Talk:2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Candidates: Using CNN Election Center 2008's numbers

Why do the numbers in this table for the pledged delegates and total delegates keep changing from the numbers listed at the CNN Election Center? The table's reference is clearly stated as CNN. Can we all agree to keep CNN's numbers posted here, and revert any changes that don't match the CNN numbers? Otherwise, the numbers are going to be thrashing back and forth forever. Wdfarmer (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But note that CNN's numbers do not include Florida and Michigan delegate counts (superdelegates for now, pledged delegates for MI after tomorrow. A note should be added with the FL and MI numbers, since their delegates may be seated before or at the convention. Simon12 (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this table's counts seem to be intended to be just a summary of the more detailed counts in the summary table at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, I've copied the same note from that table that states that the results are estimates and that CNN's counts are being used for consistency. Honestly, though, it's a lot of work to keep both tables in sync with CNN; it would be easier if this article's table didn't have any counts. Wdfarmer (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we stear clear of CNN's superdelegate counts. They're compiled by calling down the list of superdelegates, and asking them for whom they presently intend to vote. That's nothing more than an opinion survey, and it yields wildly inconsistent results. Witness the spread among the three running tallies of superdelegates maintained by major media outlets, all compiled the same way: CNN, CBS, and the AP. They range from 182-207 for Clinton, and from 89-112 for Obama. Worse still, it's impossible to account for the discrepancies, because the networks absolutely refuse to disclose whom they've counted, or where individual delegates stand. The model I much prefer is the wiki model - harnessing the power of internet users to compile publicly announced endorsements. Not only is this transparent and independently verifiable, it also produces lists with much less fluxuation - delegates who have issued press releases tend not to switch their endorsements, unlike those who simply confide a preference over the phone. Demconwatch.blogspot.com has compiled precisely such a wiki-model database, and I'd like to see this page switch over to using its tallies. It may not be a major media outlet like CNN, but isn't the entire point of Wikipedia that we can do better?MadPoster (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you've gone ahead and implemented your suggestion, without receiving any feedback. That seems a little too bold to me, but I'll let others weigh in with their opinions. I do think you need to add a second line above the table, giving the reference for the total delegate counts, to avoid confusion. Also, it would be appropriate to have this discussed at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Overview table, to keep its numbers in sync. Wdfarmer (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and I'm sorry if it seems overly percipitous. I'm still learning the ropes here. Thanks for cross-posting. I've added a reference for the total delegate counts to the page, and updated the tallies to reflect today's public endorsements. And I welcome feedback from other users, and will happily undo the change if the consensus goes against it.MadPoster (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that using Demconwatch.blogspot.com makes sense. Its numbers are transparent, verifiable, and I believe free of bias. Simon12 (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Candidates has continued to use the CNN numbers. This article has been using both CNN and Demconwatch.blogspot.com, but today user:12.148.169.2 unilaterally changed this article's Candidate section (and table note) to use CNN only. We really need some consistency on the source before tonight's results come streaming in and the edits get wild. Wdfarmer (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Andareed has reverted those changes, and updated the numbers. Wdfarmer (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change the numbers to CBS, but using CNN is just a very dumb, and obviously very biased to Hillary Clinton, idea. CBS has the most up to date pledged delegate numbers. We should use CBS's numbers. If the numbers being used are CNN's, it should come along with an BOLDED comment that the numbers are incomplete, and don't include delegates from states where Obama will ultimately benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.209.190 (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

With regards to CBS's numbers, they have a little problem with adding. As of 12:16 AM (Feb 13), they list Obama with 141 superdelegates and 1098 pledged delegates (if you add up all the values individually). This should give Obama a total number of delegates of 1,239. However, CBS lists him as having 1,242. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.129.174 (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Texas

"...primary caucus hybrid..." Exactly what is that? Basketballoneten 02:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If my memory serves (Australians knowing more about your system than Americans would be a worry, though) - individual polling stations/regions have primaries - which elect district-level delegates. Those delegates, along with other officials (possibly), go to statewide/regional caucuses to choose the at-large and larger-regional delegates by caucus. Hence the hybridisation.

Candidate ordering

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Could we please agree on an ordering for candidates? Andareed (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the whole list can be reordered by any column, but I believe Andareed is talking about the default order that appears when the article first loads. I suggest default ordering the list in the same way that the source (CNN) uses: Total delegate count, with withdrawn candidates at the bottom sorted by withdrawal date (latest withdrawal date at the top). My two cents. -- Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ordering current candidates by the order presented in the source reference subjects this article to the same POV biasing as the source. The only NPOV way of doing this is to select an arbitrary (and hopefully unchangeable) statistic to order by. The common statistic for this is alphabetization by last name, which I'm formally proposing. And yes, I'm coming from a completely NPOV perspective for this proposal. Also, I believe withdrawn candidates should be ordered by the date on which they withdrew. —XSG 17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical by last name makes sense in that it would be easier to maintain. In terms of what would be most immediately useful to Wikipedia's users, though, it might be better to order the candidates by their current standing in the race (however this is best determined) since I would imagine one of the primary questions users have when visiting the article is: "Who's winning?" Still, since users can easily sort the list by any of the columns, it probably doesn't matter a whole lot which method we use to default order the candidates, so long as we pick a method and stick to it. Alphabetical seems as good as anything else, I guess. -- Bryan H Bell (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bryan H Bell. We should present in an NPOV fashion that's easy for us to maintain, and let the readers sort the table to their preference. Alphabetical by last name of current candidates, followed by alphabetical by last name of withdrawn candidates (in shaded rows) seems best to me. Wdfarmer (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical by last name or first name, though? Seriously though, I suspect most people are interested simply in "who's winning". So sorting alphabetical makes no sense to me. Further, I'd request that no changes be made until tomorrow, as it's just going to create a mess when people start adding results from Super Tuesday. Andareed (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the problem with using an order based on "Who's winning" is that Obama is winning in terms of pledged delegates, while Clinton is winning in terms of total delegates. Andareed (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to put in that feature request for randomized table orderings, eh? Waiting for a little more feedback re: alphabetizing before I make any changes... —XSG 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Clinton supporters will certainly love alphabetical order; unless of course you decide to order by first name :P Andareed (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the creaters of the table put a greater emphasis on total delegate count. The next colunm is Percent of total delegate count, giving that previous column more weight. Besides, it is the only count that really matters, no one becomes the candidate taking the majority of the pledged delagets and not the majority of the total delagets.209.172.11.17 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, putting Clinton in the top spot is what worries me. I don't want the move to be seen as POV. Ordering by total delegate count does make sense, but a) it can change, requiring someone to change the order of the table, and b) if putting someone in the top spot is seen as POV, putting the front-runner in the top spot annoys the cynic in me. Perhaps ordering them by the date the candidacy was announced might at least put things a bit more in-line with the listing of those who've withdrawn. The issue of ordering is so sticky, I'm tempted to just stick my head in the sand and ignore it. —XSG 00:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ordering by anouncment date isn't a bad suggestion. I don't think that keeping up on ordering them correctly is going to be a problem, people will certainly be motivated to adjust them. If you really want to make things apear non POV based, then order them in reverse order putting people that have done the worse first. But then, this defeats the purpose of having a consise breakdown. Showing people who is currently at the top of the list is actually an important piece of information that people shouldn't have to dig for, you shouldn't have to read all of the numbers on the page in order to figure out who is currently in the lead. That should actually be the most important piece of information.209.172.11.17 (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely something we should resolve, though I don't think it makes an enormous amount of difference how we do it so long as it is relatively NPOV. I think the main criteria should be usefulness for readers. In that respect alphabetical seems rather artificial and odd (right now the list would order by first name, so Obama would come first followed by Richardson, whereas if we did it by last name Clinton is first). Most readers - including myself - will be interested in that section as a way to check the numbers. Thus I think it makes sense to order it by delegate count, with withdrawn candidates following in order of date of withdrawal (most recent withdrawal first). I would opt for ordering by pledged delegate count (the superdelegates may or may not be important in the end, so I think it makes sense to prioritize delegates from caucuses and primaries) but would certainly not be averse to ordering by total delegate count if that's preferred by other editors.

If we order it alphabetically either Obama or Clinton is on the top of the list which might give the impression of POV. If we order by delegate count one or the other will still be on top and the other second (barring a dramatic shift in the race) but at least readers will know at a glance why we ordered it the way we did, plus they will see the most useful data first. The order might change from time to time, but that's easy enough to take care of as part of the regular process of updating. All in all this is not a huge deal, so we may as well pick a method and go for it. (Note: if we order by total delegate count it probably makes sense for that column to come first (currently not the case) likewise if we order by pledged delegate count that should remain the first column).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If we put the total delegate column first, then we have to move the percantage with it, and that wouldn't seem correct either. Thats okay though, because generally speaking the most important column in a spreadsheet / table is usually near the end. Since English speakers read left to right, when you lay out columns, you want each one to build off of the ones before it. The summery is usually on the end of what we read, so natraly we look for the most important column on the right hand side, and when applicable totals at the bottom.209.172.11.17 (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We should rank them in order of pledged delegate counts. My reasoning: (a) When results are reported in the media, candidates are almost always ranked by who won or who is winning. That's standard practice. I don't think it's a POV issue. (b) In this case, who's "winning" at any given moment should be determined by pledged delegates. That's the important number, as historically the superdelegates support the winner of pledged delegates. Thus, I would like to see a column added for "percent of pledged delegate count" and rank them in that order. At the very least, we should remove "percent of total delegate count" if we're not going to have a "percent of pledged delegate count." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.69.2 (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The candidate table (as of yesterday evening) states "By default, the current candidates are ordered by pledged delegate count and withdrawn candidates are ordered alphabetically.". Since there doesn't seem to be any way of doing this without appearing to favour one candidate, I'm going to be bold and suggest that think we stick with this order. Andareed (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's stick with default ordering candidates by pledged delegate count, particularly in light of the Candidates: Using CNN discussion above concerning the unreliability of superdelegate counts. -- Bryan H Bell (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. Although super delegates can change their mind, in the past it has been a reasonable and accurate basis for which the party nominee is determined. According to RealClearPolitics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html, I believe we should order it by total delegates. If you are going by CNN, who orders candidates by pledged delegates, that is inaccurate because they are also biased. Warpandas (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does seem to be in favor of ordering by pledged delegates Warpandas. Please discuss further on this page before attempting to change that again. Also please note that this election is quite different from past ones in that it may continue to be fought well after Super Tuesday. What exact role superdelegates will play is very much up in the air.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to weigh in with my support of pledged delegates. I find superdelegate numbers to be so varying by source that I almost question our inclusion of them without citing about five different estimates. They will all vote, and they no doubt are all at least leaning in a certain direction in private. I don't see that, outside of formal endorsements, the number that decided to tell CNN is incredibly important or even a completely realistic estimate. --Aranae (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless we decide to remove them, super delagets are included in the total, and the total count is the only count that matters. If there isn't a clear winner, then super delagites are just as important as pledged delegates, ignoring them doesn't make any sense. Also, there was some talk of consensus, wikipedia doesn't work democratically, things are either right or wrong.209.172.11.17 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that superdelegates aren't bound to their votes; that's why every news agency has a slightly different estimate. I think it probably violates NPOV for us to follow news organizations in construing a statement by whatever governor/senator/whoever to mean that they will definitely vote for a particular person. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, if one prefers to see the candidates ordered by total delegate count, all one has to do is click on the little arrow symbol at the top of the row. There really shouldn't be so much contention over such a trivial matter as the default ordering of the candidates, since any Wikipedia user can re-sort the list at will. Still, we should settle on some default order so we don't spend too much time constantly switching back and forth. The reason for deciding on this matter by consensus was simply to pick a default order and move on, it has little to do with right or wrong. As such, the consensus here was to use pledged delegates for the default order. Second, while it is true that in the end the total count will be all that matters, before the superdelegates have actually cast a vote (at the convention), we can't know with much certainty how they'll vote. The pledged candidates, on the other hand, can provide a better degree of certainty of the relative candidate rankings prior to the convention. Finally, let's at least discuss things here first before making further default candidate ordering changes. It seems bad form to simply change the default candidate ordering without first having a little back-and-forth on the discussion page. Bryan H Bell (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong, I don't believe that pledged delagetes was the consensus, nor do most "pledged" delagets have to vote for one specific candidate. None of them have cast their vore in the convention, and until that happens, most have ability to change their mind later. Also, all of this talk of 'some may change their vote later' and 'cnn might have miscounted' is irrelavent when we are talking about a 50+ count lead. A lead in the only count that matters, making them the frontrunner. Showing the chart any other way then having the frontrunner, in the front, is just misleading and biased. Put it this way, if the convention included only the delagets represented by the chart, then Mrs. Clinton would win. Putting her second, serves nothing but to propell her competition, wich is a POV biased reason.209.172.11.17 (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the discussion on this matter, it is indeed difficult to tell if a consensus has been reached. Here's the voting as best as I can tell (some of these are difficult to discern, pipe up if I misidentified your vote):

Total Delegate Count: 2 (209.172.11.17 and Warpandas)

Pledged Delegate Count: 6 (Bigtimepeace, Aranae, 24.85.69.2, Andareed, ESKog, and Bryan H. Bell)

Alphabetical: 2 (XSG, Wdfarmer)

Announcement date: 1 (XSG)

What's the best way to resolve this so we can move on? Bryan H Bell (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of leaving the status quo until tomorrow, as Super Tuesday results will create enough churn. Andareed (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo News references

At least a couple of the references are now deadlinks due to article expiry - off the top of my head, the Florida primary debacle is an example of this. Probably time someone went through and fixed the dead-links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.21.18 (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New article or section needed explaining delegate categories, PLEASE

At least three people have asked on this discussion page for clarification of the delegate types, dating back at least a few weeks now, and it is still completely lacking from the article. Can somebody PLEASE add a section to the article, or create a new article defining exactly what are

District-level Delegates (voting)

At-large Delegates (voting)

PLEO Delegates (voting)

Pledged Delegates (voting)

Unpledged Delegates (voting)

Ideally, each one of those terms should be wiki-linked to a specific section in an article, that defines that delegate type.

I would create it myself, but even after reading several articles on [CNN.com], [demconwatch.blogspot], and [democrats.org] I'm still confused. I get that PLEO = "Party Leaders and Elected Officials", and the term "Superdelegates" is sometimes referred to them, but what are the "unpledged" vs. "pledged" delegates? How can Iowa have more "unpledged" delegates than PLEOs AFTER it's already had its caucuses? How can states have more in each category ("pledged" and "unpledged") than PLEOs before their primary? THANK YOU!!! Fredwerner (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your section on "Special Rules: Puerto Rico" should be deleted. It is completely based on two articles by David Brooks and Michael Barone, pundits who are ignorant of Puerto Rico's status, political makeup and history. It misleads casual readers into believing Puerto Rico is, or intends to be, winner take all which is factually incorrect. The two major Puerto Rican parties currently endorse different candidates and Puerto Rico, like all other Democratic caucuses, give delegates proportionally, not winner-take-all. Thank you. 137.53.241.4 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards

"Today, I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency." [1]

He didn't withdraw. What happens to his delegates elected on 5 Feb (and before)?

WoodenBooks (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Per CBS News[2], his aides say that suspending is a legal tactic to allow his campaign to continue to receive matching federal funds. Ten of the 26 pledged delegates he'd already earned (before February 5) will be released when he formally exits the race later: six to Obama, and four to Clinton. Edwards will "have a say" in assigning the other sixteen. The CBS News article doesn't say what will happen to any delegates earned on or after February 5. Wdfarmer (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not take the information from this article on his delegates as gospel. It doesn't break it down by state so its hard to verify. The concept of "releasing" delegates differs from state-to-state. The consensus among some people who look at this closely is that he keeps his 4 New Hampshire delegates, all his 14 Iowa delegates are history (and any prediction of where they go is speculation), and the 8 South Carolina delegates, well there's no consensus on them. Note also that he has earned Florida delegates, should they ever get seated. Simon12 (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as his campaign is "suspended", he keeps all his New Hampshire and South Carolina delegates. He also got 13 Florida delegates if the delegation gets seated. And if he does officially withdraw (before May 5), he still keeps his New Hampshire, and his 5 district delegates from South Carolina, but his 3 state-wide delegates will get re-assigned. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon12 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

He took out loans for Ads early on the try and get ground. He's keeping his campaign open to get matching funds to repay the loans. --mitrebox (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Gravel

At this point, it seems to me that Mike Gravel should be removed from the list. He only is on the ballot in 16 states that are yet to vote per his campaign website. . .Primary math is not straightforward, but I would venture a guess that he could not win the primary even if he won all of the states where he is on the ballot. The Republican primary article just removed Alan Keyes. Dfuss (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd wait. Many John Edwards voters may be unwilling to switch to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama[4], so a few might swing to Mike Gravel, and that would be noteworthy. Wdfarmer (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We removed Alan Keyes because he has never been a candidate other than a FEC notice. CNN and FOX continue to have Gravel listed on their sites. Keyes has never been listed on any site, he is listed with other minor candidates on the Republican page. --mitrebox (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't expect it to happen if he won all 16 of those states he'd still have significant leverage in the convention, so he should stay in the list, since he's still in the race. --TheRealdeal (User:TheRealdeal) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegates unfairly represented in this article

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

According to the official 2008 Democratic Convention Watch blog, most polls show Obama with more superdeligates than this article on Wikipedia suggests. Whoever contributed here used the CNN (the Clinton News Network's) numbers, which are obviously the most favorable for Hillary.

Will someone please review this issue! I've pasted the link below to the 2008 Democratic Convention Watch blog. This site includes the DCW list of those who have OFFICIALLY announced who they plan to nominate. That seems like the numbers and source that should be sited here.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

I agree that CNN is far behind other sources and that that leads to a Clinton bias since Obama's numbers are growing a lot faster. Note that there are several sources listed on the blog linked above so if anyone has issues with sourcing something called a blog, those are options as well. --Aranae (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Demconwatch is a usuable source for this specific information, as it backs up its numbers with a verifiable reference for each name in its list. Which, by the way, none of the other major media sources do. Simon12 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Now if we could just get Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries to use the same source as this article, we'd have consistant numbers within Wikipedia. Simon12 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I will try to do this tomorrow (unless someone beats me to it). Andareed (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the DemConWatch numbers. Andareed (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone just changed to the CNN numbers. It needs to be reverted back. Simon12 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Bryan H Bell (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is using inacurate and biased numbers, from an impartial encyclopedia, I would expect better. This page should be updated to show Barack Obama's actual lead, not the outdated and inacurate CNN or whatever numbers, check msnbc.com for the real results 216.165.32.72 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

CNN's numbers were indeed quite unreliable during super Tuesday (the delegate count went backwards a couple times). However, what "proof" can we offer that MSNBC's numbers are more accurate than CNN's? Andareed (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Demconwatch also gives Obama the lead, with a count of the remaining delegates that mostly seem to go to Obama.--Sloane (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really matter of accuracy, its a matter of CNN not keeping up with all of the delegates that have been assigned to the cantidates (the ones still listed as Uncommittied on the Wikipedia results page). This website should switch to a source that keeps up with the news more diligently as it's source. 216.165.32.72 (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Proportional representation

Are the Democrats' primaries always proportional, or are there any exceptions where the winner gets all the delegates in a state? Vints (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is only one exception. If all but one candidate (including "uncommitted") was non-viable (below 15%) both state wide and in all Congressional Districts. While that has not happened on the Democratic side this cycle (so far at least), if the Nevada Republican cacus had been governed under the Democratic rules, that would have been the result. (I think even the smallest territory with delegates to the Democratic side has sufficent pledged delegates where 15% would yield at least one delegate.) Jon (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It actually turned out the Virgin Islands pledged delegation is only 3 delegates, which would take aprox 25% to ensure each delegate. The subarticle on that page is saying that Obama got over 90% of the vote, so even without the 15% viability rule that Hillary apprently fell short of there, Obama would get all the delegates there if the results on that page is accurate. Jon (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

CNN vs DemConWatch again

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bryan H Bell has just reverted the pledged delegate count to CNN from DemConWatch, citing consensus on the talk page. But I can't find that consensus here. Maybe I'm just missing it. Bryan, could you please point to the relevant section of the discussion? The reason I prefer DemConWatch is that the numbers are easier to find and update there without scrolling through pages of CNN's badly coded website and sifting through the superdelegate counts to find the state by state delegate counts. I also can't find a clear report at CNN of how many of the Super Tuesday delegates are yet to be tabulated. Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Another argument in favor of DemConWatch is that CNN has fewer results at the moment. DemConWatch is compiling results from CNN, CBS, AP, and other sources. Their table provides a clear summary of the state-by-state breakdown on Super Tuesday delegates, including delegates not yet counted. I don't see that on CNN. Shouldn't we be giving Wikipedia readers more complete results if possible? Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is in the section Candidates: Using CNN Election Center 2008's numbers and also Superdelegates unfairly represented in this article. There's a similar discussion on Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Overview table. Your concern with the difficulty in editing the state by state totals makes sense. One option would be to continue using DemConWatch for the state by state tables and CNN for the numbers on the Candidates table, though I guess if someone bothered to total the state tables they wouldn't match the Candidates table. I actually wouldn't mind if we used the DemConWatch numbers everywhere, as long as we agreed to do it here first and we could get the same agreement for the Results article. Unilateral changes to the often-contentious Candidates table seem in bad form. By the way, nice job on the changes you've been making today on this article! Bryan H Bell (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know there was discussion also at the results article, so that's where I got confused. I'll let others weigh in here, as I don't have a strong opinion if there is consensus at the other talk page. It looks like the DemConWatch numbers were added by an IP editor before I came along, so it's not me that made the unilateral change. It is a little weird now to see that the CNN numbers don't match the state-by-state results I added. On the other hand, it would also be weird if they didn't match the results article. So maybe status quo is the way to go for now. Within a few days, the state-by-state DemCon numbers and the summary CNN numbers will match up anyway. Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you have my support to use demconwatch's numbers everywhere. We're already using it for superdelegates and state results, so it makes a lot of sense to use it for everything (specifically the totals). I'm not opposed to using msnbc's numbers either - anything but cnn's out-of-date numbers really :) Andareed (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As a supporter of using DemConWatch's superdelegate numbers, I don't think they should be used for pledged delegate numbers. They've noted on the table cited above that they won't be updating that table going forward, and that they are using AP numbers for the total delegate count. The AP link given provides state-by-state numbers, and would make a good source. MSNBC is fine, also. I think we all agree that CNN needs to go! Simon12 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to stir of a can of worms, but does "DemConWatch" meet the criteria for a Reliable Source? On the actual news source to use, I think it should be based on accuracy and timeliness of the pledged delegates data. Jon (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so in this section and in the section below, I hear 1) Internal article consistency is more important than consistency with the results article, 2) Let's move away from CNN, 3) DemConWatch is not updating their pledged delegate table, and AP may be a good source for current state-by-state totals. I propose we keep DemConWatch for superdelegates, while switching the main table and the Super Tuesday table to AP results for pledged delegates. Thoughts? Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've posted my response in the Sources for candidate results section below. Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency in delegate count after super Tuesday

There seem to be an inconsistency in the delegate count after Super Tuesday. In the table from "Phase One: January", we have 63 delegates for Obama and 48 for Clinton. For Super Tuesday (phase two), we currently have 820 delegates for Obama and 814 for Clinton. 63 + 820 = 883 for Obama, and 48 + 814 = 862 for Clinton. However the general table shows Obama second with 831, and 840 for Clinton. Can someone correct this. I am watching from abroad and I don't dare edit the article because I am not sure I understand everything. But the results in the article are confusing to me. Thanks . AugustinMa (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is due to the sources used. The state tables use DemConWatch while the main table uses CNN. There's been a lot of discussion here about what to use a source for the numbers. Andareed (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw the previous thread above just after posting. I think the results in the article should always be *internally consistent*. Explaining how the primary process works is as important as the result themselves. If the numbers don't add up, the article fails in one important aspect. If CNN is slow to update their results, then use another source. In this case, the known January results could be added to the most up to date super Tuesday result. AugustinMa (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the tables ought to be internally consistent. Personally, on election night I prefer CNN because they seem less likely to prematurely call a race than other news sources, but one or two days after the election, there's generally a better source. (That is of course for the primaries; for a general election I actually perfer whoever would call my candidate first in states he's won and for the opponent last in the states he's lost.) Jon (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose changing "pledged delegate count" to "pledged delegate estimate" to indicate the unauthoritative and contradicted nature of these numbers, reflecting such factors as delegates not actually being counted or pledged until their states' conventions. 66.167.141.207 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)