Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Presidential elections (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (marked as Low-importance).
 

ND legislative caucus cut[edit]

Per the exclude zero impact events discussion above, I have cut the ND legislative cacus. Jon (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jon, I reverted your edit because the North Dakoka legislative district caucuses have what I had categorized above as a "proxy impact" on the final allocation of ND's delegates to each candidate. Like the Washington legislative district caucuses, the delegates chosen at the North Dakota legislative district caucuses will act as proxies at subsequent events in deciding the final delegate-to-candidate allocation. Therefore, the event does have an impact, albeit a weak one. One problem we face with this ND LD event, however, is that it is hard to locate a source for its results. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
While not an official release, I found the following in an AP story of 7 Apr: "The caucus results suggested Obama should get eight of the 13 delegates, with Clinton getting the remaining five. Although the February vote was advisory, Sunday's delegate selections followed its blueprint. Eight of the 13 delegates are Obama supporters, while five are backing Clinton." http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:riFG2vOFNocJ:www.in-forum.com/ap/index.cfm%3Fpage%3Dview%26id%3DD8VSMFN02+north+dakota+convention+delegate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us&client=firefox-a Agricolae (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem now is that this article is now in an inconsistent state. We either need to drop that line or add that same estimate to the line; otherwise it looks like a zero impact event here. And if that same estimate is made here, it also needs backed filled on the North Dakota cacus article as well; it's looking like a zero impact there as well. Jon (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It's frustrating not being able to find any published state-wide results for the ND legislative conventions (and boy, have I looked). Of course, our inability to find published results has no bearing on whether or not the contest actually had an impact on ND's delegate-to-candidate allocation (even if that impact didn't result in a change to the allocation). I therefore don't think we should remove the contest from this article (unless we change the criteria by which we decide whether or not to include events). However, I agree that it looks weird having no listed results for the LD contest when results are listed for the state convention. I don't think listing the estimate from other contests (either the precinct caucuses or the state convention) is appropriate. The estimates should reflect what sources were saying at the time of the contest. I think we should either leave things as they are (even though it may look a little strange) or add some kind of note explaining that results are unavailable for this contest. Whatever we decide, we should keep in mind that this situation is likely to arise with some other state contests. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Agricolae for finding this article and using its contents to update the state convention results in the North Dakota article. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Bryan, either North Dakota shows numbers, or else Michigan and Florida do not. You cannot have it both ways, and appear neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.209.46 (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for prior events with no known reliable sources in which we have a reliable source for a later event[edit]

In North Dakota we do not have a reliable source for the legislative district cacus but do for the state convention. This is making the results table look very weird. At this point news coverage is going to focus on the later event and not the prior event so it is looking increasingly unlikely that there will ever be an online reliable source on this. So I propose that such events be removed. Jon (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Support ChPr (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Support As the proposer. Jon (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment We have previously agreed to include such events under Bryan's "proxy" indicator proposal. However, I do agree that we need to reconsider whether such events are noteworthy for the encyclopedia if no reliable sources provide information about them.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't strongly oppose as I agree the current situation makes the table look odd. However, as Northwesterner says, we had previously agreed to include events such as these. I think we may run into problems like this in the future with similar "proxy impact" events. Perhaps we should reconsider whether we want to include these types of events. I guess we could selectively remove events as we go whenever we have trouble finding results, but such an approach itself would introduce inconsistency to the article. Regarding the notability argument, availability of results doesn't necessarily indicate that events are not notable. In the case of the ND LD events, I am able to find sources that indicate the events took place and had some noteable features (unrelated to this article). I'm even able to locate the results for some LD events. I'm just not able to locate state-wide summary results. Finally, it might be premature to say that it's unlikely we we'll ever find any sources for the events. It's only been a month since the events ended. It sometimes takes a long time for Democratic state parties to publish their results. What about leaving the event in place with a notation explaining that results are currently unavailable? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case, we have proxy inital results, and already have final results in agreement with the initial, so we don't have a particularly news-worthy item (the intermedate level). All the more so because (sorry those living in ND), North Dakota is a small state. After the primary when the primary narative is written, it's going to heavily focus on proxy initial results and only mention the later ones where it changes the outcome from prior results. Jon (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened to it?[edit]

What happened to the straight up map that had certain colored clinton and certain states colored obama?

Most editors seemed to prefer the maps shaded by margin of victory, since the Democratic primaries (unlike the Republican primaries) are not winner-take-all.Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually the Republican primaries were a mix of winner take all and proportional; and just about everything in between. The Democratic primaries though are all proportional for both "district" & "statewide" ones by rule. Most (all?) of the district allocations are by democratic performance in recent elections. The only major difference between states I've seen on the Democratic side is that Texas assigned the district ones by state senate districts instead of by congressional district. Jon (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Source[edit]

There used to be a clear place where one could find the source for the numbers in these tables. I can't find such information anymore (I was looking for the site but couldn't remember what it was). I think that should be pretty obvious that it should be here. If it is and I'm missing it, it should probably be clearer in my opinion. Chris M. (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

By consensus, we've switched to using data from each state's respective primary/caucus article. This is explained under the section "Local contests," additional notes: "Except where indicated, data comes from sources referenced at each state's primary or caucus Wikipedia article, available by clicking on a state's name." I agree it could be missed. Want to take a stab at making it more clear? Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Primary Stats[edit]

I went ahead and edited the numbers for the outcome of the Pennsylvania primary, using the data from the article about that primary. However, I didn't update the total pledged delegates count because I'm not sure what these numbers are now that Pennsylvania's done. Danberbro (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Popular vote[edit]

This section could really use additional work. There are quite a few unsourced statements along the lines of "Clinton/Obama supporters say ...". The section on maximizing delegate advantage currently appears to be WP:OR, although probably true. It's also not clear (at least to me) why we have a 2nd column including FL but no column including MI. Maybe we could just have "Without FL/MI", "With FL", "With MI", "With FL and MI" columns. Andareed (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should make the sourcing in this section stronger. (done) However, I oppose the inclusion of MI popular vote results. I don't think it's appropriate to give Obama the uncommitted votes, and I don't see how we can put a popular vote number up there for Clinton but not for Obama. I don't think anybody is making the argument with a straight face that we should count the nationwide popular vote with MI for Clinton and nothing for Obama. If others feel it's necessary to include Michigan, I could weakly support a table without totals (see example below) but I think including MI results in any kind of popular vote total is misleading.Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Popular Vote Count (through April 22, 2008)[1]
Candidate Excluding FL and MI Percentage FL MI
Barack Obama 14,378,559 48.6% 576,214 (not on ballot)
Hillary Clinton 13,877,547 46.9% 870,986 328,309
Spread Obama +501,012 Obama +1.7% Clinton +294,772 Clinton +328,309
I would agree on not including MI for the same reason as Northwestern. What I'm curious about on the first two is weather or not they are including estimated popular vote in the cacus states? If not I think we need some that do as well. Of note, last night CNN had three charts, one for primaries only (exclude FL/MI), the next that included the cacus states, and the 3rd included FL (but not MI). I would guess they should be on their web site somewhere. Jon (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Our table includes the actual number of people who showed up to caucus (where available). In the four states that do not do report this, the table provides an estimate of the caucus popular vote (calculated by RealClearPolitics) based on delegate split, as outlined in the first bullet point. I think those two things are relatively uncontroversial, although recently I have noticed that some outlets (CNN) have started reporting a primary popular vote without caucus vote totals. Our table does not include an "estimated popular vote" that extrapolates from caucus numbers to suggest what the popular vote might have been if those states had used primaries. (I'm not sure if that's what you're suggesting or not.) I have seen some analyses that report such extrapolations, but I think they are problematic enough that we would not do so here. Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I wasn't sugesting anything like X times more people would have voted if this were a primary instead of a cacus. Just the estimated cacus popular vote. The only interest in what a popular vote might have been is the Obama campaign to the superdelegates; like wise the only interest in exculde all cacuses but included both Florida & Michigan is the Clinton campaign to the superdelegates. Jon (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see activists are removing the vote total when they include Michigan for political reasons. Like it or not there was a vote in Michigan. At some point if Obama is in the lead without Michigan and Hillary with the Michigan vote their will be a political debate which vote total superdelegates should consider.

However Wikipedia should include the objective fact of what the totals currently are. Facts are not subject to debate. How to use facts is the debate. The table specificially marking that information is the correct way to do so. The only reason to remove this fact is if one is a partisan trying to make a political point Obama has a popular vote lead. Wikipedia is not the place for partisan editing. It was horrible the way the Ron Paul people did it and its wrong for the Obama people to do it. Michaelh613 (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Michaelh613, you don't seem to have read the above conversation very closely, as you don't reference any of the particular points discussed. Your comment does not assume good faith and contains a number of inaccuracies. We're not activists. And we're not doing it for political reasons. If you read the page history or this discussion page closely, you would know that. I don't follow all of your points, and it would help if you could use more precise language to outline them. I'm not sure in several sentences above whether you are referring to the pledged delegates awarded or to the popular vote, and I'm not sure which "total" or "totals" you're referring to. My primary objection to excluding the Michigan popular vote in the popular vote table is that it opens up a messy point for debate: Do you give Obama zero popular votes in Michigan? Or do you give Obama the popular vote of the "uncommitted" voters? Both of those solutions are highly problematic, raising questions of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Therefore, I oppose including Michigan popular vote results in popular vote totals. I am willing to support a table that gives Michigan popular vote results and Florida popular vote results in separate columns (not totalled), as in the above example. I think this is a legitimate point for a reasoned and respectful discussion, if you're willing to engage in it.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I added rows to the popular vote table to reflect the estimate that 173,368 of Michigan's "uncommitted" voters favored Obama according to the exit polls. That's just under 73%. The source is cited, but I'm just using a source already cited previously in the article. I think this number is especially important as it's the most accurate guess we have about how many of those who voted "uncommitted" in Michigan would have voted for Obama if his name had been on the ticket. It helps answer the question, "Of all those who actually voted, who did they mean to vote for?" Sorry, I forgot to login before making the change. (Jtlapp (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

I saw that... and posted a question down below: #Popular vote total. I suggest we continue the conversation down there, as this thread has been dormant for a month.Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Are the totals wrong?[edit]

I mean, the ones in the first table. Can anybody control them? Thanks. 79.19.237.201 (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the totals in the "National summary" section's table (correct me if that's not the table you were asking about) and they are correct. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The easy source for totals is http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html. This is a third party factual site with no axe to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelh613 (talkcontribs) 22:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Michaelh613, User talk:79.19.237.201 and Bryan H seem to be referring to the delegate count in the table at the top of the page. You seem to be referring to the popular vote table, where RealClearPolitics is in fact the source.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Delegates needed to win[edit]

As the race gets closer, people might be wondering how many delegates Clinton/Obama need in order to win. Could we add a new row for this? Andareed (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidates Uncommitted[2] Hillary
Clinton
Barack
Obama
John
Edwards
Estimated delegates needed to win
- 417½
289½
-
Grand total estimated delegates
(3,360 of 4,047, 83%; 2,024 to win)
283 1,606½
48%
1,734½
52%
19
<1%
Total estimated superdelegate endorsement[3]
(511 of 794, 64% of 20%)
283[4] 267
52%
244
48%
0
Total estimated pledged delegates[5]
(2,849 of 3,253, 88% of 80%)
0 1,339½
47%
1,490½
52%
19
<1%
Total bound pledged delegates[6]
(2,541 of 3,253, 78% of 80%)
0 1,224½
48%
1,300½
51%
16
<1%
Sounds like a good idea to me. HoosierStateTalk 21:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I like it.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, let's add it. Though the information isn't particularly encyclopedic (it's more news-y), it's no less so than some of the other estimated data we include. I don't think it would cause much harm to include it temporarily (until the National Convention). --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm for it. Wrad (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate version 1[edit]

Maybe put the row below the estimated total? Maybe shade the row differently than the other cells?

Candidates Uncommitted[2] Hillary
Clinton
Barack
Obama
John
Edwards
Grand total estimated delegates
(3,360 of 4,047, 83%)
283 1,606½
48%
1,734½
52%
19
<1%
Estimated delegates needed to win
(2,024 needed)
- 417½
289½
-
Total estimated superdelegate endorsement[3]
(511 of 794, 64% of 20%)
283[4] 267
52%
244
48%
0
Total estimated pledged delegates[7]
(2,849 of 3,253, 88% of 80%)
0 1,339½
47%
1,490½
52%
19
<1%
Total bound pledged delegates[6]
(2,541 of 3,253, 78% of 80%)
0 1,224½
48%
1,300½
51%
16
<1%
I prefer Andareed's format. The one immediately above interrupts the progression of estimated pledged + estimated superdelegates = grand total. Shading the cells with gray makes them appear to be headings rather than data. But that gives me an idea. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate version 2[edit]

What about separating the subsections with a red line like the following?

Candidates Uncommitted Hillary
Clinton
Barack
Obama
John
Edwards
Estimated delegates needed to win
(2,024 needed)
- 417½
289½
-
Grand total estimated delegates
(3,360 of 4,047, 83%)
283 1,606½
48%
1,734½
52%
19
<1%
Total estimated superdelegate endorsement
(511 of 794, 64% of 20%)
283 267
52%
244
48%
0
Total estimated pledged delegates
(2,849 of 3,253, 88% of 80%)
0 1,339½
47%
1,490½
52%
19
<1%
Total bound pledged delegates
(2,541 of 3,253, 78% of 80%)
0 1,224½
48%
1,300½
51%
16
<1%

--Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I like this version the most. Andareed (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup, me too. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This is it. HoosierStateTalk 06:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done That looks like consensus to me, so I added Andareed's new row. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This does looks good. But I think it needs a footnote about being subject to change based on future changes in the superdelegate count though. (For instance, I hear the Democratics picked up a Congressional House Seat in a special election in LA this weekend, and so that is probably going to increase the superdelegate count by one.) Jon (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There is hardly a number on the entire page that isn't subject to change based on future developments. The page has already been adjusted for death, disbarment of entire states, adjustments of estimates, state convention coups, absentee ballot turnarounds, a scandal over a highly-paid escort, and yes, the LA special election (which was already taken into account when the new column was added). It says right there at the top of the page, "Content may change as the election approaches." There is nothing special about the new column that requires further explicit qualification. Agricolae (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree -- but I did put a footnote on this after someone came along today and put the FL/MI numbers into the cell itself. Feel free to revert the footnote if you don't think it's necessary.Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't care enough about it to be worth reverting, but the thing is, if we qualify this one column, don't we need to qualify all of the others too? Oddly, the anonymous 'someone' only wants to indicate that the total will change, without taking into account that all of the underlying numbers will likewise change, leaving the deceptive impression that the only effect would be to make them both that much farther away. In fact, of all of the numbers in this entire table, including delegate numbers and percentages, and the statistics of totals and percentages of totals in the left hand column, the only number that will not change if FL and MI get included in some form (that form being completely unpredictable) is that John Edwards will still have 0 superdelegates. I think it would be better to either directly explain or footnote the fact that the numbers represent the condition currently in place within the textual explanation of the table rather than to selectively tag this particular set of numbers among all of the numbers in the table as being subject to revision if things that may or may not happen actually happen. Agricolae (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Graph of percentage over time[edit]

I think it would be good to have a graph of the percentage of delegates won by each candidate over time. In other words, a graph just showing the number of each going constantly up would not be as informative as one that shows how the percentage has changed over time with each state victory. — Omegatron (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That was my original intention with these: Image:2008 Democratic Primaries, Pledged Delegates by Date.png and Image:2008 Democratic Primaries, Superdelegates by Date.png. However, it was noted (correctly) that we don't have an accurate measure of superdelegates over time. (DCW was not originally the source for superdelegates, and also at the beginning DCW did not always catch superdelegates immediately when they announced.) The pledged delegate chart got pretty annoying to update when results changed by one or two delegates for previous contests. Not to mention the pledged delegate chart didn't have much weight without the superdelegate chart to go with it. I think it's a good idea; the problem is finding a source for the information that works. Really, we can't track "percentage of delegates won over time," as the number of delegates won in a given event is sometimes not available until weeks afterward. Thus, it has to be some variation of "percentage of delegates estimated over time." Also, if you just show how the percentage has changed with each state victory, it would be a pretty straight line, as they have been running 52/48 for a while now.Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

½ Delegate[edit]

Hi, I'm not American, may I ask what is the meaning of ½ Delegate? --134.91.4.52 (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A "half delegate" is a delegate who only gets 1/2 a vote (instead of a full vote). Democrats abroad super delegates are half delegates. And pledged delegates from small territories and Democrats abroad are also half delegates. Jon (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delegates are the people who will decide the nomination at the Democratic National Convention. Delegates from the fifty US states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have a single vote each, while some delegates from American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam and Democrats Abroad have half a vote each. Thus, the total number of delegates is slightly higher than the total number of available delegate votes (4,049).[8] (Seablade (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC))
The delegate rules are discussed more thoroughly in the main article Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Edwards' Delegates[edit]

I think this article needs some explanation about what happens to Edwards' delegates. Personally, I have no idea... - ARC GrittTALK 10:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

They get to vote for whoever they choose; same as before he endorsed Obama (and after he withdrew). The Iowa state convention is even more likely to see a downsizing of Edwards delegates than it was before, but that's only responsible for picking the state delegates; the district delegate selection is already final. This page will follow the lead of the state pages if pledged Edwards delegates annouce before the convention a decision to back either Obama or Clinton. Jon (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This opens a wider issue. If the tables are to be a historical record of the primaries, what is done when an Edwards delegate announces for one of the other candidates? This happened yesterday, and the Green Papers have updated their NH numbers accordingly, but to make the change in the table makes Obama the winner of NH months after the fact. Likewise, a Clinton pledged delegate from MD has announced he will vote for Obama. Some consensus needs to be reached on how to deal with situations such as these (perhaps cross out and put the new number directly below?). Agricolae (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion on this issue at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Consensus on delegate changes. The proposals there are specific to the "Chronicle" tables in the main article, but the principles discussed there may have a bearing on what we decide to do here and in the associated state articles. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
2 of the Edwards New Hampshire delegates have decided to back Obama, I would update it but I'd just mess everything up. [1] HoosierStateTalk 16:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind I got it, hopefully I didn't make any mistakes. HoosierStateTalk 16:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Any such changes should be coordinated with the respective state page. I have now done this.Agricolae (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't even stop to think about the seperate page. HoosierStateTalk 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Highlighting cells[edit]

Previous consensus discussions (separately conducted) resulted in the main article highlighting cells by popular vote winner and the results article highlighting by pledged delegate winner. I think we should standardize this across the articles and have opened a discussion on the main article talk page at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Highlighting cells.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

National totals table[edit]

Hi, I noticed my edit to the national totals table was reverted by User:Ross UK. I had reversed the order, with the bound delegates at the top and the "needed to win" entry at the bottom, which seems a lot more intuitive to me, as a newcomer to the article. The way it is now, we have an extrapolated conclusion (needed to win) and a "grand total" at the top of the table, whereas these types of data usually are found at the bottom of a list. Any other views on this? Tobias (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tobias. I am open to the idea of moving the "needed to win" row to the bottom of the table, but don't mind it where it is; it is a temporary row anyway and can/will be removed when the process is complete. Likewise for 'bound' delegates. The "grand total" row should however stay where it is, as that is the headline information and as such should be prominently featured. --Ross UK (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. To me it doesn't make much difference, and it's been this way for a while, so why change it? If it's a significant issue for other editors as well, I'm fine with changing it. If no other editors voice their opinions here, then I suggest we leave the order alone (with "needed to win" at the top). Either way, let's stick with the results of this talk page's section, since changing it back and forth would be worse than either alternative. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. It was just a passing idea but in the end I agree it doesn't make too much of a difference. Great work on the article, Cheers, Tobias (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Cross-references in rows necessary?[edit]

Katydidit recently made a series of edits to the results table in the Local contests section that added parenthetical cross-references to the event rows for states with multiple events. Is this added info necessary? My feeling is that the information is only marginally useful since it is already easy to see all of a state's event rows together by clicking on the sort symbol (Sort none.gif) at the top of the Location column. I feel the usefulness of these cross-references is outweighed by the clutter they add to this already busy-looking table. What do the rest of you think? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if the intent was to assist editors in finding related events while editing, then maybe it would be better to move the information inside comment tags that are only visible in edit mode. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that these cross-references are unnecessary. The sort arrows accomplish the same thing with less table clutter. Not everyone who reads the article sees or knows how to use the sort arrows. But then again not everyone who reads the article will be able to make sense of these additional table notes, either. Northwesterner1 (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added a line of text explaining the sort arrows above the table. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Rules committee decision[edit]

Updated the state-by-state for the Rules and Bylaws ruling [2] but didn't touch the top table, as I'm not sure how you guys would like to adjust it now that Obama is over the nomination threshold.--12.47.123.121 (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The nomination threshold changes also, right? Northwesterner1 (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Counting Colorado in Popular Vote[edit]

Colorado held a caucus, and as it is Colorado isn't added to the popular vote with caucus states counted. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html Has the vote totals for Obama and Clinton. Obama recieved 80,113 votes and Clinton 38,893 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.13.169 (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This article uses the popular vote counts done by RealClearPolitics on the same page you link to... I will admit, I haven't added them up myself, but it sure looks to me like RealClearPolitics is including the Colorado caucus vote in their popular vote totals, which is how we're reporting it. Could you clarify your concern? Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I think I see what your concern is. You saw the table header "Include caucus estimates (IA, NV, WA, ME)" and assumed that the other caucus states were not being counted, is that right? No cause for alarm. The caucus states that reported an official popular vote total (such as Colorado) are included in all counts. The issue is that IA, NV, WA, and ME did not report a popular vote, and those numbers have been estimated by RealClearPolitics based on other figures released by the state. As we do not have an official count, some people do not believe in counting those estimates. Hence the column. This is explained in the notes above the table, and I have also added a footnote to the column header to help clarify this. Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I understand it now. Thanks for the reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.13.169 (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, great. Thanks for commenting, as it helped me see how we could prevent this confusion. You're probably not the only one who thought the same thing. Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Those are not popular vote numbers though. At least on the Colorado state page the 80,000 and 38,000 numbers are not votes, but delegates elected at the precinct level (just as with the reported numbers for Washington). There are probably more Democratic voters than that in Boulder alone. Agricolae (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I think our state article is wrong. RealClearPolitics links to this page which appears to show total caucus attendance of 120,971, which seems accurate given caucus turnout in other states. It's lower than, say, Minnesota, but not that much lower. They wouldn't really have 120,000 precinct delegates, would they? Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed by The Denver Post: "More than 120,000 Democrats turned out to caucus, or eight times the 15,000 party participants in 2004." I'm going to fix the state article now. Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular vote total[edit]

This edit added two more rows to the popular vote tables, calculating the Michigan results by adding 73% of uncommitted votes to Obama's total, based on the percentage of exit poll "uncommitted" voters who said they would have voted for him. How do others feel about this? I thought about doing a similar row but decided against it myself, believing that it would be discouraged as original research. One problem with all the popular vote math over the last month is that there are really endless scenarios and calculations that we could be reporting. Seems like we should stick to one comprehensive source, and right now RealClearPolitics has the most comprehensive counts. I've seen the 73% calculation performed on blogs but not really in any reliable sources.Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The unknown here is whether 73% is the right percentage. But reporting the 73% estimate is in itself an accurate description of the scenario where 73% favored Obama. As other estimates are located, they can be reported as other percentages. All we have are estimates for the various caucus states anyway, and the most reasonable way of estimating who in Michigan meant to vote for Obama would not otherwise occur in the table. For this reason, the 73% number is arguably more accurate than the 'zero' and 'all' row estimates, even if other scenarios are later found to report other percentages.
It's not original research, as the 73% (actually reported as an estimated vote count) comes from a source quoted and used elsewhere in this article. It's more a question of whether other estimates are available for consideration as well. The only risk is whether the reader would consider 73% definitive, so we could find a way to emphasize that this is just one possibility.
It just seems that the most reasonable count is based on an estimate of who selected "uncommitted" in support of Obama. We have a source that provides a reasoned number. (Jtlapp (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC))
I agree with you, really. So take this in good faith. I think the 73% estimate is a reasonably good one and probably provides a useful service to readers. But I'm worried about "original research creep" in this section. If, as you suggest, we start reporting other estimates as percentages, pretty soon we end up with a table that has fifty rows, and we're really not doing our job very well as an encyclopedia. What do we make of the fact that a percentage of those exit poll "uncommitted" voters said they preferred Clinton? Do we make a statistical adjustment for that? For me, the issue is if we're going to be guessing how many people supported Obama based on exit polls, what's to stop us from reporting analyses like this of how many voters stayed home, believing their votes wouldn't count. Pretty soon we're getting into the purely speculative. Should we start counting other non-binding primaries? Should we add a row giving the candidates an arbitrary percentage of the Michigan vote based on the 69-59 delegate split proposed by the state party and accepted by the DNC (54-46%)? Should we cut the popular vote in half? Should we just throw our hands up and call it a tie? Should we give Edwards's popular votes to Obama when his delegates switch? All of those arguments are likely to show up somewhere -- and most already have -- but we don't need to report them. I've been a major contributor to the Popular Vote section, trying to make sure that everyone's views are heard in the most NPOV way possible, and I've been guilty myself of erring on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion in this section, but at some point spinning out a million different scenarios becomes a serious problem and is in itself an institutionalization of Clinton campaign spin. I don't believe I'm speaking from a position of Obama bias when I say that a large part of the Clinton campaign strategy in the last two months has been to create confusion about the numbers as a way to prolong her candidacy and create doubt about the legitimacy of Obama's presumed nomination. Not too long ago the Clinton campaign was floating a popular vote scenario counting Florida, counting Michigan (with 0 votes for Obama), but not counting any caucus states, in the name of political rights in Zimbabwe. I mean, the logic just gets pretty silly. The more scenarios we float, the crazier this stuff gets. Like I said, as numbers go, the 73% is a fine addition, and I'm personally okay with it. I just think we need to be careful going forward. It bothers me that we're relying on a marginally reliable source for it. Then again, it bothers me even more that the traditional reliable sources don't bother to do any analyses of their own.Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The math is broken[edit]

On second thought the 73% solution seems pretty crazy. I'll admit that it seems reasonable intuitively, but if you look at the math, it's bogus. We're basing that number on exit polls. But the exit polls say quite explicitly 46% Clinton, 35% Obama, 12% Edwards, 2% Kucinich, 1% Richardson. The 73% row translates into 55% Clinton, 29% Obama, 16% unassigned. Why does this happen? Because the 73% solution pretends that Edwards only takes a chunk of "uncommitted" voters from Obama, but the exit poll suggests that if he were on the ballot, he would have taken a chunk of Clinton's voters also. It's not acceptable to base Obama's percentage on an exit poll if we're not going to base Clinton's percentage on the same poll. This seems like a pretty striking problem, and I suggest we remove the 73% figure from the table as well as from the body text. It turns out there's a reason, RealClearPolitics and other reliable sources aren't reporting this fact, and that's because it's a pretty basic statistical error. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement now. I was just going through CNN data to confirm the 73% estimate and found myself having to make a million decisions about what goes into the estimate and what does not. You're right, there are millions of scenarios here. I think I was thrown by the reference to 73% earlier in the page and yet seeing that obviously valuable number ignored in this table. We might eliminate the 73% reference from earlier, or we might explain that there are millions of complexities and scenarios that could be indicated but which are not, naming as examples these estimates from exit polls. That might have prevented me from trying to be helpful, and it might help people understand that this is not straightforward. My apologies. (Jtlapp (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC))
No need for apologies! This stuff gets pretty complicated. All good faith edits move us forward toward a better encyclopedia. I've removed the 73% from the table and the body text. (My error for putting it there in the first place.) Any suggestions you have for improving this section are more than welcome. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I added text that would have prevented me from adding the 73% rows. The text already explains that many scenarios are absent from the table. I added: "For example, the table does not reflect exit poll findings on how many voters would have voted for Obama had Obama's name been on the Michigan ballot, since there are many ways to generate this estimate." (Jtlapp (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC))
Kind of unfortunate that we don't really have good sources for this; that 73% number for Obama also feels low based on Edwards performance in the states we have known results in NH & FL for him. I'd have guessed that somewhere around 82% of the undeclared votes represent Obama, 1 to 3% the other withdrawn candidates (below viability thresholds) + really undeclared combined and the rest Edwards. Jon (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And as Northwesterner1 pointed out, according to the exit polls, many of those who did vote for Clinton said that they would have instead voted for Obama had his name been on the ticket. That would have reduced Clinton's tally in addition to upping Obama's. There are just so many ways to compute the popular vote that there's little reason to buy the 73% number, even if it happened to be correct. (Jtlapp (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

The popular vote table ...[edit]

Florida is no longer disputed.24.199.236.112 (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be updated to only contain one result, the one approved by the DNC. It's pretty confusing to have three results there. So it must be shortened to the official one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.202.233.8 (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no official popular vote, just an official delegate count. The table ought to be explicit about what it means to include the Michigan primary, since there are so many ways to do that. Right now the table grants no votes to Obama for Michigan; the closest thing we have to official gives Obama more than the 40% "uncommitted" delegates, suggesting that "officially" he'd get more than 40% of the Michigan vote too. I think we need to restore the table to make it clear that there's more than one way to count the Michigan vote. (Jtlapp (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC))
I suggest waiting for Northwesterner1 to weigh in before making any changes to the table. I've also made the mistake of changing the table without first discussing with him/her. He/she has been thinking about this a whole lot more than we have. I went ahead and restored the table. (Jtlapp (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC))
The caucus states are estimates not official, therefore, they cannot be included in an official tally. The table can easily be reduced to two options, one giving all uncommitted from Michigan to Obama, and the other giving none. Both including Florida's total and without caucus states, as there are no official counts for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.202.233.8 (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You're the one pushing for reporting only "official" estimates. We do have reliable estimates for these states (from RealClearPolitics). I think it would be disingenuous for the table to provide vote counts without clearly indicating that the votes of certain states weren't counted in the estimate. Since respectable estimates are available, it would also be most responsible for us to include scenarios for those estimates in the table. (Jtlapp (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC))
When the Democratic National Committee releases a press release with an "official popular vote count," or posts such a number on their website, we'll be glad to reduce the table to one row. Until such time, there is no official tally of the popular vote, and the table represents all numbers commonly accepted as variations on the truth. (See [3] [4] [5] [6].) If you're really proposing that we eliminate the table and report only the "official count," what you're proposing is that we eliminate the popular vote section entirely and report only the delegates awarded. That's the "official count."Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Glad to see a comprehensive (estimated) table of the popular vote count again. That's how it should be handled unless there is an official popular count what I doubt will ever emerge. --Floridianed (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


June 1: Table needs updating

The table needs to be updated to include the June 1 Puerto Rico Primary, because right now it only reflects how it was on May 31. Update the table, please.

Yeldarb68 (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody appended the following text to the popular vote table: "Votes from regions outside the United States (i.e. Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Guam and Democrats Abroad) give Clinton an advantage of 132,361 votes." First, it appears to me that this statement is false. Second, if it is true, it should be reflected in the table and not in some addendum that supposedly trumps everything in the table. (Jtlapp (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps we need an addendum to the table that explicitly says the table does include voters abroad, as I believe it does. That might have prevented this mistake. (Jtlapp (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

Votes from outside the United States are included in the totals. I have deleted the addition. It's ambiguous, but the way I read it, the comment is not intended to indicate that those votes are not included in the table, but rather to advance a WP:POV argument that those votes should be "asterisked" as being from outside the US. In other words, it's trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of a "popular vote" count that includes non-US citizens who can't vote in the US general election, thereby implying that Clinton is receiving an unfair advantage from non-US voters. If that is indeed what it's trying to do, then it should be deleted; such aspersions don't belong in this article. If it's trying to do something different, then it is poorly worded and poorly placed. (In any case, I will fix the table footnote to emphasize that it does include these voters so that there is no confusion.)Northwesterner1 (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I made the addition in question; my apologies for poor wording. I am slightly surprised by Northwesterner1's presumptions about my intentions, which are mistaken. That's why we have WP:AGF, to avoid such misunderstandings! The article and this table do a good job of considering the legitimacy of different ways of calculating the "popular vote" count. I do not have an opinion on the legitimacy of counting votes from regions outside the US. Rather, I felt that it is an issue in the debate that the some counts of the "popular vote" include these regions, particularly as the Clinton camp have also used an argument based on the electoral votes of different states (Guam, Puerto Rico etc. having no electoral votes). Thus, I felt it would be of benefit for readers to be able to see how the inclusion of these votes impacts on the figures (which isn't all that much) without making the current table any more unwieldy. I look forward to Northwesterner1's footnote. Bondegezou (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the table has enough rows already without adding more. In fact since FL delegates will be seated (with half a vote each) and both Obama & Clinton were on the balot there, I think we can safely drop the don't include Florida options from the tables. A quick estimate of the popular vote outside the 50 states would be to take whichever your favorite option listed is and subtract the vote you see from PRs totals. (PR's vote & population both drawf that of the other territories.) (DC having 3 electorial votes and As for Democrats Abroad, those who participated in it may still be registered to vote in their home state.) Jon (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Very sorry, Bondegezou! I shouldn't have jumped to hasty conclusions about your motives, and you are right to quote WP:AGF. The tables include all votes from contests outside the United States, and I adjusted the footnote on the first column to clarify this. I'm assuming there is a typo in your comment above, and you mean to say, "Some counts of the 'popular vote' do not include those regions." Is that correct? I have not seen many neutral political observers seriously advancing this notion. If it does have credibility, it could be noted in the "problems" section above the popular vote table, but this alternate count does not need to be given great weight in the article or included in the table. By poblano's count at 538.com, there are 972 different permutations of the popular vote. We don't need to report all permutations, and I believe including votes from outside the United States in all our calculations is relatively uncontroversial and NPOV. The sentence you added made it seem like (a) the tables were not including those votes and (b) consequently, including those votes would give Clinton a greater edge than she has in the table. (See Jtlapp's confusion above.) I deleted the sentence to avoid this impression. Feel free to try something that is more clear.
I disagree with Joncunn's point about eliminating the Florida option. The RBC committee made a ruling on the delegate seating; they didn't make a ruling about the popular vote there, as indeed they shouldn't. Yes, many political observers recognize these results now, including many who didn't recognize these results a month ago. But nothing has changed about the facts on the ground. The Florida count remains as legitimate or as illegimate or as partially legitimate or as questionably legitimate (depending on your perspective) as it was on election day. The only thing that has changed is the rhetoric and the posturing around it. As many people still do not treat those votes as valid in their assessment of the popular vote count, it is responsible to report them as a separate row. People who believe they should be counted can see the total. People who don't can see the total. And everybody can see how they change things. I believe the group of people who still question the Florida results is much larger than the group of people questioning the caucus estimates, for example. Are you proposing we should delete that column also? (And in my view, both groups are much, much larger than people who question including votes outside the United States or other sets of the 972 permutations). So we have to draw the line somewhere in terms of what scenarios are reasonable to report and what aren't. I think the current line is a fair one and broadly representative of the scope of reasonable political opinion out there in the universe, but of course I don't own it, so I'm happy to be overruled if there is consensus to do something differently.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Northwesterner1 that the Florida permutations should remain in the table. The June 1st delegate allocations were a political deal and not a declaration of facts. The two campaigns negotiated a settlement only on delegate representation. Had the popular vote contribution also been under negotiation, a different deal may have been reached. Besides, even if we were to infer that admitting the FL and MI delegates legitimized the inclusion of these states in the popular vote, we'd still be left wondering how to calculate their contributions to the popular vote. Would we halve the vote contribution just as the delegate contributions were halved? Would we redistribute the popular vote of MI in proportion to the delegate allocation awarded to MI (which was different from the Clinton/"uncommitted" vote distribution)? Absent an official declaration of how to include the FL and MI popular vote counts, we can't know what to do. (Jtlapp (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC))
I withdraw my earlier suggestion, and also agree with Northwesterner1 and Jtlapp that the Florida permutations should stay in as reliable sources clearly feel Florida's inclusion remains contentious. Bondegezou (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: One article discussing the US territories, inter alia, is here. Bondegezou (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Larry Sabato is a good source (as is the BBC, obviously). I think it would be perfectly appropriate to note some of these additional considerations in the "problems" section, though we don't need to report the numbers themselves.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Request on Florida[edit]

So, per the discussion above, it seems we have some disagreement about whether to include the Florida yes/no metric as a column in the popular vote table. Northwesterner1, Jtlapp, Floridianed have expressed support for the column. IP user 99.202.233.8 and Joncnunn have advocated dropping it from the table. IP user 70.170.89.104 has recently changed the article to drop the column. Can we get some other editors to weigh in so that we can have some stability on this? Northwesterner1 (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Both Obama and Clinton were on the ballot, I don't see a reason to include it. HoosierStateTalk 05:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • We obviously have nothing near consensus here, so this was not justified. The whole reason the column is included is because there is no consensus. Including the column allows those who consider the FL vote legitimate to heed the numbers and those who do not to ignore them. Including the column is the way to deal with contention over the issue. Would someone with more confidence with undoing please restore the table? Thanks! (Jtlapp (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC))
Me again. The New York Times just released an assessment of various popular vote scenarios. The assessment includes scenarios for including or not including Florida. If the NYTimes thinks FL still may not be part of the popular vote, who are we to decide that FL definitively is part of the popular vote? (Jtlapp (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC))
I think the reason this table keeps changing so suddenly (myself included) is that we're too emotionally involved in the outcome of the popular vote. We want it to be accurate in a way that emphasizes our desired outcome. I think we're going to need a policy for dealing with this table, as I suspect this is going to be a frequent problem. Perhaps any change not first largely agreed on here should be immediately undone, with discussion to follow. (Jtlapp (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC))
Been a while since I've been editing here now. One reason for this is that the nomination process has become a lot more complex to figure out, especially for a dude from Norway, like me. So I appreciate any information that helps me understand more of the process and the current results. So I will be bold and restore the table. lil2mas (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This is largely a restate from the previous section above but I think in the case of Florida that since both Obama & Clinton agreeded that the delegate count from Florida would be the same as what it naturaly would have been if Florida had followed the same rules other than they all get half delegates that it's realtively uncontroversial to include Florida. (This of course is a different opinion than I had before the rules comitee meeting in which Flordia was going to have zero votes.) Michigan is still controversial because Clinton was the only major candidate on the balot and Obama, Edwards, and some others were not. (What percent of "uncommited" is voter intention for Obama, what percent is voter intention for Edwards, etc. Some have even thrown in perhaps a significant number voters intending to vote for Obama, Edwards, and others didn't know they were supposed to vote for uncommitted and voted for Clinton.) The "cacus estimates" is primarily contraversial at the moment by the Clinton camp because if you don't include those but do include Florida & Michigan while allocating 0% of uncomited to Obama they are currently in the lead and are seeking some sort of moral victory. A less partisan reason for not including "cacus estimates" would be simply the fact that they are estimates and not offical. Jon (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You've made a very good argument for why the FL votes should be counted. I believe I and others have made a very good argument for why the FL votes might not be counted and for why we wouldn't know how to count them even if we were to count them. The conclusion: including the FL votes is still controversial. Best way to handle controversy is to show all sides. The table does this (now that it has been restored). (Jtlapp (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC))
  • Please note that the article states "The source is RealClearPolitics... only those most commonly cited as popular vote estimates". The article used to contain a reformatted version of the source, but it is now out of date. The source no longer has the no-Florida option as a separate total. If the goal is to keep the Florida yes/no column, for whatever reason, I suggest one of two options (1) add a caveat that data is based on RealClearPolitics as well as some original research that may be controversial or (2) cite a different source that breaks out the no-Florida option. I prefer (2) since that will prevent people from adding other controversial combinations, like adding a Puerto Rico yes/no column. 70.170.89.104 (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You're making a good point that we need to justify the inclusion or exclusion of the FL column through external sources. But the argument goes either way: we'd need an external source that makes it explicit that the FL popular vote contribution has been resolved or that its contribution is indeed controversial. We're using RCP for two purposes: (1) to indicate vote tallies (individual and totals), and (2) to inform us about which permutations to show. We can still use it for (1) even if we find other sources that put into question RCP's choice of permutations. Real Clear Politics isn't real clear why the suddenly included FL in the vote. Just yesterday the NYTimes was still unsure about whether FL contributes towards the popular vote. I dont' think it's necessary to just reference post-June 1 articles citing the controversy, but we knew it held prior to June 1 and the only thing that will change the status quo is references to works making it clear that the status quo has changed and that the FL contribution is no longer controverial. We don't even need just one article to do this, as it's sufficient to cite two conflicting but respectable sources. We can't tie ourselves to just one source unless the various sources agree. But again, thanks for making the excellent point and pushing us closer to an objective resolution. (Jtlapp (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC))
  • Note that the NY Times seems to be of the opinion that neither the FL nor the MI vote tallies contribute to the popular vote of either candidate. If we consider RCP to be (implicitly) of the opinion that FL does contribute to the total, then we've established a clear, continuing controversy. (Jtlapp (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC))
  • I believe that the Florida primary is resolved, and only has disputes relating to CAMPAIGNING, but not the actual vote count. That figure (the votes) is not disputed. I totally understand the reason for including this facet in the discussion, but within the broader "what should count" argument, Florida has been settled.24.199.236.112 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You need to back up your belief with a reliable source that declares the controversy to be over. I have given two sources (NYTimes and RPC) that are post May 31st that disagree on whether FL contributes to the popular vote. Aside from these two sources, this article outlines why the FL and MI elections may be considered unfair, which in itself put into question the validity of their contributions to the popular vote. As I argued earlier, the only official statement made on May 31st was a delegate count, and that was a political deal on delegate allocation rather than a reconfiguration of facts. (Jtlapp (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC))
  • It was resolved by allocating the delegates to the Kandidates and not the votes themself. I searched recently for it and couln't find any information in that direction so if you can find an official source regarding (the Florida popular vote) I gladly accept it. But let me say, that by official I mean from the DNC since they ruled on this. --Floridianed (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Edwards FL delegates to Obama[edit]

I keep reverting this for a simple reason. I know DCW has made this change in their numbers, but we do not derive our pledged delegate numbers from DCW. The Results table is said to derive its data as follows. Supers from DCW; 'pledged' from results in state table; other results calculated from these two. The state results table cites the individual state pages. The State pages each cite their own sources for delegates, usually GPs, but not always. You can't just change the Results table without there being an underlying change that traces all the way back to the original source cited on the state page. It is not good enough to just change the state page, if the cited reference doesn't provide the basis for that change. I know we all want to be current and make these changes as soon as the first clue appears, but verifiability has to be maintained or the numbers can be changed at will (or whim). With a little patience, the relevant source pages will be updated, and then the now-verifiable changes can be made. Heck, we all think we know how many delegates were elected by the Kansas Democratic Convention two weeks ago, but without a source, it remains blank, as it should, and eventually someone will find a source that can be used to fill this gap. (sorry for the rant) Agricolae (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I entirely appreciate that, indeed so much so that when I amended the Florida state page I checked what the cited source was, finding it to be the RBC decision adjusted for Edwards switches, the source for the latter being cited as DCW [7]. I'm glad that the numbers are sorted out now however. --Ross UK (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that Obama is over the top[edit]

We no longer need the estimated number of delegates needed to win row in the top table. And the article should also cut and paste that paragraph about him achiving this yesterday that's found in the main article. I'd do this myself but I can't make heads or tails on how to delete that row from that table. Jon (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. "Delegates needed to win"-row is now cut out of the table. lil2mas (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know as I agree with this. First, there is nothing in the table, as is, that indicates he has reached the goal. Second, I have yet to see anything from Clinton indicating a withdrawal from the race. Given that no delegate is truly bound, any candidate is free right up until the vote at the convention, to try to sway their vote and even through mid-day yesterday (and I have heard nothing to the contrary since) the C camp was still talking about it not being over until the votes were counted at the Convention, nor giving up their threat to challenge things on the floor. This may well come in the next several days, but until it does, it may still prove informative exactly how many delegates would need to be swayed by this candidate still in the race in spite of the fact that her competitor has crossed the threshold under current estimates. Agricolae (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
We probably don't need the horse-race numbers, but there should be some indication in or around the table as to the threshold needed to win. (And thanks to Theilert for adding the number while I was typing this.) -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I added the "2,117 threshold"-note which was there before we started the countdown-row. But restoring the countdown-row will now look strange, because both candidates will receive delegates and Clinton's numbers will decrease, while Obama's will be at a standstill on 0. But we should write it in prose, as Jon suggested, that Obama has reached the threshold. We could also add, as Agricolae say, that Clinton hasn't dropped out of the race yet. lil2mas (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Copy Pasted the current prose from the parent article into this one. As to Obama's & Clinton's current vote totals, unless and until Clinton at least suspends her campaign those numbers will continue to need to be updated. (At this point mostly DemoConWatch superdelegates but there's also a few last rounds of cacuses left.) Jon (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Delegate Counts[edit]

Why are the delegate counts on every article about the Democratic primaries different? Someplaces have Obama 2044, Clinton 18--, 2219/1867, etc. The superdelegate count is different, too. And just because Obama won doesn't mean you should take out the delegates needed row. What about Hillary? Hillary Cliton has 1923 delegates, and Barack Obama has 2156. Both numbers are probably a little low because of the superdelegates that endorsed after June 3.

Hillary ended her campaign and endorsed Obama. Plus Obama has the necessary amount of delegates to claim the nomination. HoosierStateTalk 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Michigan and Florida's delegates get full voting rights. The delegate numbers must be actualized. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/24/full-voting-right. 22:00, 24 August 2008 (CET)

Actual popular votes? Other candidates?[edit]

Where are the numbers for other candidates now? Richardson, etc...? 68.83.72.162 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The popular vote count is difficult to tally, and to my knowledge it has only been calculated nationally for Clinton and Obama (see the Popular Vote section). Popular vote counts in individual states can be found by clicking the name of each state, which takes you to the appropriate article on that state's primary or caucus, including the other candidates (Richardson, etc.) Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent delegate totals?[edit]

There are some inconsistencies on this page that I don't understand and I was hoping for either clarification, or a correction (since I don't understand I'm not comfortable correcting myself). This page states In order to secure the nomination at the convention, a candidate must receive at least 2,117 votes from delegates (a simple majority of the 4,233 delegate votes, bearing in mind half-votes from Florida, Michigan, Democrats Abroad and the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).. This is inconsistent with a statement later in the article, The grand totals are: 2,244½ for Obama, 1,885 for Clinton, and 4½ for Edwards - those votes total 4134, 99 delegates difference. Further, if one examines the table in the article, it states that Clinton had 1972 delegates, Obama 2307.5 and Edward 4.5. This totals to 4284, 51 delegates higher than the stated total, and these numbers differ from those I quoted from earlier in the article. Lastly, the numbers in the chart differ by one vote (Obama one higher, Clinton one lower) from Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008, although as estimates I can see why they might have had variance. However, consistency should be the goal in those cases, perhaps. Like I said, I don't know what to fix, as I'm unfamiliar. Darquis (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

First, most delegate estimates were frozen the day before Clinton conceded in early June. At that time, the number of delegates was 4,233. But from that point on, 2 superdelegates were added, and 1 subtracted [8], which would have made the delegate number 4,234. Then, full delegate status was given to FL and MI just before the convention started. This added (105.5+78.5) = 184 votes, giving a final total of 4418 delegate votes. Note that this number matches what is in Green Papers, which should be considered a reliable source in these matters. [9]
Second, the "grand totals" you mention didn't include the 99 uncommitted delegates at that time. Add those in, and the grand totals add up to 4233, matching the first total you cite.
The main problem is that delegate counts were always estimates, and there never was, and can't be, a final official count of the state of the race before Clinton conceded. Wikipedia decided to use DemConWatch as the official source of superdelegates, but the pledged delegate counts came from various places. DemConWatch froze its results on 6/6/08 [10], and had the numbers at 2187/1922.
And why do we talk about the state of the race when Clinton conceded? Because after that, everything changed. Delegates moved en-masse to Obama. The final count at the convention (see the 2008 convention article) was Obama-3118.5, Clinton-1010.5, 1 abstention, 219 not voting. (Which, by the way, adds up to 4119, not 4118!). That count is important for the record, but is in no way reflective of the state of the race when it was actually contested.
Given that the table summarizes the individual states, and that we can assume that the pledged delegate numbers were accepted at the time, I would go with the table as the best source of delegate numbers for this article, although some explanatory text would be helpful. The last two sentences in the opening should just be deleted, as the information is best sources and given in the table. Simon12 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference popvote was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    • ^ a b Except where noted otherwise, this column displays the number of delegates who have voted as uncommitted, not the number of potential delegates that have yet to be selected in future primaries or caucuses.
    • ^ a b "2008 Democratic Convention Watch". , DCW estimates.
    • ^ a b "Superdelegates Who Haven't Committed to a Candidate". 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. 2008-03-10. Retrieved 2008-03-25. 
    • ^ Sum of estimated delegates in each contest in the table.
    • ^ a b Sum of bound delegates in each contest in the table.
    • ^ Sum of estimated delegates in each contest in the table.
    • ^ "Democratic Delegate Allocation - 2008". Retrieved 2008-03-14.