This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Per the exclude zero impact events discussion above, I have cut the ND legislative cacus. Jon ( talk) 13:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
In North Dakota we do not have a reliable source for the legislative district cacus but do for the state convention. This is making the results table look very weird. At this point news coverage is going to focus on the later event and not the prior event so it is looking increasingly unlikely that there will ever be an online reliable source on this. So I propose that such events be removed. Jon ( talk) 13:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the straight up map that had certain colored clinton and certain states colored obama?
There used to be a clear place where one could find the source for the numbers in these tables. I can't find such information anymore (I was looking for the site but couldn't remember what it was). I think that should be pretty obvious that it should be here. If it is and I'm missing it, it should probably be clearer in my opinion. Chris M. ( talk) 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and edited the numbers for the outcome of the Pennsylvania primary, using the data from the article about that primary. However, I didn't update the total pledged delegates count because I'm not sure what these numbers are now that Pennsylvania's done. Danberbro ( talk) 01:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This section could really use additional work. There are quite a few unsourced statements along the lines of "Clinton/Obama supporters say ...". The section on maximizing delegate advantage currently appears to be WP:OR, although probably true. It's also not clear (at least to me) why we have a 2nd column including FL but no column including MI. Maybe we could just have "Without FL/MI", "With FL", "With MI", "With FL and MI" columns. Andareed ( talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Popular Vote Count (through April 22, 2008) [1] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Candidate | Excluding FL and MI | Percentage | FL | MI |
Barack Obama | 14,378,559 | 48.6% | 576,214 | (not on ballot) |
Hillary Clinton | 13,877,547 | 46.9% | 870,986 | 328,309 |
Spread | Obama +501,012 | Obama +1.7% | Clinton +294,772 | Clinton +328,309 |
I see activists are removing the vote total when they include Michigan for political reasons. Like it or not there was a vote in Michigan. At some point if Obama is in the lead without Michigan and Hillary with the Michigan vote their will be a political debate which vote total superdelegates should consider.
However Wikipedia should include the objective fact of what the totals currently are. Facts are not subject to debate. How to use facts is the debate. The table specificially marking that information is the correct way to do so. The only reason to remove this fact is if one is a partisan trying to make a political point Obama has a popular vote lead. Wikipedia is not the place for partisan editing. It was horrible the way the Ron Paul people did it and its wrong for the Obama people to do it. Michaelh613 ( talk) 22:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I added rows to the popular vote table to reflect the estimate that 173,368 of Michigan's "uncommitted" voters favored Obama according to the exit polls. That's just under 73%. The source is cited, but I'm just using a source already cited previously in the article. I think this number is especially important as it's the most accurate guess we have about how many of those who voted "uncommitted" in Michigan would have voted for Obama if his name had been on the ticket. It helps answer the question, "Of all those who actually voted, who did they mean to vote for?" Sorry, I forgot to login before making the change. ( Jtlapp ( talk) 06:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC))
I mean, the ones in the first table. Can anybody control them? Thanks. 79.19.237.201 ( talk) 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The easy source for totals is http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html. This is a third party factual site with no axe to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelh613 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
As the race gets closer, people might be wondering how many delegates Clinton/Obama need in order to win. Could we add a new row for this? Andareed ( talk) 21:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Candidates | Uncommitted [2] |
Hillary Clinton |
Barack Obama |
John Edwards | |
Estimated delegates needed to win |
- | 417½ |
289½ |
- | |
Grand total estimated delegates (3,360 of 4,047, 83%; 2,024 to win) |
283 | 1,606½ 48% |
1,734½ 52% |
19 <1% | |
Total estimated
superdelegate endorsement
[3] (511 of 794, 64% of 20%) |
283 [4] | 267 52% |
244 48% |
0 | |
Total estimated pledged delegates
[5] (2,849 of 3,253, 88% of 80%) |
0 | 1,339½ 47% |
1,490½ 52% |
19 <1% | |
Total bound pledged delegates
[6] (2,541 of 3,253, 78% of 80%) |
0 | 1,224½ 48% |
1,300½ 51% |
16 <1% |
Maybe put the row below the estimated total? Maybe shade the row differently than the other cells?
Candidates | Uncommitted [2] |
Hillary Clinton |
Barack Obama |
John Edwards | |
Grand total estimated delegates (3,360 of 4,047, 83%) |
283 | 1,606½ 48% |
1,734½ 52% |
19 <1% | |
Estimated delegates needed to win (2,024 needed) |
- | 417½ |
289½ |
- | |
Total estimated
superdelegate endorsement
[3] (511 of 794, 64% of 20%) |
283 [4] | 267 52% |
244 48% |
0 | |
Total estimated pledged delegates
[7] (2,849 of 3,253, 88% of 80%) |
0 | 1,339½ 47% |
1,490½ 52% |
19 <1% | |
Total bound pledged delegates
[6] (2,541 of 3,253, 78% of 80%) |
0 | 1,224½ 48% |
1,300½ 51% |
16 <1% |
What about separating the subsections with a red line like the following?
Candidates | Uncommitted |
Hillary Clinton |
Barack Obama |
John Edwards | ||||||
Estimated delegates needed to win (2,024 needed) |
- | 417½ |
289½ |
- | ||||||
Grand total estimated delegates (3,360 of 4,047, 83%) |
283 | 1,606½ 48% |
1,734½ 52% |
19 <1% | ||||||
Total estimated
superdelegate endorsement (511 of 794, 64% of 20%) |
283 | 267 52% |
244 48% |
0 | ||||||
Total estimated pledged delegates (2,849 of 3,253, 88% of 80%) |
0 | 1,339½ 47% |
1,490½ 52% |
19 <1% | ||||||
Total bound pledged delegates (2,541 of 3,253, 78% of 80%) |
0 | 1,224½ 48% |
1,300½ 51% |
16 <1% |
-- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 22:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Done That looks like consensus to me, so I added Andareed's new row. --
Bryan H Bell (
talk)
10:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be good to have a graph of the percentage of delegates won by each candidate over time. In other words, a graph just showing the number of each going constantly up would not be as informative as one that shows how the percentage has changed over time with each state victory. — Omegatron ( talk) 05:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not American, may I ask what is the meaning of ½ Delegate? -- 134.91.4.52 ( talk) 10:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this article needs some explanation about what happens to Edwards' delegates. Personally, I have no idea... - ARC Gritt TALK 10:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Previous consensus discussions (separately conducted) resulted in the main article highlighting cells by popular vote winner and the results article highlighting by pledged delegate winner. I think we should standardize this across the articles and have opened a discussion on the main article talk page at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Highlighting cells. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed my edit to the national totals table was reverted by User:Ross UK. I had reversed the order, with the bound delegates at the top and the "needed to win" entry at the bottom, which seems a lot more intuitive to me, as a newcomer to the article. The way it is now, we have an extrapolated conclusion (needed to win) and a "grand total" at the top of the table, whereas these types of data usually are found at the bottom of a list. Any other views on this? Tobias (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Katydidit recently made a
series of edits to the results table in the Local contests section that added parenthetical cross-references to the event rows for states with multiple events. Is this added info necessary? My feeling is that the information is only marginally useful since it is already easy to see all of a state's event rows together by clicking on the sort symbol (
) at the top of the Location column. I feel the usefulness of these cross-references is outweighed by the clutter they add to this already busy-looking table. What do the rest of you think? --
Bryan H Bell (
talk)
15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Updated the state-by-state for the Rules and Bylaws ruling [2] but didn't touch the top table, as I'm not sure how you guys would like to adjust it now that Obama is over the nomination threshold.-- 12.47.123.121 ( talk) 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Colorado held a caucus, and as it is Colorado isn't added to the popular vote with caucus states counted. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html Has the vote totals for Obama and Clinton. Obama recieved 80,113 votes and Clinton 38,893 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.13.169 ( talk) 04:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This edit added two more rows to the popular vote tables, calculating the Michigan results by adding 73% of uncommitted votes to Obama's total, based on the percentage of exit poll "uncommitted" voters who said they would have voted for him. How do others feel about this? I thought about doing a similar row but decided against it myself, believing that it would be discouraged as original research. One problem with all the popular vote math over the last month is that there are really endless scenarios and calculations that we could be reporting. Seems like we should stick to one comprehensive source, and right now RealClearPolitics has the most comprehensive counts. I've seen the 73% calculation performed on blogs but not really in any reliable sources. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 06:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
On second thought the 73% solution seems pretty crazy. I'll admit that it seems reasonable intuitively, but if you look at the math, it's bogus. We're basing that number on exit polls. But the exit polls say quite explicitly 46% Clinton, 35% Obama, 12% Edwards, 2% Kucinich, 1% Richardson. The 73% row translates into 55% Clinton, 29% Obama, 16% unassigned. Why does this happen? Because the 73% solution pretends that Edwards only takes a chunk of "uncommitted" voters from Obama, but the exit poll suggests that if he were on the ballot, he would have taken a chunk of Clinton's voters also. It's not acceptable to base Obama's percentage on an exit poll if we're not going to base Clinton's percentage on the same poll. This seems like a pretty striking problem, and I suggest we remove the 73% figure from the table as well as from the body text. It turns out there's a reason, RealClearPolitics and other reliable sources aren't reporting this fact, and that's because it's a pretty basic statistical error. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 09:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Florida is no longer disputed. 24.199.236.112 ( talk) 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Should be updated to only contain one result, the one approved by the DNC. It's pretty confusing to have three results there. So it must be shortened to the official one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.202.233.8 ( talk) 14:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
June 1: Table needs updating
The table needs to be updated to include the June 1 Puerto Rico Primary, because right now it only reflects how it was on May 31. Update the table, please.
Yeldarb68 ( talk) 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 05:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Somebody appended the following text to the popular vote table: "Votes from regions outside the United States (i.e. Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Guam and Democrats Abroad) give Clinton an advantage of 132,361 votes." First, it appears to me that this statement is false. Second, if it is true, it should be reflected in the table and not in some addendum that supposedly trumps everything in the table. ( Jtlapp ( talk) 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC))
Perhaps we need an addendum to the table that explicitly says the table does include voters abroad, as I believe it does. That might have prevented this mistake. ( Jtlapp ( talk) 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC))
So, per the discussion above, it seems we have some disagreement about whether to include the Florida yes/no metric as a column in the popular vote table. Northwesterner1, Jtlapp, Floridianed have expressed support for the column. IP user 99.202.233.8 and Joncnunn have advocated dropping it from the table. IP user 70.170.89.104 has recently changed the article to drop the column. Can we get some other editors to weigh in so that we can have some stability on this? Northwesterner1 ( talk) 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I keep reverting this for a simple reason. I know DCW has made this change in their numbers, but we do not derive our pledged delegate numbers from DCW. The Results table is said to derive its data as follows. Supers from DCW; 'pledged' from results in state table; other results calculated from these two. The state results table cites the individual state pages. The State pages each cite their own sources for delegates, usually GPs, but not always. You can't just change the Results table without there being an underlying change that traces all the way back to the original source cited on the state page. It is not good enough to just change the state page, if the cited reference doesn't provide the basis for that change. I know we all want to be current and make these changes as soon as the first clue appears, but verifiability has to be maintained or the numbers can be changed at will (or whim). With a little patience, the relevant source pages will be updated, and then the now-verifiable changes can be made. Heck, we all think we know how many delegates were elected by the Kansas Democratic Convention two weeks ago, but without a source, it remains blank, as it should, and eventually someone will find a source that can be used to fill this gap. (sorry for the rant) Agricolae ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
We no longer need the estimated number of delegates needed to win row in the top table. And the article should also cut and paste that paragraph about him achiving this yesterday that's found in the main article. I'd do this myself but I can't make heads or tails on how to delete that row from that table. Jon ( talk) 13:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are the delegate counts on every article about the Democratic primaries different? Someplaces have Obama 2044, Clinton 18--, 2219/1867, etc. The superdelegate count is different, too. And just because Obama won doesn't mean you should take out the delegates needed row. What about Hillary? Hillary Cliton has 1923 delegates, and Barack Obama has 2156. Both numbers are probably a little low because of the superdelegates that endorsed after June 3.
Michigan and Florida's delegates get full voting rights. The delegate numbers must be actualized. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/24/full-voting-right. 22:00, 24 August 2008 (CET)
Where are the numbers for other candidates now? Richardson, etc...? 68.83.72.162 ( talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
There are some inconsistencies on this page that I don't understand and I was hoping for either clarification, or a correction (since I don't understand I'm not comfortable correcting myself). This page states In order to secure the nomination at the convention, a candidate must receive at least 2,117 votes from delegates (a simple majority of the 4,233 delegate votes, bearing in mind half-votes from Florida, Michigan, Democrats Abroad and the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).. This is inconsistent with a statement later in the article, The grand totals are: 2,244½ for Obama, 1,885 for Clinton, and 4½ for Edwards - those votes total 4134, 99 delegates difference. Further, if one examines the table in the article, it states that Clinton had 1972 delegates, Obama 2307.5 and Edward 4.5. This totals to 4284, 51 delegates higher than the stated total, and these numbers differ from those I quoted from earlier in the article. Lastly, the numbers in the chart differ by one vote (Obama one higher, Clinton one lower) from Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008, although as estimates I can see why they might have had variance. However, consistency should be the goal in those cases, perhaps. Like I said, I don't know what to fix, as I'm unfamiliar. Darquis ( talk) 02:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
None of the permutations in the table corresponds to the tallies given at Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008. I suggest harmonizing the two articles, either by adding the figures used on the other page to the table here with an explanation of how they were calculated, or by using the least controversial figures in the table on the other page. 37.205.58.146 ( talk) 13:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
popvote
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Per the exclude zero impact events discussion above, I have cut the ND legislative cacus. Jon ( talk) 13:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
In North Dakota we do not have a reliable source for the legislative district cacus but do for the state convention. This is making the results table look very weird. At this point news coverage is going to focus on the later event and not the prior event so it is looking increasingly unlikely that there will ever be an online reliable source on this. So I propose that such events be removed. Jon ( talk) 13:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the straight up map that had certain colored clinton and certain states colored obama?
There used to be a clear place where one could find the source for the numbers in these tables. I can't find such information anymore (I was looking for the site but couldn't remember what it was). I think that should be pretty obvious that it should be here. If it is and I'm missing it, it should probably be clearer in my opinion. Chris M. ( talk) 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and edited the numbers for the outcome of the Pennsylvania primary, using the data from the article about that primary. However, I didn't update the total pledged delegates count because I'm not sure what these numbers are now that Pennsylvania's done. Danberbro ( talk) 01:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This section could really use additional work. There are quite a few unsourced statements along the lines of "Clinton/Obama supporters say ...". The section on maximizing delegate advantage currently appears to be WP:OR, although probably true. It's also not clear (at least to me) why we have a 2nd column including FL but no column including MI. Maybe we could just have "Without FL/MI", "With FL", "With MI", "With FL and MI" columns. Andareed ( talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Popular Vote Count (through April 22, 2008) [1] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Candidate | Excluding FL and MI | Percentage | FL | MI |
Barack Obama | 14,378,559 | 48.6% | 576,214 | (not on ballot) |
Hillary Clinton | 13,877,547 | 46.9% | 870,986 | 328,309 |
Spread | Obama +501,012 | Obama +1.7% | Clinton +294,772 | Clinton +328,309 |
I see activists are removing the vote total when they include Michigan for political reasons. Like it or not there was a vote in Michigan. At some point if Obama is in the lead without Michigan and Hillary with the Michigan vote their will be a political debate which vote total superdelegates should consider.
However Wikipedia should include the objective fact of what the totals currently are. Facts are not subject to debate. How to use facts is the debate. The table specificially marking that information is the correct way to do so. The only reason to remove this fact is if one is a partisan trying to make a political point Obama has a popular vote lead. Wikipedia is not the place for partisan editing. It was horrible the way the Ron Paul people did it and its wrong for the Obama people to do it. Michaelh613 ( talk) 22:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I added rows to the popular vote table to reflect the estimate that 173,368 of Michigan's "uncommitted" voters favored Obama according to the exit polls. That's just under 73%. The source is cited, but I'm just using a source already cited previously in the article. I think this number is especially important as it's the most accurate guess we have about how many of those who voted "uncommitted" in Michigan would have voted for Obama if his name had been on the ticket. It helps answer the question, "Of all those who actually voted, who did they mean to vote for?" Sorry, I forgot to login before making the change. ( Jtlapp ( talk) 06:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC))
I mean, the ones in the first table. Can anybody control them? Thanks. 79.19.237.201 ( talk) 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The easy source for totals is http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html. This is a third party factual site with no axe to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelh613 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
As the race gets closer, people might be wondering how many delegates Clinton/Obama need in order to win. Could we add a new row for this? Andareed ( talk) 21:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Candidates | Uncommitted [2] |
Hillary Clinton |
Barack Obama |
John Edwards | |
Estimated delegates needed to win |
- | 417½ |
289½ |
- | |
Grand total estimated delegates (3,360 of 4,047, 83%; 2,024 to win) |
283 | 1,606½ 48% |
1,734½ 52% |
19 <1% | |
Total estimated
superdelegate endorsement
[3] (511 of 794, 64% of 20%) |
283 [4] | 267 52% |
244 48% |
0 | |
Total estimated pledged delegates
[5] (2,849 of 3,253, 88% of 80%) |
0 | 1,339½ 47% |
1,490½ 52% |
19 <1% | |
Total bound pledged delegates
[6] (2,541 of 3,253, 78% of 80%) |
0 | 1,224½ 48% |
1,300½ 51% |
16 <1% |
Maybe put the row below the estimated total? Maybe shade the row differently than the other cells?
Candidates | Uncommitted [2] |
Hillary Clinton |
Barack Obama |
John Edwards | |
Grand total estimated delegates (3,360 of 4,047, 83%) |
283 | 1,606½ 48% |
1,734½ 52% |
19 <1% | |
Estimated delegates needed to win (2,024 needed) |
- | 417½ |
289½ |
- | |
Total estimated
superdelegate endorsement
[3] (511 of 794, 64% of 20%) |
283 [4] | 267 52% |
244 48% |
0 | |
Total estimated pledged delegates
[7] (2,849 of 3,253, 88% of 80%) |
0 | 1,339½ 47% |
1,490½ 52% |
19 <1% | |
Total bound pledged delegates
[6] (2,541 of 3,253, 78% of 80%) |
0 | 1,224½ 48% |
1,300½ 51% |
16 <1% |
What about separating the subsections with a red line like the following?
Candidates | Uncommitted |
Hillary Clinton |
Barack Obama |
John Edwards | ||||||
Estimated delegates needed to win (2,024 needed) |
- | 417½ |
289½ |
- | ||||||
Grand total estimated delegates (3,360 of 4,047, 83%) |
283 | 1,606½ 48% |
1,734½ 52% |
19 <1% | ||||||
Total estimated
superdelegate endorsement (511 of 794, 64% of 20%) |
283 | 267 52% |
244 48% |
0 | ||||||
Total estimated pledged delegates (2,849 of 3,253, 88% of 80%) |
0 | 1,339½ 47% |
1,490½ 52% |
19 <1% | ||||||
Total bound pledged delegates (2,541 of 3,253, 78% of 80%) |
0 | 1,224½ 48% |
1,300½ 51% |
16 <1% |
-- Bryan H Bell ( talk) 22:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Done That looks like consensus to me, so I added Andareed's new row. --
Bryan H Bell (
talk)
10:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be good to have a graph of the percentage of delegates won by each candidate over time. In other words, a graph just showing the number of each going constantly up would not be as informative as one that shows how the percentage has changed over time with each state victory. — Omegatron ( talk) 05:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not American, may I ask what is the meaning of ½ Delegate? -- 134.91.4.52 ( talk) 10:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this article needs some explanation about what happens to Edwards' delegates. Personally, I have no idea... - ARC Gritt TALK 10:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Previous consensus discussions (separately conducted) resulted in the main article highlighting cells by popular vote winner and the results article highlighting by pledged delegate winner. I think we should standardize this across the articles and have opened a discussion on the main article talk page at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Highlighting cells. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed my edit to the national totals table was reverted by User:Ross UK. I had reversed the order, with the bound delegates at the top and the "needed to win" entry at the bottom, which seems a lot more intuitive to me, as a newcomer to the article. The way it is now, we have an extrapolated conclusion (needed to win) and a "grand total" at the top of the table, whereas these types of data usually are found at the bottom of a list. Any other views on this? Tobias (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Katydidit recently made a
series of edits to the results table in the Local contests section that added parenthetical cross-references to the event rows for states with multiple events. Is this added info necessary? My feeling is that the information is only marginally useful since it is already easy to see all of a state's event rows together by clicking on the sort symbol (
) at the top of the Location column. I feel the usefulness of these cross-references is outweighed by the clutter they add to this already busy-looking table. What do the rest of you think? --
Bryan H Bell (
talk)
15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Updated the state-by-state for the Rules and Bylaws ruling [2] but didn't touch the top table, as I'm not sure how you guys would like to adjust it now that Obama is over the nomination threshold.-- 12.47.123.121 ( talk) 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Colorado held a caucus, and as it is Colorado isn't added to the popular vote with caucus states counted. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html Has the vote totals for Obama and Clinton. Obama recieved 80,113 votes and Clinton 38,893 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.13.169 ( talk) 04:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This edit added two more rows to the popular vote tables, calculating the Michigan results by adding 73% of uncommitted votes to Obama's total, based on the percentage of exit poll "uncommitted" voters who said they would have voted for him. How do others feel about this? I thought about doing a similar row but decided against it myself, believing that it would be discouraged as original research. One problem with all the popular vote math over the last month is that there are really endless scenarios and calculations that we could be reporting. Seems like we should stick to one comprehensive source, and right now RealClearPolitics has the most comprehensive counts. I've seen the 73% calculation performed on blogs but not really in any reliable sources. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 06:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
On second thought the 73% solution seems pretty crazy. I'll admit that it seems reasonable intuitively, but if you look at the math, it's bogus. We're basing that number on exit polls. But the exit polls say quite explicitly 46% Clinton, 35% Obama, 12% Edwards, 2% Kucinich, 1% Richardson. The 73% row translates into 55% Clinton, 29% Obama, 16% unassigned. Why does this happen? Because the 73% solution pretends that Edwards only takes a chunk of "uncommitted" voters from Obama, but the exit poll suggests that if he were on the ballot, he would have taken a chunk of Clinton's voters also. It's not acceptable to base Obama's percentage on an exit poll if we're not going to base Clinton's percentage on the same poll. This seems like a pretty striking problem, and I suggest we remove the 73% figure from the table as well as from the body text. It turns out there's a reason, RealClearPolitics and other reliable sources aren't reporting this fact, and that's because it's a pretty basic statistical error. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 09:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Florida is no longer disputed. 24.199.236.112 ( talk) 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Should be updated to only contain one result, the one approved by the DNC. It's pretty confusing to have three results there. So it must be shortened to the official one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.202.233.8 ( talk) 14:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
June 1: Table needs updating
The table needs to be updated to include the June 1 Puerto Rico Primary, because right now it only reflects how it was on May 31. Update the table, please.
Yeldarb68 ( talk) 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 05:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Somebody appended the following text to the popular vote table: "Votes from regions outside the United States (i.e. Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Guam and Democrats Abroad) give Clinton an advantage of 132,361 votes." First, it appears to me that this statement is false. Second, if it is true, it should be reflected in the table and not in some addendum that supposedly trumps everything in the table. ( Jtlapp ( talk) 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC))
Perhaps we need an addendum to the table that explicitly says the table does include voters abroad, as I believe it does. That might have prevented this mistake. ( Jtlapp ( talk) 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC))
So, per the discussion above, it seems we have some disagreement about whether to include the Florida yes/no metric as a column in the popular vote table. Northwesterner1, Jtlapp, Floridianed have expressed support for the column. IP user 99.202.233.8 and Joncnunn have advocated dropping it from the table. IP user 70.170.89.104 has recently changed the article to drop the column. Can we get some other editors to weigh in so that we can have some stability on this? Northwesterner1 ( talk) 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I keep reverting this for a simple reason. I know DCW has made this change in their numbers, but we do not derive our pledged delegate numbers from DCW. The Results table is said to derive its data as follows. Supers from DCW; 'pledged' from results in state table; other results calculated from these two. The state results table cites the individual state pages. The State pages each cite their own sources for delegates, usually GPs, but not always. You can't just change the Results table without there being an underlying change that traces all the way back to the original source cited on the state page. It is not good enough to just change the state page, if the cited reference doesn't provide the basis for that change. I know we all want to be current and make these changes as soon as the first clue appears, but verifiability has to be maintained or the numbers can be changed at will (or whim). With a little patience, the relevant source pages will be updated, and then the now-verifiable changes can be made. Heck, we all think we know how many delegates were elected by the Kansas Democratic Convention two weeks ago, but without a source, it remains blank, as it should, and eventually someone will find a source that can be used to fill this gap. (sorry for the rant) Agricolae ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
We no longer need the estimated number of delegates needed to win row in the top table. And the article should also cut and paste that paragraph about him achiving this yesterday that's found in the main article. I'd do this myself but I can't make heads or tails on how to delete that row from that table. Jon ( talk) 13:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are the delegate counts on every article about the Democratic primaries different? Someplaces have Obama 2044, Clinton 18--, 2219/1867, etc. The superdelegate count is different, too. And just because Obama won doesn't mean you should take out the delegates needed row. What about Hillary? Hillary Cliton has 1923 delegates, and Barack Obama has 2156. Both numbers are probably a little low because of the superdelegates that endorsed after June 3.
Michigan and Florida's delegates get full voting rights. The delegate numbers must be actualized. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/24/full-voting-right. 22:00, 24 August 2008 (CET)
Where are the numbers for other candidates now? Richardson, etc...? 68.83.72.162 ( talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
There are some inconsistencies on this page that I don't understand and I was hoping for either clarification, or a correction (since I don't understand I'm not comfortable correcting myself). This page states In order to secure the nomination at the convention, a candidate must receive at least 2,117 votes from delegates (a simple majority of the 4,233 delegate votes, bearing in mind half-votes from Florida, Michigan, Democrats Abroad and the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).. This is inconsistent with a statement later in the article, The grand totals are: 2,244½ for Obama, 1,885 for Clinton, and 4½ for Edwards - those votes total 4134, 99 delegates difference. Further, if one examines the table in the article, it states that Clinton had 1972 delegates, Obama 2307.5 and Edward 4.5. This totals to 4284, 51 delegates higher than the stated total, and these numbers differ from those I quoted from earlier in the article. Lastly, the numbers in the chart differ by one vote (Obama one higher, Clinton one lower) from Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008, although as estimates I can see why they might have had variance. However, consistency should be the goal in those cases, perhaps. Like I said, I don't know what to fix, as I'm unfamiliar. Darquis ( talk) 02:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
None of the permutations in the table corresponds to the tallies given at Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008. I suggest harmonizing the two articles, either by adding the figures used on the other page to the table here with an explanation of how they were calculated, or by using the least controversial figures in the table on the other page. 37.205.58.146 ( talk) 13:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
popvote
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).