Talk:2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 1

message: A week ago, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson were on this page. Now they are edited out. Why? This is an encyclopedia, right? A book of facts. Shouldn't the fact that they ran remain permanently?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.172.251 (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which page are you referring to?  Biden, Dodd, and Richardson are still listed at Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Candidates. Wdfarmer (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: also rans

message: What are unpledged delegates?  PLEO should be defined or referenced, but at least I can figure out what it means from other sources.  But I cannot figure out how the term "unpledged" is being used in the table caption.
To make matters worse, the body of the article uses the term "unpledged" to include the PLEOs but the table caption obviously refers to something else!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.15 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: very confusing

message: vermont is missing from this page... can somebody find out vermont's details and add it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.31.60 (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: vermont?

message: Vilsach, assuming he can get enough money, has made the Iowa caucuases moot, at least for the Democrats.
68.127.10.246 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: we gotta start somewhere

message: Can someone please discuss what will happen if after all the primaries if no candidate has a majority. I.e. if Obama, Clinton, Edwards all get 1/3. Will the nomination then be decided at the convention, like they did in the old days?
(74.136.204.93 04:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wishlist 

message: The NC Primary will not be Feb 5.
An excellent idea. I added the notes (primary) or (caucus) where I know them. I suppose this could be done with a bit more elegance using <ref name="caucus"> and <ref name="primary"> tags. -Pete 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NC Primary

message: I've tabulised the primaries on Feb 5th, and will do this for the following sets when I get a chance (probably tomorrow)  I'm also going to get whether they are primaries/caucuses, and put up each state's unpledged totals.  I'll also restore those references into the tables Enlightened Bystander 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feb 5th Tabling 

message: The having of Florida's delegates is not proposed.  As it stands, Party rules automatically cut a state's delegates in half and forbid candidates from campaigning there.  Given the importance of Florida the DNC might blink. Rywhite83 23:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florida 

message: Minnesota DFL and GOP parties both voted to move their caucuses to February 5, 2008
*DFL
*GOP  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.161.36 (talk) 16:48, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 
Where is the Vermont date ?? It supposed to be March 4th.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.191.241 (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minnesota 

message: Image:2008 Demo First Five.jpg, Barack Obama and John Edwards have removed themselves from the Michigan primary.  This chart is no longer relevant.   Miqrogroove 06:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete 

message: Why is Michigan cited as moved from January to a later date with no reference? Has that primary actually moved or is that a mistake. I see the move on the main chart.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.119.107 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michigan 

message: Would it be possible to update the graph that showing delegates in the early primaries according to the 15% standard? The polls have undergone some notable shifts since mid-October. Also, it would be helpful if the caption cited the poll used.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.76.24 (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll Graph 

message: At the botem there is a long link that needs to be fixed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.243.97 (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smaller link 

message: I gather that PLEO stands for "party leaders and elected officials." But shouldn't these be counted as superdelegates rather than pledged delegates? If someone goes to the convention by virtue of being an elected official rather than by virtue of a primary or caucus vote, I don't see how he or she could be considered to be pledged to a candidate. 
And by the way, do we really need "United States" in the article title? I doubt any of the world's other Democratic Parties are holding a presidential primary this year. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are both pledged and unpledged PLEOs. Each state is assigned pledged PLEOs amounting to 15% of the normal state delegates - 415 total. Then there are unpledged PLEOs - 798 total. This is from the Green Papers. I'll let others update the article as needed. Simon12 (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, read the Delegate Selection Rules, linked in the article. The PLEOs basically let more politicos attend the convention while not giving them backroom dealing power of the past. Calwatch (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEOs 

message: I've edited the image gallarey to give some summary information. Once we have a winner we can put 'winner' or similar where current candidates are.  This gives a quick overview of the race, and will give summary information that will be more difficult to find in the future.  we can also put things like who endorses whomEnlightened Bystander (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The title of this article mentions "primaries", but the article is about both primaries and caucuses.  Likewise, the first sentence of the article says that the "primaries" include primaries and caucuses.  Technically, this is incorrect.  Primaries and caucuses are two different things.  The title really should be something more like "Democratic Party presidential delegate selection process, 2008."  (I realize that this is a bit cumbersome, but I agree with one of the comments above that the "United States" in the title is unnecessary, so deleting that almost makes up for the extra words.) Presumably there is a corresponding Republican article, to which the same would apply.  Any thoughts?  6SJ7 (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki naming conventions say that it should be the most commonly used term, rather than necessarily the most correct.  Perhaps it would be better to make the title 'primary process' and explain the difference in the lead text? As for US, that can probably go Enlightened Bystander (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: I agree that it shouldn't be a running tally, because then what's the point. But we're missing key people. Vilsack did actually run. And what about Colbert?? -- 209.6.102.88 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the standard should probably be national campaigns that made it to a ballot, as they're the ones that are relevant to the primaries themselves.  The candidates article can give details of other candidates Enlightened Bystander (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Candidates kept on the page 

message: Does anyone think it might be a good idea to change the colors on the map so that no candidate is assigned blue? I'm actually an Obama supporter, but I worry that giving him the color generally associated with the Democratic party might introduce some small amount of bias, suggesting he's already the Democratic candidate or somesuch. Likewise on the Republican map it might be best to avoid making anyone red (as Giuliani is now).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelove (talk • contribs) 22:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Colors? 

message: Just wanted to say, that this is well set out, and offers a pretty good explanation for how it works (esp. with what's happening in Michigan and Florida). Isn't it amazing though how anachronistic and backward the system is? You'd think that they could just let one person have one vote each, and then add them up and then decide who the representative would be. But oh no, that would be too easy (not to mention fair and democratic)!  Wikidea 17:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful article 

message: Could someone please explain the difference? Maybe I'm just a bit thick but if I don't get it perhaps others won't either, and it should be added to the article. Dsol (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pledged delegates are determined as the result of each state's primary or caucus. Unpledged delegates are those informally called superdelegates, as well as some additional "add-on" delegates. Simon12 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pledged vs. total delegate counts 

message: I would note that the number of delegates, especially the unpledged delegates, in the charts is out-of-date, as it's based on May 7, 2007 information from the DNC. More recent information is available in the Jan 5, 2008, DNC Call to the Convention, which can be found at http://www.demconvention.com/a/2007/03/how_to_become_a.html. Simon12 (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delegate numbers are out-of-date 

message: First off Great article, lots of good information.   I think it would be good to add what states are winner take all, a better explanation of super candidates and the difference of pledged and un-pledged.  These are just things I think would be good but up to you all.76.184.118.98 (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple things