Jump to content

Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 2

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

Overview of results

The purpose of the overview table needs to be hashed out and defined because currently many editors have different conceptions of what information should be in the table and in what order.

I believe the overview table should be a chronology of the primary process based on the date each event happened. It should show when delegates were pledged in each contest and total the actual number of current delegates for each candidate. The rationale behind this is to show the voters' preferences in each process and how each contest fits into the larger national picture, while showing accurate (actually pledged) delegate totals for each candidate at any moment in time. This requires two rows for most states as many delegates are not actually determined until the state convention. Other states (like Iowa, Washington, Nevada, Colorado, Kansas, etc.) have multiple state caucuses, primaries, and/or conventions to determine the final delegation to the national convention in Denver and would require more than two rows.

Some editors think the overview table should be a "snapshot" of the race in each state with less of an emphasis on the date of each event. States with multiple processes should combine these events into one row as soon as the information can be accurately sourced. This places less importance on the current delegate total and gives more of a general overview for each state with less emphasis on process.

There are other interpretations of what should be in the table (as evidenced by the anon IP in the 77.132.192-255.* range), like a weekly running total, and I'm sure other editors want to discuss this process. I think our main concern should be accuracy, but ultimately we need to lay out the guidelines for this table so everyone is on the same page and can work towards a common goal. I'm opening this discussion in the hopes that we can nail these guidelines down. Please chime in (directly below to comment generally and/or in a specific section) so we can start to get a better idea of consensus around these guidelines. ~ PaulT+/C 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rows

Should each row be based on a specific event or just be a state/territory overview? If it is a state overview, the date column becomes problematic. If each row is based on specific events, only the delegates officially determined in that event should be listed.

Since there seems to be support for event-based rows rather than state summary rows, I'm going to begin implementing this starting with my home state of Washington. Would anyone else like to help out by implementing this for other states as well? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone considering the long-term value of this article? Once the primaries and state conventions are over, will date-based rows still make sense? Or will it then become more feasible to have the table sorted alphabetically by state? Data Fever (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think date-based rows will still make sense even after the Democratic Party has chosen its candidate. It will provide a richly detailed history of the events that led up to the eventual nomination. The article Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 does a good job of summarizing the results by state if that's what a user is looking for. Also, the maps at the top of this article already provide a state-level view of the results. Still, perhaps at a later time it might make sense to include a table such as you suggest in addition to the date-based one. Following the idea of providing increasing detail the further you scoll down the article, we could put the maps at the top, followed by a state-summary table, followed by a date-based table. Or would that then make the article too long? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Estimated vs. Actual delegates

Should we include estimated delegates at all? Should we make the distinction between estimated and actual delegates? Where should the delegate numbers be sourced from?

  • Only delegates officially determined in each row's specific event should be listed. In cases like Iowa, whose delegates are complete estimates (and have changed due to Edwards dropping out), estimates could be given so long as it is clear that these are estimated numbers. One way to do this is to make the "Delegates:" number 0 for the event in question and link to the row where these delegates are officially determined (such as the state convention or district caucuses). Another way might be to put these estimates in parenthesis. The delegate numbers should be based on official state party sources (primary sources) where available and they should match the numbers in each contests' results section. When state party sources don't include delegate tallies, it is probably because the delegate numbers are estimates. In such cases, I suggest using a source that includes detailed information behind where the delegate estimate comes from. The only such source I have found is The Green Papers, but I'd love to see other sources with this information. ~ PaulT+/C 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am using the green Papers, too, but I like CBS News Scorecard more, cause they look more accurate and actual to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.240.19 (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated above, I support using The Green Papers for estimated counts of certain events. However, I am not certain whether the site fits Wikipedia's policy for reliable sources. If the editors here determine that The Green Papers isn't a reliable source, then I agree with 77.132.240.19 that CBS News would be my preferred alternative. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The only open quetion to this problem is: Which timeperiod will we use? I would like to stay with the 7 days-rule. If we do not have a timeperiod rule, the row actual pledged delegates is not needed. Because the estimated pledged delegates row is containing the results of all the primaries and caucus which had been held. Anyone else, please just answer this question here: Which timeperiod should we use for the actual pledged delegates? 77.132.223.232 (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this anon IP user's (77.132.192.* to 77.132.255.* range) discussion of time period refers to the summary total rows at the top of the table, not the larger question of whether to use estimated or actual delegate counts. I oppose this user's proposal to include a row displaying the total of the past seven days' events. I think such a row would introduce POV into the table. Instead, I think the table should include a summary total row showing only the actual delegate counts in the table (time period: the entire 2008 Democratic presidential primary race) and a summary total row showing all the actual+estimated delegate counts in the table (time period: same). The difference between the totals in these two rows would be slight, but significant. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm against "the Green Papers" since it's not a news agency, only a blog. They might be fast with updating results and handing out delegates, but they don't give any references to where they get their results from.. Therefore I am more positive to be using CNN, New York Times, CBS, etc... Wasn't it actually agreed that CNN should be used as the only reference, unless the Secretary of State or the State's own Democratic party released any results? lil2mas (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We did agree to use only CNN's results, but then CNN became slow at posting results so we switched to another source (i.e. CBS). Andareed (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the editors of Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 (of which I am one) agreed to use CNN as a source for estimates and then agreed to switch to CBS. However, I don't think the same consensus to use either CNN or CBS was reached by the editors of this article (of which I am also one). --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
My rationale for agreeing with the proposal to use The Green Papers for estimated results is not motivated by the speed of their updates. Instead, it is motivated by the very detailed information they provide about how they arrive at their estimates, and the fact that their estimates take into account the differences between individual state processes. I'm actually uncertain whether the site qualifies as a blog and even if it does, whether it might qualify as a reliable source anyway (Wikipedia policies don't entirely rule out using blogs as sources). --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does the fourth summary row keep flip-flopping between actual delegates and a last-seven-days value? Of what possible value is a last-seven-days count? To determine a trend? Shouldn't trends be a different page entirely? 76.231.46.5 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Because an editor in the 77.132.192.0 - 77.132.225.225 range keeps changing these numbers against consensus. The number should be the actual delegates as determined by the New York Times source (as a sum of the delegate totals for the states with results in the source). If they don't stop this disruptive editing we may be forced to semi-protect this page. ~ PaulT+/C 21:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I have also found the alternation confusing. I do not feel that a seven day total is of any worth to an article that will have lasting value well beyond the primary period.Data Fever (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposal. (modified from Paul's proposal above) No estimated pledged delegate counts. Only pledged delegates officially determined in each row's specific event should be listed. In cases like Iowa and Washington, whose delegates are decided in multiple events, list only the number of delegates officially determined at each event. The delegate numbers should be based on official state party sources where available and they should match the numbers in each contests' results section. Add a prominent note which explains that the results table contains no estimates, but directs Wikipedia users to Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 for summary estimates.
Example: Washington's February 9, April 15, and April 19 events would list the "Delegates:" as 0 and show no results in the individual candidate's columns. Washington's May 17 event would list the "Delegates:" as 51 and show the split of the 51 delegates in each candidate's column. Washington's June 15 event would list the "Delegates:" as 27 and show the split of the 27 delegates in each candidate's column. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I both support and oppose the proposal. Could someone clarify for me what the purpose of this particular article is? There are many available online sources for information about the election and the various delegate counts. What quality does this article have that is going to make it worthwhile for people who will look at it twenty years from now? The estimates will be long gone. On the other hand, what is the point of showing a row with 0 delegates? Someone else has pointed out that the value of having the rows in chronological order is that people will be able to see how things changed over the course of the primary schedule. But if the estimates are not listed at the time of the caucus or primary, such changes will not be detectable, and the table might as well be in alphabetical order. Data Fever (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, it sounds like you support eliminating the estimates, but oppose including rows that contain no delegates. I think it is worthwhile to show a row even if it contains no delegates. It still conveys the information that a contest in that state took place on a given date. When the list is viewed as a whole, users can see a visual representation of all the contests that took place, even those that made no immediate impact on the delegate counts. They might be able to see, to give one example, that some states carry out their selection process over a long period of time while others decide in a single day. They could also perhaps use the table to help correlate contests with significant events during the primary/caucus season. This seems particularly true when comparing Edwards suspending his campaign after Iowa's initial caucuses. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Would it make sense to include the estimated numbers in parentheses or somehow otherwise indicate that the anticipated number of committed delegates may not necessarily be indicated by the vote distribution? Decisions like those made by Edwards are just as likely to be made by anticipated delegate counts as by vote counts, IMO. Data Fever (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Your suggestion was also proposed by Paul at the head of this subsection. My preference would be to leave off the estimates entirely. Including the estimates does much to increase the complexity of the table and opens the door for many questions, confusion, and disagreement. I'm not convinced the value added by the estimates is that great, considering the confusion they create. My two cents. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to support you on this, but would it be possible to provide a small table that illustrates what you envision? I think more clearly when I have visual concepts to work with. Data Fever (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I have given this proposal more thought. What I really needed to do was take a step back and cogitate on the basis for this article. Or rather, what this article is not. This article is not about providing a historical record of the 2008 Democratic nomination process. If it were, it would be important to show the estimated numbers, because the actual allocation of delegates is little more than a historical footnote. It specifically is about the results of the primaries (and caucuses (and state conventions?)). On the basis of the article context, I support this proposal. Data Fever (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I sincerely appreciate the time and thought that you've given to the proposal, Data Fever. I agree with your take on the purpose of the article and apologize for my inability to articulate it well myself. The title says it all: results. I think this article should be a record of the results for the various Democratic caucuses and primaries in this presidential election, nothing more or less. Now let's wait and see what the other editors think of the proposal. I'm particularly interested in Paul's take since he's a fairly experienced editor here (and elsewhere), has had a significant positive effect on the quality of this article, and has insightful responses to the suggestions here (sorry if this assesment seems too flattering, no attempt is being made to curry favor!). --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I too appreciate the thought that's been put into this, by User:Data Fever and the others. I support the proposal, because it puts us onto solid footing and takes us away from estimates. This is the approach the New York Times has taken; see their overview of the counts, and why different agencies report different counts, their chosen method of reporting counts, and finally, their current delegate counts. If we're deciding here what kinds of numbers to report, I think we can't separate that from our sources. Consider the components that make up the delegate count for each candidate (consider "uncommitted" a pseudo-candidate) within each state:
  • A: Pledged delegates that have already been allocated for that candidate, and cannot change.
  • B: The estimated pledged delegates for that candidate whose numbers could change as the state's various higher-level caucuses and conventions run their course. (e.g. Iowa)
  • C: The estimated superdelegates (also known as unpledged delegates) that currently favor that candidate (or are undeclared)
  • D: The "stripped" delegates from the states that violated the DNC rules (Michigan and Florida)
Our Overview Table can choose sources for each of the above, and it can then report those numbers, plus whatever sums of them we care to report, e.g.:
ΣAcandidate = Sum of all the A for a given candidate
ΣA+Ccandidate = ΣAcandidate + ΣCcandidate = Sum of all the A and C for a given candidate
Note that B and C are estimates, and can vary according to what source we choose for them. Do we make up our own method, or can we choose a published model?
  • The New York Times is reporting just A and ΣAcandidate as its own numbers, although they also report AP's total numbers for convenience.
  • The Green Papers reports an estimated A+B in its "Soft Pledged" column, and an estimated C in its "Soft Unpledged" column.
  • CBS News also reports an estimated A+B in its national scorecard, an estimated ΣCcandidate for superdelegates, and an estimated ΣA+B+Ccandidate for a delegate total.
Personally, I'd like to avoid constructing our own sums of A and B from our sources. I'd like to instead:
  1. Parrot the New York Times' A in our state rows
  2. Parrot the New York Times' ΣAcandidate in our "Actual delegates" row
  3. Parrot DemConWatch's ΣCcandidate in our "Estimated superdelegates" row
  4. Compute the sum of those two, ΣA+Ccandidate, in our "Estimated total delegates" row
  5. As per this proposal, we don't report B, and we delete the Estimated Pledged Delegates row. Instead, as the states go through their processes, we:
    1. Report the New York Times' new A numbers in new state rows
    2. Update ΣAcandidate as above
    3. Update ΣA+Ccandidate as above
  6. (We also delete the Recent Delegates row, a separate matter.)
Wdfarmer (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow! You've also given this lots of thought, Wdfarmer. Thanks. In my proposal above, I didn't address the superdelegates, but I would take the "no estimates" approach even farther than you suggest by not including any superdelegate counts until they have officially pledged at the National Convention, essentially leaving the superdelegates row empty until then (and in fact moving it down to the end of the table under its own date-based row). The superdelegate estimates are well-maintained at Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008, so we could again direct users looking for estimates to go there. This "no estimates" approach for this article also goes a long way to reduce duplicating counts with that other article. So without superdelegates, we'd be looking at a single summary row at the top of the table, "total delegates", which is the sum of all the individual event rows in the rest of the table.
Also, as my proposal states (similar to the one at the top of this subsection), I'd prefer to use state parties' reported counts directly as sources instead of by proxy through the NY Times. It's a bit of extra work, but workable in a Wikipedia environment where the workload is spread across many editors. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
State parties' counts are good, yes, but should we fall back to NY Times if there aren't any? Consider Minnesota: I haven't found any delegate counts reported at the state level yet, possibly because they aren't officially chosen until higher levels in the process. Yet NY Times has decided to report them already because the Minnesota "caucus rules are binding". So we have to decide whether we should leave Minnesota blank until the delegates are officially announced, or go with the NY Times approach. Wdfarmer (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has really evolved and taken off! I agree with most of what has been decided so far. I'm glad that we are defining the scope of this article and beginning to come to a solid consensus on what should and shouldn't be included. I also would lean towards state parties' counts and sources where available. In situations where they are not available, but the number of delegates is decided, I'm not sure which source we should use. The New York Times has good information, but I don't trust some of their delegate estimates. For example, with the Republican race they list the number of delegates won by McCain as 101, when only 87 have been "officially" decided. I would prefer that the delegate numbers that we include in this table are not subject to interpretation in any way. In a perfect world, we could source them to the point that we could list each delegate supporting each candidate, but that would be infeasible. We have discussed this before, but The Green Papers uses party sources for the official vote counts and then calculates the delegate totals for each county/district based on sourced and quoted party rules. They are a little bit behind since Super Tuesday, but I assume the site will be updated in a timely manner. I think it would be good to use multiple sources and, ideally, have the numbers verified by more than one reference.
In states where the delegates have not been officially "bound" by a given event, but can be reasonably estimated due to party rules (such as in Iowa), I think it would make sense to include estimates in the table, but NOT to sum them until they are officially determined. When they are official (at a later event) these numbers should be included in the table and, depending on if the estimates were right or not, we should remove the estimates from the table. For example, in Iowa, when the delegates are officially determined on April 26 and June 14, the 29 delegates on the 26th will likely not include the 9 currently allocated to Edwards and the 16 delegates on the 14th will likely not include the 5 currently allocated to Edwards. However, it IS important to note that Edwards was estimated to have 14 delegates after the caucuses. For some later events, the estimates could prove to be accurate and in those cases we need to decide if we want to include the original estimates in the table or not. I propose that we could by indicating these numbers are estimates with the A reference. This would become complicated tho and leaving out estimates might be the best idea in the interests of clarity. To that end, The Green Papers includes a "hard" count for delegates which ONLY list delegates officially bound. These numbers are still below 300 for each candidate as most states are still in the process of binding their delegates to a candidate. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-HS.phtml Some of these processes are more likely to deviate from estimated numbers than others, which is why the New York Times has "hard" results for a lot more states (27 of 36 states/events vs. only 9). Which "hard" count should we follow?
Superdelegates, by definition are estimates, but I think the current estimate should be included in the table.
This discussion seems to be headed in the right direction and overall I think we are making good decisions. We should start to implement some of these changes (on this page and the Republican results page) to see what they look like so we can continue to refine the rest of the scope of this article. (For example, should we have a heading for each state and list the results of each event pertaining to that state below the main table, or should we keep it as it is now with each event having their own heading? This is a question that will be easier to deal with once the summary table is hashed out.) I look forward to the evolution of this article! ~ PaulT+/C 08:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

State conventions

Should state conventions be listed? This is when the state's delegation to the National Convention is officially certified.

  • Yes. Currently estimated numbers could change from previous contests and in cases where the change is significant, having the originally estimated numbers listed in the primary or caucuses row would be helpful. ~ PaulT+/C 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. The amount shown should be the positive or negative change from the previous contests, so that the sum of the numbers within a column represents the total. Wdfarmer (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No. I would not like it. We would have to add up to 50 and more rows to the table. A state should be shown once, just when they really do have two different contests, they should be allowed to be listed for each contest. Otherwise we can make upcoming changes in the existing row, since all delegate numbers are estimated anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.240.19 (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, unless additional delegates are chosen (as in the case of Kansas and Wyoming). This would lead to redundancy. I think it would be better to have a note for the respective caucuses, as we do now. If it changes we can make a not of it. – Zntrip 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No for now, except when pledged delegates are chosen at a state convention or when certified results differ from results previously published by the state or state party. I am guessing that differing certified results will be rare. Why clutter the table with many additional rows when the state convention results will only matter for a few states? If we later discover that the certified results are frequently different from the previous contest results, then we can decide to list state conventions across the board at that time. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since these decisions will be common to both the Republican and Democrat pages, we should take into account the situation in that race as well. Romney is apportioned a significant number of delegates that could possibly be stripped at the state conventions due to his dropping out and therefore the delegate numbers have a good chance of changing. In that case, wouldn't it make sense to have the state conventions listed? In addition, Ron Paul likely will get more delegates than currently apportioned due to his supporters being more likely to sign up as delegates and go to the state convention. Of course this is speculation at this point, but it an important point to consider going forward. ~ PaulT+/C 18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Order

How should we order the rows? Currently, events are ordered by the date they begin. If we decide this should be a state-by-state overview, should the order be based on the date of the state's primary or convention?

  • I propose they are listed by the date they are finished. For example, Democrats Abroad primary started on Super Tuesday, but ended today. The delegates awarded from this primary would make more sense to be listed after the Maine caucuses as the totals were estimated and reported on the 12th, not the 5th. ~ PaulT+/C 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. Wdfarmer (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Support the idea of listing them by end date. A lot of users like to scan this page to see the latest results as well as getting in depth results of each primary. There's no point leaving Democrats Abroad up there among all of the Super Tuesday states when the voting hasn't finished yet.81.155.2.42 (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. After end-date, we should list contests in alphabetical order by state/district name. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — I think it should be by the date it starts and than by alphabetical order (if there are more than two on one day). If we did it by when it was over we would have to factor in the time polls close and sometimes it varies in counties. In other words, it unnecessarily complicates the order. – Zntrip 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need to have that level of detail where we get into the closing times of the polls, but it does seem odd to have contests that are a week away from being completed listed with states whose delegates have already been decided. ~ PaulT+/C 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Why? We still will not know the Democrats Abroad results until March when the delegation convention is held. It will all be filled in eventually. – Zntrip 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we can still order by end-date without needing to get into the details of poll closing times. We haven't heretofore worried much about the details of poll opening times, we just use the date. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I also agree to move them to the end-date. But if not the end-date, then at the end of all the states that hold its primary only one day. i.e: Democrats abroad should go after the Utah Primary! lil2mas (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be general agreement on this point, so I've gone ahead and re-ordered the list. If the tide turns the other way later, we can change it back. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • In the interests of readability and noting which contests happen on the same day, should we merge the date column for contests with common dates? IE:
February 5
Super Tuesday 		California Results Clinton Gravel Obama Others
New Jersey Results Clinton Gravel Obama Others
New Mexico Results Clinton Gravel Obama Others
New York Results Clinton Gravel Obama Others
Idaho Results Clinton Gravel Obama Others

 ~ PaulT+/C 19:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. That's a good idea. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Uncommitted delegates vs. Undetermined delegates vs. Yet to be determined delegates

As delegate numbers are calculated, some portion of the delegates are still unknown. Should the delegates of states who have yet to hold their caucuses or primary be included in the total Undetermined number or should this just be the number of delegates that are still pending?

  • Future delegates should not be listed in the totals. ~ PaulT+/C 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • yes, I would like to see how, many delegates are still uncmmitted + undetermined in the top row. I think the difference between uncommitted and undetermined is not that important, cause sooner or later these delegates will have to decide temselves anyway (even if they want to stay or turn to uncommitted). I would like to have "Yet to be determined delegates" in the row actual pledged delegates. That is what the word "yet" means ----> actual! And for me is actual today and yesterday. I think the outer limit can just be the past seven days. But we also can skip this row. But I would like to see it as a trend indicator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.240.19 (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edwards' delegates

In Iowa Edwards' delegates will likely be split since he dropped out before the delegates were actually determined. In NH and SC his delegates are "bound" to him. What is the best way to note the difference between these numbers?

Other concerns?

Should we have a running delegate total for the past week to show momentum? Should we include the possible delegations from Florida and Michigan in the tables? What about totals?

  • Rules are needed because we have to come to a consensus on what should be included on this page. The additional decimal point is NOT more accurate because all of these numbers are estimates and WILL change going forward. Having that additional information doesn't add anything to the article and makes the table harder to read. If people want the actual numbers they can go to the main article for that primary/caucus, the table should be a quick overview and shouldn't be bogged down with too much information. ~ PaulT+/C 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposal — At the top of the table above the individual state events, display only the following summary total rows in the order listed:
  • Total all delegates (estimated pledged + actual pledged + estimated superdelegates)
  • Total all delegetes (actual pledged + estimated superdelegates)
  • Total superdelegates (estimated)
  • Total pledged delegates (estimated + actual)
  • Total pledged delegates (actual)
--Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think we should mix "actual" delegates with estimated ones. I see what you are getting at, but once we go down that slope, we could easily add a row to include Florida + Michigan delegates and superdelegates, IE:
  • Tot. del. (Tot. pl. + Est. sd.)
  • Tot. del.+MI&FL (Tot. pl.+MI&FLpl + Est. sd.+MI&FLsd)
  • Tot. delegates (Act. pl. + Est. sd.)
  • Est. sd.
  • Est. superdelegates+MI&FLsd
  • Tot. pl. (Act. pl. + Est. pl.)
  • Total pl.+MI&FLpl (Act. pl. + Est. pl.+MI&FLpl)
  • Estimated pl.
  • Actual pledged
  • Additionally, I thought the whole point of the "Actual" row was not to include any estimates and rely on numbers that are unlikely to change. Since the superdelegates can change at any time, including them with actual numbers defeats this intention (IMHO). ~ PaulT+/C 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I must be misunderstanding something here. Aren't you advocating in the "Estimated vs. Actual delegates" section above for mixing actual and estimated counts for delegates? That is, most state contests will display actual counts while a few (like Iowa) may display estimated counts. When we provide a total for actual counts, we will be including only the results of those contests that are already decided (i.e. not Iowa), but when we provide a total for estimated counts, we will be adding those few contests with estimated counts together with the rest of the contests that are already decided. Essentially I'm proposing two main grand totals: an "agressive" grand total (with superdelegates) that includes estimated pledged delegates and a "conservative" grand total (also with superdelegates) that does not. I don't think that just because we agree to have these two kinds of grand totals that we necessarily have to also start including other kinds of speculative grand totals, like ones that include FL + MI. We can simply agree, as we seem to have done here already, not to include such additional grand totals. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I'm getting at is that this table is confusing enough for the average reader as it is. Adding yet another row, which will only be useful until the convention, makes things harder to understand. If anything, I'd argue taking out the estimated pledged and estimated total rows and including your proposed superdelegate + actual total. ~ PaulT+/C 06:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A good point. I could go for your suggestion of taking out the estimated rows. We could certainly simplify this article vastly by elimininating estimated delegate counts altogether. My only reluctance in doing that is the "currency" factor. In this day of 24-hour news cycles and instant Internet updates, people are impatient with the slower progress of the current primary process (particularly caucuses) and want to know the results of events immediately. I notice that the New York Times, which initially stuck with showing only actual results, has now begun to display AP's estimates as well. One possible solution could be to show only actual results in this article and point people looking for more up-to-date estimates to the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 article, where the editors have settled on using estimates alone. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should add either a past week total or a total that includes Florida and Michigan delegates. I suggest we add the Florida and Michigan delegates to the totals only after they are officially recognized, if this in fact occurs. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Wdfarmer (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No to the Florida and Michigan inclusion. I haven't seen any media sources which count delegate totals as though Michigan and Florida count. It seems very unlikely that they will be counted in the end, so any total that includes them will give a misleading impression.81.155.2.42 (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose to include Florida & Michigan in the totals, but feel free to leave them in parentheses in the according state! lil2mas (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose including Florida & Michigan in the totals. Support the in braces in the state total lines for Florida as a compromise. (Provided linked to a reliable source). In the case of Michigan though, it would also seem to need a braces number in uncommitted to be consistent. Right now that column appears to only have in ()s the total number of delegates Michigan would have received if they hadn't been stripped. Jon (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it would be neat to see the total number of votes for each candidate nationwide (a.k.a. nationwide popular vote). I believe Michigan and Florida votes should not be counted here as long as the Democratic Party stands by that decision.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_2&oldid=197669960"