![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The image Image:Obama Race speech.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
i will be making a change and putting the popular vote in the template. Nick37 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.203.158 ( talk) 01:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not know who keeps removing John Edwards from the infobox, but he should be in there especially if you consider the fact that Alan Keyes and Lyndon LaRouche are in their 2000 Primary infobox. Most infoboxes have 3 major candidates and Edwards should be kept in. - Rockyobody ( talk) 18:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The Popular Vote on the InfoBox is misleading because there is no "definite" popular vote winner due to the problems with counting the popular vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.250.71 ( talk) 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It's further misleading, because this is using the Michigan ballot when all candidates but Clinton took their names off the ballot, but not the IA, NV, ME, or WA estimates. Why not use the popular vote total Real Clear Politics itself uses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SillyInventor ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm confused, but when I add up the total delegates from the table in the article for Edwards, Obama and Clinton I get 4284, however the article states that 4233 is the total number of votes available. Furthermore, the vote totals of 2306.5 and 1973 for Obama and Clinton respectively disagree with Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries, which differ by one vote higher for Obama and one lower than Clinton. Both state that they're estimates, so that in itself isn't bothersome (although they should surely be consistent!) but a 51 vote differential does bother me. Am I missing something? Darquis ( talk) 02:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor has been edit warring (4X now) to make an edit [1] to say that Obama accused Clinton of race baiting. I find the content unhelpful in its entirety, and note that that per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS the content has not been approved for the article. The IP has been edit warring WP:POV edits across multiple articles and considers this a demonstration of Clinton's "racist" remarks. [2]
- Wikidemon ( talk) 23:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
We do realize, right, that this election was held almost four years ago? What are these "Current estimate" columns? Why are they here? john k ( talk) 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Another issue is that Florida and Michigan should not be included in the running totals for the period between January 15/29 and May 31. No media counts at the time were so including them, and it gives a confusing picture of the race to do so. john k ( talk) 22:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles into one article for each state. The proposal is to merge all articles on different state primaries (both democratic and republican) and the articles on the presidential election (where such exist) in to one single article for each state. See United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008 It is possible to see how the 2008 and 2012 articles will look like if this large merges was completed. This issue have been discussed for a month on this talkpage without a clear consensus and the merge proposal is so massive that it would be good to get a wide range of editors to comment on it.
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
What does this under the gold and purple map mean?
Democratic presidential candidate before election
John Kerry
Does it mean
Prior presidential candidate
John Kerry
? Yopienso ( talk) 22:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Ariostos ( talk) 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
So why did the Liberals who complained so vociferously about Bush v. Gore, roll-over and lay down about this popular vote miscarriage? Any reliable sources on that question? 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 02:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
So I'm not at all sure what the right answer is - but I'm highly confident that something isn't right. If the table has numbers exactly the opposite of one line at Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2008, I'm betting at least one of them is wrong. -- B ( talk) 19:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The primary tables give two separate delegate counts under the headings "Election result" and "Current estimate". Am I right in suggesting that by now these should actually be called "Preliminary Result" and "Final Tally"? — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 00:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/2007/q1/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071127/NEWS09/711270383/-1/caucusWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
1) Why is MI included in the infobox total? As noted in the article, the MI results "were unsanctioned, the results were not recognized by the national committee". The "compromise was reached four months later" was to split the delegate count regardless of who voted. I acknowledge that there is a note that somewhat explains this, it seems somewhat inaccurate and leads to a misrepresentation of what happened (i.e. that Clinton won the popular vote, when her MI votes were not counted and resulted in Obama winning the popular vote).
2) I note that several websites and news-agencies, for a single example factcheck.org, all quote the figures provided by realclearpolitics.com. The latter appears more reputable, and provides what is apparently the official total that excludes MI (in the overall count, and then provides additional info that includes it for comparisons sake). Why does this article relay on another site, which looks - no offense to owner - like an amateurish blog (i apologize if it is not, but that was my first impression)? 165.166.215.220 ( talk) 17:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The delegate count in the infobox lists the delegates awarded at the convention. However, this is different from the delegates awarded via primaries and caucuses. Should the infobox perhaps instead display the pledged delegates awarded from the primary process? Barack Obama had 1,794½ and Hillary Clinton had 1,732½.
SecretName101 (
talk)
00:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
more voted for her. She should be marked in bold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 ( talk) 01:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Her popular vote is, in fact, in bold. This might have not been the case when you first comment, and perhaps subsequently occurred. SecretName101 ( talk) 07:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This was discussed in the archives here
Talk:Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008/Archive_4#Proposal:_Include_Election_Infobox with no clear consensus. The numbers at present:
The 1st is obvious - we shouldn't report official totals where impossible. The 2nd is what we should focus on.
Arguments to include MI MI/FL:
Arguments to exclude MI MI/FL:
I lean towards include, based on recognition of the Michigan Michigan/Florida delegates by the party. Is there an argument against applying whatever we conclude re: MI to FL? In both cases the states changed their primary dates and the DNC seated their delegates but stripped half their votes.
UPDATE: I'm surveying the sources to see how the majority report popular vote total. Should we collect the relevant sources in a list somewhere in this section?
UPDATE: I've added a section for the source survey below: Talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008#Popular_vote_source_survey. James J. Lambden ( talk) 18:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
There's been an influx of vandalism from this reddit thread, due to perceived error/retroactive censorship in the popular vote counts between Obama and Clinton.
I strongly suggest that this page be locked for the time being; an additional clarification on the talk page as to why the vote totals were changed would probably assist in ameliorating the controversy. Swordstone86 ( talk) 14:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
James J. Lambden ( talk) 19:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/2008RegulationsoftheRBCFINAL.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I think we should change Obama's infobox color to match that of the 2012 primary election. I'm not experienced enough to do it for the maps.
Smith0124 (
talk)
22:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Bernie won 23 delegates with 26k votes to Hillary’s 10 delegates with 13k votes. KS switched to a primary in 2020 and Biden won 29 delegates 110k votes and Bernie only got 10 delegates with 33k votes. In 2008 Obama got 23 delegates with 27k votes and Hillary got 9 delegates with 9k votes.
So just like Bernie dominated caucuses in 2016 Obama dominated caucuses and after 2016 Democrats determined caucuses were suboptimal and tried to get states to switch to primaries. Furthermore in 2008 Texas had a primary and caucus so obviously everyone that participated in the caucus voted in the primary and Hillary won the popular vote and Obama won the caucus and ended up with more delegates out of Texas. So we have proof that the UNDEMOCRATIC caucuses gave Obama and Bernie an advantage over their respective opponents. Clam chowdah ( talk) 20:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The image Image:Obama Race speech.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
i will be making a change and putting the popular vote in the template. Nick37 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.203.158 ( talk) 01:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not know who keeps removing John Edwards from the infobox, but he should be in there especially if you consider the fact that Alan Keyes and Lyndon LaRouche are in their 2000 Primary infobox. Most infoboxes have 3 major candidates and Edwards should be kept in. - Rockyobody ( talk) 18:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The Popular Vote on the InfoBox is misleading because there is no "definite" popular vote winner due to the problems with counting the popular vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.250.71 ( talk) 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It's further misleading, because this is using the Michigan ballot when all candidates but Clinton took their names off the ballot, but not the IA, NV, ME, or WA estimates. Why not use the popular vote total Real Clear Politics itself uses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SillyInventor ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm confused, but when I add up the total delegates from the table in the article for Edwards, Obama and Clinton I get 4284, however the article states that 4233 is the total number of votes available. Furthermore, the vote totals of 2306.5 and 1973 for Obama and Clinton respectively disagree with Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries, which differ by one vote higher for Obama and one lower than Clinton. Both state that they're estimates, so that in itself isn't bothersome (although they should surely be consistent!) but a 51 vote differential does bother me. Am I missing something? Darquis ( talk) 02:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor has been edit warring (4X now) to make an edit [1] to say that Obama accused Clinton of race baiting. I find the content unhelpful in its entirety, and note that that per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS the content has not been approved for the article. The IP has been edit warring WP:POV edits across multiple articles and considers this a demonstration of Clinton's "racist" remarks. [2]
- Wikidemon ( talk) 23:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
We do realize, right, that this election was held almost four years ago? What are these "Current estimate" columns? Why are they here? john k ( talk) 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Another issue is that Florida and Michigan should not be included in the running totals for the period between January 15/29 and May 31. No media counts at the time were so including them, and it gives a confusing picture of the race to do so. john k ( talk) 22:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles into one article for each state. The proposal is to merge all articles on different state primaries (both democratic and republican) and the articles on the presidential election (where such exist) in to one single article for each state. See United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008 It is possible to see how the 2008 and 2012 articles will look like if this large merges was completed. This issue have been discussed for a month on this talkpage without a clear consensus and the merge proposal is so massive that it would be good to get a wide range of editors to comment on it.
Jack Bornholm (
talk)
17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
What does this under the gold and purple map mean?
Democratic presidential candidate before election
John Kerry
Does it mean
Prior presidential candidate
John Kerry
? Yopienso ( talk) 22:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Ariostos ( talk) 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
So why did the Liberals who complained so vociferously about Bush v. Gore, roll-over and lay down about this popular vote miscarriage? Any reliable sources on that question? 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 02:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
So I'm not at all sure what the right answer is - but I'm highly confident that something isn't right. If the table has numbers exactly the opposite of one line at Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2008, I'm betting at least one of them is wrong. -- B ( talk) 19:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The primary tables give two separate delegate counts under the headings "Election result" and "Current estimate". Am I right in suggesting that by now these should actually be called "Preliminary Result" and "Final Tally"? — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 00:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/2007/q1/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071127/NEWS09/711270383/-1/caucusWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
1) Why is MI included in the infobox total? As noted in the article, the MI results "were unsanctioned, the results were not recognized by the national committee". The "compromise was reached four months later" was to split the delegate count regardless of who voted. I acknowledge that there is a note that somewhat explains this, it seems somewhat inaccurate and leads to a misrepresentation of what happened (i.e. that Clinton won the popular vote, when her MI votes were not counted and resulted in Obama winning the popular vote).
2) I note that several websites and news-agencies, for a single example factcheck.org, all quote the figures provided by realclearpolitics.com. The latter appears more reputable, and provides what is apparently the official total that excludes MI (in the overall count, and then provides additional info that includes it for comparisons sake). Why does this article relay on another site, which looks - no offense to owner - like an amateurish blog (i apologize if it is not, but that was my first impression)? 165.166.215.220 ( talk) 17:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The delegate count in the infobox lists the delegates awarded at the convention. However, this is different from the delegates awarded via primaries and caucuses. Should the infobox perhaps instead display the pledged delegates awarded from the primary process? Barack Obama had 1,794½ and Hillary Clinton had 1,732½.
SecretName101 (
talk)
00:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
more voted for her. She should be marked in bold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 ( talk) 01:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Her popular vote is, in fact, in bold. This might have not been the case when you first comment, and perhaps subsequently occurred. SecretName101 ( talk) 07:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This was discussed in the archives here
Talk:Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008/Archive_4#Proposal:_Include_Election_Infobox with no clear consensus. The numbers at present:
The 1st is obvious - we shouldn't report official totals where impossible. The 2nd is what we should focus on.
Arguments to include MI MI/FL:
Arguments to exclude MI MI/FL:
I lean towards include, based on recognition of the Michigan Michigan/Florida delegates by the party. Is there an argument against applying whatever we conclude re: MI to FL? In both cases the states changed their primary dates and the DNC seated their delegates but stripped half their votes.
UPDATE: I'm surveying the sources to see how the majority report popular vote total. Should we collect the relevant sources in a list somewhere in this section?
UPDATE: I've added a section for the source survey below: Talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008#Popular_vote_source_survey. James J. Lambden ( talk) 18:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
There's been an influx of vandalism from this reddit thread, due to perceived error/retroactive censorship in the popular vote counts between Obama and Clinton.
I strongly suggest that this page be locked for the time being; an additional clarification on the talk page as to why the vote totals were changed would probably assist in ameliorating the controversy. Swordstone86 ( talk) 14:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
James J. Lambden ( talk) 19:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/2008RegulationsoftheRBCFINAL.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I think we should change Obama's infobox color to match that of the 2012 primary election. I'm not experienced enough to do it for the maps.
Smith0124 (
talk)
22:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Bernie won 23 delegates with 26k votes to Hillary’s 10 delegates with 13k votes. KS switched to a primary in 2020 and Biden won 29 delegates 110k votes and Bernie only got 10 delegates with 33k votes. In 2008 Obama got 23 delegates with 27k votes and Hillary got 9 delegates with 9k votes.
So just like Bernie dominated caucuses in 2016 Obama dominated caucuses and after 2016 Democrats determined caucuses were suboptimal and tried to get states to switch to primaries. Furthermore in 2008 Texas had a primary and caucus so obviously everyone that participated in the caucus voted in the primary and Hillary won the popular vote and Obama won the caucus and ended up with more delegates out of Texas. So we have proof that the UNDEMOCRATIC caucuses gave Obama and Bernie an advantage over their respective opponents. Clam chowdah ( talk) 20:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)