Jump to content

Talk:List of superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention/Archive 3

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

"Pelosi Club"

These are superdelegates who specifically say they will vote for the pledged delegate winner over their personal preferences. I noted that one (possibly Christine Pelosi?) was briefly moved to uncommitted, but then was reverted to Clinton because her statements were ambiguous. Sen Pat Leahy also now seems to be in that category with a more definitive statement by a spokesperson ( See http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/4863/ ). Should superdelegates in this category be listed as uncommitted, or be listed as Clinton since she is the pledged delegate leader, or perhaps even a third category to explicitly note their vote is conditional on the pledged delegate results? Abulsme (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the Pelosi Club. Yeah, I don't know what to do here. Obviously, Clinton's got a very convincing pledged delegate lead at the moment. Personally, I'd say leave him as Clinton for now, at least until the Pelosi Club has multiple members? Any veterans of the 2008 page here remember what was done then? Kingerc (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a vet, but I've looked through archived versions of that page in the past. As I recall, they were listed as uncommitted, and there was a "notes" column in which it was entered that they were a member of the Pelosi club. I would leave Leahy as uncommitted for now, but if this catches on, I think they need their own special label and, consequently, row in the totals box. "Pelosi Club" with a notation explaining its meaning would do.PotvinSux (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, we now have a better source for Christine Pelosi. If there's no objection, I'm going to create a Pelosi Club category.PotvinSux (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Becca Doten (CA) also in Pelosi Club https://twitter.com/bdoten/status/703322892285538305 Kingerc (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we being consistent with this? Pelosi is marked as Clinton and Leahy as Uncommitted at present. Kingerc (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if Clinton achieves an insurmountable lead (i.e. it becomes mathematically impossible for Sanders to overtake Clinton in pledged delegates), they can be flipped to Clinton. This would be consistent with their public statements. Saltshaker25 (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly also Christine Bremer Muggli (WI), though it's not 100% clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingerc (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that we have a note for this, should we move Pat Leahy back to Clinton? I see no reason to treat him and Christine Pelosi any differently. Kingerc (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Tammy Baldwin seems to have joined the Pelosi Club. Saltshaker25 (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that there is a difference between the popular vote and the pledged delegate lead; one can envision a scenario in which Sanders leads in the latter but trails in the former (due to his strength in caucus states). (Of course, I can't really envision a scenario in which he leads in the pledged delegates either, but that's not our job.) Kingerc (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

(followup discussion emerging from #Lipinski case below)

I think we need to look at their statements carefully and list them on a case by case basis. If we define Pelosi Club as delegates clearly stating that their vote will follow the majority then they should be listed as neutral regardless of their personal endorsement. Again, the purpose of this list is to help readers understand what will happen at the convention. For example I just listened to the whole interview of Christine Pelosi quoted as source in the list: she explains her rationale very clearly, calling it "Team Democracy" together with a Sanders supporter holding the same views, so she is neutral for convention purposes, despite campaigning for Clinton. She even says that she has been asking since 2009 for roles of superdelegates to be reduced, and that they should all be bound to follow the majority. — JFG talk 05:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I also listened to the Pelosi interview, she says "I don't think I'll have to [change my support] because I believe Hillary will be the nominee. I was ready for Hillary two years ago and have been campaigning for her ever since." Her joint op-ed with a Sanders supporter seems like a calculated gamble to suggest that everyone should support the winner, who she thinks will be Hillary. While she advocates that the current system should be changed, she also makes clear that for this election "We are not bound."
To me, listing her as supporting "None" would not accurately reflect her current position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltshaker25 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's my point: she openly campaigns for Hillary, nevertheless she makes a personal pledge to vote for the majority candidate at the convention, so for the purposes of this list she is neutral. This should apply to all Pelosi Club candidates, including (gasp!) Bill Clinton. — JFG talk 08:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Here's the op-ed, she doesn't even pledge to cast her individual vote in a specific way, and the Sanders supporter isn't even a superdelegate. Its just a general call for what all superdelegates should do. Since she is clearly the Clinton half of a joint Clinton supporter-Sanders supporter duo, it still seems the best way to reflect her current position is to list her as supporting Clinton with a Pelosi Club footnote.Saltshaker25 (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Consistency with other source

I write this May 20. The chart and article says 715 total unpledged delegate votes, 506 Clinton , 42 Sanders. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0 "updated May 18", says 714 unpledged delegates, 525 Clinton, 39 Sanders. I'm not saying I know which is correct. Just a data point for those working on this article. GangofOne (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

As for the total number of delegates, there are currently six vacancies, so the total varies depending on how different sources count the vacancies. As far as I can tell, there are only three delegate counts on the Internet: the Associated Press count which most other news sources use, CNN, and this list, which is the source for The Green Papers and some other sites. This list will likely lag the other two sources because they can directly call the superdelegates and ask who they support, while this list relies on delegates' publicly announced preferences as published in reliable sources. Saltshaker25 (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight Source?

Per this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Delegate_Count_Source.28s.29.3F discussion, is the FiveThirtyEight link that forms the sole citation for over a hundred superdelegates not actually a valid citation - in the sense that it does not appear to actually track superdelegates? Does that leave us with a deeply problematic dearth? Michael Sheflin (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection to fivethirtyeight.com at all. As you can see from this article, superdelegates consist of five categories of party officials: Democratic governors, Democratic senators, Democratic House representatives, DNC members, and distinguished party leaders. Fivethirtyeight.com tracks endorsements by governors, senators, and representatives (but not DNC members and distinguished party leaders), and cites an outside reliable source for every single endorsement, and is therefore a very useful compilation of endorsements. Saltshaker25 (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Gotcha. So they keep track of several subcategories, with the citations linked via the names in the list at the bottom; and then that compiled citation (#3) forms the basis for a lot of the ones here. That articulation may make sense to nobody else, but now it makes sense to me. Thank you. Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Does that leave us with a deeply problematic dearth?" Of course it doesn't, but that's already been explained to you on several other talk pages at this late date. Move on please... Guy1890 (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Your assumptions about my bad faith are not appropriate. Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Falling behind

I thank all editors here for their work. While I have expressed support for our method on the main page of the Democratic Primaries, both CNN and the Associated Press now cite 541 Supers. Why is our count so much smaller? S51438 (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe because it's more accurate it terms of citing actual, reliable sources? Guy1890 (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
CNN and AP aren't reliable? S51438 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
When you (or anyone else for that matter) can show us all what specifically they are doing to derive their superdelegate count (without making any assumptions on anyone's part), then maybe the rest of us will consider changing what we've been doing here for many months now. Until then, I think that hearing it from the horse's mouth(s) is the best way to go. Guy1890 (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hawaii

Over the weekend Hawaii's Democratic Party held its state convention and elected new officers, whose terms of office take effect immediately. It appears from this Facebook post that the four relevant officers who are also superdelegates are:

Chair: Tim Vanderveer
Vice Chair: Dolly Strazar
National Committeeman: Bart Dame
National Committeewoman: Kathleen (Kate) Stanley

Because Dolly Strazar has not appeared in any other source I changed the Vice Chair (previously Doug Pyle) to Unknown pending a better reliable source. Saltshaker25 (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Using FEC Data

Awhile ago there was significant discussion here on the talk pages and endorsements based only on FEC data were decided to be "not enough" and most of those were re-sourced using stronger evidence, while a few where stronger evidence was not found were switched to no preference. Recently a number of names have switched categories again based on FEC donation information. Was there a discussion to reverse the previous decision on how to handle these? Abulsme (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion, archived here, was actually more nuanced than that. The only clear consensus that I see is that donations that were made before both candidates declared, or to a pre-campaign PAC (such as Clinton's Ready PAC) are insufficient, and also that a superdelegate's prior endorsement in 2008 is irrelevant to this election. Saltshaker25 (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

AP report

The AP reports Sanders with 48 superdelegates,including one form CA, according to Huffington Post, yet the two new superdelegates, whoever they are, are not being given to Sanders here, can someone fix that ?

There is apparently a superdelegate from California who has endorsed Sanders, according to the Huffington Post, and the AP delegate tracker says that Sanders has 48 superdelegates, can someone find out who that superdelegate is and fix this ? 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Javert2016 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources that say "all the supers"

The articles used as sources for the last superdelegate pledges for the Virgin Islands ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/05/clinton-sweeps-us-virgin-islands/85441352/ ) and Puerto Rico ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/puerto-rico-votes-as-clinton-closes-in-on-dem-nomination/2016/06/05/f632be1c-2b39-11e6-b9d5-3c3063f8332c_story.html ) include statements essentially saying "with this all superdelegates from here are Clinton". Is this enough to use these sources to flip the remaining VI/PR superdelegates to Clinton even though the article does not identify the remaining delegates by name? I believe there have been cases before where delegates have been listed here based on statements of this type. Abulsme (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion it's not enough. In the VI case, the quote even says "all 4 superdelegates" whereas we list 5 superdelegates for the territory... another reason to ignore this source. — JFG talk 15:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

AP says Clinton has enough superdelegates to win the nomination at this point

They say her number of superdelegates + pledged delegates comes out to exactly 2,383, the number needed to win the nomination. Our count doesn't reflect that. Even after she won Puerto Rico, she was still 20-30 delegates behind. What changed in a day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.57.73 (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the media are using their own "sources" for super-delegate "pledges". Guy1890 (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
For example, counting vacancies as having endorsed Clinton. See "AL Vice Chair (vacant)". 50.5.131.151 (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I flipped superdelegates to Clinton where the Associated Press has called all of that state's superdelegates (including questionable calls such as the vacant AL Vice Chair). In some cases, such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden, better sources should be available soon, however it might be worth discussing how to treat these superdelegates. Saltshaker25 (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Just because "AP said so", I don't see why we should suddenly throw away the prudent counting method that has served us well since the beginning of the race. @Saltshaker25: the footnote is nice but the process is faulty. I'd much rather refrain from sourcing votes from "all state delegates are in the bag" generalizations; the vacant seat example is patently ridiculous. — JFG talk 14:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree its ridiculous, but its what the Associated Press is reporting. Saltshaker25 (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
If we ignored AP though then we would be going against the reliable sources. AP has political experts who do this for a living, we don't. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you want to restart this debate now? Sure, consensus can change but I don't think that a big election day is the right time to change the sourcing process that was painstakingly agreed on and has worked well in the face of many good- and bad-faith challenges over the last few months. — JFG talk 22:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
(Excuse my verboseness, but I feel much needs to be said here.)

What is more, a big election day (or rather, the day before it) is (was) no time for major so-called news organizations (and by extension, now Wikipedia) to come out essentially declaring today's election moot, when Party rules have said all along that the calculus these entities have been using is not valid. This approach – primarily citing a combination of "unpledged" and pledged delegates, when the bulk of the former have been pretty rigidly in favor of Hillary Clinton from before the first caucuses – has served as a great big thumb on the scales, which has had a very real psychological impact on voters throughout the primary season, and has even armed Clinton supporters with a spurious talking point to the effect that their candidate has had an insurmountable lead over Sanders at every juncture from the git-go. The power of such a deception, from the beginning down to [the night prior to] today (local time in that state) – the day the largest state in the Union votes, with 475 delegates up for grabs in that one state alone – represents the very essence of unfairness, and is of immense significance in deciding how to source any article documenting the course of the Democratic primary process.

We're living in a day when news organizations cannot always be counted on for impartiality, and when "journalists" like those on NBC and in particular MSNBC have imho poisoned the proverbial well by crossing over into the territory of infomercial presentations that have rendered Comcast/NBC-Universal a kind of pro-Clinton super PAC. Don't we owe it to the reader to stay impartial, even when they arguably have refused to?--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with flipping back the superdelegates that are only sourced to the Associated Press count, especially since the Associated Press is refusing to name the superdelegates it contacted or how they voted. Saltshaker25 (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable step. Somebody just flipped Obama back to neutral btw. Whether the President or less-prominent delegates, let's wait for actual declarations of endorsement. — JFG talk 09:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

719 Superdelegates

Media sources are inconsistent in reporting the total number of superdelegates, however this list adds up to 719 superdelegates and that is the total number as reported here, here, and here. Because the 8 Democrats Abroad superdelegates only get half votes, the total number of votes to be cast at the convention is 715 and that is the vote total reported here, here, and here. Therefore, just because the Associated Press claims there are only 714 votes does not mean they are automatically correct. Saltshaker25 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

714 Superdelegates, not 715. But this contradicts later info :(

According to http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D#Terr (which is the source cited by the article), there are actually 714 unpledged delegate votes (not 715), for a total of 4,765 delegate votes. But the in the list in the header of the WP article gives 438 + 20 + 193 + 47 + 21 = 715. Can anyone fix or reconcile this?Dr.enh (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, TGP cites this article as its source for superdelegates, not the other way around. Saltshaker25 (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
And TGP cites that article cites this WP article. Circular reference :( Dr.enh (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

State total disagreement with The Green Papers

Our state superdelegate totals disagree with The Green Papers as follows:

TGP totals:
California 75 (+2); CNN also says 75
Illinois 27 (+1)
Maryland 24 (+1)
Virginia 13 (-1)
Iowa 7 (-1)
Massachusetts 24 (-1)
North Carolina 13 (-1)

According to the California DNC website, it would appear the following changes for California should be made: delete Tefere Gebre; add Laphonza Butler, Naeemah Charles, and Marcus Mason; and move Alice Germond from Virginia to California, however this would add up to 76 superdelegates so I don't plan to make the change without better sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltshaker25 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Marcus Mason is listed as a DC superdelegate and Laphonza Butler as a NY superdelegate. Saltshaker25 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
And Naaemah Charles was the vacant College Democrats Vice President. Saltshaker25 (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Update: All of these changes are accounted for by the new VOX bible. Saltshaker25 (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Table

This has been revised for better information and consistency with 2008 table. Quit reverting it. Despyria (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you finished editing? It looks like a sandbox right now. Also why does this page have to exactly match 2008? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.153.41 (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 06:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

ok, robot. GangofOne (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Keith Ellison endorsed Bernie Sanders

How do we change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.43.249 (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016. 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) 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016. 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) 11:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_superdelegates_at_the_2016_Democratic_National_Convention/Archive_3&oldid=1018846552"