![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The sum of total delegates for each states (including guam, puerto rico, samoa, dem abroad, virgin islands, DC) is not 4049, but 3997. 52 delegates are lacking... What's the problem? -- Subver ( talk) 19:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I found a lot of errors in the tables... i'm correcting following this http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml so that the sum is actually 4049. -- Subver ( talk) 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Done! I corrected a lot of errors in the tables! Now the sum is perfectly 4049! I've also added the 4 unassigned superdelegates in the last table. Enjoy :-) ! -- Subver ( talk) 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The top of the article says 4096. This isn't correct right? 128.113.113.125 ( talk) 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If total delegate count for required simple majority is 4048 (as shown in the article main page) why the sum of pledged, not assigned and remaining delegates does not add up to this number? We have 1591 for Obama, 1473.5 for Clinton, 26 for Edwards, 11.5 uncommitted, and 693 remaining. These add up to a total of 3795. A simple majority of these would be 1897.5 not 2024.5. Starzykj ( talk) 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's another tricky issue regarding the state results tables... The Iowa county conventions are coming up on March 15, and some of the projected Edwards delegates will likely defect to Obama or Clinton. To a lesser degree, this may occur in other states as the season goes on. How do we report this information? Do we provide an encyclopedic record of what happened in the initial round of caucuses? Or do we erase Edwards from history and keep a current delegate count that reflects changes in the delegate projections? Do we rely on footnotes to cover one of these two data points? Or do we find a way to do both in the tables? Do we wait to see what CBS does? Something to think about... Northwesterner1 ( talk) 11:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that consensus has been reached that Texas should have two table rows, shouldn't Washington state also have two rows? Of its 78 delegates, 51 are allocated on May 17, and 27 are allocated on June 15. I propose that:
Wdfarmer ( talk) 19:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Gravel dropped out of the race. take him of the list!-- 69.51.160.106 ( talk) 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to update the source for the "Pledged Delegate Votes Awarded" and "Pledged Delegate Votes Estimate by CBS" columns; I'd like to just pull the numbers from the individual primary articles.
I'll make a note similar to what is already on the above mentioned results page. Andareed ( talk) 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Consensus reached: pledged delegate estimates should now be consistent with individual state results articles, using the reliable sources at those articles. No consensus reached on whether to continue highlighting "states won" by primary vote. Status quo for now is primary vote. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 10:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that we're making the switch to using state wiki numbers, I'm taking a look at those articles for the first time. Maybe this is the wrong place to bring this up, but one thing I find lacking in the state templates is the cell for "not assigned yet" that we have here. I guess we can keep doing the math ourselves by subtracting from the total available delegates, but I find the "not assigned yet" column essential to understanding state results. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we need some work to uniform delegate counting on these pages. Firstly, in the past, I saw some pages with proportionally assigned delegates. I think this is not what we want. I don't know if there are still countings like that. Secondly, establish the best sources. In order I think they should be 1) official source when available (es. Texas primary); 2) NYT only when complete (no "not yet assigned"); 3) highest numbers among CBS,AP,CNN. I don't know if a similar discussion has been already done. (and obviously keep "not yet assigned" column"). -- Subver ( talk) 12:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Is ot 794 or 795? We've got both numbers in this article. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If Bill Foster beats Jim Oberweis in the special election today in IL-14, it'll go back up to 795. -- 63.95.36.13 ( talk) 21:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Now the single state pages, the Result page and the Primaries page are consistent. Please we'll maintain so :-) -- Subver ( talk) 17:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Bill Foster just won IL's 14th seat [2]. This changes the total, and considering the guy was endorsed by Obama (even doing commercials for him), I would think he would return the favor. I think there's some special elections in other places too soon, so that might change the total again. - Aknorals ( talk) 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm 90% sure that he is NOT a superdelagate., because he missed the deadline for qualifying. Please find a source.-- CastAStone //₵₳$↑₳ ₴₮ʘ№€ 19:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Last I heard, Puerto Rico had only proposed to move their date up a couple of weeks (and change from a Caucus to a Primary) and were awating DNC party approval before doing so (expected to take a month), so I think the PR edits were very much premature. Jon ( talk) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jSubRkepCz5lauZVfI1WLTp5gmegD8V8N5000 http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/07/politics/horserace/entry3917878.shtml http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0762582620080308?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/07/puerto_rico_democrats_seek_to.html
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/PR-D.phtml
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/07/oops-puerto-rico-primary-isnt-the-last/#comment-87330
( Seablade ( talk) 20:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
A significant and comprehensive discussion on the scope of both this page and the results page has begun at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Redistributing nomination results among the articles. Please contribute to this discussion as it could have ramifications for the content of this page as well. Thanks. -- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 10:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This article on Politico [4] indicates that Spitzer's resignation would drop the total superdeladate total by 1, as Spitzer would lose his Super status, Paterson, his replacement already has Super Status, and no one can fill the role of Lt. Gov in NY to fill Patersons spot.
So 4048 would become 4047. Assuming he drops. an FYI.-- CastAStone //₵₳$↑₳ ₴₮ʘ№€ 14:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think putting the page (33) of the DNC document in the footnotes was better. After each note is confusing...I'm reverting. If manual of style, or something similar say to do differently, please let me know. -- Subver ( talk) 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that both of the charts at the top of the page are necessary. The comparative number of delegates between states doesn't need to be rendered graphically. Also, its not helpful at all to group them geographically since the inherent size distortion messes up the layout so much. Also, you can barely tell which candidate won each state due to the size of the charts as a whole. The wording is too small to be easily readable, and no one would even be able to tell which color represents which candidate without cross-referencing the image below or viewing the full-size image. This info might be better displayed as a pie chart, w/ the total delegates of all the states together being the whole pie. I think that one or both of them should be deleted, or at the very least, moved to a less prominent location on the page. Michaelk08 ( talk) 19:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Added content relevant to the context of this event. It did not just happen in a vacuum. The Florida House Bill passed in 2007, (HB 537) was not even made with the express purpose of rescheduling ANYthing. It was made to mandate a paper trail for voting in Florida. Amendments were added during the legislative process, presumably so that other representatives could get things passed on the coat tails of something that had such popular support.
Whatever the case may be, all the content on the Florida primary in 2008 has made it sound like Florida was changing the date to be feisty or rebellious or for some random reason, when in fact, what you have is a bill co-sponsored by 20 Republicans and 6 Democrats, that was passed with a crap load of riders, ONE of which, changed the date for the primary.
So now this article reflects the context.
Antelope In Search Of Truth ( talk)
No need to spend millions for Florida's vote. The poeple have spoken and the party chose to ignore the outcom. We the poeple of Florida are getting used to be cheated out of their votes. Elders have fauth for the capability to vote and be able to have a vote on our future. I have taken the time and effort to go vote but the powers to be say that my vote does not count well I believe that the work of elders was in vein.
Thank you for reading these comments
Rolland of south Florida. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.196.77.91 (
talk)
22:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to get a decent article about Pennsylvania's democratic primary. I would appreciate any help! Pennsylvania state elections, 2008#Democratic Primary.-- RedShiftPA ( talk) 00:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
We have discussed this same issue at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Remove Gravel? as well. I'm not sure it's appropriate yet to portray Gravel as withdrawn on this article prior to any formal announcement. I notice the article Mike Gravel contains the statement "In March 2008, Gravel continued to remain in the Democratic race but additionally endorsed a Green Party candidate for president, Jesse Johnson." The assertion that he remains in the race isn't sourced, however. I could likewise find no sources that confirm he's withdrawn. Does endorsing another candidate necessarily equal withdrawal? Is this the same as Edwards' formal announcement that he's suspending his campaign? Or is it different? I don't know the answers here, but thought I'd at least pose the questions. -- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 08:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I know the discussion is very old and long. But I think this should resolve some edit-wars and bypass Gravel problem. Moreover there is a discrepancy in what has been done and what is written in the "summary of talk page consensus".-- Subver ( talk) 16:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
How about ordering by delegate count first, then by withdrawal date? Andareed ( talk) 20:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the largest consensus we can find is in the first proposal (with time limit). Ok? --
Subver (
talk)
23:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Now I think we all agree. About grey, for now I'm removing it only from Gravel.--
Subver (
talk)
23:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Though this matter has no direct effect on this article, I know that many of the editors here also edit Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. So, I thought I'd let you know that right now there is a significant vote taking place at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows about whether or not to overturn a previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should represent individual nominating events. The vote ends at the close of March 19, 2008 (UTC). The vote contains the negative-option that if there is a tie or fewer than 4 total signatures the previous consensus will prevail. I invite you to visit the talk page and submit your vote on the matter. Thanks! -- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 02:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The January table looks "messier" than the others because of all the parentheses and footnotes. It's become hard to read and is not a good introduction to the article. (The Super Tuesday table, by contrast, is much more clear.) I propose to split the table, leaving IA, NH, NV, and SC in the January section, but moving FL and MI to a new table under the "nullified primaries" section. My reasoning:
Any thoughts on what the Florida/Michigan table should look like? I can think of four ideas. There may be more...
Northwesterner1 ( talk) 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Done I made this change. Feel free to tweak it. We should probably also write some better content for the nullified section.
Northwesterner1 (
talk)
05:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Today DNC has updated the "Call to the Convention" PDF. I updated our data according the official sources (I checked all the states). Now many past changes are comprised into the new official numbers, so I'm removing the notes. Superdelegate number history can be found in the main article. -- Subver ( talk) 19:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
In order to be consistent with the results article, I propose to link each state's name to the article for the respective primary or caucus ( Iowa), instead of linking to the article for the state itself ( Iowa). The column "specific election link" would be renamed "Type" and wikilinks would be removed from that column. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 07:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Details | Nullified Votes to the Convention [1] [2] | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date | Event | Pledged Delegate Votes | Super- delegate Votes |
Total | |||
District-level | At-large | PLEO [3] | Total | ||||
January 15 | Michigan primary | 83 | 28 | 17 | 128 | 29 [4] | 157 |
January 29 | Florida primary | 121 | 40 | 24 | 185 | 26 [5] | 211 |
Total | - | 204 | 68 | 41 | 313 | 55 | 368 |
I implemented this change, using "Election link" as the title of the new column; it can be changed later if desired. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added narrative sections to fill out the chronicle, trying to be consistent with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I think it's important to have those sections in there to give the reader a sense of the general contours an turning points in the race, but I fear they may be a target for some POV drive-by editing. I would appreciate any help I can get in sourcing and citing the things that are still not referenced and keeping an eye on the article to be sure that all edits are NPOV. (I'd also appreciate you fixing my own POV when you catch it.) Thanks! Northwesterner1 ( talk) 21:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I fixed it. The previous link brought a probably fake error message —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.251.165 ( talk) 02:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This article has evolved into quite a good, mature article. However the article is also starting to get a bit long. It is currently 90 kilobytes. We might want to start looking for ways to shorten it following the guidelines at WP:SIZE and WP:SS. We could spin off some sections into daughter articles. The longest top-level sections are "Delegate system" and "Chronicle", though I am loath to spin off the entire "Chronicle" section. We might be able to spin off some second-level sections, particularly "Nullified primaries" (though I'd want to retain that section's table in this article as a good summary of what we might include in a "Democratic Party (United States) nullified primaries, 2008" daughter article). We could also move some content into already-existing daughter articles. The "Superdelegates" and "Super Tuesday" sections might be good candidates for this.
Given the breadth and size of our subject matter and the fact that this article already has an array of daughter articles, we might instead want to consider an article series structure with this article as the "overview article". If we consider that kind of structure, we should keep in mind that we already have several navigational boxes listed at the bottom of this article, two of which specifically cover the 2008 primaries/elections. For quick reference and as an aid to our discussion, here's a list of all the articles currently called out in this article using {{main}} and {{see also}}:
Whatever the case, let's not rush off into deleting stuff or embarking on major restructuring efforts before discussing our best options a little bit first in this section. Also, if you can think of options for shortening this article that I haven't listed above, please speak up. -- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph goes at length to explain Hillary still has a chance to pick up more superdelegates than Obama. As per NPOV and given there is a WaPo article to back up this scenario I won't argue with this statement.
However, since a favorable outcome for Hillary in the struggle for superdelegate endorsements is presented it's unfortunate there is no counter-point that talks about the reluctance of letting superdelegates going against the results of the popular vote, as for example stated by Nancy Pelosi. Hence, only Hillary's POV is presented and not Obama's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.190.8 ( talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The Secretary of State came out with final official results in the Missippi primary the link is confusing because it breaks down county by county results but the end result of the election is that Obama - 265,502 and Clinton - 159,221 vote totals. That gives Obama a heads-up 62.512% victory, which WILL switch another state-wide at-large delegate to him making the mississippi delegate count 20 obama and 13 for clinton. The source for this data was here http://www.sos.state.ms.us/elections/2008/Primary/Democratic.asp I went ahead and made the change if this is against protocol for this page please feel free to revert but please explain why? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.78.88 ( talk) 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
In an effort to standardize the superdelegate numbers across the article series, I have begun a conversation at Talk:List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008#Switch to Democratic Convention Watch that may interest some editors of this article. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
An editor recently added a photo of participants in Washington State's 43rd Legislative District caucuses to the April and beyond section of this article. I disagree with this editor about the appropriateness of that particular photo to this article. I'd prefer that the photo be replaced with one that depicts a more significant "April and beyond" event, or at least one from that event that depicts something more meaningful than people sitting in bleachers.
However, I do agree with this editor's point that the article could use more photos to improve its appearance. There are long sections of this article containing only text and tables (Delegate system and Chronicle) that could be made more visually appealing with some well-chosen photos to illustrate or expand on some of the significant information conveyed by the text. I'm not especially proficient with Wikipedia images. Anyone care to help out with this? -- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 06:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Should the complaint against McCain with the FEC be incorporated in this article?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-u3WbiCcQ8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 ( talk) 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sunday Afternoon on Fox News, I heard something about hundreds Obama's delegates in CA having been restored (after having previously been stripped). Unfortunately their explanation was preempted by a Clinton speech just starting so I don't know the details, but it seems to be that as soon as there is a cite it might be worth mentioning in the narrative. Jon ( talk) 17:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In the past two days, two three separate editors have
added an infobox to the top of the article without an edit summary. I have reverted each time with an edit summary. I believe the infobox duplicates information found elsewhere in the article and produces a topheavy layout. I'm assuming the editors are introducing the infobox to a series of presidential primary articles and find it helpful to have a standard layout across that series. I don't believe, however, that it is appropriate for this article. Reasons:
I might support some use of this template after the primaries are over to increase standardization with other primary articles, but I think at the moment it is inappropriate. What do others think? Northwesterner1 ( talk) 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Reasons to include: The Popular vote is not mentioned within the article at all. The chart with the candidates' picture just gives delegate summaries. As Wikipedia is meant to be an online easy to obtain resource, there should be some way to link between past and current primaries, and the info box is the best way to do that. Also, the info box does not take up as much space as some editors claim. ( talk) 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
PA numbers needs reverted back; state article using CBS News rather than CNN; primarily becase CBS News projeting a whole lot more than CNN at this point. I'd do it myself, except I would be in violation of 3RR. Jon ( talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Do any countries besides the United States have presidential primary elections? Do we really need the parenthetical disambiguation? john k ( talk) 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Another editor (Patstuart) and I have a disagreement about the voter turnout map, Image:2008 Presidential Parties, Democratic Voter Turnout.png. To my knowledge, this is the only article that uses the map, so I thought I would bring the discussion here for additional opinions. There are two points of disagreement. First, I feel the map should show only those states in which both parties voted prior to March 4, when John McCain clinched the Republican nomination. Patstuart feels that a comparison for later states is still valid because of local races. However, I believe turnout in the Republican primaries is negatively affected by the lack of a competitive race in states after March 4 at the presidential level, so the comparison with Democratic turnout is not useful. The second point of disagreement is the use of map symbols to indicate Florida's and Michigan's special status. I feel the current caption indicates that just fine without impacting the map visuals. Further, the map legend is so small that the symbols on Florida, Michigan, and Mississippi can't be read without clicking on the image. Better to do this work in the caption. Can we get a third opinion, please? Northwesterner1 ( talk) 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sensitive to concerns of US-centrism, but is there another Democratic Party having presidential primaries in 2008? If so, why wasn't Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008 a disambiguation page? It's now a redirect to this page, courtesy of myself, and I think it might make sense if this page was moved there. If there is a genuine concern of confusion, I will retract this request. François Metro ( talk) 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but calling the Democratic Primaries "The Long, Flat, Seemingly Endless Bataan Death Match to the White House," while referencing Jon Stewart, while reality-based, is probably irreverent, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.173.243 ( talk) 08:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
THERE IS A MAJOR FACTUAL ERROR IN THIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE. THE POPULAR VOTE MAP HAS OHIO SHADED IN THE COLOR OF A CLINTON WIN, BUT BY LESS THAN 10%. ACTUALLY, ACCORDING TO REAL CLEAR POLITICS AND EVERY OTHER MAJOR NEWS OUTLET HAVE REPORTED THAT CLINTON WON OHIO BY 10.4%. THIS MEANS THAT OHIO IN THE POPULAR VOTE MAP SHOULD BE SHADED IN SUCH A WAY THAT SHOWS CLINTON WON IT BY OVER 10%. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifixer990 ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Need to work something out on this. He was counted as one of the party leaders assigned as a pledged delegate, not as a superdelegate. According to the Clinton camp, pledged delegates are entitled to switch. " Pr. George's Executive Switches To Obama", Washington Post, May 13, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.160.136.186 ( talk) 14:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: What happens to Edwards 19 pledged delegates? Do they remain with him, or do they transfer to Obama? What do we do with the percentages currently appearing in the table? Do we continue to calculate the numbers for all three delegates, or do we include Edwards' 19 in Obama's number? - FeralDruid ( talk) 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
DCW says 10 Edwards delegates have switched to Obama, and that they're working with Green Papers for an update. - FeralDruid ( talk) 21:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Several recent developments have led us to inconsistent practices in how we record changes to the pledged delegate numbers in the "Chronicle" tables in the main article, as well as in the results article and associated articles. Discussion on this talk page and in the edit summaries has been a little scattered. I think it might be useful to focus our attention on how to record delegate changes. This conversation is intended to deal with changes in the main article only, but the principles established here may guide formatting decisions on other articles.
Potential changes to pledged delegate estimates include changes for the following reasons:
Methods for indicating these changes in the Chronicle tables include:
Methods for indicating these changes in the top-level summary table include:
We also should consider what to do about the pledged delegate maps:
Northwesterner1 ( talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(A) changes would continue to be reflected in the first column.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Northwesterner1 ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 15 May 15 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>Thanks for the support & for the caution about article creep. We should bear this in mind going forward (and perhaps reorganize the article series after all is said and done). How do others feel about the alternative solution below -- which involves simplifying the tables by deleting some information? Northwesterner1 ( talk) 19:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Done - I implemented the alternative solution below to record changes of B, C, and D types. A separate column is provided for notes.
Northwesterner1 (
talk)
09:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Parentheses solution
This is what currently appears in the article.
Details | Votes to the Convention [10] | Pledged Delegate Votes Estimate [11] | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date | Election link | Pledged Delegate Votes | Super- delegate Votes |
Total | Obama | Clinton | Edwards | |||
District-level | At-large | PLEO [3] | Total | |||||||
January 3 | Iowa caucuses | 29 | 10 | 6 | 45 | 12 | 57 | 25 (16) [12] | 14 (15) | 6 (14) |
January 8 | New Hampshire primary | 14 | 5 | 3 | 22 | 8 | 30 | 10 (9) [13] | 9 | 3 (4) |
January 19 | Nevada caucuses | 16 | 6 | 3 | 25 | 9 | 34 | 13 | 12 | 0 |
January 26 | South Carolina primary | 29 | 10 | 6 | 45 | 9 | 54 | 31 (25) [14] | 12 | 2 (8) |
- | Total | 88 | 31 | 18 | 137 | 38 | 175 | 79 | 47 | 11 |
Solution proposed by Northwesterner1
Table headers and other aspects of the design could be tweaked, of course.
Details | Votes to the Convention [10] | Election Result Pledged Delegate Votes [15] |
Current Estimate Pledged Delegate Votes | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date | Election link | Pledged Delegate Votes | Super- delegate Votes |
Total | Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Notes | |||
District-level | At-large | PLEO [3] | Total | |||||||||||
January 3 | Iowa caucuses | 29 | 10 | 6 | 45 | 12 | 57 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 25 | 14 | 6 | [12] |
January 8 | New Hampshire primary | 14 | 5 | 3 | 22 | 8 | 30 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 10 | 9 | 3 | [13] |
January 19 | Nevada caucuses | 16 | 6 | 3 | 25 | 9 | 34 | 13 | 12 | 0 | 13 | 12 | 0 | |
January 26 | South Carolina primary | 29 | 10 | 6 | 45 | 9 | 54 | 25 | 12 | 8 | 31 | 12 | 2 | [14] |
- | Total | 88 | 31 | 18 | 137 | 38 | 175 | 63 | 48 | 26 | 79 | 47 | 11 |
Alternative solution
If the above solution makes the table too complex, we could remove some information. I believe it is more important to show the original election results and the current pledged delegate estimate than it is to show the breakdown of pledged delegates into district-level, PLEO, and at-large delegates, according to the party rules. We could relegate this information to state articles, or we could delete it from the encyclopedia entirely (pointing the reader to the party rules to provide further detail if needed).
Details | Delegate Votes to the Convention | Pledged Delegate Vote Count [16] | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Election Results | Current Estimate | ||||||||||
Date | Election link | Pledged | Super | Total | Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Notes |
January 3 | Iowa caucuses | 45 | 12 | 57 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 25 | 14 | 6 | [12] |
January 8 | New Hampshire primary | 22 | 8 | 30 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 10 | 9 | 3 | [13] |
January 19 | Nevada caucuses | 25 | 9 | 34 | 13 | 12 | 0 | 13 | 12 | 0 | |
January 26 | South Carolina primary | 45 | 9 | 54 | 25 | 12 | 8 | 31 | 12 | 2 | [14] |
- | Total | 137 | 38 | 175 | 63 | 48 | 26 | 79 | 47 | 11 |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Northwesterner1 ( talk • contribs) 09:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the discussion above...
The results article currently highlights cells based on the winner of the delegate count, while the main article highlights cells based on the winner of the popular vote. Should we standardize this across the articles, and if so, what should the standard be? Northwesterner1 ( talk) 20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like an emerging consensus for highlighting cells by delegate count, with four comments in support and none against, but as we are "overruling" a previous consensus on this decision, I suggest we wait several days to see if other opinions materialize. How about May 21 as a cutoff date for discussion on this issue? Northwesterner1 ( talk) 21:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Secondary question... If we decide to highlight cells by winner of delegate count, should we highlight the cell in the initial "election result" column, or should we highlight the "current estimate" column? This is already an issue in NH and could become an issue in later states. ( Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries has adopted the latter practice.) Northwesterner1 ( talk) 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Details | Delegate Votes to the Convention | Pledged Delegate Vote Count [17] | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Election Result | Change notes |
Current Estimate | |||||||||
Date | Election link | Pledged | Super | Total | Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Obama | Clinton | Edwards | |
January 3 | Iowa caucuses | 45 | 12 | 57 | 16 | 15 | 14 | [12] | 26 | 14 | 5 |
January 8 | New Hampshire primary | 22 | 8 | 30 | 9 | 9 | 4 | [13] | 10 | 9 | 3 |
January 19 | Nevada caucuses | 25 | 9 | 34 | 13 | 12 | 0 | [18] | 14 | 11 | 0 |
January 26 | South Carolina primary | 45 | 9 | 54 | 25 | 12 | 8 | [14] | 32 | 12 | 1 |
- | Total | 137 | 38 | 175 | 63 | 48 | 26 | 82 | 46 | 9 |
Works for me. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it okay if I could put an infobox:election template with only Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton since they are only the two candidates who won delegates and states and territories Rizalninoynapoleon ( talk) 08:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Both CNN & CBS are saying that 2026 votes (and not 2025) are needed to win; presumbably as a result of MS-1 special election where a Democrat won a seat that was previously held by a Republican and the new congressman now being a super delegate because last Tuesday their number was 2025. I think the superdelegate total, the overall total, and the # of delegates needed to win all need adjusted on this page, the details page, and the super delegate page. Jon ( talk) 13:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just curious why not use the wikipedia article with superdelegate information? If we pull the state results from other articles why not the supers? AWatiker ( talk) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding data into the April and beyond section, commenting on the Obama rally in Portland. I've seen comments on a couple of right-wing sites, and heard a call to Lou Dobbs' radio program, pushing the fact that it wasn't Obama who drew the crowd, but the band. I mention this here to point out that the band's web site lists the event as an Obama Rally. - FeralDruid ( talk) 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
A little extra background on the nullified primaries would be helpful. I'm European, and a lot of people here are puzzled over why the Florida legislature changed the date of the primary. I understand why they wanted an earlier date, but I don't understand why the legislature intervened -- apparently without anyone protesting -- in what is surely an internal matter for the Democratic party? 86.137.233.32 ( talk) 09:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
70.22.47.140 ( talk) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I will put a infobox with the images of the two candidates who have won states (Obama & Clinton) Rizalninoynapoleon ( talk) 13:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a Consensus! I don't give a damn what you guys say, every page from 1956 has had an infobox, the 2008 page has absolutely no right to create problems by being the only Democratic primary election without an election infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.143.32 ( talk) 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Florida: Delegation seated, given half votes.
Michigan: Delegation seated, given half votes. Obama: 59 half votes Clinton: 69 half votes 71.204.28.184 ( talk) 23:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As I understand the RBC decision, the entire delegation of MI and FL have been seated, but these delegates will have a half a vote.
As the number of "delegates" are updated it appears that the article (and many news sources) are only counting half the amount of delegates. But it is not clear that this is technically correct.
In other words, Mrs. Smith from MI get seated as a delegate but with only half a vote. Mrs. Smith is not half a delegate; she is a delegate (add 1 to "delegate" count), but she only gets a half vote (add half to "vote" count).
Do the DNC rules say "a majority of delegates" is required to win or "a majority of votes cast" is required?
Even if there were no controversy about half votes, do you count the guys in the bar who miss the voted and failed to give a proxy to someone as part of the total vote (a present vote being different from failure to vote)? 70.22.47.140 ( talk) 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it help a lot to understand the current situation with the contested Florida and Michigan primaries if there was an explanation as to why the election dates were changed in those states? Why were they changed, who was behind the decision to change them, what was the logic behind the change, were the Democrats in those states lobbying for the change, were the democrats in those states opposed to the change - or even in a position to stop the change? And why are these questions not covered or explored by the political news media?
Why does the Democratic National Committee even set hard rules for the dates of these primaries when it's the legislatures of individual states that ultimately controls when those primaries are held? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.143.243 ( talk) 15:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
ONE place for discussing the rational of the date-changes is at the state-level wiki articles - but that is really not happening (at least not for the FL entry).
But the logic or rational for why the National Democratic Party is penalizing one of it's state-level chapters for a decision that wasn't within it's control ->DOES<- belong here.
We will never know how the Obama and Clinton delegate count would have unfolded had the Michigan and Florida elections were held on their authorized dates - or if the candidates had been allowed to run full campaigns in those states if the national DNC would have recognized the stupidity of penalizing those states by revoking their ability to elect delegates.
So what does this mean for future presidential races?
Will republican-controlled state legislatures be allowed (as they did this time) to play havok with future Democratic primaries - and vice-versa?
Will the DNC continue to stupidly penalize itself in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.143.243 ( talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A discussion now taking place at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details could provide a precedent for changing this article (there is already talk in that discussion about changing other articles). With that in mind, I'm hoping editors of this article will consider participating in that discussion (which may close soon).
Some editors think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Something similar is done in this article with a brief mention of Jeremiah Wright, although I saw nothing on other associates mentioned in the campaign. Examples of both Republicans and Democrats:
Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles that cover campaign issues adequately should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles. Noroton ( talk) 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The Party is the "Democrat" party, not the "Democratic" party. The word "Democratic" is a description of a process. This error has been in our society so long that now it even finds it's way into our encyclopedias. ;) 68.177.12.38 ( talk) 12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ted
I noticed this morning this page now has a direct link on the main page in the news section. Jon ( talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The Democratic Convention Watch blog no longer updates the super delegate count Demcon source
Does anyone know of a substitute? I'm guessing the counter on Obamas own site isn't neutral enough... Results on the Obama site 192.38.37.78 ( talk) 09:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
All right, folks, dut to popular demand, we'll do a quick endorsement list this evening. We won't be updating our tables, but we'll include new numbers within the post. Thanks for all the appreciation today. - Matt
The need for a replacement source is real enough, at least after HRC's supporting/concession speech Saturday. It would be nice if we knew what source to use by then. Skummelt mælk ( talk) 05:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Three thoughts.
Northwesterner1 ( talk) 05:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we add a section on "Gender and Race" to this article. More than anything, these topics are what make the 2008 Democratic primary unique and notable. In fact, historic. The article currently mentions race with references to Bill Clinton's comments, Jeremiah Wright's comments, and a reference to "racially-charged comments " in the "Super Tuesday" section. No mention of gender is present.
Starting points for a description of the role of gender in this primary might be the following:
And, hopefully with a neutral point of view, comments by Obama himself:
I realize this is a controversial topic and one which many will have emotional and biased feelings toward. However, gender and race are the two most important aspects of this primary. The candidates' positions on the issues are nearly identical. The article should reflect this. Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 23:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see the point of the voter turn out section, I propose removing it. -- Bigvinu ( talk) 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to change the page to have an election infobox like every Democratic primary page from 1956-2004. There can be no differences in the pages. The 2008 Primaries should not be treated differently than Wikipedia has treated the other elections. The other big democratic priamry page (2004) also has this. Please reach a consensus of allowing an election infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I say we should come down to a vote: All who favor
Okay, I'm not a big fan of the new maps, but I do recognize the rationale behind them in terms of accessibility (removing the legend from the image). One drawback, however, is the large vertical size. Can we please find a different place within the article for these images? Or should we delete them from this article and point readers instead to the results article? For users with 1024-pixel and narrower screen widths (the majority of users, I believe), the maps don't fit beside the candidates and results table. If you have a larger screen, try making your browser window smaller, and you'll see what I mean. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 16:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Dem call
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The sum of total delegates for each states (including guam, puerto rico, samoa, dem abroad, virgin islands, DC) is not 4049, but 3997. 52 delegates are lacking... What's the problem? -- Subver ( talk) 19:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I found a lot of errors in the tables... i'm correcting following this http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml so that the sum is actually 4049. -- Subver ( talk) 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Done! I corrected a lot of errors in the tables! Now the sum is perfectly 4049! I've also added the 4 unassigned superdelegates in the last table. Enjoy :-) ! -- Subver ( talk) 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The top of the article says 4096. This isn't correct right? 128.113.113.125 ( talk) 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If total delegate count for required simple majority is 4048 (as shown in the article main page) why the sum of pledged, not assigned and remaining delegates does not add up to this number? We have 1591 for Obama, 1473.5 for Clinton, 26 for Edwards, 11.5 uncommitted, and 693 remaining. These add up to a total of 3795. A simple majority of these would be 1897.5 not 2024.5. Starzykj ( talk) 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's another tricky issue regarding the state results tables... The Iowa county conventions are coming up on March 15, and some of the projected Edwards delegates will likely defect to Obama or Clinton. To a lesser degree, this may occur in other states as the season goes on. How do we report this information? Do we provide an encyclopedic record of what happened in the initial round of caucuses? Or do we erase Edwards from history and keep a current delegate count that reflects changes in the delegate projections? Do we rely on footnotes to cover one of these two data points? Or do we find a way to do both in the tables? Do we wait to see what CBS does? Something to think about... Northwesterner1 ( talk) 11:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that consensus has been reached that Texas should have two table rows, shouldn't Washington state also have two rows? Of its 78 delegates, 51 are allocated on May 17, and 27 are allocated on June 15. I propose that:
Wdfarmer ( talk) 19:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Gravel dropped out of the race. take him of the list!-- 69.51.160.106 ( talk) 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to update the source for the "Pledged Delegate Votes Awarded" and "Pledged Delegate Votes Estimate by CBS" columns; I'd like to just pull the numbers from the individual primary articles.
I'll make a note similar to what is already on the above mentioned results page. Andareed ( talk) 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Consensus reached: pledged delegate estimates should now be consistent with individual state results articles, using the reliable sources at those articles. No consensus reached on whether to continue highlighting "states won" by primary vote. Status quo for now is primary vote. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 10:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that we're making the switch to using state wiki numbers, I'm taking a look at those articles for the first time. Maybe this is the wrong place to bring this up, but one thing I find lacking in the state templates is the cell for "not assigned yet" that we have here. I guess we can keep doing the math ourselves by subtracting from the total available delegates, but I find the "not assigned yet" column essential to understanding state results. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we need some work to uniform delegate counting on these pages. Firstly, in the past, I saw some pages with proportionally assigned delegates. I think this is not what we want. I don't know if there are still countings like that. Secondly, establish the best sources. In order I think they should be 1) official source when available (es. Texas primary); 2) NYT only when complete (no "not yet assigned"); 3) highest numbers among CBS,AP,CNN. I don't know if a similar discussion has been already done. (and obviously keep "not yet assigned" column"). -- Subver ( talk) 12:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Is ot 794 or 795? We've got both numbers in this article. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If Bill Foster beats Jim Oberweis in the special election today in IL-14, it'll go back up to 795. -- 63.95.36.13 ( talk) 21:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Now the single state pages, the Result page and the Primaries page are consistent. Please we'll maintain so :-) -- Subver ( talk) 17:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Bill Foster just won IL's 14th seat [2]. This changes the total, and considering the guy was endorsed by Obama (even doing commercials for him), I would think he would return the favor. I think there's some special elections in other places too soon, so that might change the total again. - Aknorals ( talk) 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm 90% sure that he is NOT a superdelagate., because he missed the deadline for qualifying. Please find a source.-- CastAStone //₵₳$↑₳ ₴₮ʘ№€ 19:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Last I heard, Puerto Rico had only proposed to move their date up a couple of weeks (and change from a Caucus to a Primary) and were awating DNC party approval before doing so (expected to take a month), so I think the PR edits were very much premature. Jon ( talk) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jSubRkepCz5lauZVfI1WLTp5gmegD8V8N5000 http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/07/politics/horserace/entry3917878.shtml http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0762582620080308?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/07/puerto_rico_democrats_seek_to.html
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/PR-D.phtml
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/07/oops-puerto-rico-primary-isnt-the-last/#comment-87330
( Seablade ( talk) 20:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
A significant and comprehensive discussion on the scope of both this page and the results page has begun at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Redistributing nomination results among the articles. Please contribute to this discussion as it could have ramifications for the content of this page as well. Thanks. -- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 10:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This article on Politico [4] indicates that Spitzer's resignation would drop the total superdeladate total by 1, as Spitzer would lose his Super status, Paterson, his replacement already has Super Status, and no one can fill the role of Lt. Gov in NY to fill Patersons spot.
So 4048 would become 4047. Assuming he drops. an FYI.-- CastAStone //₵₳$↑₳ ₴₮ʘ№€ 14:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think putting the page (33) of the DNC document in the footnotes was better. After each note is confusing...I'm reverting. If manual of style, or something similar say to do differently, please let me know. -- Subver ( talk) 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that both of the charts at the top of the page are necessary. The comparative number of delegates between states doesn't need to be rendered graphically. Also, its not helpful at all to group them geographically since the inherent size distortion messes up the layout so much. Also, you can barely tell which candidate won each state due to the size of the charts as a whole. The wording is too small to be easily readable, and no one would even be able to tell which color represents which candidate without cross-referencing the image below or viewing the full-size image. This info might be better displayed as a pie chart, w/ the total delegates of all the states together being the whole pie. I think that one or both of them should be deleted, or at the very least, moved to a less prominent location on the page. Michaelk08 ( talk) 19:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Added content relevant to the context of this event. It did not just happen in a vacuum. The Florida House Bill passed in 2007, (HB 537) was not even made with the express purpose of rescheduling ANYthing. It was made to mandate a paper trail for voting in Florida. Amendments were added during the legislative process, presumably so that other representatives could get things passed on the coat tails of something that had such popular support.
Whatever the case may be, all the content on the Florida primary in 2008 has made it sound like Florida was changing the date to be feisty or rebellious or for some random reason, when in fact, what you have is a bill co-sponsored by 20 Republicans and 6 Democrats, that was passed with a crap load of riders, ONE of which, changed the date for the primary.
So now this article reflects the context.
Antelope In Search Of Truth ( talk)
No need to spend millions for Florida's vote. The poeple have spoken and the party chose to ignore the outcom. We the poeple of Florida are getting used to be cheated out of their votes. Elders have fauth for the capability to vote and be able to have a vote on our future. I have taken the time and effort to go vote but the powers to be say that my vote does not count well I believe that the work of elders was in vein.
Thank you for reading these comments
Rolland of south Florida. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.196.77.91 (
talk)
22:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to get a decent article about Pennsylvania's democratic primary. I would appreciate any help! Pennsylvania state elections, 2008#Democratic Primary.-- RedShiftPA ( talk) 00:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
We have discussed this same issue at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Remove Gravel? as well. I'm not sure it's appropriate yet to portray Gravel as withdrawn on this article prior to any formal announcement. I notice the article Mike Gravel contains the statement "In March 2008, Gravel continued to remain in the Democratic race but additionally endorsed a Green Party candidate for president, Jesse Johnson." The assertion that he remains in the race isn't sourced, however. I could likewise find no sources that confirm he's withdrawn. Does endorsing another candidate necessarily equal withdrawal? Is this the same as Edwards' formal announcement that he's suspending his campaign? Or is it different? I don't know the answers here, but thought I'd at least pose the questions. -- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 08:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I know the discussion is very old and long. But I think this should resolve some edit-wars and bypass Gravel problem. Moreover there is a discrepancy in what has been done and what is written in the "summary of talk page consensus".-- Subver ( talk) 16:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
How about ordering by delegate count first, then by withdrawal date? Andareed ( talk) 20:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the largest consensus we can find is in the first proposal (with time limit). Ok? --
Subver (
talk)
23:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Now I think we all agree. About grey, for now I'm removing it only from Gravel.--
Subver (
talk)
23:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Though this matter has no direct effect on this article, I know that many of the editors here also edit Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. So, I thought I'd let you know that right now there is a significant vote taking place at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows about whether or not to overturn a previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should represent individual nominating events. The vote ends at the close of March 19, 2008 (UTC). The vote contains the negative-option that if there is a tie or fewer than 4 total signatures the previous consensus will prevail. I invite you to visit the talk page and submit your vote on the matter. Thanks! -- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 02:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The January table looks "messier" than the others because of all the parentheses and footnotes. It's become hard to read and is not a good introduction to the article. (The Super Tuesday table, by contrast, is much more clear.) I propose to split the table, leaving IA, NH, NV, and SC in the January section, but moving FL and MI to a new table under the "nullified primaries" section. My reasoning:
Any thoughts on what the Florida/Michigan table should look like? I can think of four ideas. There may be more...
Northwesterner1 ( talk) 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Done I made this change. Feel free to tweak it. We should probably also write some better content for the nullified section.
Northwesterner1 (
talk)
05:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Today DNC has updated the "Call to the Convention" PDF. I updated our data according the official sources (I checked all the states). Now many past changes are comprised into the new official numbers, so I'm removing the notes. Superdelegate number history can be found in the main article. -- Subver ( talk) 19:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
In order to be consistent with the results article, I propose to link each state's name to the article for the respective primary or caucus ( Iowa), instead of linking to the article for the state itself ( Iowa). The column "specific election link" would be renamed "Type" and wikilinks would be removed from that column. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 07:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Details | Nullified Votes to the Convention [1] [2] | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date | Event | Pledged Delegate Votes | Super- delegate Votes |
Total | |||
District-level | At-large | PLEO [3] | Total | ||||
January 15 | Michigan primary | 83 | 28 | 17 | 128 | 29 [4] | 157 |
January 29 | Florida primary | 121 | 40 | 24 | 185 | 26 [5] | 211 |
Total | - | 204 | 68 | 41 | 313 | 55 | 368 |
I implemented this change, using "Election link" as the title of the new column; it can be changed later if desired. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added narrative sections to fill out the chronicle, trying to be consistent with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I think it's important to have those sections in there to give the reader a sense of the general contours an turning points in the race, but I fear they may be a target for some POV drive-by editing. I would appreciate any help I can get in sourcing and citing the things that are still not referenced and keeping an eye on the article to be sure that all edits are NPOV. (I'd also appreciate you fixing my own POV when you catch it.) Thanks! Northwesterner1 ( talk) 21:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I fixed it. The previous link brought a probably fake error message —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.251.165 ( talk) 02:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This article has evolved into quite a good, mature article. However the article is also starting to get a bit long. It is currently 90 kilobytes. We might want to start looking for ways to shorten it following the guidelines at WP:SIZE and WP:SS. We could spin off some sections into daughter articles. The longest top-level sections are "Delegate system" and "Chronicle", though I am loath to spin off the entire "Chronicle" section. We might be able to spin off some second-level sections, particularly "Nullified primaries" (though I'd want to retain that section's table in this article as a good summary of what we might include in a "Democratic Party (United States) nullified primaries, 2008" daughter article). We could also move some content into already-existing daughter articles. The "Superdelegates" and "Super Tuesday" sections might be good candidates for this.
Given the breadth and size of our subject matter and the fact that this article already has an array of daughter articles, we might instead want to consider an article series structure with this article as the "overview article". If we consider that kind of structure, we should keep in mind that we already have several navigational boxes listed at the bottom of this article, two of which specifically cover the 2008 primaries/elections. For quick reference and as an aid to our discussion, here's a list of all the articles currently called out in this article using {{main}} and {{see also}}:
Whatever the case, let's not rush off into deleting stuff or embarking on major restructuring efforts before discussing our best options a little bit first in this section. Also, if you can think of options for shortening this article that I haven't listed above, please speak up. -- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph goes at length to explain Hillary still has a chance to pick up more superdelegates than Obama. As per NPOV and given there is a WaPo article to back up this scenario I won't argue with this statement.
However, since a favorable outcome for Hillary in the struggle for superdelegate endorsements is presented it's unfortunate there is no counter-point that talks about the reluctance of letting superdelegates going against the results of the popular vote, as for example stated by Nancy Pelosi. Hence, only Hillary's POV is presented and not Obama's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.190.8 ( talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The Secretary of State came out with final official results in the Missippi primary the link is confusing because it breaks down county by county results but the end result of the election is that Obama - 265,502 and Clinton - 159,221 vote totals. That gives Obama a heads-up 62.512% victory, which WILL switch another state-wide at-large delegate to him making the mississippi delegate count 20 obama and 13 for clinton. The source for this data was here http://www.sos.state.ms.us/elections/2008/Primary/Democratic.asp I went ahead and made the change if this is against protocol for this page please feel free to revert but please explain why? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.78.88 ( talk) 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
In an effort to standardize the superdelegate numbers across the article series, I have begun a conversation at Talk:List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008#Switch to Democratic Convention Watch that may interest some editors of this article. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
An editor recently added a photo of participants in Washington State's 43rd Legislative District caucuses to the April and beyond section of this article. I disagree with this editor about the appropriateness of that particular photo to this article. I'd prefer that the photo be replaced with one that depicts a more significant "April and beyond" event, or at least one from that event that depicts something more meaningful than people sitting in bleachers.
However, I do agree with this editor's point that the article could use more photos to improve its appearance. There are long sections of this article containing only text and tables (Delegate system and Chronicle) that could be made more visually appealing with some well-chosen photos to illustrate or expand on some of the significant information conveyed by the text. I'm not especially proficient with Wikipedia images. Anyone care to help out with this? -- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 06:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Should the complaint against McCain with the FEC be incorporated in this article?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-u3WbiCcQ8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 ( talk) 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sunday Afternoon on Fox News, I heard something about hundreds Obama's delegates in CA having been restored (after having previously been stripped). Unfortunately their explanation was preempted by a Clinton speech just starting so I don't know the details, but it seems to be that as soon as there is a cite it might be worth mentioning in the narrative. Jon ( talk) 17:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In the past two days, two three separate editors have
added an infobox to the top of the article without an edit summary. I have reverted each time with an edit summary. I believe the infobox duplicates information found elsewhere in the article and produces a topheavy layout. I'm assuming the editors are introducing the infobox to a series of presidential primary articles and find it helpful to have a standard layout across that series. I don't believe, however, that it is appropriate for this article. Reasons:
I might support some use of this template after the primaries are over to increase standardization with other primary articles, but I think at the moment it is inappropriate. What do others think? Northwesterner1 ( talk) 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Reasons to include: The Popular vote is not mentioned within the article at all. The chart with the candidates' picture just gives delegate summaries. As Wikipedia is meant to be an online easy to obtain resource, there should be some way to link between past and current primaries, and the info box is the best way to do that. Also, the info box does not take up as much space as some editors claim. ( talk) 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
PA numbers needs reverted back; state article using CBS News rather than CNN; primarily becase CBS News projeting a whole lot more than CNN at this point. I'd do it myself, except I would be in violation of 3RR. Jon ( talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Do any countries besides the United States have presidential primary elections? Do we really need the parenthetical disambiguation? john k ( talk) 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Another editor (Patstuart) and I have a disagreement about the voter turnout map, Image:2008 Presidential Parties, Democratic Voter Turnout.png. To my knowledge, this is the only article that uses the map, so I thought I would bring the discussion here for additional opinions. There are two points of disagreement. First, I feel the map should show only those states in which both parties voted prior to March 4, when John McCain clinched the Republican nomination. Patstuart feels that a comparison for later states is still valid because of local races. However, I believe turnout in the Republican primaries is negatively affected by the lack of a competitive race in states after March 4 at the presidential level, so the comparison with Democratic turnout is not useful. The second point of disagreement is the use of map symbols to indicate Florida's and Michigan's special status. I feel the current caption indicates that just fine without impacting the map visuals. Further, the map legend is so small that the symbols on Florida, Michigan, and Mississippi can't be read without clicking on the image. Better to do this work in the caption. Can we get a third opinion, please? Northwesterner1 ( talk) 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sensitive to concerns of US-centrism, but is there another Democratic Party having presidential primaries in 2008? If so, why wasn't Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008 a disambiguation page? It's now a redirect to this page, courtesy of myself, and I think it might make sense if this page was moved there. If there is a genuine concern of confusion, I will retract this request. François Metro ( talk) 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but calling the Democratic Primaries "The Long, Flat, Seemingly Endless Bataan Death Match to the White House," while referencing Jon Stewart, while reality-based, is probably irreverent, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.173.243 ( talk) 08:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
THERE IS A MAJOR FACTUAL ERROR IN THIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE. THE POPULAR VOTE MAP HAS OHIO SHADED IN THE COLOR OF A CLINTON WIN, BUT BY LESS THAN 10%. ACTUALLY, ACCORDING TO REAL CLEAR POLITICS AND EVERY OTHER MAJOR NEWS OUTLET HAVE REPORTED THAT CLINTON WON OHIO BY 10.4%. THIS MEANS THAT OHIO IN THE POPULAR VOTE MAP SHOULD BE SHADED IN SUCH A WAY THAT SHOWS CLINTON WON IT BY OVER 10%. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifixer990 ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Need to work something out on this. He was counted as one of the party leaders assigned as a pledged delegate, not as a superdelegate. According to the Clinton camp, pledged delegates are entitled to switch. " Pr. George's Executive Switches To Obama", Washington Post, May 13, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.160.136.186 ( talk) 14:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: What happens to Edwards 19 pledged delegates? Do they remain with him, or do they transfer to Obama? What do we do with the percentages currently appearing in the table? Do we continue to calculate the numbers for all three delegates, or do we include Edwards' 19 in Obama's number? - FeralDruid ( talk) 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
DCW says 10 Edwards delegates have switched to Obama, and that they're working with Green Papers for an update. - FeralDruid ( talk) 21:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Several recent developments have led us to inconsistent practices in how we record changes to the pledged delegate numbers in the "Chronicle" tables in the main article, as well as in the results article and associated articles. Discussion on this talk page and in the edit summaries has been a little scattered. I think it might be useful to focus our attention on how to record delegate changes. This conversation is intended to deal with changes in the main article only, but the principles established here may guide formatting decisions on other articles.
Potential changes to pledged delegate estimates include changes for the following reasons:
Methods for indicating these changes in the Chronicle tables include:
Methods for indicating these changes in the top-level summary table include:
We also should consider what to do about the pledged delegate maps:
Northwesterner1 ( talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(A) changes would continue to be reflected in the first column.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Northwesterner1 ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 15 May 15 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>Thanks for the support & for the caution about article creep. We should bear this in mind going forward (and perhaps reorganize the article series after all is said and done). How do others feel about the alternative solution below -- which involves simplifying the tables by deleting some information? Northwesterner1 ( talk) 19:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Done - I implemented the alternative solution below to record changes of B, C, and D types. A separate column is provided for notes.
Northwesterner1 (
talk)
09:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Parentheses solution
This is what currently appears in the article.
Details | Votes to the Convention [10] | Pledged Delegate Votes Estimate [11] | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date | Election link | Pledged Delegate Votes | Super- delegate Votes |
Total | Obama | Clinton | Edwards | |||
District-level | At-large | PLEO [3] | Total | |||||||
January 3 | Iowa caucuses | 29 | 10 | 6 | 45 | 12 | 57 | 25 (16) [12] | 14 (15) | 6 (14) |
January 8 | New Hampshire primary | 14 | 5 | 3 | 22 | 8 | 30 | 10 (9) [13] | 9 | 3 (4) |
January 19 | Nevada caucuses | 16 | 6 | 3 | 25 | 9 | 34 | 13 | 12 | 0 |
January 26 | South Carolina primary | 29 | 10 | 6 | 45 | 9 | 54 | 31 (25) [14] | 12 | 2 (8) |
- | Total | 88 | 31 | 18 | 137 | 38 | 175 | 79 | 47 | 11 |
Solution proposed by Northwesterner1
Table headers and other aspects of the design could be tweaked, of course.
Details | Votes to the Convention [10] | Election Result Pledged Delegate Votes [15] |
Current Estimate Pledged Delegate Votes | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date | Election link | Pledged Delegate Votes | Super- delegate Votes |
Total | Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Notes | |||
District-level | At-large | PLEO [3] | Total | |||||||||||
January 3 | Iowa caucuses | 29 | 10 | 6 | 45 | 12 | 57 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 25 | 14 | 6 | [12] |
January 8 | New Hampshire primary | 14 | 5 | 3 | 22 | 8 | 30 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 10 | 9 | 3 | [13] |
January 19 | Nevada caucuses | 16 | 6 | 3 | 25 | 9 | 34 | 13 | 12 | 0 | 13 | 12 | 0 | |
January 26 | South Carolina primary | 29 | 10 | 6 | 45 | 9 | 54 | 25 | 12 | 8 | 31 | 12 | 2 | [14] |
- | Total | 88 | 31 | 18 | 137 | 38 | 175 | 63 | 48 | 26 | 79 | 47 | 11 |
Alternative solution
If the above solution makes the table too complex, we could remove some information. I believe it is more important to show the original election results and the current pledged delegate estimate than it is to show the breakdown of pledged delegates into district-level, PLEO, and at-large delegates, according to the party rules. We could relegate this information to state articles, or we could delete it from the encyclopedia entirely (pointing the reader to the party rules to provide further detail if needed).
Details | Delegate Votes to the Convention | Pledged Delegate Vote Count [16] | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Election Results | Current Estimate | ||||||||||
Date | Election link | Pledged | Super | Total | Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Notes |
January 3 | Iowa caucuses | 45 | 12 | 57 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 25 | 14 | 6 | [12] |
January 8 | New Hampshire primary | 22 | 8 | 30 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 10 | 9 | 3 | [13] |
January 19 | Nevada caucuses | 25 | 9 | 34 | 13 | 12 | 0 | 13 | 12 | 0 | |
January 26 | South Carolina primary | 45 | 9 | 54 | 25 | 12 | 8 | 31 | 12 | 2 | [14] |
- | Total | 137 | 38 | 175 | 63 | 48 | 26 | 79 | 47 | 11 |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Northwesterner1 ( talk • contribs) 09:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the discussion above...
The results article currently highlights cells based on the winner of the delegate count, while the main article highlights cells based on the winner of the popular vote. Should we standardize this across the articles, and if so, what should the standard be? Northwesterner1 ( talk) 20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like an emerging consensus for highlighting cells by delegate count, with four comments in support and none against, but as we are "overruling" a previous consensus on this decision, I suggest we wait several days to see if other opinions materialize. How about May 21 as a cutoff date for discussion on this issue? Northwesterner1 ( talk) 21:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Secondary question... If we decide to highlight cells by winner of delegate count, should we highlight the cell in the initial "election result" column, or should we highlight the "current estimate" column? This is already an issue in NH and could become an issue in later states. ( Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries has adopted the latter practice.) Northwesterner1 ( talk) 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Details | Delegate Votes to the Convention | Pledged Delegate Vote Count [17] | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Election Result | Change notes |
Current Estimate | |||||||||
Date | Election link | Pledged | Super | Total | Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Obama | Clinton | Edwards | |
January 3 | Iowa caucuses | 45 | 12 | 57 | 16 | 15 | 14 | [12] | 26 | 14 | 5 |
January 8 | New Hampshire primary | 22 | 8 | 30 | 9 | 9 | 4 | [13] | 10 | 9 | 3 |
January 19 | Nevada caucuses | 25 | 9 | 34 | 13 | 12 | 0 | [18] | 14 | 11 | 0 |
January 26 | South Carolina primary | 45 | 9 | 54 | 25 | 12 | 8 | [14] | 32 | 12 | 1 |
- | Total | 137 | 38 | 175 | 63 | 48 | 26 | 82 | 46 | 9 |
Works for me. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it okay if I could put an infobox:election template with only Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton since they are only the two candidates who won delegates and states and territories Rizalninoynapoleon ( talk) 08:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Both CNN & CBS are saying that 2026 votes (and not 2025) are needed to win; presumbably as a result of MS-1 special election where a Democrat won a seat that was previously held by a Republican and the new congressman now being a super delegate because last Tuesday their number was 2025. I think the superdelegate total, the overall total, and the # of delegates needed to win all need adjusted on this page, the details page, and the super delegate page. Jon ( talk) 13:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just curious why not use the wikipedia article with superdelegate information? If we pull the state results from other articles why not the supers? AWatiker ( talk) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding data into the April and beyond section, commenting on the Obama rally in Portland. I've seen comments on a couple of right-wing sites, and heard a call to Lou Dobbs' radio program, pushing the fact that it wasn't Obama who drew the crowd, but the band. I mention this here to point out that the band's web site lists the event as an Obama Rally. - FeralDruid ( talk) 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
A little extra background on the nullified primaries would be helpful. I'm European, and a lot of people here are puzzled over why the Florida legislature changed the date of the primary. I understand why they wanted an earlier date, but I don't understand why the legislature intervened -- apparently without anyone protesting -- in what is surely an internal matter for the Democratic party? 86.137.233.32 ( talk) 09:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
70.22.47.140 ( talk) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I will put a infobox with the images of the two candidates who have won states (Obama & Clinton) Rizalninoynapoleon ( talk) 13:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a Consensus! I don't give a damn what you guys say, every page from 1956 has had an infobox, the 2008 page has absolutely no right to create problems by being the only Democratic primary election without an election infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.143.32 ( talk) 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Florida: Delegation seated, given half votes.
Michigan: Delegation seated, given half votes. Obama: 59 half votes Clinton: 69 half votes 71.204.28.184 ( talk) 23:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As I understand the RBC decision, the entire delegation of MI and FL have been seated, but these delegates will have a half a vote.
As the number of "delegates" are updated it appears that the article (and many news sources) are only counting half the amount of delegates. But it is not clear that this is technically correct.
In other words, Mrs. Smith from MI get seated as a delegate but with only half a vote. Mrs. Smith is not half a delegate; she is a delegate (add 1 to "delegate" count), but she only gets a half vote (add half to "vote" count).
Do the DNC rules say "a majority of delegates" is required to win or "a majority of votes cast" is required?
Even if there were no controversy about half votes, do you count the guys in the bar who miss the voted and failed to give a proxy to someone as part of the total vote (a present vote being different from failure to vote)? 70.22.47.140 ( talk) 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it help a lot to understand the current situation with the contested Florida and Michigan primaries if there was an explanation as to why the election dates were changed in those states? Why were they changed, who was behind the decision to change them, what was the logic behind the change, were the Democrats in those states lobbying for the change, were the democrats in those states opposed to the change - or even in a position to stop the change? And why are these questions not covered or explored by the political news media?
Why does the Democratic National Committee even set hard rules for the dates of these primaries when it's the legislatures of individual states that ultimately controls when those primaries are held? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.143.243 ( talk) 15:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
ONE place for discussing the rational of the date-changes is at the state-level wiki articles - but that is really not happening (at least not for the FL entry).
But the logic or rational for why the National Democratic Party is penalizing one of it's state-level chapters for a decision that wasn't within it's control ->DOES<- belong here.
We will never know how the Obama and Clinton delegate count would have unfolded had the Michigan and Florida elections were held on their authorized dates - or if the candidates had been allowed to run full campaigns in those states if the national DNC would have recognized the stupidity of penalizing those states by revoking their ability to elect delegates.
So what does this mean for future presidential races?
Will republican-controlled state legislatures be allowed (as they did this time) to play havok with future Democratic primaries - and vice-versa?
Will the DNC continue to stupidly penalize itself in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.143.243 ( talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A discussion now taking place at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details could provide a precedent for changing this article (there is already talk in that discussion about changing other articles). With that in mind, I'm hoping editors of this article will consider participating in that discussion (which may close soon).
Some editors think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Something similar is done in this article with a brief mention of Jeremiah Wright, although I saw nothing on other associates mentioned in the campaign. Examples of both Republicans and Democrats:
Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles that cover campaign issues adequately should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles. Noroton ( talk) 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The Party is the "Democrat" party, not the "Democratic" party. The word "Democratic" is a description of a process. This error has been in our society so long that now it even finds it's way into our encyclopedias. ;) 68.177.12.38 ( talk) 12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ted
I noticed this morning this page now has a direct link on the main page in the news section. Jon ( talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The Democratic Convention Watch blog no longer updates the super delegate count Demcon source
Does anyone know of a substitute? I'm guessing the counter on Obamas own site isn't neutral enough... Results on the Obama site 192.38.37.78 ( talk) 09:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
All right, folks, dut to popular demand, we'll do a quick endorsement list this evening. We won't be updating our tables, but we'll include new numbers within the post. Thanks for all the appreciation today. - Matt
The need for a replacement source is real enough, at least after HRC's supporting/concession speech Saturday. It would be nice if we knew what source to use by then. Skummelt mælk ( talk) 05:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Three thoughts.
Northwesterner1 ( talk) 05:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we add a section on "Gender and Race" to this article. More than anything, these topics are what make the 2008 Democratic primary unique and notable. In fact, historic. The article currently mentions race with references to Bill Clinton's comments, Jeremiah Wright's comments, and a reference to "racially-charged comments " in the "Super Tuesday" section. No mention of gender is present.
Starting points for a description of the role of gender in this primary might be the following:
And, hopefully with a neutral point of view, comments by Obama himself:
I realize this is a controversial topic and one which many will have emotional and biased feelings toward. However, gender and race are the two most important aspects of this primary. The candidates' positions on the issues are nearly identical. The article should reflect this. Ronald Joe Record ( talk) 23:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see the point of the voter turn out section, I propose removing it. -- Bigvinu ( talk) 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to change the page to have an election infobox like every Democratic primary page from 1956-2004. There can be no differences in the pages. The 2008 Primaries should not be treated differently than Wikipedia has treated the other elections. The other big democratic priamry page (2004) also has this. Please reach a consensus of allowing an election infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I say we should come down to a vote: All who favor
Okay, I'm not a big fan of the new maps, but I do recognize the rationale behind them in terms of accessibility (removing the legend from the image). One drawback, however, is the large vertical size. Can we please find a different place within the article for these images? Or should we delete them from this article and point readers instead to the results article? For users with 1024-pixel and narrower screen widths (the majority of users, I believe), the maps don't fit beside the candidates and results table. If you have a larger screen, try making your browser window smaller, and you'll see what I mean. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 16:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Dem call
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).