Jump to content

Talk:List of superdelegates at the 2008 Democratic National Convention/Archive 2

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

Request for Comments - Proper Title for Article

Question: Should the title of this article be

  • Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008
or
  • Democratic Party (United States) unpledged delegates, 2008
Argument for "superdelegates" - Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008
"Superdelegates" is the defacto term for unpledged delegates in the Democraticy Party primary and is used in companion wikipages, the media, delegate sites, and everyday speech. It is neither controversial. To the contrary, it accounts for 99% of total usage according to Google searches compared to "unpledged delegates." Finally, "unpledged" could be confused with "uncommitted" or "undecided."
Argument for "unpledged delegates" - Democratic Party (United States) unpledged delegates, 2008
Superdelegates is a controversial term that has only recently become synonmous with all Democratic party Unpledged delegates. In 2004, the term Unpledged Delegatse was used for the name of their list (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/unpledged.html). Since both terms mean the same thing, the page should be named the more neutral term. The Republican party unpledged delegates are not called superdelegates, thus it is not a neutral term because it makes the entirety of unpledged delegates look like something only the Democratic party has when that is not the case. A google search of the word "superdelegates" will bring up the page Superdelegate (a page whose name is not in contention) and not this page. Regardless, it is also not the responsibility of wikipedia to be google friendly.

Please Provide your Comments Below. Again, thank you.

  • As it appears to be by far the most common term in the media, everyday speech, etc., I would say that it should be "Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008", per WP:NAME. After reading through WP:NCON#Descriptive names, the word superdelegate appears to pass as non-POV; what POV could this word have? Finally, a Ctrl+F search of WP:AVOID for "superdelegate" brings up nothing. Thus, the word is not inappropriate for most uses on Wikipedia. Mouse is back 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Walk up to 100 Americans (heck, politicians) and ask them to define two terms: (1) superdelegates and then (2) unpledged delegates. And then ask yourself which definition was closer to the topic of this article. I think you'll find that it is superdelegates--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC).
Ask 100 americans what race Barack Obama's parents were 6 months agi and most will say black while the rest will say he had a black father and white mother. Only one is true. How can wikipedia be an educational encyclopedia if it uses the common denominator as it's basis and not the facts.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with the foregoing commenters. "Superdelegate" is by far the more common term in reliable sources and everyday usage, and should be preferred for the article title. PubliusFL (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Unpledged Delegates: Scranton 2 summed up my argument for the use of unpledged delegates as the name for this page pretty well. I have added a few other points.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact that the term superdelegates is used solely for the Democratic party does not, I believe, make it non-POV. The main reason I believe the term is used only for the Democratic party is that only the Democratic party establishes this class of unpledged delegates in its call to convention. The Republican party just determines how many delegates each state has and makes three specific party leaders automatic delegates. It does not require that those delegates go to the convention unpledged or that all other delegates go to the convention pledged. Rather it leaves it to the states. In some states those three leaders go pledged to the winner of the state while in some states not only do they go unpledged, but some or all of the remaining delegates may go to the convention officially unpledged as well. So the Democratic party is the only party that establishes a certain class of unpledged delegates and that class has come to be called superdelegates. While the term was originally used to represent a point-of view that these delegates would have more power than other delegates, in the past 25 years it has become standard. So I believe the page title should continue as it is. Galois E (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Galois E, although I still disagree with you, I'd like to thank you for giving such a concise explanation of how the state level delegates work. I don;t think I've read an easier to follow explanation yet.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked at it. It doesn't say that superdelegates does not include the unpledged add-ons. On the contrary the number 802 I believe can only be arrived at by counting the unpledged add-ons. In fact, at the bottom of the page you linked to from CNN it links to the following page http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/misc/more.html where it specifically says

The remaining delegates are comprised of pledged at-large delegates and party leaders and elected officials (PLEOs), and unpledged add-on delegates and PLEOs (also referred to as "superdelegates").

So I'm not sure why you think this establishes a change in how the term has been used. Galois E (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Even the page you cited is titled "The delegate selection process" and not "The superdelegate selection process" My point is that in 2004... superdelgates was not used as the main title of articles dealing with itas evidenced by this link. Not sure if you've read the entire debate or not but we were discussing the main title of this page.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Initial Number of Superdelegates set by DNC

Wasn't the number of superdelegates set BEFORE Florida and Michigan delegates were stripped of their votes?

The initial number is now set at 797. Where is the reference to where this number was set?

However, if you include the number of superdelegates whose residence is in FL or MI (less one for relocation already in the list), that would mean that the initial number should be 851.

Then, there would be a item where to lower the number from 851 to 797.

What does everyone think? user:mnw2000 01:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey mnw2000. I think an entry like that makes sense. It presents the stripping issue nicely. So yes, good addition.
We used 797 because that's where demconwatch started their +/- page, so that gave us a clean start (now cited).
There is one slight technical snag: We have 55 FL/MI del's now (including the 5 TBD's), but that includes two positions (Curtis and Lawrence) who had been "above the line" at the start of our history. So the original FL/MI strip was only 53, not 55. I think that leaves us with one too many superdelegates.
851 - 53 = 798 > 797.
The 797 number is solid. Do you have a source for the 851--is that the right number? If so, we'll need to account for one more reduction (Did someone die? I checked the congressional deaths and didn't see anything that would close the gap to 851.). --Scantron2 (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The initial number is created based on backwards calculations. If we can find a reference to the loss of 53 superdelegates at that time the sanctions were imposed, then the new inital number of 850 would be valid. user:mnw2000 03:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I found a reference to the 850 superdelegate number in a New York Times article dated on 11/8/2007. user:mnw2000 03:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

History of Total Number of Superdelegates or Other Changes

The history of the total number of superdelegates section includes many developments that did not change the total number. I think either the title of the section should change (and hence the section should probably be moved) or else we should eliminate all developments which did not change the total number. Any thoughts? Galois E (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the History section should be moved at the end of the article, unless there is a germane reason to keep it there. Any objection? --Bouchecl (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The section was created to be an explaination of the total number of superdelegates (794) at the beginning of the article. I will leave it to the experts to determine where this section belongs, but I think it is very important to understand where the comes from and how it changed from DNC set 850 to the current 794. As for all the changes that "don't" effect the total number, that is just what happens with Wikipedia as more people get involved. I would suggest we remove any items that don't effect the total to keep the chart smaller so it can stay where it is. What does everyone think? user:mnw2000 21:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Take my comments for what they're worth...as I'm no expert.
I like the chart, but it has gotten long. And it separates the counts section from the endorsements section -- to where it interrupts the flow of the page, IMO.
Shrinking the chart is one option, but the entries will continue to grow. My thought is to move it down the page and to keep all the detail -- the chart not only does a good job of showing the basis for our current total but also demonstrates the dynamic nature of the pool of superdelegates.
I'm OK with whatever solution people like, but we absolutely need to keep. It is a high-quality contribution, and one that's uniquely detailed and illustrative compared to other delegate-counting sites. --Scantron2 (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I moved the section to the bottom of the article as suggested. I guess the "little" chart that I included to the "totals" section as grown to belong in the "details" section. Thanks to everyone that has helped make the chart more complete than any other such chart on the net. user:mnw2000 02:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the move. I think it improves the overall quality of this page. --Bouchecl (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

I'm very sorry that my last edit have done a lot of damages on special characters. I used an external editor, and I did not realize it. --Subver (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Representative Al Wynn Resigns

Should we wait until June when the resignation takes effect? There will also be a special election (probably before the convention) which would replace the superdelegate seat. user:mnw2000 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We should probably wait until a special election is called for the district. BTW, the Democratic candidate and the prohibitive favorite for the MD-04 seat is Donna Edwards, who supports Obama too. --Bouchecl (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Or at least until he's formally submitted a resignation. His announcement today sounded more like an intent to me -- though I don't doubt it'll happen. His website didn't say anything on the subject, FYI.
Once a binding resignation is submitted, I don't see a problem moving forward and pulling him -- though I wouldn't insist on it (as people see fit). --Scantron2 (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, there is a possibility that he could resign and leave the seat and a special election would not be held until after the convention, but I doubt it since the Governor is a Democrat. I will simply add a note to the bottom for now. user:mnw2000 11:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I just checked and demconwatch has already pulled him, though there's still nothing on his congressional website. Sounds like his situation/approach is pretty unusual. Here's an interesting link. --Scantron2 (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032702136.html
He can change his mind like Senator Craig did. Therefore, as long as he is a representative, he is a superdelegate. We may be jumped the gun with Spitzer by a few days, but there is a lot of time between now and June. Also, we don't know if there will be a special election. I suggest we leave it the way it is until his name is removed from house.gov. user:mnw2000 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like KATYDIDIT decided to remove Wynn as a superdelegate from all of the charts even though he is still a superdelegate. I thought of undoing these changes, but I decided to simply add a note to the end of the compilation chart. We can use the fact that he is not a VOTING superdelegate since he wont be a superdelegate at the time of the convention. I guess that creates a precident - this is a list of superdelegates that will have a vote at the convention. user:mnw2000 23:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wynn's resignation became effective on June 1, 2008, per the Office of the Clerk, US House of Representsatives website http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/vacancies_pr.html?pr=house&vid=15 Patzer42 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Switch to Democratic Convention Watch

Hello, I'm sure you've noticed that Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 use Democratic Convention Watch as the exclusive source for superdelegates. The editors at those articles have considered switching to using this article for the data but have decided against it several times because of questionable practices here. (For example, listing candidate websites as a source.) It would really be wonderful to have all the articles standardized, as I believe the sortable tables and the internal wikilinks here are a very useful addition to understanding the 2008 Democratic Primaries. I wonder if you would consider switching to using Democratic Convention Watch as the sole source for your list? They are very transparent in their methods, providing footnotes and links for all superdelegates, and they are very timely in doing updates. The footnote at the bottom of their blog makes it very easy to track changes. DemConWatch has been through numerous rounds of consensus-making at the main primary articles, and we have always concluded that using that site and that site alone is the best practice.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

While I admire Democratic Convention Watch, I do not believe they should be used as the exclusive source. A standard of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:verifiability but that doesn't mean there is only one reliable source out there. I have seen no evidence that candidate websites are less reliable than the press. One would think that if a candidate lists a delegate's support mistakenly, then the delegate will promptly correct the mistake. (This happened with some Florida endorsements) Such mistakes may occasionally occur with newspaper sources as well. DemConWatch has also changed their mind regarding some endorsements. I respect their right to come to their only conclusion about what qualifies something as an endorsement to be counted in the list, but I also respect the right of editors here to reach different conclusions. Generally questions exist about what "qualifies" as support. I would suggest that when in doubt a delegate be listed as uncommitted. For example, if a delegates says they endorse Clinton but may vote for Obama at the convention, how should that delegate be listed? There is no clear answer. For example, while DemConWatch lists Harry Thomas, Jr. in the Clinton column, I would tend to keep him uncommitted because there have also been reports (especially from Mike Panetta at DemConWatch and elsewhere) that Thomas as changed his support to Obama. Because of this uncertainty I would wait until we can find further clarification about his current position. If the endorsement of a particular candidate is challenged we can discuss it here on the talk page. Galois E (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Very well. I would just add that you may want to consider the benefit to Wikipedia to having this number standardized across articles. DemConWatch has proven itself to be a reliable source, not necessarily the only reliable source, but certainly one of the best. Time has shown that you would certainly have a hard time getting anything else by the editors at the main primary articles. If it were accepted as the primary source here, then the article series as a whole would be in better shape.Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, candidate websites are not an "independent" source and thus are not a reliable source under WP:RS.Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not quite what WP:RS says. For lack of a better category, I would think Campaign websites would fall under extremist sources. The section on extremist sources says they're reliable as long as they are only used as a source about that extremist sources activity itself. For instance, if John Lewis' website say's he endores Obama... that would be acceptable as a source for that peice of information. After all, it's Lewis' actual website.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Also bear in mind that WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. These are not dogmatic axioms here (hope I spelled that right).--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I have considered that benefit. The way the other articles count the pledged delegates is by using the numbers from the Wikipedia article for the results from each state. It seems the same thing makes sense here. Just as the overall primary results depends on the article for each state, it could depend on the article on the unpledged delegates. Both are often subject to some debate, but any specific issues can be dealt with on the appropriate page. I agree with Dr. Who that context in which we should view these sources. It would seem strange that an article about some other issue that mentions in passing "John Doe, a Hillary Clinton supporter" would be more reliable than a statement from either John Doe or Hillary Clinton about that fact. As I noted before, if John Doe does not, in fact, support Clinton and Clinton is claiming he does it is almost certain that John Doe will correct this promptly. Furtehrmore if there is some question about a specific delegate's views that can be dealt with here. When it comes down to it, the differences are very slight. The biggest seems to be a reliance here on a NY Times article which was quite transparent about what it based its list on. I fail to see how this is less reliable than an article claiming someone has made an endorsement. For all we know that claim may be based on the Times article itself! Galois E (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: "The way the other articles count the pledged delegates is by using the numbers from the Wikipedia article for the results from each state. It seems the same thing makes sense here." Yes, it does make sense. But it's been tried over there and failed, as the editors did not agree with the sourcing methods on this article. Since the editors there declined to adopt this article's sources, I thought the editors here might accept those article's sources. Seems like the answer is no. Just thought I'd ask. I have no particular preference regarding one article's methods vs. the others', but the decision there has been subject to multiple rounds of consensus. Not sure what has happened here, as I haven't been paying attention.Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's too bad for the contributors of the other page that they're willing to use a blog as a "reliable source" instead of the information we generated here. DemConWatch does a good job, but we're sometimes faster than they are. As to the value of a news release, make no mistake: reporters will routinely "write" the endorsement stories by paraphrasing those news releases which are considered so unreliable by some on WP. --Bouchecl (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it might help to identify the endorsements where this article differs from DCW and offer a persuasive argument as to why this article's methods are better on those particular endorsements. The total here is 248-224 vs. DCW's 245-221. So we're not far off, but it would help me to be able to see where exactly the differences are.Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I also think that might be a good idea. I'll try to add more when I have more time, but a few differences that come to mind are as follows: WP lists Paul Kirk as being for Obama. DCW listed that for a time, but removed him to uncommitted following an article in the Berkshire Eagle dated Mar 14 that seemed to group him with the uncommitted delegates. The source here is from the Boston Globe which had a series of photos highlighting some of the superdelegates and whom they support. It is also verifiable that Kirk donated $2300 to the Obama campaign in the 1st quarter of this year. As mentioned above DCW lists Harry Thomas, Jr. as supporting Clinton which he clearly did at one point. The only indication that he doesn't is an unpublished source in DC politics who even then is relying on a staffer. Certainly if someone changed Thomas to Clinton I couldn't argue with that. At least three more differences are Janice Griffin (MD) and Denise Johnson (TX) for Obama and Ron Donatucci (PA) for Clinton here. All three come for the Times article I mentioned that is based on lists from the campaign. The article was well publicized and has been out for awhile and I've seen no denials from these three delegates. DCW, though, has a policy that a list of delegates is considered unreliable. I believe they want either a public statement or an article identifying them on a more individual basis. I think that accounts for the Obama differences, but it's a wash on Clinton leaving 3 more delegates identified by WP as Clinton supporters, but by DCW as uncommitted. Galois E (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
My own opinion here is that a Super Delegate's own web site saying he's endorsed Clinton or Obama would qualify as a reliable source, but neither Clinton's nor Obama web site listing of super delegate should qualify. It appears that DCW is effectively doing this. Jon (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well none of the differences so far are based directly on the candidates web site. They are based on reputable news sources. The issue of Kirk was two news sources provided conflicting information. The issue of at least three of the delegates is that the news source (The New York Times) based its information on lists provided by the candidates. I don't view this as less reliable than a news source that is not telling us the basis for its claim. I think it is better so that IF issues of doubt are raised we can make a more informed judgment. For example, if someone provided a quote from Janice Griffin where she claims that she is remaining uncommitted I would say that trumps the Times reporting. Absent any such claim, though, the Times article seems sufficient to support the claim that Janice Griffin supports Obama. The fact that it has been reported and Griffin has not, to our knowledge, denied it seems like strong evidence to me of her support. DCW might reach different conclusions based on the same information. The important point is that with both DCW and WP readers can see what the basis for the claim is and make an informed judgment. If a source like CNN or AP that merely lists numbers you cannot do that. The very fact that we can discuss whether Janice Griffin does indeed support Obama and try to reach a consensus on it is great. At home I keep my own list which differs from Wikipedia's because my standards are different. For example, I count the Iowa add-on as supporting Obama even though we don't know his or her identity yet. As long as I can see where the numbers are coming from and what the basis is for including or not including a delegate, though, I think it's fine. Galois E (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Difference with Democratic Convention Watch

As requested, here are the current differences between this page and the list maintained by Democratic Convention Watch:

Obama here (uncommitted at DCW): Denise Johnson (TX), Paul Kirk (MA), Vernon Watkins (CA)
Clinton here (uncommitted at DCW): Ron Donatucci (PA), Herman Farrell, Jr. (NY), Ronald Malone (OH), Patricia Moss (OH), Brad Ellsworth (IN)

For what it's worth Politico's list agrees with this article on all of the above except Watkins Ellsworth and Malone. Galois E (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC) [updated Galois E (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)]

It seems DC's add-on Harry Thomas is no longer supporting Clinton, according to this article. and is back to uncommitted. I will edit the page accordingly. --Bouchecl (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, looking over this list and comparing the WP footnotes with DCW.
  • Johnson. Two WP footnotes. First is the NYT list of delegates provided by candidates, Johnson for Obama. This has marginal reliability, but I would accept it in the absence of other information. Second is a footnote to a home-state newspaper, quotes :Johnson in the body saying her personal preference is Obama, but she will vote with the winner of the pledged delegates; also lists Johnson at the bottom of the article as uncommitted. In other words, WP footnote contradicts information in the chart, with no explanation. My verdict: strong DCW. [Update: Johnson's status has since been changed on this article and now matches DCW.]
  • Kirk. WP footnote is to Boston Globe caption. Marginal, but I would accept this in the absence of other information. DCW footnote is expired. Google cache has the home-state article listing Kirk as uncommitted. I give preference to articles over captions and to a home-state source. [Update: Boston Globe is also home-state]. User:Galois E notes above that Kirk gave $2300 to Obama, but this should not be used as a factor in predicting his superdelegate vote; WP is not a crystal ball. Still, I'm not happy to see that DCW let their footnote expire. Verdict: weak DCW. [Updated to Tossup.]
  • Watkins. WP footnote is to this NYT graphic. I still would rather see reporting on individual delegates than aggregates like this, but this is acceptable. DCW has no footnote for uncommitted. Verdict: weak WP.
  • Donatucci. WP footnote is to the first NYT list again. DCW has no footnote for uncommitted. Verdict: weak WP. [Update DCW accepts Donatucci three days later; WP vindicated.]
  • Roberts. WP footnote is to the NYT City Room blog, which in my opinion is a reliable news source. DCW has no footnote for uncommitted. Verdict: WP.
  • Malone. WP footnote is to an AP article. DCW has no footnote for uncommitted. Verdict: WP.
  • Moss. WP footnote to the same AP article. DCW has no footnote for uncommitted. Verdict: WP.
Here's why I'm inclined to support using WP as the source for the two main primary articles:
  • In the matchup above, WP performed reasonably well against DCW.
  • Internal consistency is important and I see no basis here for arguing that this article should switch to DWC; rather, there is only basis for arguing that this article should reevaluate individual listings. WP has strong mechanisms for that reevaluation.
  • One of my initial arguments against the WP list is that it cites candidate websites. It's disconcerting to scroll down the page and see HillaryClinton.com or BarackObama.com used multiple times. However, these are usually press releases on the candidate websites. If you pick a few of these at random and check them against the DCW list, you'll find that DCW is also using them.
Here's why I'm inclined against it:
  • DCW still has better footnotes than WP in some cases. WP is using the NYT's graphic Where the superdelegates stand as a footnote on 25 superdelegates. Only a few of those differ from DCW, as shown above. However, if DCW doesn't accept this source, I think there is valid grounds for caution. Why doesn't WP switch to stronger sourcing where available?
  • WP leans heavily on the candidate websites. This may be reliable, but surely there are more than a few news articles out there listing Evan Bayh as a Clinton supporter. Why not track them down and use them instead of the candidate websites where possible?
  • DCW is still highly reliable and is very quick and easy. There is some benefit to sticking with ONE respectable source rather than generating our own aggregate of multiple sources, as it offloads the decision-making, easing the burden on WP editors.
Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort you've devoted to the comparison, but, frankly, given the nature of the Wikipedia project, there's not much point to arguing for a wholesale switchover to DCW content.
This is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. If someone has support, within Wikipedia's policies (WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, etc.), for an assertion about Superdelegate X, then that person can add the assertion, with the citation. That's how open editing works. Your comment is, in effect, addressing a possible proposal to the Wikipedia Editorial Board to the effect that this article be treated differently. The suggestion founders on one simple point: There is no Wikipedia Editorial Board. It's really not feasible to tell individual editors that they're not allowed to try to improve the article.
Instead, I agree with your point that Wikipedia allows re-evaluation on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps an editor can find third-party sources for some of the commitments currently cited to a candidate website. Certainly there's no reason not to consult DCW and to focus attention on any discrepancies. Also, if DCW cites a published news article, it's not a violation of DCW's copyright for us to cite the same source. Under U.S. law, at least, you can copyright words and images, but not facts or ideas, so DCW has no monopoly on facts it unearths. JamesMLane t c 21:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Clarification. Agreed. The question as I see it now is not whether this article should switch to using DCW as its primary or sole source. The question is whether the main primary articles should switch to using this WP article as their source for results. Currently, those articles have longstanding consensus to use DCW. My analysis is targeted to that audience. I'm just doing it here to keep discussion centralized. If this article were to see further improvements (see my "inclined against" section), I think we could see a new consensus at the main primary articles on behalf of using this article and its sources for the superdelegate number.Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to throw in my two cents regarding the two delegates (Johnson and Kirk) that Northwesterner1 believes should not have been listed as supporting a candidate (in both cases Obama).
  • Johnson: I added the second reference for Johnson. Northwesterner1 believes this article contradicts the claim that she supports Obama. I think it supports the claim. The article has her claiming a personal preference for Obama. That is a clear statement of support of a particular candidate. It also says, though that she'll vote for whomever receives the most pledged delegates. That is not an uncommon sentiment. Rep. Lofgren and former Sen. Daschle have both said the same thing. Yet so far there has been no question about keeping them listed as supporting Obama. Sen. Cantwell has also said the same thing and she is still listed as supporting Clinton. So there is some question as to how to deal with delegates like this. If Johnson has just said she was going to vote for the pledge delegate winner I would agree to list her uncommitted. By signaling her support, though, I thought it best that she be treated the same as Lofgren, Daschle, and Cantwell.
  • Kirk: I also saw the cached article from the Berkshire Eagle listing Kirk as uncommitted. It gave no basis for that statement, though. Did the journalist (Evan Lehmann) confirm that Kirk was undecided? Or did he list Kirk as undecided since that is the default category? Let's contrast this with the Boston Globe source. This is not merely a photo caption. If you go to the beginning of the series it says their reporting is based on interviews with each of the 26 Massachusetts delegates. The fact that they chose to accompany their information with photos of all 26 delegates doesn't make it any less reliable. By the way, the Boston Globe is also home-state and is a more well established paper than the Berkshire Eagle. It is true that the Berkshire Eagle article is more recent, but absent a statement from Kirk saying the Globe got it wrong or he has withdrawn his support, I consider the Globe account to be a more reliable source for this matter. I also don't discount the donation. The claim is that Kirk supports Obama and financial support is certainly evidence of that. Galois E (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Johnson: First, a reference that says verbatim she is in "uncommitted" column should not be added as evidence that she is in "support." You can't extrapolate information from the source, bearing in mind WP:OR. Many people make "signals" of various kinds as to what candidates they support. Wikipedia cannot be in the business of interpreting those signals and drawing conclusions; we have to be in the business of reporting the conclusions that reliable sources have drawn. The source says she is uncommitted; therefore, the source does not back up the claim it is being used to footnote.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Kirk: Certainly up for debate based on the fact that we have two conflicting sources, and in such a case I myself would trust DCW to arbitrate the dispute. If you want to choose different arbitration methods that's fine, but the evidence should not include any reference to financial support. People give money to candidates for all kinds of reasons, and many people have given to both candidates; private personal support is also different than a superdelegate endorsement. The claim is not that Kirk is a friend or supporter of Obama. The claim is that his superdelegate vote should be counted in Obama's column. When we start looking at financial donations, etc., we're doing original research at best and speculation at worst.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Johnson: After reading the article again, I am now inclined to agree with you that she should be listed as uncommitted. I had focused before on her statements. The bottom of the article is quite clear which candidates it has supporting whom and of those which were based on current interviews. It lists Johnson as uncommitted based on a current interview. I will remove her, leaving the reference up. Galois E (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Kirk: I welcome discussion about this. I would not defer to DCW to settle the matter, though. I believe the editors here should discuss the issue. Whether the financial support is original research depends on what the claim that is being made. If the claim is "Paul Kirk supports Barack Obama" it is not original research, but rather a direct source verifying the claim. Because of the list nature of this article it is not so clear, though, what the claim is. So et us focus on the two articles. The Boston Globe has their staff interview every single home state superdelegate. They report back that based on that interview Paul Kirk supports Barack Obama. This seems no different than the Star-Telegram article from Texas. He could have asked that he be placed in the neutral column as some of the candidates indicated. He did not. If this article is trying to predict how superdelegates will vote in Denver the entire article is speculative. Who knows what will happen between now and then. In all likelihood the race will be resolved by then and all delegates will vote the same way. Instead the article can only be making claims about whom the superdelegates publicly support at this instance. A statement on the record with the Boston Globe is a public statement of support. After this interview with the Globe I feel the Eagle does not meet the burden of evidence to demonstrate that Kirk is uncommitted. Galois E (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The "History of superdelegate composition changes" section is actually more extensive and complete than anything found on DCW. (It took me a long time to find the reference for the 850 beginning superdelegate number.) user:mnw2000 03:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1/2 Votes

There seems to be some contention about which superdelegates get only half a vote. According to Democratic Convention Watch, Politico, and The Green Papers it is only the Democrats Abroad delegates that receive half a vote. Superdelegates from the territories get a whole vote. I think part of the confusion comes from the fact that pledged delegates from American Samoa (and Guam and the US Virgin Islands) get half a vote. Their superdelegates, however, do indeed get a whole vote. In addition to the sources above for this claim we can go directly to the Call to Convention. Article I deals with how many delegate votes each delegation gets. Particularly relevant for this discussion is

I.F Unpledged votes shall be allocated to each delegation to accommodate the members of the Democratic National Committee from that state or territory in which they legally reside. The size of such a member’s vote (i.e., whole or fractional) shall be the same size as that which he or she is allowed to cast at meetings of the Democratic National Committee.

Of course that means we have to know how many votes they get at DNC meetings. For that we refer to The Charter and Bylaws of the party. The only reference there to anyone getting only fractional votes is Article Nine, Section Six, which states Democrats Abroad should get 4 votes split among 8 members. All references to the DNC members from the territories distinguishes them in no way from other committee members. This only accounts for the DNC members, but the call to convention also says that the Democratic Governor and Democratic Congressional Delegate from the territories are unpledged delegates (Article I.H) again making no reference to them getting any sort of fractional vote. Galois E (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorsement vs. Vote

We are starting to get a number of superdelegates now who have publicly made explicit distinctions between their endorsements of candidates, and their decisions about how to vote at the convention. Jackie Speier is the most recent example of this (she has endorsed Clinton, but says she has not determined how she would vote in Denver) but there are others. In some cases the delegate has indicated that in spite of an endorsement, his or her vote will go to whomever wins the most pledged delegates. In some cases the candidate remains neutral, but promises to do the same thing. Finally in some cases, there may be an endorsement but a commitment to remaining uncommitted with regards to the vote. How should we deal with this? In my mind, these superdelegates are of interest as superdelegates only because of their votes in Denver and therefore that is what we should be counting. If a delegate endorses a candidate the default assumption is that he or she would vote for the candidate in Denver, but if there is an explicit claim that the vote will not necessarily be for the endorsee, the delegate should not be counted in that column (well row technically). (This would remove Speier, Cantwell, Daschle, Lofgren--perhaps others). There is a separate issue of whether we should have a count of those who are committed to the pledged delegate winner. That is we would have Clinton, Obama, Pledged Winner, Uncommitted, Unassigned. Or should such delegates be counted as uncommitted? Or should they be counted as with whomever he or she endorsed if there was also an endorsement. Any thoughts? Galois E (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point... such distinctions should be clearly noted in the article for each Democrat in question and they should be marked as uncommited/undecided for purposes of the tally. That would be the logical thing to do.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I changed Cantwell from Clinton to Uncommitted. The ref is [1], an interview with the editorial board of a Washington state newspaper, and cited by DemConWatch. -Colfer2 (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I also changed Daschle, Lofgren, Woolsey, Waxman, with refs. DemConWatch has 4 wigglers (in green): Cantwell, Lofgren, Daschle, Waxman. It is missing Woolsey, but the ref is pretty good and postdates the endorsement ref. The remaining question is Speier, I haven't found a ref. Also, Daschle said a group of superdelegates have conferred by phone and agreed to support the pledged delegate leader (Daily Show ref). -Colfer2 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing superdelegate?

I was going through the list of superdelegates from PA for the upcoming primary in that state and found that a prime superdelegate, Senator Arlen Specter, is missing from the list. Is there a reason for this?

If I were a right wing Republican, this would make my brain explode. Luckily I'm not. But Specter is a Republican (some would say "in name only"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Ways (talk • contribs) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I did some research and it appears that on a website, he is not listed as a superdelegate that endorsed either Clinton or Obama, nor is he on the list of uncommitted superdelegates. I'm further baffled by this. I'd like an answer as soon as possible, thanks. Americanadian (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Senator Specter is a Republican, and so is not eligible to be a Democratic superdelegate. Simon12 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've read on a lot of websites that Indiana has 13 superdelegates (but those sites never list names). As far as I can tell Indiana only has 12, am I missing something? HoosierStateTalk 23:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You're probably missing the unpledged add-on who has not been selected yet. Including that add-on Indiana does indeed have 13 superdelegates (1 senator, 5 representatives, 5 DNC members, 1 distinguished party leader, and 1 unpledged add-on). The number has gone up and down over the past few months. Originally the DPL (Joe Andrew) was listed as being a resident of Maryland, but that was changed to Indiana. Andre Carson became a superdelegate after winning a special election. In any case, 13 is the correct current official number, they're just not all named yet. Galois E (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I added Mike Panetta (Shadow Representative of the District of Colombia) as a superdelegate and as an Obama supporter, as his page states. I doubt it's incorrect because, even though the information apparently came from Fox, the Shadow Senators were seated alongside the Delegate. Why was he omitted? Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

He was omitted because he is not a superdelegate. This post from Democratic Convention Watch has it directly from Panetta that he is not a superdelegate. Even though the Democratic Call to Convention says that one of DC's add-ons must be used for its shadow representative, the DC selection plan (which was approved by the DNC) did not call for that. Whereas the shadow senators and congressional delegate are automatically superdelegates by virtue of their positions, the shadow representative is not. Panetta says he is hoping to be selected as a pledged PLEO, but that would be a spot that has already been counted for Obama in the results of the DC primary. Panetta wil not be a superdelegate this year.Galois E (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside Review

I decided to make a review of your superdelegate list. I added the two sources for Clinton superdelegates which were missing. Other than that, I found the list to be extremely accurate. I just wanted to congratulate you all on a great list you're maintaining. Vir4030 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegate breakdown by state

I've been working on a table that breaks down superdelegate votes by state. I just think it's something interesting to see where the candidates are getting their superdelegate support. What does everything think? (See the table below) HoosierStateTalk 22:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans. -Colfer2 (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the table, if anyone doesn't like it or thinks it's overkill, please discuss! HoosierStateTalk 22:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Brad Ellsworth

In running through names one stuck out and I'm not sure the page has it right but it is boarderline so I didn't change it. Brad Ellsworth is listed a endorsing Clinton. However, from ABC...

5/08/08 "Ellsworth spokeswoman Liz Farrar tells ABC News' Karen Travers that "this should not be taken as an endorsement. The Congressman is not endorsing either candidate. His position is that if this contest continues all the way to the convention, he will cast his vote for the candidate the 8th District voters chose. But he has no intention of getting involved in the race (with an endorsement, etc) on behalf of either candidate."" (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/the-ellsworth-e.html)

I would read that as an uncommitted for purposed of determining the Candidate prior to the convention, and if there was a floor fight he would then vote Clinton because that is how his consituatiants voted.

So, my thoughts are he should be removed as an endorsement, as far as the primary is concerned, and added back in if the Democrats go to a brokered convention. Yes/no? (and if this needs to be moved to a different section let me know) --Edgeways (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

He should probably be listed with the same footnote as there is for Boxer (and a number of other delegates should probably have the same). When it comes down to it what most people are interested in this list is how will the superdelegate vote if it comes down to it at the convention. If we were interested in political endorsements, why only count superdelegates? That's my thought.Galois E (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Humm, I see a difference. They way I see Superdelegates at this point is to provide delegates towards determining who a candidate is. At this stage that is done by adding all the delegates, pledged and Super to achieve the benchmark (2024 right now). This is ratified at the convention, which usually is a formality. So, Clinton can not use Ellsworth in any capacity until the convention if she actively challenges the nomination. I read what the press release says as, if Obama passes the "magic number" and Clinton does not challenge it, then Ellsworth will vote for the nominee (Obama). I don't see how the assertion that "most people are interested in this list is how will the superdelegate vote if it comes down to it at the convention" can be verified, that certainly isn't what I primarily use it for. Am I in a minority? And What data shows this? I assert that at this stage people probably use this page to see where the candidates stand in the delegate race, and not some unknown convention fight.--Edgeways (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


  • The purpose of this article is to show how each superdelegate plans to vote at the convention and he will vote for Clinton at the convention so I don't see why we would list him as uncommitted. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Exactly Edgeways. When you say "adding delegates" you mean adding votes. Ellsworth's vote is going to Clinton if it actually comes down to votes. The fact that if a nominee is determined prior to the convention Ellsworth will vote for the winner is almost certainly true for all the delegates. It sounds to me like you are using this to see how superdelegates will vote at the convention. What else is meant by the "delegate race"? It is a race for votes. It doesn't matter whether the person is actively campaigning or endorsing the candidate, all that matters is how they will vote if it comes down to votes. As for reaching a magic number, think of it this way. Ellsworth can't help Obama reach this number, but he can help Clinton. If she gets 2023.5 votes or more, he'll vote for Clinton thus giving her the 2024.5 necessary. It seems then he should be counted for Clinton. Galois E (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Allrighty, I see we have a slightly difference in opinion over this, but that's copacetic. I added a note under his name but left everything else as is. Cheers.--Edgeways (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not what was used for Denise Johnson, TX DNC. She said that she voted for Obama is the primary, and that she would vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, which clearly will be Obama, but she's still officially uncommitted.[2] He said that it was not an endorsement. His vote will depend on circumstance. Ellsworth should not be listed os committed. Vir4030 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Barbara Boxer, too. She said it's not an endorsement. It wouldn't be so bad if the column in the table didn't read "Endorsement". It's misleading to put Clinton's name in a column column called "Endorsement" when they have both stated that they are not endorsing Clinton. Vir4030 (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Zoe Lofgren

As the case with Brad Ellsworth seems to indicate we are indicating weak/conditional support I added Zoe Lofgren as she has endorsed but indicated she would support the leader in June. I added a footnote to that effect.

Likewise Tom Daschle should also be included and footnoted (no time for me to do that tonight). I feel these two are variants of the Boxer/Ellisworth situations and as such they either all get counted and footnoted or left as uncommitted. --Edgeways (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Lofgren back to "Uncommitted". The table is for "commitments" not "endorsements." We are counting votes not sentiments. -Colfer2 (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
As for Boxer, read the reference http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8472501 :
Note a few days ago editors changed the title of the last column from "Endorse" to "Commit". -Colfer2 (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New superdelegate

Childers just won the special election... —Nightstallion 05:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He's already mentioned.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Pelosi Club"

Do we move this group en masse over to Obama when he takes a clear majority of the pledged delegates, most likely after KY and OR vote on May 20? Wait for a clear majority assuming MI and FL would be seated? Or take them one at a time?

For the record, per DemConWatch the "Pelosi Club" currently consists of: Sen. Maria Cantwell (WA), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (CA), Christine Pelosi (CA DNC), Former President Jimmy Carter (GA DPL), Betty Richie (TX), Denise Johnson (TX), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA), Sen. Tom Daschle (SD), plus 1 additional member from Florida: Rep. Robert Wexler (FL). Patzer42 (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we wait for them to commit individually. But I also think the "Pelosi Club" is worth mentioning in the article, since it could swing a good sized block of votes. Is there a ref besides DCW? -Colfer2 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As of 5/24, DCW has added Rep. Chris Van Hollen to the Club, and moved Lofgren, Daschle and Wexler into the "clearly Obama" camp. We still show Lofgren, Daschle and Wexler as Uncommitted -- pending, I suppose, a possible May 31 increase in the total number of pledged delegates. I am leaving them Uncommitted for now, but I wouldn't undo an update that followed DCW's lead. Patzer42 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, it makes no sense to leave these three delegates Uncommitted and remove them from the Pelosi Club, as we have done. Lofgren, Daschle and Wexler have not rescinded their earlier "Pelosi Club" endorsement -- the only reason DCW removed them is that they are the strongest Obama-leaners in the club.
So which is it, folks? Restore Lofgren, Daschle and Wexler to our version of the Pelosi Club? Or label them as straight-out Obama endorsers? Patzer42 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Lofgren, Daschle and Wexler are now in Obama's column, as in DCW. The rest of the Pelosi Club stays Uncommitted pending an explicit endorsement of Obama. Patzer42 (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards missing?

Shouldn't he be listed as a superdelegate? --Rajah (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind, I see he's not a super. --Rajah (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, although there is a good chance he will be selected as one of NC's add-ons. But, as he doesn't currently hold national office, nor is qualified to be a DPL, nor a DNC office holder he isn't a SD,(as you said). It's tripped a lot of people up in the past... Edgeways (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Totals by state

Was wondering if an additional coloum in this section may be benifitial?

We currently have a "Leader" column indicating which candidate is currently leading the SD race on a State by State basis. I think a column indicating when a candidate reaches a point that the other can not flip the state again, a "winner" column perhaps. So, take NY. Clinton clearly has won the SD race in NY, there are not enough SD's left for Obama, even if he recieves all the rest, to overcome that lead. Likewise Obama in IL. In fact I think a "winner" column may be more helpful then a leader collum as the leaders are already color coded.

y/n -p Edgeways (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this will be all that helpful. SD can switch from one candidate to another even if none are left causing the "winner" to lose. AWatiker (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Differing Totals

Where is the difference coming from between Wikipedia, CNN, and the Associated Press? According to this page Obama currently has 1962 total delegates (304.5 superdelegates), while CNN claims he has 1962 total delegates (306 superdelegates). Associated Press currently has his total delegate count at 1965. Is someone missing and why aren't they including the 1/2 votes? --Headless gunner (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


--- The main editors of this page have a slightly different criteria, if you look under the subsections of Brad Ellsworth you may get a sense of what they feel should be the underling force here. I, personally do not concur 100% but I really like the layout of this SD tracking site so I am willing to put up with it, especially in light of that it seems just about every news source has a slightly different number, but all the numbers are fairly close. If things where off by more than a small handful I think there would be a much more serious trouble.... synopsis.. different criteria. Personally I like DCW http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

Edgeways (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Alaska

The Add-on should be chosen May 24, around 4pm, which is 8pm Eastern Time. http://alaskademocrats.org/index.php?page=display&id=168 -Colfer2 (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Tasks

  • Ital. papers.
  • Hyperlink dates (X Month Y Day, Z Year)
  • Add delegates who are committed when news arises.
  • Nom. for featured list AFTER the DNC. miranda 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we merge FL and MI into main tables now, at 1/2 strength of course? Patzer42 (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we need to make like a disclaimer concerning their vote. miranda 23:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Merged, and removed Table on Florida and Michigan, since there is no reason for it now. 71.59.208.107 (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unseated superdelegates from Florida and Michigan

Should this section be deleted, as it is now 'settled', and included in other lists? Star Garnet (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Tried Deleting this section, but was reversed by Cluebot (or whatever) 71.59.208.107 (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I changed the column to reflect the "Full Strength" of MI and FL in case the credentials committee decides to give the superdelegates a full vote, however, unlikely it is. user:mnw2000 03:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't the column labeled "With MI and FL delegations at full strength" be removed unless and until someone actually files a challenge with the Credentials Committee? As it stands, it creates the appearance that there is an ongoing conflict. Also, should the note below the table explicitly state how many votes Florida and Michigan each have? -Rrius (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree with Rrius. Further, the column heading Total votes "according to current DNC rules and rulings" seems unduly tentative. We should also be more careful, throughout the article, to distinguish 'delegates' from 'votes'. Patzer42 (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)



Going Forward

Assuming Obama soon wins the nomination what happens to this page. I'd assume soon afterwords most, if not all, of the superdelegates would endorse him, but an article just showing 823.5 supporters would hardly be interesting or useful.

Thoughts?

AWatiker (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just keep a history of when they endorsed and if they started with Clinton. HoosierStateTalk 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur, I've always noted whenever a SD has changed their endorsement, so a record of that may be just as useful, esp with some exposition to that effect at the start...

Edgeways (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Numbers have gone all Wonky

between the tables, and I don't know enough about Wiki tables to do anything more than tedious visual count. Edgeways (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The totals are now accurate within this article. -Colfer2 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Cheers

Edgeways (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

California numbers

Something strange is going on here. The totals by state list 30 for Clinton, 28 for Obama, and 13 uncom. totally 71. But when you count each superdelegate by 1 by 1 in the main table you get - 30 for Clinton, 27 for Obama, and 13 uncom. totally 70.

I'm confused! HoosierStateTalk 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I just parsed the big table, it's 30, 28, 13. -Colfer2 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Neverending multiple table disconeccts

Numbers are out of whack again.. is there a turtorial in working with tables in Wiki that I can puruse to assit in keeping the numbers congruant? (I guess what I'm asking is there a way to plug the data into numbered and sortable rows a la excel so it is easy to see where the disconects are?)

Edgeways (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The totals match up for me. I didn't look at every state though. Where do you see a discrepancy? -Colfer2 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

They seem to be good now, It's possible it was in the midst of a flurry of edits from multiple people. Minor frustration when your working through them from an endorsement, and suddenly you don't know if someone jumped you in editing numbers, or if they where doing some other endorsement.

Thanks Colfer btw for the backup work.

Edgeways (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico is not a U.S. state. It is a territory. Please edit the tables accordingly. Thanks, Agüeybaná 01:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sort by commit date

Is that working for anyone else? I think it is messed up. --Rajah (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. HoosierStateTalk 02:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Major math issues

All the math in all the tables are completely whacko. I've checked EVERY SINGLE endorsement and our table of endorsements is exactly the same as reported by DCW, except we count Rep. Lynn Woolsey and Sen. Maria Cantwell as uncommitted while DCW counts them for Clinton - so don't forget that. So I figured I can just match our numbers to the tables on DCW (since the endorsements are exactly the same) well all that did was give me a major headache. So if somebody wants to take on the challenge of fixing all those numbers, please do. Make sure to check for any new endorsements or switches on DCW before fixing the numbers. HoosierStateTalk 05:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed all the totals, including states. -Colfer2 (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks! HoosierStateTalk 17:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Map

Is the map updatable (sic) by users? It's become a bit out of date since the great New York and Ohio Stampedes. 162.27.9.20 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, download the free program Inkscape, and you can edit the picture. CoolKid1993 (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Clinton and supporters switch to Obama

Hilary Clinton has been switched to Obama based on her recently comments on June 7th. However, I noticed that other key supporters of Hillary Clinton, like her husband, Terry, Harry and others have not. Why not? Haven't they come out in support of Obama? user:mnw2000 16:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. CoolKid1993 (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Governors of Territories

In the section saying how the superdelegates are chosen, it says there are 2 delegates for the governors of the territories (not including the Mayor of DC. But I count three. Aníbal Salvador Acevedo Vilá is the governor of Puerto Rico, he is in the huge list of delegates. John Percy de Jongh, Jr. is the governor of the US Virgin Islands, he is also on the list. And Togiola Talalelei A. Tulafono is the governor of American Samoa, he also appears on the list. So either the number is wrong, the table is wrong, or one is not a territory. I'm changing it to three but if I'm wrong please change it back but explain why. Thank You. EDIT: I see also that the number of State governors is wrong, there are 28 not 29. So I have reduced the number of state governors and added the number of territory Governors so the total number of governors remains the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.208.6 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


PUMA Claiming Obama Superdelegates are shifting back to Hillary

..but me not being too savy on how to find out if it's 100% true or not is unsure to include this yet. Does anyone else have any insight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.17.246 (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New superdelegates

DemConWatch has some updates to the superdelegate list.[3] Simon12 (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Final Primary tally

I know that the final vote is official and everything but the symbolic nomination vote should not be shown, the endorsmements on June 3rd (final primary day) should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffy2032 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Blog being used as a reference?

This is being used as a reference but it redirects somewhere else: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

93 lfedroa (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no redirect. The blog moved to a new domain in 2009, and the referenced page contains a note to that effect, but, the page referenced in this article remains in the same place, with the same URL, with no redirect, and has not changed since June 2008. Simon12 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.examiner.com/a-1215081~Norton_endorses_Barack_Obama_for_president.html
    Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist
  • http://www.examiner.com/a-1366133~Rep__Ike_Skelton_endorses_Clinton.html
    Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist
  • http://www.examiner.com/a-1424477~Feingold__Kohl_endorse_Obama_for_president.html
    Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist
  • http://www.examiner.com/a-1424529~Two_of_WA_s_final_superdelegate_holdouts_go_for_Obama.html
    Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 01:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 44 external links on List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_superdelegates_at_the_2008_Democratic_National_Convention/Archive_2&oldid=1136953514"