Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries

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

text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  ND legislative caucus cut 

message: 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)
replies: text: Support ChPr (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Support As the proposer. Jon (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Proposal for prior events with no known reliable sources in which we have a reliable source for a later event 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  What happened to it? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pennsylvania Primary Stats 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Popular vote 

message: I mean, the ones in the first table. Can anybody control them? Thanks. 79.19.237.201 (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Are the totals wrong? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me. HoosierStateTalk 21:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I like it.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: I'm for it. Wrad (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Delegates needed to win 

message: Maybe put the row below the estimated total? Maybe shade the row differently than the other cells?
Candidates                                                                                                   	Candidates                                                                                                   	UncommittedExcept 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.	HillaryClinton	BarackObama	JohnEdwards
Grand total estimated delegates                                                                              	Grand total estimated delegates                                                                              	283                                                                                                                                                                                                                     	1,606½48%     	1,734½52%  	19<1%
Estimated delegates needed to win                                                                            	Estimated delegates needed to win                                                                            	-                                                                                                                                                                                                                       	417½          	289½       	-
Total estimated superdelegate endorsement, DCW estimates.(511 of 794, 64% of 20%)                            	Total estimated superdelegate endorsement, DCW estimates.(511 of 794, 64% of 20%)                            	283                                                                                                                                                                                                                     	26752%        	24448%     	0
(2,849 of 3,253, 88% of 80%)                                                                                 	(2,849 of 3,253, 88% of 80%)                                                                                 	0                                                                                                                                                                                                                       	1,339½47%     	1,490½52%  	19<1%
Total bound pledged delegatesSum of bound delegates in each contest in the table.(2,541 of 3,253, 78% of 80%)	Total bound pledged delegatesSum of bound delegates in each contest in the table.(2,541 of 3,253, 78% of 80%)	0                                                                                                                                                                                                                       	1,224½48%     	1,300½51%  	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)
thread_title:  Alternate version 1 

message: What about separating the subsections with a red line like the following?
Candidates                                                       	Candidates                                                       	Uncommitted	HillaryClinton	BarackObama	JohnEdwards					
Estimated delegates needed to win(2,024 needed)                  	Estimated delegates needed to win(2,024 needed)                  	-          	417½          	289½       	-          					
                                                                 	                                                                 	           	              	           	           					
Grand total estimated delegates                                  	Grand total estimated delegates                                  	283        	1,606½48%     	1,734½52%  	19<1%      					
Total estimated superdelegate endorsement(511 of 794, 64% of 20%)	Total estimated superdelegate endorsement(511 of 794, 64% of 20%)	283        	26752%        	24448%     	0          					
(2,849 of 3,253, 88% of 80%)                                     	(2,849 of 3,253, 88% of 80%)                                     	0          	1,339½47%     	1,490½52%  	19<1%      					
                                                                 	                                                                 	           	              	           	           					
Total bound pledged delegates(2,541 of 3,253, 78% of 80%)        	Total bound pledged delegates(2,541 of 3,253, 78% of 80%)        	0          	1,224½48%     	1,300½51%  	16<1%      					
--Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this version the most. Andareed (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup, me too. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is it. HoosierStateTalk 06:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Alternate version 2 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Graph of percentage over time 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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).
 (Seablade (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ½ Delegate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 2 of the Edwards New Hampshire delegates have decided to back Obama, I would update it but I'd just mess everything up.  HoosierStateTalk 16:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Nevermind I got it, hopefully I didn't make any mistakes. HoosierStateTalk 16:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any such changes should be coordinated with the respective state page. I have now done this.Agricolae (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I didn't even stop to think about the seperate page. HoosierStateTalk 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwards' Delegates 

message: 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)
thread_title: Highlighting cells

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  National totals table 

message: 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 () 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I've added a line of text explaining the sort arrows above the table. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-references in rows necessary? 

message: Updated the state-by-state for the Rules and Bylaws ruling  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)
replies: text: The nomination threshold changes also, right? Northwesterner1 (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules committee decision 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Counting Colorado in Popular Vote 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The math is broken

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Consensus Request on Florida

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 .  I'm glad that the numbers are sorted out now however. --Ross UK (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwards FL delegates to Obama 

message: 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)
replies: text: . "Delegates needed to win"-row is now cut out of the table. lil2mas (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Now that Obama is over the top 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delegate Counts 

message: Where are the numbers for other candidates now?  Richardson, etc...? 68.83.72.162 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Actual popular votes? Other candidates? 

message: None of the permutations in the table corresponds to the tallies given at Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008. I suggest harmonizing the two articles, either by adding the figures used on the other page to the table here with an explanation of how they were calculated, or by using the least controversial figures in the table on the other page. 37.205.58.146 (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular vote table