Talk:2008 Florida Democratic presidential primary

message: i added notes about it being fraudulent, do not revert unless proof is available to the contrary.  all internet sources point to it being fraudulent (lack of non-profit status, refrence in news, etc. )  The notes about it should be left alone though, to help those who have donated  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.231.76 (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with your conclusion that revote08 is fraudulent but do agree that there are zero news references, and only eight Google hits (nearly all from Wikipedia and blogs).  Whatever it is, it's not notable enough for inclusion on a Wikipedia article. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: revote08

message: Can someone cleanup the references in the "Delegate Controversy" section? It seems a bit excessive to have 7 references, with some of them repeating the same information and others being blogs/opinion sites.
*I think if we start removing the references, some of the statements made may no longer be fully supported. Feel free to be bold though.98.203.237.75 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um I'm not an American and frankly I don't really care that much which of the two idiots win. But it looks to me like you're wrong. According to  and the article she started to ask for Florida to be counted on the 25th. This appears to be while she was campaign in South Carolina which according to wikipedia had it's primary on the 26th. So your claim that she only did this after she lost South Carolina seems bull. Perhaps she thought she was going to win SC but it seems she hadn't actually lost it (and previous primaries/caucauses have shown how fickle polling can be). In reality, it wouldn't surprise me if Hillary is smarter then you seem to think. It could easily be more then just her realisation Florida would be an advantage to her. If she does win, she's going to need to convince Americans to vote for her as President. And let's not forget how important Florida was in 2000. If Florida hates the Democratic party for not counting their primaries votes, this is hardly going to be good for her. However she risks alienationg people in other states so by leaving it to the night before the SC primary, she would hope her comments don't influence SC voters too much but people can't claim (as you appear to have) she only did it because she lost SC. Indeed who knows if Barrack Obama wins and Hillary endorses him there's a fair chance her stance is going to help him a lot when it comes down to the presidential election particularly since he appears to have been smart enough to stay out of the conflict directly. And did Obama really ignore Michigin and Florida because he wanted to follow the rules or perhaps he had a good feeling he's do poorly there anyway so by convincing people to ignore their delegate votes and pretending he's just following the party rules (which as I've mentioned is liable to please people in other states) he get's a net benefit in both ways. Would he really have remained out if he was going to win for example? The reality is no one knows what's on their minds. Who knows perhaps they both drew straws and one agreed to be the good guy who'd please the Michigin & Florida voters so they wouldn't be screwed when it comes to the election and the other agreed to forsake these knowing full well it would benefit them in the primaries/caucauses. All we can report is what has been said and done. And this is all a bit OT but it really seems to me as if people are getting worked up about nothing and ignoring the complexity of the situation. Politicians are politicians, don't assume you know what's on their minds since you're probably wrong. P.S. Your claim that she campaigned for Florida also seems to be wrong, from what I can tell, she didn't campaign there she just said they should count which while obviously helped her a lot, is arguably not campaigning Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not passing a value judgement, I'm just noting the controversy, as documented in reliable sources. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delegate Controversy

message: Why does it say 100% of polls reporting when the polls have yet to open? The source links to CNN's results page which itself states that polls haven't open yet as it happens tomorrow.CoW mAnX (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The DNC removed Florida's delegates because the state moved up it's primary in an attempt to, presumably, get more national attention against the DNC's wishes. It's your constitutional right to vote in the general election but primary rules are set by the DNC which is why some primaries are open (anyone can vote) and some are closed (only registered members of the party may vote). As for the news I've been following CNN for the last month and a half and they often mention both Florida and Michigan, Wolf Blitzer in particular has been mentioning it quite a bit the last few days with the race so close.CoW mAnX (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is just the latest example of mainstream media discussing Florida: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/michigan.florida.voters/index.htmlCoW mAnX (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Results

message: I'm uncomfortable with the current wording of Florida Democratic primary, 2008#Obama campaign advertisement controversy.
# The date(s) the advertising ran in Florida as a result of the national television buy is not mentioned other than it must have been on or before February 5th.  I've heard it was during the Superbowl on February 3rd but was not able to locate a verifiable source for when the advertising actually ran. The references for this section are dated January 22, 23, and March 20 but none of them mention the date(s) the ad ran and for the January articles on if they had already run.
# The reference for the last part of this section is an anonymous blog.
#* The data used from this blog in the the wikipedia article seems "opinion" by the blog author rather than verifiable facts and that statements from this blog were distorted to make them appear more factual. Specifically:
#** "South Carolina did not consider the national cable buy" - The blog quotes the chair of the South Carolina Democratic party and it's not clear if she's stating personal option or was making an official statement on behalf of the South Carolina Democratic party.
#** "the other three deferred to South Carolina" - There was no comment cited in the blog from anyone in the other three states.  That's not the same as "deferred to South Carolina." 
#** The blog makes at least one factual error in stating "Florida is holding its Democratic and Republican primaries on Feb. 29" (the primary was on January 29th). While that seems like an honest mistake it shows that the author did not use the greatest care in citing and verifying his or her data.
#* I've reverted the most recent edit that contained data based on this blog and then ended up removing the blog reference entirely and replacing that sentence based on it to instead use data from an established news article. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Obama campaign advertisement controversy

message: The Dem Rules and Bylaws Committee decided to award ½ votes to Florida.  The actual numbers voted by the committee were 52½, 33½ & 6½. These are the numbers that are widely reported, but because Florida was off the radar, sources have yet to adjust their numbers for the Edwards delegates from Florida that have stated they will vote for Obama.  This is shown by the DCW Edwards Delegate page, which clearly indicates that 11 delegates (5½ delegate votes) remain with Edwards, and the remaining 2 (1 vote) have publicly declared for Obama. Hence the original 33½ & 6½ become 34½ and 5½. This is a more accurate set of numbers, derived in the same way as those in other states where Edwards delegates have been shifted to Obama. This is explained in the Delegates column footnote.  If you think it is unclear, then please make it more clear. If you think the endorsements of these Edwards delegates to Obama is invalid, I would like to hear why. Agricolae (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delegate numbers post R & B Committee decision

message: Full voting rights for Michigan and Florida were restored today. SkepticBanner (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Full voting rights restored

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Florida Democratic primary, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080129083901/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gR3WqJGTzfbQ71E5a1z5Jnp24O_gD8UD68I00 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gR3WqJGTzfbQ71E5a1z5Jnp24O_gD8UD68I00
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Florida Democratic primary, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1950
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029124120/http://select2008.com/ to http://www.select2008.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2008 Democrats Abroad primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 07:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress