, then by withdrawal date? Andareed (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes even more sense. Support.Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It could be nice, but I don't know how write in (I would keep the phrase simple and for general purpose). --Subver (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. This scheme is simple, but perpetuates arguments over whether or not we consider a candidate to have withdrawn. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the largest consensus we can find is in the first proposal (with time limit). Ok? --Subver (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Now I think we all agree. About grey, for now I'm removing it only from Gravel.--Subver (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like an ok compromise to remove the grey background for Gravel alone. We have run into friction in the past over Edwards' status, but that was shortly after he suspended his campaign. It could crop up again, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. As Andareed says above, we might want to remove the grey background from all the candidates anyway after the nomination process is over. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote taking place on results article

Though this matter has no direct effect on this article, I know that many of the editors here also edit Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. So, I thought I'd let you know that right now there is a significant vote taking place at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows about whether or not to overturn a previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should represent individual nominating events. The vote ends at the close of March 19, 2008 (UTC). The vote contains the negative-option that if there is a tie or fewer than 4 total signatures the previous consensus will prevail. I invite you to visit the talk page and submit your vote on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to split January table

The January table looks "messier" than the others because of all the parentheses and footnotes. It's become hard to read and is not a good introduction to the article. (The Super Tuesday table, by contrast, is much more clear.) I propose to split the table, leaving IA, NH, NV, and SC in the January section, but moving FL and MI to a new table under the "nullified primaries" section. My reasoning:

  • The footnotes and parentheses to the Iowa results are easier to absorb and understand if they don't have to compete with the footnotes/parentheses from Michigan and Florida.
  • It looks increasingly likely that there may be a new solution to the Michigan/Florida problem, which will require a new round of parentheses and footnotes and who-knows-what-else. The solution may even involve a revote, in which case it would be better to move Michigan/Florida out of January and put them into the chronology when the "real" vote takes place. In the meantime, they fit nicely in the nullified primaries section.
  • If we pull Michigan and Florida to a separate table we can design that table to explain their unique situation rather than trying to shoehorn them into the template of the January table, which doesn't really fit for them.Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good reasons all. I can't think of a good reason not to do this. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutral. --Subver (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Andareed (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Jon (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts on what the Florida/Michigan table should look like? I can think of four ideas. There may be more...

  • Continue the practice of putting 0, with full numbers in parentheses.
  • Give the full numbers, but retitle the column to something other than "Votes to the Convention."
  • Give the full numbers, and add a column on the right with 0.
  • Make two rows for each state (a la Texas primary/caucus), one row with the full numbers, and one row with 0's.

Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the 2nd option (full numbers and retitling the column) is the best. This option would present the most readable layout and there should be no confusing the full numbers with legitimate votes as long as the table is listed under the Nullified primaries section and has a different column title. How about Nullified votes to the convention? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
One more thing we may need to consider soon is if MI and/or FA decide to have a redo, how we're going to display this here. (At the moment, MI appears likely to do so). Jon (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Might be difficult to run though all possible permutations now. It's not just the possibility of a revote; we also have the possibility of the delegates being seated in some other form (for example, Florida stripped of half its delegates and a 50/50 solution for Michigan). I think this is something we have to solve when it happens. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done I made this change. Feel free to tweak it. We should probably also write some better content for the nullified section. Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Looks much better. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

DNC update

Today DNC has updated the "Call to the Convention" PDF. I updated our data according the official sources (I checked all the states). Now many past changes are comprised into the new official numbers, so I'm removing the notes. Superdelegate number history can be found in the main article. --Subver (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I know from updating that stuff myself in the past that you just did a lot of work. Thanks. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to be consistent with the results article, I propose to link each state's name to the article for the respective primary or caucus (Iowa), instead of linking to the article for the state itself (Iowa). The column "specific election link" would be renamed "Type" and wikilinks would be removed from that column. Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Good idea. That would make the tables a little cleaner and simpler. Let's not forget to update the table notes at the beginning of the Chronicle section to be consistent with this change. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I prefer the current situation. --Subver (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. How about we merge the "State" and "Specific Election (Link)" column too, calling it "Event", as so:
Details Nullified Votes to the Convention[1][2]
Date Event Pledged Delegate Votes Super-
delegate
Votes 		Total
District-level At-large PLEO[3] Total
January 15 Michigan primary 83 28 17 128 29[4] 157
January 29 Florida primary 121 40 24 185 26[5] 211
Total - 204 68 41 313 55 368
Andareed (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion, Andareed, but each row in the Chronicle tables seems to be focused on summarizing the aggregate of all nominating events in a given state. Your proposed change would make it appear as if each row was instead focused on a single event. I think the state-summary focus in the Chronicle tables works well for this article and gives the article some useful separation from the event-summary focus of its daughter article Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Jon (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be in favor of changing the wikilinks. I am also in favor of Andareed's proposal to combine the two columns into one. Bryan H, I don't see how it makes it appear as if each row is focused on a single event. In the case of primaries, there is generally only one event, so no problem. In the case of caucuses, we're talking about a row that says "Iowa caucuses," not "Iowa precinct caucuses." I think "Iowa caucuses" is broad enough that it will suffice as a label for the aggregate of events. (We still keep two rows for TX, which is the only outlier). Do others support Andareed's solution? Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, perhaps the column heading in Andareed's example, with its singular "Event", is what's throwing me. I could accept Andareed's proposal if we modified the column heading to say something like "State/Nomination Type". --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I didn't notice the column header. Your concern makes sense. How about "Contest"? Still singular but not so strictly limited as "Event." "State/Nomination Type" seems a bit long. I would suggest, simply, "State," except that it doesn't technically cover the territories and the Dems Abroad contest. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I agree "State/Nomination Type" is long. It reveals a problem with combining discrete kinds of information in the same column. In database design at least, that's generally considered an undesirable practice (which doesn't exactly apply to designing display tables, though). "Contest" is better than "Event", but still suggests a single event. What about "Contest Type"? Or "Location/Type"? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I implemented this change, using "Election link" as the title of the new column; it can be changed later if desired. Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Narrative

I've added narrative sections to fill out the chronicle, trying to be consistent with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I think it's important to have those sections in there to give the reader a sense of the general contours an turning points in the race, but I fear they may be a target for some POV drive-by editing. I would appreciate any help I can get in sourcing and citing the things that are still not referenced and keeping an eye on the article to be sure that all edits are NPOV. (I'd also appreciate you fixing my own POV when you catch it.) Thanks! Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Great work. Always be bold! --Subver (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. The previous link brought a probably fake error message —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.251.165 (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean. The previous link was working fine. (In fact, you changed it to the same thing.) If you got an error message it was probably just down temporarily.Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps 208.102.251.165's difficulty was caused by the absense of a trailing slash in the URL to Clinton's campaign web site. Just in case it was, I added the slash. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
ah, thanks. Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Article size

This article has evolved into quite a good, mature article. However the article is also starting to get a bit long. It is currently 90 kilobytes. We might want to start looking for ways to shorten it following the guidelines at WP:SIZE and WP:SS. We could spin off some sections into daughter articles. The longest top-level sections are "Delegate system" and "Chronicle", though I am loath to spin off the entire "Chronicle" section. We might be able to spin off some second-level sections, particularly "Nullified primaries" (though I'd want to retain that section's table in this article as a good summary of what we might include in a "Democratic Party (United States) nullified primaries, 2008" daughter article). We could also move some content into already-existing daughter articles. The "Superdelegates" and "Super Tuesday" sections might be good candidates for this.

Given the breadth and size of our subject matter and the fact that this article already has an array of daughter articles, we might instead want to consider an article series structure with this article as the "overview article". If we consider that kind of structure, we should keep in mind that we already have several navigational boxes listed at the bottom of this article, two of which specifically cover the 2008 primaries/elections. For quick reference and as an aid to our discussion, here's a list of all the articles currently called out in this article using {{main}} and {{see also}}:

Whatever the case, let's not rush off into deleting stuff or embarking on major restructuring efforts before discussing our best options a little bit first in this section. Also, if you can think of options for shortening this article that I haven't listed above, please speak up. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this concern. I think we might want to let the article run on the long side while the primary campaign is still active. We can keep it trim by condensing some sections, rather than spinning anything off just quite yet. Citation templates contribute heavily to article size. Yesterday, I removed some old footnotes from 2007 that were basically not doing anything except providing a source for the date of the state contests (which are no longer really in need of specific citations). Removing those footnotes cut the article size from 90K to 85K. We could look for similar opportunities in the article. For example, cutting "Superdelegates were gained by the elections of Representatives Bill Foster[6] and André Carson[7] and lost by the death of Congressman Tom Lantos, the dequalification of party leader Ken Curtis,[8] and the resignation of Governor Eliot Spitzer.[9]" in the superdelegate section would take out several more footnotes, and that information is better covered in the main article on superdelegates; in fact, what we have here is no longer even a current list of all superdelegate changes. I would also be in favor of condensing the Florida and Michigan sections. And we may be able to make some Chronicle cuts as it becomes more clear exactly which events are important for the encyclopedic record and which are just passing news items. (Ferraro's comment in April seems already to be receding into the distance.) In sum, my thought is that we should just try to keep things as trim as we can and keep the article manageable. When the race is over, we can think about how to present an article series on the subject.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense to let the article run a little long while the campaign is active and put off any serious re-organization until it's over. The changes made by you and also Subver earlier have reduced the size without substantially altering the content. Following your suggestion, I removed details and citations from the Superdelegates section, turning it into more of a summary of the daughter article Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008. That further reduced the article to 81K. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I made additional cuts to the nullified primaries, which can be covered in more detail in the respective state articles. Article size is now down to 81K and, more importantly, it seems to be at a readable length.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"April and beyond" section biased toward Hillary

The first paragraph goes at length to explain Hillary still has a chance to pick up more superdelegates than Obama. As per NPOV and given there is a WaPo article to back up this scenario I won't argue with this statement.

However, since a favorable outcome for Hillary in the struggle for superdelegate endorsements is presented it's unfortunate there is no counter-point that talks about the reluctance of letting superdelegates going against the results of the popular vote, as for example stated by Nancy Pelosi. Hence, only Hillary's POV is presented and not Obama's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.190.8 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I made some edits to remedy this.Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I can't spot any changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.104.188 (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The changes can be seen here. In particular, the first paragraph of the April section has been revised to meet your concerns. I condensed some of the pro-Clinton analysis and added two new sentences with analysis favorable to Obama. Compare:
(OLD) As the race continues to the delegate-rich states of Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina, many observers have concluded that Clinton has very little chance to finish the primary season with more pledged delegates than Obama.[96] Even if Clinton succeeds in changing the dynamics of the race, Obama's lead is large enough that there are not enough pledged delegates left on the table to allow Clinton to catch up under most realistic scenarios.[97] However, some observers suggest that she has a chance to gain the nomination even if she cannot win the pledged delegates. Washington Post political analyst Chris Cillizza put forth a "Clinton Blueprint" for victory, suggesting that if she runs hard against Obama on national security, freezes the superdelegates from endorsing Obama, pushes hard to count delegates in Florida and Michigan, and scores convincing wins in Pennsylvania and the states that follow, she may have a chance at getting close enough in the pledged delegate count that superdelegates could be convinced to support her for the nomination.[98]
(NEW)As the race continues to the delegate-rich states of Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina, many observers have concluded that Clinton has little chance to finish the primary season with a lead in pledged delegates,[100] as there are not enough delegates left on the table to allow Clinton to catch up under most realistic scenarios.[101] Some analysts believe Clinton still has a chance to win the nomination by raising doubts about Obama’s electability and national security experience, fighting for the Michigan and Florida delegations to be seated on favorable terms, and convincing superdelegates to support her even if she loses the pledged delegate vote.[102] However, others have noted that the window of opportunity for re-votes in Michigan and Florida appears to have closed.[101] House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who will chair the Democratic National Convention, has said that it would be harmful to the party if superdelegates overturned the result of the pledged delegate vote.[103]
I also have to wonder if the article is biased towards Democrats in general. The "reasons for voter turnout" section does not match the reasons in the citing. "Voter disillusionment towards Republican candidates" is not mentioned in the article at all. Can we examine that, please?--Timskier (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)::
A valid concern. My impression is that those bullet points have been discussed fairly often in the political news media and given as explanations for the turnout discrepancy. But you are right that they are not all supported by the cited source. Rather than delete them, we should give them {{fact}} tags or, better yet, find additional sources. And of course if you see any specific NPOV problems, jump right in.Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there has been much discussion of these reasons in the media, and I have heard all bullet points discussed. However, the one that sticks out as having been discussed by biased pundits is the "voter disillusionment" bullet. Not that it shouldn't be listed -- it may indeed be valid, and with proper footnoting, it is useful. I am still new at the Wiki style, though, so will let you all figure the best way to handle it.--Timskier (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)::::

Missippi Primary Results Correction

The Secretary of State came out with final official results in the Missippi primary the link is confusing because it breaks down county by county results but the end result of the election is that Obama - 265,502 and Clinton - 159,221 vote totals. That gives Obama a heads-up 62.512% victory, which WILL switch another state-wide at-large delegate to him making the mississippi delegate count 20 obama and 13 for clinton. The source for this data was here http://www.sos.state.ms.us/elections/2008/Primary/Democratic.asp I went ahead and made the change if this is against protocol for this page please feel free to revert but please explain why? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.78.88 (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This article uses another article (Mississippi Democratic primary, 2008) as its source for the Mississippi primary results. That article in turn uses the same Mississippi Secretary of State source you cited above. That source provides vote totals and percentages, but it doesn't provide delegate allocations. The percentages it lists, by the way, are different from what you list above. The source shows 61.2% for Obama and 36.7% for Clinton (see the p. 10 under the Statewide Official Primary Democratic Totals link on the page you cite). Since the Mississippi Secretary of State source does not provide delegate allocations, the Mississippi Democratic primary, 2008 article is using another source (CBS News) for this information. CBS News shows the Mississippi delegate count as 19 for Obama and 14 for Clinton. I could find no other sources (other than blogs, which are not generally regarded as reliable sources) that gave the delegate counts you list above. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914#MS
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/01/848251.aspx
72.129.131.48 (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's more like it. I agree it's safe to go forward with the updated numbers now. I've updated Mississippi Democratic primary, 2008 to use the MSNBC election results page and I see someone has already updated Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. I didn't much doubt that the reported change was true, but didn't want to update Wikipedia articles until it was confirmed by a reliable source. We can afford to observe a little patience here. This is an encyclopedia, after all, not a newspaper. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Another reason for have waited until a reliable source adjusted their delegate count is that while computing the state wide delegation split is realtively simple, the district one is more complex. Assuming like most states, MS district ones were by CD, you first needed to assign the counties listed to their congressional districts. And for counties that are split by CD, you need to go down to the precient by precient level to assign those. And then finally on the Democratic side it's often not an equal number of delegates per district, but instead is often weighted by democratic performance. By waiting, it gives time for those sources to do those computations as well. Jon (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegates

In an effort to standardize the superdelegate numbers across the article series, I have begun a conversation at Talk:List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008#Switch to Democratic Convention Watch that may interest some editors of this article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Improving article appearance with photos

An editor recently added a photo of participants in Washington State's 43rd Legislative District caucuses to the April and beyond section of this article. I disagree with this editor about the appropriateness of that particular photo to this article. I'd prefer that the photo be replaced with one that depicts a more significant "April and beyond" event, or at least one from that event that depicts something more meaningful than people sitting in bleachers.

However, I do agree with this editor's point that the article could use more photos to improve its appearance. There are long sections of this article containing only text and tables (Delegate system and Chronicle) that could be made more visually appealing with some well-chosen photos to illustrate or expand on some of the significant information conveyed by the text. I'm not especially proficient with Wikipedia images. Anyone care to help out with this? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I added some images. Not sure they improve the appearance though -- maybe someone else can do a better job. The tables tend to be in the middle of the subsections within the chronicle, which means in many cases we have a short chunk of text, then a table, then a short chunk of text, then a subhead, then a short chunk of text, then a table, etc. That makes it hard to place images in a way that will result in a clean page design for users with different browsers and especially different screen widths.Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort. I think your changes improve the article's appearance and make it more interesting. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain public financing controversy

Should the complaint against McCain with the FEC be incorporated in this article?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-u3WbiCcQ8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a McCain issue is relevant to an article about the primaries. This would be more appropriate in United States presidential election, 2008.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. --Kallahan (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

CA delegation controversity

Sunday Afternoon on Fox News, I heard something about hundreds Obama's delegates in CA having been restored (after having previously been stripped). Unfortunately their explanation was preempted by a Clinton speech just starting so I don't know the details, but it seems to be that as soon as there is a cite it might be worth mentioning in the narrative. Jon (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a relatively minor procedural point and in my opinion does not belong in the narrative. Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns attempted a "purge" of their own delegates to make sure that their delegates would be loyal to them at the convention. (Trying to avoid a so-called "Trojan Horse" problem, where Obama delegates might actually be Clinton supporters in disguise and vice versa.) Some or most of the purge was later reversed by the Obama campaign after protest from the delegates. Not sure about Clinton. In any case, this stuff didn't generate much news coverage, compared with most events in the primary race, and I consider it primarily a procedural matter that is internal to the two campaigns. See here.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Question: Infobox

In the past two days, two three separate editors have added an infobox to the top of the article without an edit summary. I have reverted each time with an edit summary. I believe the infobox duplicates information found elsewhere in the article and produces a topheavy layout. I'm assuming the editors are introducing the infobox to a series of presidential primary articles and find it helpful to have a standard layout across that series. I don't believe, however, that it is appropriate for this article. Reasons:

  • The infobox works for primaries that have much shorter articles, where the box doesn't interfere with the layout. However, it interferes with the layout here.
  • Its primary function appears to be to provide a photo of the top candidates and a summary of vote percentages and delegate counts, which we already have here at the top of the article in the candidate and results section.
  • Its secondary function appears to be to navigate to past and future primary years. However, that is better accomplished through the template at bottom. Most people visiting this article at the moment (and there are several thousand a day) aren't especially interested in navigating to the 2004 primaries.

I might support some use of this template after the primaries are over to increase standardization with other primary articles, but I think at the moment it is inappropriate. What do others think? Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox in its current form doesn't work well with this aricle and shouldn't be included. The lack of edit summaries (and in some cases, registered accounts) for those edits that have added the infobox concerns me. I can see some evidence that all the editors may be the same person. I notice that the same infobox was added and susequently removed from United States presidential election, 2008, but it remains on many other less frequently edited articles. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It currently does not add any value to the article. It does however take up space and break formatting. My opinion is that we don't add it and possibly revisit the issue later. Andareed (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It should be included for continuity's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.143.32 (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
If the consensus on other primary pages, including the 2004 Primaries which has a decent sized article, destroying the arguement that only smaller pages need it. Also, it hardly takes up any space. --Bigvinu

Reasons to include: The Popular vote is not mentioned within the article at all. The chart with the candidates' picture just gives delegate summaries. As Wikipedia is meant to be an online easy to obtain resource, there should be some way to link between past and current primaries, and the info box is the best way to do that. Also, the info box does not take up as much space as some editors claim. (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's continue this conversation down below at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Proposal: Include Election InfoboxNorthwesterner1 (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

PA delegate numbers

PA numbers needs reverted back; state article using CBS News rather than CNN; primarily becase CBS News projeting a whole lot more than CNN at this point. I'd do it myself, except I would be in violation of 3RR. Jon (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

CBS News updated their numbers, so I was able to update both without violating 3RR. Jon (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Note that the consensus is to pull the numbers from the state articles, so I would treat someone not following this as vandalism, for which 3RR's does not apply. Andareed (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism? Not having read some obscure consensus developed on a talk page does not qualify as vandalism. john k (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is vandalism, but I do think ignoring edit summaries noting the consensus is something very close to it.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It is certainly bad behavior to do so, especially when one is not participating on the talk page. I don't know that it actually qualifies as vandalism. john k (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation

Do any countries besides the United States have presidential primary elections? Do we really need the parenthetical disambiguation? john k (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

a)I think the answer to your first question is yes, though I'm not sure. b) The parentheses modify Democratic Party, of which there are many around the world. It's a logical organization, one step removed from Democratic Party (United States)Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The idea of a "primary election" is pretty close to wholly American. The name "primary election" even more so. I'd like to see some evidence that there are others. And obviously there are other Democratic Parties around the world, but this one is the only one that is holding presidential primaries in 2008, I suspect, and is certainly the primary use of the term in this context. john k (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Italy seems to have primary elections. They also have a Democratic Party. Also, it's not just this article that has the parenthetical disambiguation -- it's every presidential primary article in the United States, Democratic and Republican, going back decades. If you want to work on getting them all changed, be my guest -- but why? Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The title is so ridiculously counterintuitive that nobody would ever guess it, and it makes the articles (yes, indeed, all of them) hard to find. As to Italy, they certainly don't have presidential primaries, because the president is chosen by parliament. john k (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the title is intuitive, following Democratic Party (United States), but I do agree the articles are hard to find. The best way to fix that is through redirects and disambig links. For example, Democratic primaries 2008 redirects here. Democratic primaries redirects to Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries. Rather than launching a campaign to rename 50+ articles, I would suggest creating redirects from search terms that might be useful: Democratic Party primaries 2008 and whatever else you can think of.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Voter Turnout map

Another editor (Patstuart) and I have a disagreement about the voter turnout map, Image:2008 Presidential Parties, Democratic Voter Turnout.png. To my knowledge, this is the only article that uses the map, so I thought I would bring the discussion here for additional opinions. There are two points of disagreement. First, I feel the map should show only those states in which both parties voted prior to March 4, when John McCain clinched the Republican nomination. Patstuart feels that a comparison for later states is still valid because of local races. However, I believe turnout in the Republican primaries is negatively affected by the lack of a competitive race in states after March 4 at the presidential level, so the comparison with Democratic turnout is not useful. The second point of disagreement is the use of map symbols to indicate Florida's and Michigan's special status. I feel the current caption indicates that just fine without impacting the map visuals. Further, the map legend is so small that the symbols on Florida, Michigan, and Mississippi can't be read without clicking on the image. Better to do this work in the caption. Can we get a third opinion, please? Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you on the first point, Northwesterner. The map helps readers visualize which party's presidential primary race has the most motivating effect on potential voters. After March 4, there was no longer (in practical terms) a Republican primary race to use for comparison, so shading states with primaries after that date gives the false impression that those states have a more motivated Democratic base than other states. It also gives the false impression that states with primaries after that date have a less motivated Republican base than other states. On the second point, I don't have a strong opinion, but why not have the same footnote in both the image and the caption? If you look at the image in the article context, you can't see the footnote embedded in the image, but you can read it in the caption. If you look at the image outside of the article context, you can now see the explanation embedded in the image. By the way, what about adding a map that compares Democratic turnout in this primary election to Democratic turnout in the last primary election? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think such a comparision is only valid up to Super Tuesday when Romney (who was in second place at the time) dropped out of the race, making McCain the overwhelming favorite to win the Republican nomination. Jon (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
May I ask, what is the problem with adding the information if a note is also added stating "these states were after the deadline?" After all, on the Republican primary article, we include how states and counties voted even though that election was over with. In fact, the heavy Democratic turnout in Mississippi almost let a Democrat win a House seat, which was a real shocker. Yet Pennsylvania had local races (e.g., 5th district) and saw inflated Democratic turnout even in those districts. What's more, many of the states already included (e.g., Texas) were at the point were the race was still going on, mathematically, but practically it was over. In other words, those states would be skewed as well. Finally, to be frank, it's ridiculously ugly to leave states completely blank; and if we do it that way (which we shouldn't, and I'll continue to argue such) then we should make a large statement on the image caption saying "this is only for states after the presumptie McCain nomination".
As for the symbols: they are a bit ugly as they are; we could move the text marked by the symbols in the caption. 128.118.226.88 (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not an article about local or statewide races. It's about the presidential primaries. The map compares turnout in Republican presidential primaries to turnout in Democratic presidential primaries. That comparison is only useful for states where both parties had voted before McCain clinched the nomination. If we were to color in all states with a note saying that certain states were after the Republican presidential race was concluded, the map would give a misleading visual impression. As for your suggestion that we should indicate this in the caption, we do. If you find it ridiculously ugly to leave states blank, we could color them light gray or something. I agree that there is a problem about whether to use March 4 or Super Tuesday as the cut-off date. However, I think the current version has the least problems and is the most NPOV.Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
OK fine. However, I find your language to be unnecessarily combative, and I am quite offput at the moment. I will be willing to continue discussing this, in so long as we can speak civilly.
a) You haven't addressed my assertions, either that the comparisons are valid due to 1. local races and 2. they are abnormally high even in those areas and 3. the race results are hardly more skewed than in later Republican states before the primary was "officially" clinched, b) "if we were to color in all states with a note saying that certain states were after the Republican presidential race was concluded, the map would give a misleading visual impression" - I'm not sure how that's any more misleading than just leaving them blank, making it look like we were too lazy to update it, c) "As for your suggestion that we should indicate this in the caption, we do" - I was talking about states that were past this deadline. 128.118.226.88 (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the tone; really not my intention to be combative at all. I take your points in good faith; I think we just have a difference of opinion. With regard to 1) local races, I did address it; this article is about presidential primaries, and thus while it might be interesting to look at turnout comparison with regard to local races, that comparison belongs in a different article. 2) Abnormally high, I agree, but compared to what? It's very hard to draw comparisons with other primary years, because every year has different factors in play. Is it really valid to compare turnout in 2008 to 2004 or 2000 when the presidential primaries were locked up early? Every possible comparison has problems. There are hundreds of different comparisons you could make (for example, comparing Democratic turnout this year to the average of all previous primaries), but I chose this particular comparison because I believed after due consideration that it was the most interesting and most illustrative of the high Democratic turnout this year. We can disagree about that. There are a dozen different maps that could be drawn. I think this one is the most useful, but maybe others could be developed, or maybe this section should have no map. With regard to 3) I acknowledged above that this is a valid concern. The numbers are always going to be skewed. I think using the cutoff date of March 4 is less skewed than using Super Tuesday (when McCain became the presumptive nominee) or using no cutoff at all. But I understand why others disagree. I still don't understand your point about the caption, and I'm not clear what you mean by deadline.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, it would help me become a better person and friendlier editor :) if you could note where you felt the tone was combative. (You don't have to respond here; you could do it on my talk page.) I've re-read my comment several times, and I can't see where the tone was combative, except possibly with the bolding of the word presidential, which I felt was important to emphasize; I really didn't mean to seem rude.Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that the map is misleading after the primaries. You want to compare apples to apples. This is a standard in both statistical analysis and in business metrics for a reason. Although I recognize the importance of all states, and respect your desire to represent them as well, states that weighed in after McCain's presumptive win simply are not represented the same as states that did not.--Timskier (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC):::::::
I question the accuracy of the turn out number based on number of registered democrats in on the Fla state roles the number is slightly over 30% not the 40+ % that the map shows. Ol1976 (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As indicated, the map measures "Democratic Turnout as a Percentage of Total Turnout." It doesn't have anything to do with party affiliation among registered voters. It shows what percentage of all people who participated in the election voted in the Democratic priamry. Turnout in the Democratic primary was 1,447,200. Turnout in the Republican primary was 1,949,498. Thus Democratic turnout was 42.6% of total turnout. Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of page

I'm sensitive to concerns of US-centrism, but is there another Democratic Party having presidential primaries in 2008? If so, why wasn't Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008 a disambiguation page? It's now a redirect to this page, courtesy of myself, and I think it might make sense if this page was moved there. If there is a genuine concern of confusion, I will retract this request. François Metro (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

See #disambiguation above. Andareed (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"The... Bataan Death Match to the White House" humor

Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but calling the Democratic Primaries "The Long, Flat, Seemingly Endless Bataan Death Match to the White House," while referencing Jon Stewart, while reality-based, is probably irreverent, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.173.243 (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That definately does not sound encylopedic to me. Jon (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

THERE IS A MAJOR FACTUAL ERROR IN THIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE. THE POPULAR VOTE MAP HAS OHIO SHADED IN THE COLOR OF A CLINTON WIN, BUT BY LESS THAN 10%. ACTUALLY, ACCORDING TO REAL CLEAR POLITICS AND EVERY OTHER MAJOR NEWS OUTLET HAVE REPORTED THAT CLINTON WON OHIO BY 10.4%. THIS MEANS THAT OHIO IN THE POPULAR VOTE MAP SHOULD BE SHADED IN SUCH A WAY THAT SHOWS CLINTON WON IT BY OVER 10%. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifixer990 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. Initial media reports had Clinton winning by 10.4%. However, the official results, including absentee and provisional ballots, now show Clinton winning by 53.49% to 44.84%, or about 8.7%. This map uses numbers from the Wikipedia article Ohio Democratic primary, 2008. That article cites as its source the official results from the Ohio Secretary of State. The 8.7% margin is also confirmed by RealClearPolitics and Green Papers. The numbers you have seen reported elsewhere in the media are outdated.Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pledged Delegate Switches

Need to work something out on this. He was counted as one of the party leaders assigned as a pledged delegate, not as a superdelegate. According to the Clinton camp, pledged delegates are entitled to switch. "Pr. George's Executive Switches To Obama", Washington Post, May 13, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.160.136.186 (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So it's Jack B. Johnson of Maryland. The DCW table of pledged delegates already has a discrepancy between sources:
Green Papers: 27 Clinton, 43 Obama
NBC, AP, CNN, CBS: 28 Clinton, 42 Obama
The Washington Post article says Jack B. Johnson is one of 28.
This Wikipedia article uses 27/43, and has not changed since since May 10 or earlier, changed today from 28/42.
DCW chart: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ultimate-delegate-tracker.html
DCW article: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/pledged-delegate-switches-to-obama.html -Colfer2 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This will probably not be an isolated case. We should come up with a solution that we can apply to all similar cases. How do we record pledged delegates who "switch votes" at the convention? On the one hand, it seems important to have an accurate final count. On the other hand, it is encyclopedic to keep a record of the race as it unfolded. Do we treat this as a change in the delegate count, updating the state rows with parentheses, as we have for states like Iowa where the multi-tier caucus system changed the count? Or do we record this in some other way, perhaps with a separate table or in a separate article? Do we wait to mark these changes until the convention occurs? Or do we record these changes as newspaper stories such as this appear?Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I added a footnote explaining it and a paragraph and the end of the Mid-February contests section. Maybe overkill to explain one vote! But I noted he is encouraging the entire Maryland delegation to follow his lead, 27 more delegates. -Colfer2 (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Colfer2's approach of changing the counts and adding a footnote that lists the original split seems like a good way to handle this. Perhaps we should apply the same approach to the Iowa row. Using parenthases in the tables to show the old count tends to clutter the display. As to when to mark these changes, I think we should mark them whenever the state article source for delegate counts changes. In the case of Maryland, the state article was using the Green Papers as a source. Since that source changed its numbers, it makes sense to update them in the state and national articles as well. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edwards Endorsement for Obama

Question: What happens to Edwards 19 pledged delegates? Do they remain with him, or do they transfer to Obama? What do we do with the percentages currently appearing in the table? Do we continue to calculate the numbers for all three delegates, or do we include Edwards' 19 in Obama's number? -FeralDruid (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he can force them to vote for his choice, they're probably kinda like superdelegates now as they can vote for whomever they want to. Actually no pledged delegate is legally required to vote for the person they're supposed to anyway even if they're still in the race. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we follow the lead of what happens in the state results articles. It may be the case that Edwards delegates in some states formally signal an intent to vote for Obama (e.g. at the Iowa state convention on June 14). In other states, like New Hampshire, we may not learn how they actually vote or how they intend to vote until the national convention. So we just have to wait for changes in the state articles and record them here as they occur. However, we need to have a broader discussion about how to record changes in pledged delegate votes. So far we have used parentheses (Iowa and Texas) to show outdated estimates. Bryan, above, suggests that we change this practice to include the most current numbers only and footnote everything else (Maryland). Thus, after the national convention, all tables here would be changed to show how the pledged delegates actually voted at the national convention. I'm not sure that this is the best way to provide an encyclopedic record about the Democratic primaries -- it will be especially confusing to have the tables saying one thing and the campaign narrative saying another. I favor showing the original estimate (either in parentheses or in a separate column), rather than using a footnote solution. Whatever the case, it seems we should get our IA/TX/MD results consistent. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
See Demwatch:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-happens-to-edwards-delegates.html
Also, I think that the pledged delegate count of 1600.5 for Obama right now is out of sync with the total of each state. I believe that New Hampshire should have one less for Edwards, and one more for Obama. This is according to DemWatch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.7.82 (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hm - John Edwards New Hampshire delegates went from 4 to 3. I thought the convention was to list the original number in parenthesis, as they are in the Iowa numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.7.82 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

DCW says 10 Edwards delegates have switched to Obama, and that they're working with Green Papers for an update. -FeralDruid (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, getting confusing. DCW moved 7.5 from Edwards Pledged to Obama Super. Later they changed it, moving them to Obama Pledged. -FeralDruid (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on delegate changes

Several recent developments have led us to inconsistent practices in how we record changes to the pledged delegate numbers in the "Chronicle" tables in the main article, as well as in the results article and associated articles. Discussion on this talk page and in the edit summaries has been a little scattered. I think it might be useful to focus our attention on how to record delegate changes. This conversation is intended to deal with changes in the main article only, but the principles established here may guide formatting decisions on other articles.

Potential changes to pledged delegate estimates include changes for the following reasons:

  • (A) Vote counting. As absentee ballots are counted and official results are released, sometimes the pledged delegates estimate from election night may change slightly. In these cases, we simply change the number in the table. No footnotes are needed, as this is not a "real" change. (This is uncontroversial, and we don't need to discuss it; I just wanted to note it for the record.)
  • (B) Multi-tier events. In states like Iowa, with multiple tiers of events, the initial event provides an estimate of pledged delegates, but delegates are often not formally pledged to candidates until subsequent county or state conventions. Changes from initial estimates have occured in Iowa and Texas.
  • (C) Delegate statements. Pledged delegates may give press statements signalling an intention to vote for a candidate other than the one to which they are pledged. At least one Clinton delegate from Maryland has said he will vote instead for Obama, and some Edwards delegates from Iowa and New Hampshire have promised to vote for Obama.
  • (D) Actual convention votes. In August, we'll know how the delegates actually vote at the national convention.

Methods for indicating these changes in the Chronicle tables include:

  • (1) Just change the number. This occurred today for New Hampshire and South Carolina, without a footnote, but I think this is not a good solution.
  • (2) Parentheses. This is the current practice with Iowa and Texas. The advantage here is that it provides a picture of the race as it unfolded for the historical record. The disadvantage is the resulting table clutter, which may get worse as more changes occur.
  • (3) Footnotes. This is the current practice with Maryland. The advantage is that it provides a clean look at the current state of the race, while providing a footnote for those who seek more information. The disadvantage is that it presents a misleading picture of the race as it unfolded and seems to contradict the "timeline" structure of the narrative. Additional footnotes may also contribute to table clutter.
  • (4) Additional Column. We could add another column at the right in the Chronicle tables. The first column would be named "Original Pledged Delegate Vote Estimate," or something similar. The second column would be named "Current Pledged Delegate Vote Estimate," or something similar; it would include the updated numbers, as well as footnotes to explain them. After the convention, it would be changed to "Actual Convention Vote," or something similar. The advantage to this is that it provides a picture of the race as it unfolds, as well as preparing a space for the historical record of the actual floor vote. It may be cleaner than parentheses or foonotes if we see many pledged delegate changes. However, it also increases the length and complexity of the tables.

Methods for indicating these changes in the top-level summary table include:

  • Using current (A) and (B) numbers, switching to (D) numbers after the convention.
  • Changing numbers to reflect (C).
  • Some kind of hybrid approach.

We also should consider what to do about the pledged delegate maps:

  • Reflect original estimates only (including (A) changes).
  • Reflect changes in multi-tier states (A+B). This is the current practice.
  • Reflect (C) changes also where delegates have signaled an intention to vote differently.
  • Should these graphics represent the race as it unfolded, or should they be changed in August to reflect the actual convention vote (D)?

Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Add additional (double) column in the Chronicle tables to deal with B,C,D pledged delegate changes (Method 4)

(A) changes would continue to be reflected in the first column.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Northwesterner1 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 15 May 15 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. In my view, it is important to do two things simultaneously: (1) provide a current snapshot of the race, (2) provide an accurate historical record of the campaign as it unfolded. Relegating this information to the more detailed results article or to a footnote does a disservice to readers. Ten years from now, the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 will not be really understood without understanding, for example, what happened in New Hampshire, as Clinton pulled out a popular vote win and tied in the delegate count. Changing the NH count to 10-9 in Obama's favor in the results table confuses the historical record of what happened. The parentheses solution has served us well so far, but as more changes occur, the table clutter will become problematic. I think the addition of a new column provides the cleanest and most flexible solution, looking ahead to a final floor vote at the convention that may look somewhat different than the race unfolded.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This does seem like it'll turn out to be a historically important election race, so I support all efforts to keep it as detailed as possible here. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The new (double) column numbers for Clinton & Obama should agree with the table at the top of the article, less superdelegates. I'd even go for another double column, for superdelegate commitments. Only problem is this article uses the counts from DemConWatch, while the wikipedia article List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008 use its own, self-consistent tables, which are sometimes off by one or two from DemConWatch. So the superdelegate commitments here would have to be updated directly from DemConWatch, not from the other article. The advantage is that this article would then better explain its totals. -Colfer2 (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the additional superdelegate column, I think the only reason to do this would be to provide a breakdown of superdelegate support by state, which doesn't seem important to me, as they are national figures to some extent. Better to let the superdelegates article handle this. (I would support switching from DCW numbers to the List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008 numbers in this article and the results article, but that is a question for a separate proposal.)Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This would have been my suggestion, except for type [A] changes, which I think belong in the original column, as they represent a more precise measurement of the historical event. Agricolae (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. (A) changes belong in the original column, I think we would all agree on that. I've changed the header to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northwesterner1 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 15 May 15 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute. I think I misread the proposal. I would support a second column on the individual State pages. On the State table in the Results page I would worry that a triple column addition (all of Edwards' delegates may not shift) may make this table unwieldy, and a whole lot of bother for a phenomenon that may just affect four states. There I might prefer the adjusted number underneath the crossed-out old number. Agricolae (talk)
Not the results page either... this proposal is for the Chronicle tables Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. I think decisions about how to indicate changes in Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries should be discussed there. Whatever principles we establish here could be used to make changes in individual state articles also. Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Support. I'm open to the possibility of this change, but concerned about "complexity creep" as we add more and more information to the tables. It might be helpful to see an example here of what the proposed table might look like. I think pledged delegate changes of types A, B, and C are largely exceptional and thus can be adequately handled with either footnotes, parenthases, or directing readers to the Results/state articles. Adding columns might be appropriate if these changes were the rule, rather than the exception. I feel that delegate changes of type D are outside the scope of this article and shouldn't be included here. I think this article is about the state-level primaries/caucuses and that the results tables should reflect the outcomes of those contests, not the National Convention. For information on the National Convention, readers should be directed to the 2008 Democratic National Convention article. I don't see a problem with directing readers to other articles or footnotes, since such a practice is a key feature of Wikipedia. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Complexity creep is an important concern; I will try to work up a mockup later tonight. We now have (B) or (C) changes in at least five states, and I would expect that we will see several more by the end of June. I understand your concern about (D) changes being outside the scope of this article, but the problem is that (C) changes essentially have no meaning other than as a public declaration of what will happen at the (D) stage. It seems like editors are itching to add the (C) changes, as demonstrated by the recent updates (both with and without footnotes). And I don't see how we can logically exclude (D) changes (a delegate switching at the convention) if we are going to accept a (C) change (a delegate making a press statement about switching at the convention). The (C) change in Maryland does not "reflect the outcome of the state contest" any more than the (D) change does. Sending readers to other articles or footnotes is a key feature of Wikipedia when the information is peripheral to the article at hand. But, to use the NH example, the fact that it was originally 9-9 and that it is now 10-9 are both key facts that belong in the body of the main article, in my view.Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Good points about the similarity of the (C) and (D) changes. In that case, why not exclude both from this article? We could include a short note in this article that some pledged delegates have publicly declared they may not vote as pledged and refer them to the National Convention article for details. Both types of changes seem more appropriately about the National Convention than the primaries/caucuses. The Edwards delegates present a special case of (C) changes. That some of our sources (such as CBS News for the NH state article) are changing their numbers based on public statements from delegates presents a problem. I notice that the NH page on the Green Papers is listing its "soft total" as 10-9-3 while keeping its "hard total" at 9-9-4. I suppose what they're doing is similar to what you're proposing for this article. Still, there are only 3 states that have Edwards delegates which seems like a small enough number to handle with parenthases or footnotes. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This article's scope extends beyond "primary/caucus election results" by virtue of the fact that it includes superdelegate endorsements in the top summary table. If we accept a superdelegate's public statement about how s/he will vote, how could we logically exclude a pledged delegate's public statement of intention to vote from the top summary table. And if we include (C) changes in the top summary, it seems confusing to exclude them from the Chronicle tables. If we include an Edwards delegate's statement of intention, how could we justify excluding a Clinton delegate's statement of intention? Thus, we end up with a domino effect, with the logic of inclusion moving down the line all the way to including all (C) + (D) changes. In my view, it's not a matter of whether we report these numbers but how we do so. I would like to see us report the original election results and the current estimate simultaneously in the body of the article. Which means either parentheses or an additional column. I'm anticipating enough parentheses that the additional column actually becomes a simpler solution.Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, looking at your arguments above and the examples below, you've convinced me that your added column proposal is the most consistent approach given the article's current scope. I've changed my vote above. My preference is for the "alternative" example below. I realize that my view on the limits of this article's (and the Results article's) scope would require changes too fundamental to consider at this time. (I would cut changes (C), (D), the Edwards delegate changes, and even the superdelegate endorsements.) I also realize that this view might be out of line with most of the other editors here. However, I do suggest we apply caution in letting the scope of this article creep too far outward. I don't think this article should attempt to handle the entire Democratic presidential nominating process, or be all things to all people with an interest in the subject. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Thanks for the support & for the caution about article creep. We should bear this in mind going forward (and perhaps reorganize the article series after all is said and done). How do others feel about the alternative solution below -- which involves simplifying the tables by deleting some information? Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done - I implemented the alternative solution below to record changes of B, C, and D types. A separate column is provided for notes. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Examples

Parentheses solution

This is what currently appears in the article.

Details Votes to the Convention[10] Pledged Delegate
Votes Estimate[11]
Date Election link Pledged Delegate Votes Super-
delegate
Votes 		Total Obama Clinton Edwards
District-level At-large PLEO[3] Total
January 3 Iowa caucuses 29 10 6 45 12 57 25 (16)[12] 14 (15) 6 (14)
January 8 New Hampshire primary 14 5 3 22 8 30 10 (9)[13] 9 3 (4)
January 19 Nevada caucuses 16 6 3 25 9 34 13 12 0
January 26 South Carolina primary 29 10 6 45 9 54 31 (25)[14] 12 2 (8)
- Total 88 31 18 137 38 175 79 47 11

Solution proposed by Northwesterner1

Table headers and other aspects of the design could be tweaked, of course.

Details Votes to the Convention[10] Election Result
Pledged Delegate Votes[15] 		Current Estimate
Pledged Delegate Votes
Date Election link Pledged Delegate Votes Super-
delegate
Votes 		Total Obama Clinton Edwards Obama Clinton Edwards Notes
District-level At-large PLEO[3] Total
January 3 Iowa caucuses 29 10 6 45 12 57 16 15 14 25 14 6 [12]
January 8 New Hampshire primary 14 5 3 22 8 30 9 9 4 10 9 3 [13]
January 19 Nevada caucuses 16 6 3 25 9 34 13 12 0 13 12 0
January 26 South Carolina primary 29 10 6 45 9 54 25 12 8 31 12 2 [14]
- Total 88 31 18 137 38 175 63 48 26 79 47 11

Alternative solution

If the above solution makes the table too complex, we could remove some information. I believe it is more important to show the original election results and the current pledged delegate estimate than it is to show the breakdown of pledged delegates into district-level, PLEO, and at-large delegates, according to the party rules. We could relegate this information to state articles, or we could delete it from the encyclopedia entirely (pointing the reader to the party rules to provide further detail if needed).

Details Delegate Votes to the Convention Pledged Delegate Vote Count[16]
Election Results Current Estimate
Date Election link Pledged Super Total Obama Clinton Edwards Obama Clinton Edwards Notes
January 3 Iowa caucuses 45 12 57 16 15 14 25 14 6 [12]
January 8 New Hampshire primary 22 8 30 9 9 4 10 9 3 [13]
January 19 Nevada caucuses 25 9 34 13 12 0 13 12 0
January 26 South Carolina primary 45 9 54 25 12 8 31 12 2 [14]
- Total 137 38 175 63 48 26 79 47 11

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Northwesterner1 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the work on providing these examples! I prefer the alternative solution. What about spanning the "Pledged Delegate Votes" header across both the "Election Result" and "Current Estimate" columns? Perhaps renaming the spanned header to "Pledged Delegate Votes For Candidates" would also help. Too complicated? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I like your header suggestion & have implemented it here so we can see what it looks like. (Previous version in article history) How about "Pledged Delegate Vote Count" for the header? Is that clear? Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong support -Colfer2 (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Delegate Maps

With regard to the discussion above...

Proposal: Pledged delegate maps should reflect (A) and (B) changes only

  • Support. This is the best measure of "election results." If the numbers change significantly after the convention, the caption can indicate where the (A+B) results differ from the (D) results.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This seems to be the best solution for fiting into the campaign narative to me. I think we also need to split that last section of results to two (PA to WV being the first) then add some narative there that starts with Edwards endorsement of Obama and then the fall out. (Edwards delegates switches to Obama). The MD delegate switch should also be mentioned in narrative in the approatite point instead of confined to a footnote as well due to it's timing realtive to the Edwards endorsement. Jon (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This proposal is about the pledged delegate maps... seems like you might have misread it as referring to the tables...(?) I agree with you about mentioning the MD switch at that point in the narrative. I'm not sure what the theoretical rationale is for splitting it into a PA-WV chunk. The WV results and the Edwards endorsement don't strike me as a turning point in the race. Could you explain more? Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
On why I propose a split there, it seems to me that the Edwards endorsement is very much a turning point when combined with the annoucements of pledged delegate switches from Edwards to Obama that took place right afterwords. Jon (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I see your perspective, but I don't think it makes a turning point. The Iowa county convention on March 15 resulted in +10 gain for Obama in pledged delegates when Edwards's precinct-level delegates switched their support. I don't consider that a turning point. Breaking up the sections is about providing context for the race. By the time of Edwards endorsement, Obama was already widely considered the presumptive nominee by the press and other political observers. It seems to me that the context for the race didn't fundamentally change between the WV primary and the KY primary.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)\

Highlighting cells

The results article currently highlights cells based on the winner of the delegate count, while the main article highlights cells based on the winner of the popular vote. Should we standardize this across the articles, and if so, what should the standard be? Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My preference is to highlight cells based on the winner of the delegate count in both articles. There was consensus on this article earlier (see here and here) to use popular vote. There was consensus on the Results article earlier (see here) to use delegate count. It's been at least 2 months since consensus was reached on both articles so perhaps it is time to revisit this issue. If so, we should put an announcement on the Results article that we're discussing this here. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm in favor of revisiting this consensus and would support a switch here to highlighting cells by winner of delegate count. I'll post a note on the results article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree because the columns should determine the color. The color alone should not have meaning, that is obscuration. -Colfer2 (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree because we don't determine candidates by popular vote, we do it by delegate -- the same argument I proffered previously, in the discussion to remove popular vote counts from the Candidates and results table. Further, the popular vote typically doesn't include caucus numbers. -FeralDruid (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree but I do want to note for the record that the popular vote numbers that we are using on Wikipedia DO include caucus numbers (including estimates for the four states that do not report this). See Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Popular vote. The source is RealClearPolitics.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like an emerging consensus for highlighting cells by delegate count, with four comments in support and none against, but as we are "overruling" a previous consensus on this decision, I suggest we wait several days to see if other opinions materialize. How about May 21 as a cutoff date for discussion on this issue? Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A May 21 cutoff sounds good to me. I've placed a note on the talk pages of the participants in the earlier consensus so they get a chance to sound off if they're concerned. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 Done I made this change, following the table proposed below. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing all that work, Northwesterner! Between the highlighting changes, changing the column order, and adding the columns earlier, that was all quite a big effort. The result of the changes look good. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Secondary question... If we decide to highlight cells by winner of delegate count, should we highlight the cell in the initial "election result" column, or should we highlight the "current estimate" column? This is already an issue in NH and could become an issue in later states. (Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries has adopted the latter practice.) Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Both, each pair of columns has its own context. -Colfer2 (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Let's highlight both. An added concern, however, is that it's already somewhat difficult to see a visual distinction between the "Election Result" and "Current Estimate" columns. Highlighting both will make it even more difficult to see where one leaves off and the other begins. It'll look like one big checkerboard of cells. What might we do to provide some distinction? A thicker border? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What about moving the "Notes" column between "Election Result" and "Current Estimate", renaming it "Change Notes", and spanning its header vertically across the candidate name row and the "Election Result"/"Current Estimate" row? Here's how that might look:
Details Delegate Votes to the Convention Pledged Delegate Vote Count[17]
Election Result Change
notes 		Current Estimate
Date Election link Pledged Super Total Obama Clinton Edwards Obama Clinton Edwards
January 3 Iowa caucuses 45 12 57 16 15 14 [12] 26 14 5
January 8 New Hampshire primary 22 8 30 9 9 4 [13] 10 9 3
January 19 Nevada caucuses 25 9 34 13 12 0 [18] 14 11 0
January 26 South Carolina primary 45 9 54 25 12 8 [14] 32 12 1
- Total 137 38 175 63 48 26 82 46 9
--Bryan H Bell (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Same. The parens were confusing. This is clear. -FeralDruid (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox:Election

Is it okay if I could put an infobox:election template with only Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton since they are only the two candidates who won delegates and states and territories Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What does Template:Infobox_Election add to the article? -Colfer2 (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Earlier consensus here has been to not include the infobox on this article. See #Consensus Question: Infobox above. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Total Delegates, Super Delegates, & Votes needed to win

Both CNN & CBS are saying that 2026 votes (and not 2025) are needed to win; presumbably as a result of MS-1 special election where a Democrat won a seat that was previously held by a Republican and the new congressman now being a super delegate because last Tuesday their number was 2025. I think the superdelegate total, the overall total, and the # of delegates needed to win all need adjusted on this page, the details page, and the super delegate page. Jon (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There are differences in total delegate count. This Wikipedia article uses http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ for its numbers. -Colfer2 (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Slight correction. We use demconwatch for supers but pledged delegates come from the state articles, which have their own sources. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just curious why not use the wikipedia article with superdelegate information? If we pull the state results from other articles why not the supers?AWatiker (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on DCW as a source for superdelegates was established on Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 (1), (2), (3), (4), and at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Durigin original consensus discussions, the article List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008 didn't exist. Later, when that article was created, some editors proposed to use it as the source, but others objected to the methods on that article -- especially the use of candidate websites as a source -- so we retained DCW consensus on the main article and results article. I suggested to the editors of the superdelegate article here that they use DCW to get things standardized across all articles; they rightly objected, and I withdrew my suggestion. At that time, there were seven differences between DCW and the superdelegate article. I looked at those differences here and found that the Wiki article was at least as reliable as DCW. To make a long story short, there doesn't seem to be much crossover between editors working on the main article and results article and editors working on the superdelegate article, which has gotten us into a WP:OWN pretzel. Editors on the main article and results article have established a clear consensus for using DCW, while the editors of the superdelegate article have established their own methods and believe their numbers should be adopted here. I agree with the latter position, but I haven't put the energy into reopening the consensus decision here, because there is not a big difference between the two numbers, and in a few months, it won't matter anyway. If you feel strongly about it, we could have a new consensus discussion on this talk page (notified also on on Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries). Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Portland Rally

Someone keeps adding data into the April and beyond section, commenting on the Obama rally in Portland. I've seen comments on a couple of right-wing sites, and heard a call to Lou Dobbs' radio program, pushing the fact that it wasn't Obama who drew the crowd, but the band. I mention this here to point out that the band's web site lists the event as an Obama Rally. -FeralDruid (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nullified primaries

A little extra background on the nullified primaries would be helpful. I'm European, and a lot of people here are puzzled over why the Florida legislature changed the date of the primary. I understand why they wanted an earlier date, but I don't understand why the legislature intervened -- apparently without anyone protesting -- in what is surely an internal matter for the Democratic party? 86.137.233.32 (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the state governments run and pay for the primaries. As such, the primary date would be also something the state government would get to decide. Andareed (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. If that's the case, it provokes the question of why taxpayers' money is being used to run political parties... 86.137.233.32 (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In the US, state governments are generally in charge of both general elections & primary elections. In the case of Florida (and Michigan), the legislature passed a bill that including moving up the presidential primary date and it was signed by the governor. However the local state parties could still have decided to hold a cacaus and allocate their delegates by that instead if they had been inclined to do so. In 2008, there were about a half dozen states where only one of the major parties has a presidential primary and the other had a cacus in addition to WA non-binding Democratic primary & the TX Democratic hybrid. Jon (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Historically State Governments took over the running of primaries from the parties because of racial discrimination. The Democratic Party in the South, was willing to use Jim Crow to hold white only primaries. If the States stepped in to hold primaries then they were subject to 14th and 15th amendments. See Smith v. Allright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) for a fuller discussion. Consider also the all-white Mississippi Democratic delegation vs. the Democratic Freedom Party and the credentials challenges at the 1964 Dem. Convention. Later, the State run aspect of primaries became a cost-saving measure for the parties, revealing according to some duapolostic collusion.

70.22.47.140 (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox:Election

I will put a infobox with the images of the two candidates who have won states (Obama & Clinton) Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Early consensus opposes this, see Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Consensus Question: Infobox. Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a Consensus! I don't give a damn what you guys say, every page from 1956 has had an infobox, the 2008 page has absolutely no right to create problems by being the only Democratic primary election without an election infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.143.32 (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The new numbers

Florida: Delegation seated, given half votes.

Michigan: Delegation seated, given half votes. Obama: 59 half votes Clinton: 69 half votes 71.204.28.184 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

New totals updated to include FL and MI. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

50%+1 of Delegates or 50%+1 of Votes needed to win?

As I understand the RBC decision, the entire delegation of MI and FL have been seated, but these delegates will have a half a vote.

As the number of "delegates" are updated it appears that the article (and many news sources) are only counting half the amount of delegates. But it is not clear that this is technically correct.

In other words, Mrs. Smith from MI get seated as a delegate but with only half a vote. Mrs. Smith is not half a delegate; she is a delegate (add 1 to "delegate" count), but she only gets a half vote (add half to "vote" count).

Do the DNC rules say "a majority of delegates" is required to win or "a majority of votes cast" is required?

Even if there were no controversy about half votes, do you count the guys in the bar who miss the voted and failed to give a proxy to someone as part of the total vote (a present vote being different from failure to vote)? 70.22.47.140 (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Florida and Michigan primaries: Who changed the dates - and why?

Wouldn't it help a lot to understand the current situation with the contested Florida and Michigan primaries if there was an explanation as to why the election dates were changed in those states? Why were they changed, who was behind the decision to change them, what was the logic behind the change, were the Democrats in those states lobbying for the change, were the democrats in those states opposed to the change - or even in a position to stop the change? And why are these questions not covered or explored by the political news media?

Why does the Democratic National Committee even set hard rules for the dates of these primaries when it's the legislatures of individual states that ultimately controls when those primaries are held? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.143.243 (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the section provides an appropriate amount of detail for a long encyclopedia article that has a lot of other information to cover. More detailed information about the history behind the disputed primaries belongs in the articles Florida Democratic primary, 2008 and Michigan Democratic primary, 2008, not in this top-level article. Also, please bear in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a venue for political analysis. The Democratic Party system is indeed very crazy--but perhaps no crazier than what happens in this majority of countries around the world, where parties have their own internal mechanisms for determining nominees and do not put the question to the general public. It's not really our job to question the system or speculate why such questions are not explored by the political news media.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the state legislatures rationale for the timing of MI & FL primaries belong in the state articles. This latest decision by the DNC commitee of giving MI & FL half votes mirrors the decision the RNC made on states holding their primaries early months ago whose delegates were also cut in half. Bascialy it amounts to the parties don't want the Iowa Cacus & New Hampshire primary for the 2012 general election in 2011. Jon (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ONE place for discussing the rational of the date-changes is at the state-level wiki articles - but that is really not happening (at least not for the FL entry).

But the logic or rational for why the National Democratic Party is penalizing one of it's state-level chapters for a decision that wasn't within it's control ->DOES<- belong here.

We will never know how the Obama and Clinton delegate count would have unfolded had the Michigan and Florida elections were held on their authorized dates - or if the candidates had been allowed to run full campaigns in those states if the national DNC would have recognized the stupidity of penalizing those states by revoking their ability to elect delegates.

So what does this mean for future presidential races?

Will republican-controlled state legislatures be allowed (as they did this time) to play havok with future Democratic primaries - and vice-versa?

Will the DNC continue to stupidly penalize itself in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.143.243 (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A discussion now taking place at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details could provide a precedent for changing this article (there is already talk in that discussion about changing other articles). With that in mind, I'm hoping editors of this article will consider participating in that discussion (which may close soon).

Some editors think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Something similar is done in this article with a brief mention of Jeremiah Wright, although I saw nothing on other associates mentioned in the campaign. Examples of both Republicans and Democrats:

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles that cover campaign issues adequately should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles. Noroton (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at the Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin'. I promise not to do it again (on this page). Noroton (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Democrat...not Democratic

The Party is the "Democrat" party, not the "Democratic" party. The word "Democratic" is a description of a process. This error has been in our society so long that now it even finds it's way into our encyclopedias. ;) 68.177.12.38 (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ted

  • The Republican party originally supported the idea of a representative republic, which we are. Therefore they used the adjective 'republican' to describe the views, and subsequently the name, of their party. The Democrats supported more of a popular vote style democracy and therefore used the adjective 'democratic.' It has come to be a sticking point because of the falling from public attention of the term 'republic' and the rise of the term 'democracy.' As such the Democratic party appears to be making some kind of claim of purity by labeling themselves as such. If anything, being as we and much of the rest of the non-dictatorship world are a republic it should be more controversial to call oneself a 'Republican' but the term simply doesn't carry the same weight in modern American English. After all, Bush didn't claim to go into Iraq to create a stable 'republic' in the middle east, he phrased it as a setting up a stable 'democracy.' Nevertheless the Iraqi government has become a republic, not a pure democracy. In essence it's a tempest in a teacup and neither party is any more wrong in naming themselves the way they do than the other. aremisasling (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You are wrong. It is "The Democratic Party", members of it are called "Democrats". --84.196.169.152 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You're thinking of "democratic". Democratic with a capital D is the name of the party. Дҭї 13:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Just because you hear people like Rush Limbaugh saying "Democrat Party" (something it feels like he does specically because it's wrong as kind of a jab) doesn't mean it's right. Leebo T/C 16:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a good opportunity for education, I guess. "Democrat Party" is an epithet or slur long used by Republicans to denigrate the Democratic Party. It goes back all the way to the Harding administration. The Columbia Guide to Standard American English says "Democrat as an adjective is still sometimes used by some twentieth-century Republicans as a campaign tool but was used with particular virulence by the late senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, a Republican who sought by repeatedly calling it the Democrat party to deny it any possible benefit of the suggestion that it might also be democratic." This New Yorker article provides an interesting history of the term and its contemporary usage. Ronald Reagan was too polite to use it in public, but it has become more common in recent years, after Newt Gingrich revived the term in a strategic memo where he argued it could be used to frame attacks on Democrats. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's the tone of voice used that determines weather someone is being insulting and not simply weather they said "Democrat" or "Democratic". And history is full of groups whose name originaly was intended as an insult but was later adopted by the group as their own. That said, the offical name of their party is the "Democratic Party". Jon (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right; I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement. There are, however, some people who use "Democrat Party" as a coded insult even with a nice tone and a smile on their face. It's the pattern of usage that makes it an insult.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured on the main page news section today

I noticed this morning this page now has a direct link on the main page in the news section. Jon (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the heads up. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New super delegate source needed

The Democratic Convention Watch blog no longer updates the super delegate count Demcon source

Does anyone know of a substitute? I'm guessing the counter on Obamas own site isn't neutral enough... Results on the Obama site 192.38.37.78 (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • @Sloane: DCW said in the link above that they would cease counting - only after a lot of encouragement did 'Matt'(founder of blog) agree to do an update:

All right, folks, dut to popular demand, we'll do a quick endorsement list this evening. We won't be updating our tables, but we'll include new numbers within the post. Thanks for all the appreciation today. - Matt

The need for a replacement source is real enough, at least after HRC's supporting/concession speech Saturday. It would be nice if we knew what source to use by then. Skummelt mælk (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Three thoughts.

  • One: Wikipedia's List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008 is a reasonably good source and could be our replacement if an when DCW shuts down. We could defer to their references, just as we now defer to the state article references on our pledged delegate counts.
  • Two: What should our top-level chart look like going forward through the summer? What should it look like after the convention? If, as many observers suspect, nearly all superdelegates from here on out endorse Obama, and if, as expected, many Clinton superdelegates and perhaps even pledged delegates change their endorsement, will the new numbers be very meaningful? Will they be an accurate representation of the "Democratic Party presidential primaries," which is the topic of this article? Should we delete the top-level summary entirely and leave it to the Chronicle tables and to the associated Wikipedia articles to convey information?
  • Three: We should be involving the folks from Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries in this discussion.

Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In my own opinion, we should probably freeze the delegate counts whenever Clinton makes the offical annoucement that's shes suspending her campaign (expected Saturday) especally since it's reportingly going to include an endorsement of Obama. All that's going to happen over the summer is Obama's margin of victory is going to widen. (Remaining cacus states with final stages remaining going more for Obama than previously projected, super delegates previously pledged for Clinton switching to Obama, pledged Clinton delegates annoucing their going to vote for Obama instead, etc.) This would be especally so if the article is then updated on the convention floor itself if the Democratic Convention is anything like past Republican Conventions where following someone having a majority, they keep the vote open for the delegations on the losing side to switch their votes to the winner in a symbolic unification of the party. Jon (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the lists should be frozen as of today, as Clinton has now endorsed. The one issue that remains is whether there will even be a roll call for President at the convention. If there is, Clinton will get some votes, and a record of how superdelegates actually voted at the convention would be useful to add to the article. Otherwise, this information is most useful to readers going forward if it is frozen as of today.
Whatever we do, I think the current version isn't working well. Having a detailed breakdown of the numbers in the lead section doesn't really jive with summary style.Northwesterner1 (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Gender and Race in 2008

I suggest we add a section on "Gender and Race" to this article. More than anything, these topics are what make the 2008 Democratic primary unique and notable. In fact, historic. The article currently mentions race with references to Bill Clinton's comments, Jeremiah Wright's comments, and a reference to "racially-charged comments " in the "Super Tuesday" section. No mention of gender is present.

Starting points for a description of the role of gender in this primary might be the following:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/01/07/hillary-hecklers-yell-iron-my-shirt-at-new-hampshire-campaign-stop/
Hillary Hecklers Yell ‘Iron My Shirt!’ at New Hampshire Campaign Stop
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=4964491&page=1
Hey Hill: Love Your Hair, Now Iron My Shirt
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html
Sexism Might Sell, But I'm Not Buying It!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/29/politics/main3979469.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3979469
Chelsea Surprised By Sexist Comments

And, hopefully with a neutral point of view, comments by Obama himself:

"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."
"You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out,"

I realize this is a controversial topic and one which many will have emotional and biased feelings toward. However, gender and race are the two most important aspects of this primary. The candidates' positions on the issues are nearly identical. The article should reflect this. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest instead the creation of the new articles Gender in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Race in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which could be linked from here. We have had several discussions about how to keep this article down to a manageable size, and I think adding an additional section would make it even more difficult. We should be thinking about ways to split off content into new articles, with this main article as the hub of the article series. I agree with you that race and gender should be included in Wikipedia's coverage. I don't quite agree with your assessment that gender and race were the two most important aspects of this primary. The candidates differ materially in foreign policy as well as in personal style. The experience/change, insider/outsider, and generational differences loom quite large. (And indeed age was a more significant predictor of voter preferences than gender.) I also don't quite agree with your assessment that there is a vast imbalance in this article between coverage of gender and race issues. First, the Jeremiah Wright controversy is obviously notable and led to a major speech on race. There is no parallel related to gender issues, and Clinton never gave a speech solely focused on gender. Second, race became a factor in the South Carolina and Super Tuesday era in a way that gender never did. Multiple questions were asked about race at the debates, and it was driving the campaign narrative in the political news media for weeks. Sexist comments from Obama and his surrogates simply did not generate the same amount of coverage or have a decided effect on the trajectory of the campaign. Nor, in my judgment, were they as blatant as Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" comment or as extensive. Third, the "iron my shirt" stuff and the "buy this Clinton nutcracker toy" stuff, while highly objectionable to me personally, isn't noteworthy enough to be included in this main article. There were tons of stories filled with racist comments from voters coming out of the PA-IN-WV-KY primaries. People wore racists shirts to campaign events. They sold racist commercial products. But I don't think any of that is relevant to this top-level article. Race and gender issues are covered more fully in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, and I support the creation of new articles Gender in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Race in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries (or perhaps Race in the 2008 United States presidential campaign). As for this main top-level article, I think only minor editing is needed, such as mentioning that Obama and Clinton were the most successful black and female presidential candidates ever, and short, concise, well-cited references to race and gender issues that emerged where you believe they were missing. I would support, for example, a reference to the sexism (not just "callousness") that accompanied media commentary about the Clinton "crying" in NH event. But I just don't think the "iron my shirts" comments from supporters and the "claws" and "feeling down" comments from Obama rise to the level of significance that would merit inclusion in this top-level primary article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Whether to include comments in this article on the role of gender and race seems to hinge on how important those issues are wrt this year's Democratic primary. In my opinion, gender and race were the most important, notable, and historic issues in this race. In the above distinctly different opinion, foreign policy, personal style, experience/change, insider/outsider, and age are argued as more important. Let me ask you, 100 years from now what's notable about this primary that historians will still be dissecting ? The foreign policy differences between Obama and Clinton ? Their age discrepancy ? No, it is the impact of race and gender on the primaries.
I don't think a major rewrite is in order. Nor do i think some specifics of lesser import like say a poorly chosen word or phrasing should be stressed. However, to have the entire article completely ignore the sexist treatment of one of the two principle candidates while taking the time to explain what a brokered convention is seems a little strange and missing the main point. If article length is an issue then move discussions not pertinent to this historic primary to another page. Move one or more of the largely redundant tables.
Had protesters carried signs at Obama rallies reading "Pick My Cotton" they would not only have generated much more media coverage but possibly even have been arrested for hate crimes. The fact is that sexism is so much more embedded in our society as to go either unnoticed or easily forgiven. In one of the videos referenced above even the highly respected Tim Russert of NBC is laughing along with the sexist comments. Again, 100 years from now (hopefully) people will have a generally more enlightened perspective and view the events of this primary process similarly to how we see the blatant racism of previous periods in our own history. I suggest that a neutral point of view here would recognize the notability, significance, and historic dimension of the role of race and gender in the 2008 Democratic Primaries. Shunting that aside to another page is, in my opinion, doing a disservice to the article.
Thanks for the in-depth reply and thanks for your efforts on this and other pages. I hope we can find ways to make this article even better. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with much of what you say here. I just disagree about the best way to structure the information. If you feel strongly it should be in this article, I say, be bold and start adding material. If myself and/or others feel that what you add is not neutral or that it is given undue weight, we can always condense it, fix it, or split it off into another article. I still think there is more to be said about race and gender in the 2008 primaries than this article has room for. Thus, it would be better to add a few sentences here and then write a new article with more context. But if you start adding here and it gets too big, we can always summarize the most important bits and split off the rest, per WP:SUMMARY. So that's the big picture. Now to the specific instance you bring up...
Speaking for myself personally, I don't agree that the T-shirt stuff belongs in this article. On first glance, I can't find a single sentence currently in the "Chronicle" section of the article that is less important than the hypothetical sentence, "On January 7, two men wearing t-shirts with the slogan 'Iron my shirt' disrupted a Clinton campaign event in New Hampshire." I just don't see any way in which that is relevant to this top main-level article. Sure, the press would make a big deal out of it if two protestors showed up with "pick my cotton" shirts at an Obama event; that's how the cable news media fills its airtime and sells advertisements. But I don't agree with you that it is particularly notable or encyclopedic, and I don't agree that we would put it in this article if it happened. The press made a big deal of random "man-on-the-street" interviews with racist voters in West Virginia diners too, but we didn't put that in here. The press made a big deal out of Geraldine Ferraro's comments, which are not here. The press made a big deal out of Bob Johnson's drug dealer comments, which are not here. The fact that Senator Clinton was the most successful female presidential candidate in history is very notable. The fact that her candidacy drew unprecedented support and turnout from women voters is very notable. The fact that her candidacy exposed truths about institutional sexism rampant in our society is notable. However, the fact that two dudes wore a stupid sexist t-shirt to a campaign event is, in my opinion, not notable. (As an aside, I recognize that your "hate crimes" comment is hyperbole, but it is clearly false; hate speech and hate crime are two different things, and the former is not illegal in the United States.)
Finally, with regard to foreign policy, if historians 100 years from now have not identified Clinton's Iraq war vote and her policy stance toward Iran as the main reason Obama had an opening to run for the nomination and the main reason Clinton lost, I'll eat my shoe. But you'll notice we don't have that in the article either.
Thanks again, and remember -- Be bold. Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Do We need a Voter Turnout Section

I really don't see the point of the voter turn out section, I propose removing it. --Bigvinu (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The popular vote was mentioned a number of times during the campaign and as such deserves (imho) mention in the article. Also, try to add new comments at the bottom so they don't get lost. Andareed (talk)
Just to clarify, the question appears to be about the "Voter turnout" section in this article and not the "Popular vote" section in the Results article. I do think the "Voter turnout" section is useful, as the historically high turnout in the Democratic primaries was a noteworthy aspect of this year's primaries.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Include Election Infobox

I've tried to change the page to have an election infobox like every Democratic primary page from 1956-2004. There can be no differences in the pages. The 2008 Primaries should not be treated differently than Wikipedia has treated the other elections. The other big democratic priamry page (2004) also has this. Please reach a consensus of allowing an election infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu (talk • contribs) 22:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The infobox has been previously discussed at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Consensus Question: Infobox and elsewhere. It may be time to revisit that consensus. However, your statement that "There can be no differences in the pages" is just simply not true. Consistent style across articles is an important goal, but Wikipedia is a flexible instrument, and what works in some places may not work elsewhere. This article is unlike any other article on any prior election and should be considered on its own terms. Consensus to include this infobox in the article should be developed here on this page, not inferred from discussion on other pages.
I have no opinion on whether we include the infobox at this point. However, IF we decide it's now time to include the infobox, I think it's important to make the following changes:
  • The infobox should not report "states won." The Democratic primaries are not winner-take-all, and this is not a useful metric.
  • The infobox should use the pledged delegate map with states shaded according to margin of victory, not a winner-take-all map and not a popular vote map.
  • The table in the "Candidate and results" section would need to be redesigned to avoid duplicating information and to avoid a top-heavy layout. We may have to cut it entirely if we include this infobox at the top of the page. I am reluctant to do that, because it removes information about the other candidates.
Last point. This is an article that has a lot of eyeballs on it, and we've worked out a lot of things through the tried and true method of building consensus on the talk page. Please discuss changes here instead of edit warring in the article. Thanks.
Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's not winner-take all, but the infobox gives the viewer the availability of seeing the states in which the candidate popularly won. In the pledged delegate map, Nevada is shaded Obama (as he won more pledged delegates) despite the fact Clinton won the state. The infobox is a quick summary of the election results, while the candidatee results table (table w/ candidate and delegate numbers) is the more in-depth one. I propose the info box be left as it was previously (during he massive edit war) and we include the more indepth Pledged Delegate Map with the Candidates and Results area while using hte Popular vote map with the infobox. --Bigvinu (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Please, allow me to edit the article real quick how I said above, then discuss the changes on the talk page and then decide whether to keep or remove --Bigvinu (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Glad you are here Bigvinu, now please continue to discuss the proposed changes here and refrain from any further edit warring. I'm guessing you are also IP user 68.57.143.32 since they are making the exact same edits as you are. If so that is not acceptable. Quit edit warring and talk it out over here before making any more changes, giving other editors time to weigh in. Maybe your view will win out, but by edit warring you actually hurt your cause.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see "popular vote" totals in the proposed infobox, but I don't see any citations. Where do these numbers come from? Because if they include the unsanctioned beauty contests from Michigan and Florida, the editor trying to introduce this has got a fight on his or her hands. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the DNC has recognized Delegates from the states of Florida and Michigan, I believe it would be appropriate to include them in our counts. --Bigvinu (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The DNC has recognized delegates (with half votes). The DNC has made no ruling (as indeed it shouldn't) on the "official" popular vote count. We have had many discussion on this, and the 8-row table at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Popular vote is the consensus solution. Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we should come down to a vote: All who favor

  • Creating an Election Infobox to link 2004 to the current page and display opular vote numbers
  • Using popular vote numbers including all primaries
  • Using a popular vote map in the election table.
  • Have Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards (candidates received a million+ votes) in the table --Bigvinu (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Support--Bigvinu (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Bigvinu, slow down and read WP:CONSENSUS. Your statement, "I say we should come down to a vote" does not show a good understanding of the process here. What we do is discuss this until we can reach some agreement. Voting is rarely necessary and when it is, it takes place AFTER thorough discussion, not before.Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The DNC decision to seat some delegates from those states does not legitimize the unsanctioned contests. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Some? The DNC seated all delegates (just gave them 1/2 vote each) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu (talk • contribs) 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. It only can be done w/o the popular vote unless you can show that the DNC has also ruled on the popular vote! It's that simple. --Floridianed (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Support - 100%. I strongly support the proposal to add an infobox at the top of the article Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. This is because the primary season is over, and we now have the results concerning the information required for an infobox which I strongly support!! -Willwal -- Willwal (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. It's been a couple months since I was last heavily involved in editing this article, so you may wish to take my input with a grain of salt. I oppose the addition of the infobox as described above by Bigvinu to this article for pretty much the same reasons that Northwesterner cited above. I am not, however, opposed to the addition of any infoboxes to the range of Democratic presidential primaries articles, including this one. I just don't think the one currently in use on the other articles is appropriate, here or on those articles. I can understand the desire to give Wikipedia's readers a uniform way to compare the results of each Democratic presidential primary cycle, but let's not sacrifice accuracy for consistency. We can have both if we re-design the infobox (or create a new one) such that the information appropriately matches the rules and methods of the Democratic Party's primary system. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Strongly support. I don't see how these primaries are so special compared with past ones, all of which have their own pages with infoboxes reporting "states won" and the popular vote -- despite the fact that all those primary contests were conducted under the same rules. The primaries are over and Obama is already the presumptive nominee; there's no further cause for feuding over who actually won this state or that. A small notation can be made in the box itself that the delegate counts differed from the popular vote in a few states. As for the specific questions:
  • Creating an Election Infobox to link 2004 to the current page and display popular vote numbers - support
  • Using popular vote numbers including all primaries - support
  • Using a popular vote map in the election table. - support
  • Have Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards (candidates received a million+ votes) in the table - support, but Obama and Clinton only. Edwards never won a single state.
--SchutteGod (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, one of many reasons why these primaries "are so special compared with past ones" is that the popular vote is disputed, where it never has been before. Strong consensus here and at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries opposes reporting a singular authoritative "popular vote" number -- instead we are using the table at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Popular vote. The other reason that this primary article is special is that it is far more detailed than any articles about presidential primary elections in previous years, and we already have a table at the top with all candidate pictures and delegates won. It's not about "feuding" at all; it's about the fact that the infobox that has been proposed oversimplifies a very complicated and unprecedented primary and is thus historically inaccurate. Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh, well, I only like infoboxes because I think they're neat. But if we're going to be so utterly humorless about not making Obama look bad, then you can have this article as far as I'm concerned. Best of luck! SchutteGod (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't care whether Obama looks good or bad. I care how the article looks and whether it is accurate. And sorry that I don't match your level of "humor." If you think infoboxes look neat, please help us improve this one by dealing with the problems outlined above. Assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Thanks. Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Uhh, I wasn't "attacking" anyone. But I do find it a bit curious that we have to include a "landslide tally" with the popular-vote graph, as well as asterisks for every delegate-distribution anomaly that favors Obama, but we can't put up an infobox with a simple tally of how many states each candidate won. As long as we're trying to avoid "pushing POV" in this article, it might be nice if that general principle wasn't enforced so one-sidedly. SchutteGod (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Your comment seemed to be directly at me, and I took it as insinuating (a) that I care more about making Obama look good than about making the encyclopedia better, and (b) that I am trying to own this article. I consider those attacks. Both counts are false, and for that reason I have to say they don't bother me much. But I don't consider them constructive to this particular discussion about the infoboxes. I'm asking you to comment on the merits of the discussion above instead of dismissing my (and others') concerns without due consideration. If you have a POV concern about anything else in the article, I would suggest that you either fix it or start a new topic of discussion if you think greater consensus is needed. I don't know what you mean by a landslide tally, and there is only one asterisk on the map (for what is clearly a special case). The "simple tally of how many states" each candidate won is not so simple -- as I'm sure you know, there are various opinions on whether to count pledged delegate winners or popular vote winners, and previous consensus on this talk page supports highlighting states by pledged delegate winner. The infobox is more straightforward for Republicans with their winner-take-all-system, and for past Democratic primaries where there was no such dispute. For those reasons, the infobox is not a one-size-fits-all solution and needs to be revised to fit this article. I'm not outright opposed to an infobox that includes this metric; I just think it has to be dealt with fairly. We can work together to build consensus on an infobox that address the concerns expressed above if you're willing.Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

New Maps & Map Placement

Okay, I'm not a big fan of the new maps, but I do recognize the rationale behind them in terms of accessibility (removing the legend from the image). One drawback, however, is the large vertical size. Can we please find a different place within the article for these images? Or should we delete them from this article and point readers instead to the results article? For users with 1024-pixel and narrower screen widths (the majority of users, I believe), the maps don't fit beside the candidates and results table. If you have a larger screen, try making your browser window smaller, and you'll see what I mean. Northwesterner1 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Michigan Delegate Selection Plan" (PDF).
  2. ^ "Florida Delegate Selection Plan".
  3. ^ a b c Pledged Party leaders and elected officials. They are regularly awarded through primaries and caucuses and should not be confused with Unpledged PLEOs, who are the main part of superdelegates. Cite error: The named reference "PleoD" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ +1 due to Brenda Lawrence becoming a DNC Member for National Conference of Democratic Mayors," filling a previous vacancy
  5. ^ Ken Curtis moved from Maine to Florida. (Florida +1; Maine -1)
  6. ^ Kimberly, James (2008-03-08). "Foster takes seat from GOP". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-03-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ "Democrats keep IN-7". 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. 2008-03-11. Retrieved 2008-03-11.
  8. ^ Two of Maine’s Super Delegates Are Ineligible, The Ellsworth American, 2/27/2007
  9. ^ "NY Governor Eliot Spitzer resigns". 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. 2008-03-12. Retrieved 2008-03-12.
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Dem call was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ The pledged delegate vote estimates come from each state's primary or caucus article. Click in the Election link column to see the sources used in those articles.
  12. ^ a b c d Several candidates have withdrawn their nomination bids since the Iowa caucuses on January 3. When Iowa later held its county conventions on March 15 and their district conventions on April 26, some delegates supporting the withdrawn candidates moved their support to Obama and Clinton. The delegate counts from the January 3 caucuses are listed in parentheses. Cite error: The named reference "Iowa" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  13. ^ a b c d After John Edwards withdrew from the race and subsequently endorsed Barack Obama on May 14, a delegate supporting Edwards announced their intention to support Obama. The delegate counts from the January 8 primary are listed in parentheses. Cite error: The named reference "New Hampshire" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  14. ^ a b c d After John Edwards withdrew from the race and subsequently endorsed Barack Obama on May 14, some delegates supporting Edwards announced their intention to support Obama. The delegate counts from the January 26 primary are listed in parentheses. Cite error: The named reference "South Carolina" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  15. ^ Sources are indicated at each state's primary or caucus article, reached by following the appropriate "Election link."
  16. ^ Sources are indicated at each state's primary or caucus article, reached by following the appropriate "Election link."
  17. ^ Sources are indicated at each state's primary or caucus article, reached by following the appropriate "Election link."
  18. ^ Higher turnout from Obama supporters at the Nevada state convention on May 17 resulted in a 14-11 delegate split, in contrast to the 13-12 split predicted by the precinct caucuses on January 19. See: Obama flips Clinton's Nevada win; captures more national delegates, Inside Nevada Politics, May 17, 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_4&oldid=1142749386"