Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Proposals to Change Presentation of Results

Now that the vote has concluded in favor of resuming event-based rows, we can talk about how best to present the results of those events. Please create subsections below.Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Northwesterner. I was fiddling around with drafting a section much like this. Great minds, I guess. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Percentages for popular vote only

(Cut and pasted from the above discussion)

I don't think percentages should be included unless they reflect a popular vote. In cases where just delegate totals are released, having the percentages makes the table more confusing. ~ Paul^T+/_C 21:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That is, the above example should be changed to this:

Candidates		Uncommitted	Hillary Clinton	Mike Gravel	Barack Obama	John Edwards	Dennis Kucinich	Bill Richardson	Joe Biden	Chris Dodd
February 9	Washington precinct caucuses Pledged delegates: 0 (of 78)[A][B]	1%	[ 26 ] 31%	–	[ 52 ] 68%	–	–	–	–	–
May 17	Washington congressional district caucuses Pledged delegates: 51 (of 78)[B]	–	16	–	35	–	–	–	–	–
June 15	Washington state convention Pledged delegates: 27 (of 78)[B]	–	7	–	20	–	–	–	–	–

 ~ Paul^T+/_C 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Paul's fix. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well, though my preference would be to work out the details of whichever option we select after the vote has concluded. I'd like to ensure that discussion here doesn't cause this vote to stray from the core issue we're trying to decide because it's been so difficult bringing this issue to a conclusion. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Jon (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Subver (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support — Zntrip 17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Gelbza (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I implemented the other part of Paul's fix -- the brackets around estimated delegates produced by the first event in states with multiple events -- which I guess we didn't actually vote on here but which I assume is also accepted. However, I ran into some questions:

1. How do we deal with "estimates" that have been struck through? (IA Jan 3, MI, FL) I left these struck through, with no brackets.
2. Then, how do we deal with the Iowa county convention results, which are still estimates. I put brackets here. Is this the best fix?
3. How do we deal with states where some but not all delegates were bound at the first event? (ID, KS, NE, WY) I put brackets around these numbers to indicate that the total is an estimate, but that may be misleading, as some of those delegates are actually bound. One potential solution is to have two rows of delegate numbers in these states, the first giving the total estimates (in brackets) and the second giving the number of delegates actually bound at that event (without brackets).
4. Some caucuses appear to have all delegates bound at the first event. Is this correct? (AS, MN, NM, HI)
5. Dems Abroad is its own special case, as they appear from this table to have bound some delegates and not reported estimates on the others. Thus, no brackets. Is this correct?

Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's my take on Northwesterner's questions:

1. I don't see a problem with bracketing estimates that have been struck through. MI and FL are primary states, so their numbers aren't estimates anyway and shouldn't be bracketed. I do understand Subver's issue (expressed here) that using strikeout could be confusing on outdated estimates (especially considering that we use strikeout for MI and FL as well). I just can't think of a better way to display it.
2. I think Northwesterner's choice of bracketing Iowa's county convention results is good. Even though they're updated numbers, they're still estimates.
3. States in which some but not all delegates are bound does present a problem. I like the idea of having two rows of delegate numbers in those states (estimates in brackets and bound numbers without brackets). It will complicate the presentation a bit, but maybe it's worth it to provide more accurate information.
4. Yes, according to their delegate selection process documents, even though AS, MN, NM, and HI are caucus states, all delegates are bound after the first event. Subsequent events only determine who will serve as delegates.
5. Dems Abroad is indeed a strange case. According to their delegate selection process document, no delegate votes are bound at the first event, 4½ are bound at the second event, and 2½ at the third event. But according to their press releases, they seem to indicate that they consider 4½ of the delegate votes to already be bound. They offer no estimates for the remaining delegates, so perhaps we should obtain estimates for the remaining delegates from another reliable source.

--Bryan H Bell (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Delete the "actual pledged delegates row"

I propose to delete this row. Reasons:

• It adds to the confusion regarding event-based results, and the note that explains it "The data contained in the row entitled Actual pledged delegates is a subset of the data in the row entitled Estimated pledged delegates" may be confusing to the general reader. The fewer notes needed to explain the presentation of results, the better.
• "Actual pledged delegates" are really just "pledged delegates estimated to a greater degree of certainty," as any pledged delegate can change her/his vote up to the convention itself. I don't think we should be in the business of decided how likely delegates are to switch their votes, so we should just stick with the estimates reported by the NYT and other reliable sources.
• Having a single "estimated pledged delegates" row encourages standardization across this article, the main primary article, and the individual state articles.

Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We wrestled with this issue quite a bit back here. A few proposals were kicked around, but ultimately we failed to arrive at a resolution. I don't think simply deleting the "actual pledged delegates" row is necessarily the best solution here, but I need to think about this a bit before I can offer an alternative. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the prior discussion -- very helpful. One thing I would note is that the prior discussion predated the decision to standardize the main primary article with the results article and the individual state articles. At the current point in time, I see the "estimated pledged delegates" as something equivalent to "Wikipedia's official estimated delegate count." I've added a bullet point above noting article standardization as a point in favor of the proposal.Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Subver (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I would offer as an alternative to the proposal: eliminate the Total estimated pledged delegates row instead of the Total actual pledged delegates row. I would name the rows thusly:

• Total pledged delegates + superdelegates
• Total estimated superdelegate endorsements
• Total pledged delegates

The third row would be a sum of all delegates from the events rows that have actually been bound to candidates (no estimated delegate counts). The second row would use the DemConWatch numbers as before. The first row would be a sum of the second and third rows. In addition, I would replace the "Actual pledged delegates" line in the table notes with a line that says "Estimates appear inside square brackets ( [ ] ) and are not included in the totals." My basic idea here is to make this article focus on the results of the events, rather than on estimates that give us the current status of the race. We should inlcude estimates in event rows (in square brackets) only when no delegates are bound to candidates. We should do so not to give readers a total picture of where the race currently stands, but to show a historical picture of what the results of the event signified at the time. I don't believe that the totals on this article must remain in lock-step with the totals on the main article. For Wikipedia readers looking for a current snapshot of the race, they can refer to the main article.

Another alternative would be to eliminate the first two rows I list above and instead place an event at the bottom of the table called "Total superdelegate votes" dated August 25. We could fill it in with DemConWatch estimates (in square brackets) until that date and then fill in the actual results afterward. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this alternative. In my view, at this point in time, the reporting of estimated pledged delegate totals is one of the most important functions of both this article and the main article.Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your view. I agree that it's an important function to report the estimated delegate totals, I'm just don't feel as strongly that the function must be duplicated on both articles. I think it's enough that the main article reports this. Let me suggest a more radical change to this article that might be a compromise between your proposal and my alternatives as well a compromise on the sortable list idea discussed below.

What if we divided the Overview of results section in two: Overview and Details. The Overview section would contain a table with the totals rows and the Details section would contain a table with the event rows. This would permit us to easily make the Details table sortable. This would also give us the space to make the Overview table a bit more complex, perhaps showing two possibilities: an "agressive" grand total that includes estimated pledged delegates and estimated superdelegates, and a "conservative" grand total that includes only bound pledged delegates and no superdelegates. Perhaps we could even divide such a table into two tables. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to it. I'm going to be out of town and can't really weigh in much. Whatever you all decide is cool with me. Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the Bryan counterproposal. I repeat my support on original proposal. "Actual" is a misleading term, the row create a lot of confusion, the source (NYT) is not neutral and not very reliable (DCW decided to strip NYT from its comparatives, for what it's worth). Moreover the confidence of those "definitive" numbers is debated. A conservative way is to consider all numbers as estimates or unofficial until every state conventions, so this row become totally useless. --Subver (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I agree with several of your points, Subver. The term "actual" is indeed an inexact term, a more precise term might be "bound", meaning that the allocation of delegates to candidates is binding and cannot change. How many delegates are bound to candidates and at which events this occurs differs from state to state. I also agree that we should move away from using the New York Times as a source for the total number of delegates currently bound to each candidate. We already get the official raw data from each state's Democratic Party or Secretary of State. All we have to do is total up the bound delegates from each state. Your final statement, however, that all numbers are estimates until the state conventions is not correct. In most (if not all) primary states, the delegates are bound to the candidates at the very first event (the primary). In caucus states, it is sometimes true that some of the delegates are not bound until the state convention, but this is not always (or even mostly) true. In Iowa, for example, 29 delegates are officially bound to candidates at the 3rd event (the district conventions), though the remaining 16 are bound at the state convention. The "conservative" total is valuable because it shows us numbers that are the most accurate and free of any bias (because they simply reflect the facts of how many delegates have been officially bound to each candidate), though it is true that these numbers remain somewhat (but not completely) "behind the times" until the Democratic National Convention in August. The "agressive" total shows us numbers that are sometimes wrong and reflect the unavoidable bias of the sources used for the estimates in each state, but it is also valuable because it provides the most up-to-date snapshot of the current state of the race. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Delete the language about "events won" at the top of the article

I propose to delete the sentences beginning, "There are 65 total events listed below..." Reasons:

• It seems to imply that Event X should be given equal weight to Event Y. As I think we'd all agree that "winning" the initial popular event (primary or precinct-level caucus) is more meaningful than winning subsequent county conventions, we shouldn't give them equivalence here.
• It artifically inflates the totals when a candidate wins multiple events in one state vis-a-vis states that have only one event.
• There are so many numbers here, many editors don't take the time to update them, and these numbers can get out of date easily.
• There are so many numbers here, it gets jumbled and is hard to understand. Not what we need at the top of the article.

Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. It might be useful (and notable) to say something about any states that switch from supporting one candidate in the majority of its delegates to another. I don't think this has happened yet (or is likely to happen), but it's something to keep in mind. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Athough in terms of delegate count it's whichever event(s) that finalizes the delegates that's the more meaningful. Precint-level Iowa was a virtual three way tie in terms of projected delegates. The county convention has a clear first, second, and third place finisher in terms of delegates. The other state to watch for projected delegation shifting is Nevada. Jon (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Subver (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support — Zntrip 17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

DONE. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Explaining events won

We need a good, clean, clear paragraph at the top of this article, explaining how results are presented on this table on the basis of "events," as we're trying something here that is different than what is generally reported in the media and what is expected by the reader. How can we explain this most clearly? Anybody want to take a stab....?Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Ordering rows alphabetically by state rather than chronologically

I propose to order event rows alphabetically by state rather than chronologically.

• This may clear up confusion in states with multiple events. Look at how easy Paul's example with Washington is to understand when all the Washington events are grouped together. When these results are spread throughout the table, it makes it much, much, much harder to understand what's going on in multiple-event states.
• Now that most events are past us, a chronology of events is no longer as useful as an understanding of what's going on in individual states.
• A chronological order of events is useful mostly for looking at upcoming contests. But this is a results article, so it shouldn't be optimized for looking at upcoming contests. That chronology can be found in the main primary article.
• If we make this change, we could still make this a sortable table in case anyone wants to sort by date.

Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn’t that basically what we voted not to do? – Zntrip 02:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The vote was to keep multiple rows for states with multiple events (rather than summarizing multiple events in one row). My proposal maintains the multiple rows we voted on. I just have a different suggestion for how they should be ordered. They would be grouped by state and ordered alphabetically.Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Those are some intriguing arguments, but I prefer that this article presents a sweeping and detailed history of the nominating process from a national perspective, rather than presenting a series of smaller, discrete, localized timelines. The latter is already presented in the state articles, albeit not on a single page. A sortable list isn't a bad idea for a compromise, though. We'd have to restructure the table a bit to make it work. It might be tricky getting the events to line up chronologically by state if an alphabetical sort is chosen. If we did this, my preference would be for the article to present the rows sorted by date as a default. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what others think. If we go to a sortable list as a compromise, it's easiest to group alphabetically by states and then have an option to sort chronologically. But it would be possible to start chronological and have an alphabetical sort if we name the individual events something like Washington (1), Washington (2), to keep them in the right order. Then again, that's just adding more clutter to the tables. Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Help:Sorting offers some interesting options (particularly "Sorting with hidden sortkey") that might help. So far I've only skimmed that article. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that fixes it. If this is the preferred solution, we would just have to code the tables as "Washington <span style="display:none">1</span>," "Washington<span style="display:none">2</span>," etc. The 1 and the 2 would not be displayed in browsers. I assume we'd also have to adjust the table by giving each row a date, instead of letting, for example, "February 5" span multiple rows. Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sortable list seems best to me. Jon (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but which default ordering: chronological by date or grouped by states? Northwesterner1 (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible have sortable tables when "colspan" and "rowspan" are used. --Subver (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We would need to take out the rowspan coding and put a separate date with each row. We would also need to separate the top part of the table (the summary) from the bottom part (the event rows) to get rid of the colspan red line. Not a big problem. Northwesterner1 (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose — Zntrip 17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Gelbza (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Couldn't the the states with multiple events be hotlinked (wrong term probably, but where the url uses a # to link to a different section on the same page) to the later same-state contests? So the 1st Washington results would have a link leading to the second event, similar to the reference arrows?

Proposal: Removing pie charts, possibly other graphics

I propose to remove the pie chart graphics from the page based on the following reasons:

• As of this moment, March 21, the graphics are extremely outdated, showing results only through Feb 19th. Additionally, trying to keep up with modifications accurately gets seems a daunting task.
• These graphs in particular don't really seem to have much bearing on this article. They do not reflect actual results such as delegates earned but rather a sociological survey of the population.
• The graphs are based on exit polls (which do not have guaranteed statistical accuracy), and not actual specific polling data.

On a side note, the other graphs and charts should be rethought as well, as they don't necessarily add any new information, take up large quantities of space, and in some the wording at least is decidedly biased.

Gelbza (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I made most of the graphs, but I'm not attached to any of them. Just wanted to check in, as I'm going to be out of town & off Wikipedia. Feel free to keep or delete what you like. I'm willing to update the maps with every new result, and the delegate/superdelegate bar charts every two weeks or after significant new events. I'm done updating the exit poll pie charts; it's too hard to composite the exit polls, and they're not worth it. So I'd recommend deleting those. Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Delete "(", ")" on Edwards delegates

I think those brackets are useless and misleading. I don't understand the meaning. If the meaning is that Edwards is out of race, they are not correct, because Edwards is out and not his delegates. --Subver (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. I, too, see no need for the parenthases around Edwards' delegate numbers. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Jon (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Andareed (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How do we handle Nevada's county conventions?

I've been working my way from the top of the Overview of results table adding events for states. I'd completed Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan when I ran into trouble with Nevada. Nevada was the first caucus state to hold its 2nd nominating event (not counting Washington's non-binding primary), which was its county conventions on February 23. However, the county convention in Clark County (where Las Vegas is located) was so poorly planned that attendance overwhelmed the ability of the event to continue and they had to recess the convention until April 12 (see this article for the sordid details). The other county conventions proceeded normally. Clark County has the largest share of delegates among the counties in Nevada. This means that the majority of delegate votes for this event (2,463) have not yet been counted, and won't be for another month. The result is that listing the updated pledged delegate estimates for this event shows some really strange numbers. How do you think we should list the estimates for this event in the Overview of results table? I see the following options, but I'd be happy to hear other suggestions:

• list the event as 94% reporting, list the estimates with a large "uncommitted" number, add a footnote explaining that the uncommitted number actually represents uncounted delegate votes, and avoid using strikeout for the estimates of Nevada's first event (this is the way I've left the table so far)
• do the same as above except apply strikeout to the estimates for Nevada's first event (as we've done for Iowa's first event)
• separate Nevada's county conventions event into two rows, one on February 23 called "county conventions (except Clark)" and another on April 12 called "Clark county convention" and re-compute the estimates accordingly

Help! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Once the source of the estimates stop using "uncommitted" to mean "uncounted" then we'll be able to handle it normally. But agreed that until then we have an issue with Clark county (which BTW is where 70% of the population of NV resides [two of the three CDs for NV are entirely in Clark county and the remaining one is also partly in Clark]). Do we have a reliable source segreating the Clark delegates from the first event away from non Clark? In that case we might be able to leave the original event line alone, add the Feb 23 event under the title sugested and place a footnote that the original projected delegate count from non clark was such and such. Jon (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Another thing is did Clark start any counting on Feb 23 before going into recess? If they did start some counting before recessing and it was picked up by a reliable source then we have an additional complication. Jon (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I say we do the same thing we did for Iowa. Just strikeout the caucus results, we'll update them after Clark County does there's. – Zntrip 17:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more Zntrip's makes sense. Add to the date column a "-" and the date of Clark County concludes. But in the mean time I think the "94%" in is highly misleading; that is 94% of the counties of Nevada but only about 30% of the population. I think it should instead say in ()s "All but Clark County (Las Vegas)" Jon (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Essentially we'll treat Nevada's county conventions as if they are taking place over a range of dates and witholding results until after the end of the date range. This is how we handle other multiple-date events like the Democrats Abroad primary. I've therefore moved Nevada's county conventions from the February 23 position in the table to the April 12 position and displayed the date as February 23–April 12. I removed the "94%" as well as the partial delegate counts. I also added a footnote to the date explaining the situation. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is all extremely confusing even for us (and we are very experts of primaries by now). Elections mixed with conventions; popular events with assemblies; the (blue) winner of a state replicated 4-5 times, even if he really wins only once; parentheses "(" used both for Edwards (don't understand why) and for Iowa first event, Strike-through text used both for MI/FL and for Iowa (and further when available). I repeat that the summary-popular event based solution was much better, in particular for readers who don't want to be confused, but I know I'm in minority. A lot of times the simplest solutions is also the best, the problems with the adopted solution will be many. --Subver (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think it's productive to re-hash recent consensus decisions, I do think we might be able to find ways to manage some of the concerns Subver raises:

• "(blue) winner of a state replicated 4-5 times, even if he really wins only once" The blue/bold highlight doesn't indicate which candidate "won" each state, only which candidate has the most delegates in a given event. However, since each event in a state is really only deciding the distribution of the same delegates, maybe it would make sense to only use the blue/bold highlight in the most recent event in each state, leaving past events without highlights.
• "parentheses "(" used both for Edwards (don't understand why) and for Iowa first event" This is now being discussed above. I support Subver's suggestion to remove the parenthases around Edwards' delegate numbers.
• "Strike-through text used both for MI/FL and for Iowa (and further when available)" I think strikethrough text makes sense for MI and FL since those results have been nullified, but maybe we can find a better way to display estimates from past events (like Iowa's caucuses) than using strikethrough. I'm not sure yet what that better way might be, but I think it's worth some discussion to figure it out. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for including/excluding events

While adding nominating events to the Overview of results table, I've run across many events that I'm not sure we should include because they have no impact on the allocation of delegates to candidates. It occurred to me that we may need to establish criteria by which we'll judge whether or not to include an event.

We could simply include all events regardless of their impact on candidate standings, but I think that this will clutter the table with too many uninformative rows. Those editors who feel that it's too complicated to include any events at all would probably find including all events to be particularly cumbersome. Some discussion about which events to include took place earlier (see here and here) and the consensus at that time was also to avoid including all events.

I think that the criteria for deciding which events to include or exclude should be based on the impact those events have on the final allocation of delegates to candidates. I find it useful to group events into 4 categories describing their degree of impact:

• direct impact: These are events at which attendees decide some or all of the final numbers of pledged delegates who will be bound to each candidate. Most state primaries belong in this category since their results are the final word on how many pledged delegates will be bound to each candidate. Some, but not all, caucus events also belong in this category. For example, Iowa's April 26 district conventions belong in this category, because their results are the final word on allocating 29 of Iowa's 45 pledged delegates to candidates. Iowa's January 3 caucuses, however, do not belong in this category, because their results do not directly determine the final number of pledged delegates who will be bound to candidates. However, Iowa's January 3 caucuses do fit into either of the next two categories.
• proxy impact: These are events at which attendees choose delegates who will act as their proxies at subsequent events in deciding the final delegate-to-candidate allocation. Iowa's January 3 caucuses belong in this category because some of the delegates that attendees choose at this event will go on to attend the April 26 district conventions where, as described above, the delegates make a final decision about the number of pledged delegates that will be bound to each candidate.
• indicator impact: These are events at which a popular vote for candidates takes place, but the vote has no direct impact on the allocation of delegates to candidates. Washington's and Idaho's primaries belong in this category. The results of neither primary are used to allocate delegates to candidates, but they do provide an indicator of voters' presidential preferences, which could influence pledged delegate and superdelegate votes. Interestingly, Iowa's January 3 caucuses also belong in this category since a popular vote is what determines how many of the "proxy delegates" are allocated to each candidate. In fact, the first event in just about every caucus state falls into this category since they involve popular votes for candidates.
• zero impact: These are event that have no impact whatsoever on the allocation of delegates to candidates. Many (but not all) state conventions belong in this category because they choose only the actual persons who get to attend the Democratic National Convention, not the number of delegates who are pledged to vote for each candidate. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Modification to remove intial caucus events from "indicator impact" category:

• direct impact: These are events at which attendees decide some or all of the final numbers of pledged delegates who will be bound to each candidate. Most state primaries belong in this category since their results are the final word on how many pledged delegates will be bound to each candidate. Some, but not all, caucus events also belong in this category. For example, Iowa's April 26 district conventions belong in this category, because their results are the final word on allocating 29 of Iowa's 45 pledged delegates to candidates. Iowa's January 3 caucuses, however, do not belong in this category, because their results do not directly determine the final number of pledged delegates who will be bound to candidates. However, Iowa's January 3 caucuses do fit into either of the next two categories the next category.
• proxy impact: These are events at which attendees choose delegates who will act as their proxies at subsequent events in deciding the final delegate-to-candidate allocation. Iowa's January 3 caucuses belong in this category because some of the delegates that attendees choose at this event will go on to attend the April 26 district conventions where, as described above, the delegates make a final decision about the number of pledged delegates that will be bound to each candidate.
• indicator impact: These are events at which a popular vote for candidates takes place, but the vote has no direct impact on the allocation of delegates to candidates. Washington's and Idaho's primaries belong in this category. The results of neither primary are used to allocate delegates to candidates, but they do provide an indicator of voters' presidential preferences, which could influence pledged delegate and superdelegate votes. Interestingly, Iowa's January 3 caucuses also belong in this category since a popular vote is what determines how many of the "proxy delegates" are allocated to each candidate. In fact, the first event in just about every caucus state falls into this category since they involve popular votes for candidates.
• zero impact: These are event that have no impact whatsoever on the allocation of delegates to candidates. Many (but not all) state conventions belong in this category because they choose only the actual persons who get to attend the Democratic National Convention, not the number of delegates who are pledged to vote for each candidate. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 1: exclude only proxy and zero impact categories

Using the above categories [ without the modification --Bryan H Bell (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC) ] as a guide, here is the criteria I propose for deciding which events to include or exclude from the Overview of results table. I propose we exclude events that fall into the "zero impact" or "proxy impact" categories and include events that fall into the "direct impact" or "indicator impact" categories. To put it simply, I propose we include only events in which either delegates are bound to candidates or a popular vote takes place. This criteria would retain each state's initial event as well as the non-binding primaries in Washington and Idaho, but it would jettison many intermediate events that have little impact on the allocation of delegates to candidates. I think the results of events with "proxy impact" will be difficult to obtain. As an example of how my proposed criteria would affect the inclusion or exclusion of events, here is a run-down for one state: Washington.

• Washington precinct caucuses (indicator impact, proxy impact) included
• Washington primary (indicator impact) included
• Washington legislative district caucuses (proxy impact) excluded
• Washington county conventions (proxy impact) excluded
• Washington congressional district caucuses (direct impact, proxy impact) included
• Washington state convention (direct impact) included

If my proposal is accepted, we will need to remove several events from the Overview of results table and should also add some explanatory text at the top of the section. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I take it the March 15 Iowa County Conventions would also stay as an updated proxy impact? (And if I recall corectly, the upcoming Iowa Congressional Districts would stay as direct impact for district delegates and the Iowa State Convention as direct impact on the state wide delegates.) Jon (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't follow all the nuances of the multiple-event states, but it seems to me that any categorization that lumps the January 3 Iowa caucuses and the Washington primary in the same category (indicator impact) and includes them on that basis alone is flawed somehow. The initial caucus events should clearly be included, while I think there is a legitimate argument for the Washington primary being excluded. They should be considered under different categories. Using your categories, I guess I'm arguing to include "direct" and "proxy" events and to exclude "indicator" and "zero" events. My main reason for supporting a multiple events table was to track changes in estimated delegates in events like the March 15 Iowa County Conventions. It seems like you're proposing to exclude that event.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point that the "indicator impact" category might an inappropriate grouping of events and by extension a flimsy basis for including events. I don't know that it necessarily means the entire categorization scheme is flawed. Perhaps merely modifying the definition of "indicator impact" above to remove the word direct would suffice, limiting the category to popular vote events with no impact on delegates (i.e. Washington and Iowa primaries alone). With that modification, I would agree that including "direct impact" and "proxy impact" events while excluding "indicator impact" and "zero impact" events could make sense. Another option would be to exclude only "zero impact" events.

It wasn't my intention to exclude the obviously notable March 15 Iowa county conventions, but by the criteria I've proposed, it would be excluded since it represents a "proxy impact" only. Oops. My intention in excluding "proxy impact" events was that I suspected a great many of them will have little impact on the delegate allocations and thus no reliable sources will report their results. I've already encountered this issue with North Dakota's legislative district conventions. I also hoped to cut down on the events which would list their total delegate count as "0 (of x)". Finally, I thought that excluding "proxy impact" events would be a good way to cut down on the total number of events, keeping the table trim and simple. Ah, well. I tried. Let me make another attempt to make this entire scheme work by adding a modified categorization and two new proposals. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2: exclude only indicator and zero impact categories

Using the above modified categories as a guide, propose we exclude events that fall into the "indicator impact" or "zero impact" categories and include events that fall into the "direct impact" or "proxy impact" categories. This criteria would retain each state's initial event, but it would jettison the non-binding primaries in Washington and Idaho. As an example of how the proposed criteria would affect the inclusion or exclusion of events, here is a run-down for one state: Washington.

• Washington precinct caucuses (proxy impact) included
• Washington primary (indicator impact) excluded
• Washington legislative district caucuses (proxy impact) included
• Washington county conventions (proxy impact) included
• Washington congressional district caucuses (direct impact, proxy impact) included
• Washington state convention (direct impact) included

If this proposal is accepted, we will need to remove several events from the current Overview of results table and should also add some explanatory text at the top of the section. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Thanks for modifying the categories and clarifying the proposal. I like this option, excluding the non-binding primaries, as I see them as roughly akin to straw polls. However, I'm also okay with proposal 3 below. Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Support — I would rather be inclusive when it comes to these events. – Zntrip 00:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Jon (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 3: exclude only zero impact categories

Using the above modified categories as a guide, propose we exclude events that fall into the "zero impact" categories and include events that fall into the "direct impact", "proxy impact", or "indicator impact" categories. As an example of how the proposed criteria would affect the inclusion or exclusion of events, here is a run-down for one state: Washington.

• Washington precinct caucuses (proxy impact) included
• Washington primary (indicator impact) included
• Washington legislative district caucuses (proxy impact) included
• Washington county conventions (proxy impact) included
• Washington congressional district caucuses (direct impact, proxy impact) included
• Washington state convention (direct impact) included

If this proposal is accepted, no events will need to be removed from the current Overview of results table, but we should add some explanatory text at the top of the section as to why the "zero impact" events haven't been included. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

It looks like consensus favors Proposal 2 above. I have therefore removed the following events from the Overview of results table:

• Kansas district conventions: zero impact
• Democrats Abroad regional caucuses: zero impact
• Democrats Abroad global convention: zero impact
• Washington primary: indicator impact
• Idaho primary: indicator impact

None of the other zero or indicator impact events had been included yet. I also made an attempt to explain all of this in the introductory paragraph of the Overview of results section. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the great work, Bryan. I re-edited the intro a little, trying to make it a little clearer. I think it can be improved further still. Should we mention WA primary in the intro? Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I was rather hoping you'd do a little editing to the intro. Your edits are an improvement. Thanks. The intro still seems a little long and complex to me, but I'm as yet uncertain how to shorten or simplify it. Explaining the absence of the WA primary would be good if we can do so without adding much to the intro's size and complexity. I think looking for ways to further streamline the table will also help in this effort. I hope to present a few ideas for this soon. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gravel

He's just joined the Libertarian Party. Can we now FINALLY remove him? —Nightstallion 11:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Is just stating your now a member of the Libertarian Party sufficent for the DNC to no longer consider the person a party member in good standing or does he also have to file paperwork with them to be removed? Jon (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why editors get so bunched up about removing Gravel. Of course we won't remove him. Any candidate who has run a national Democratic Party campaign should be listed on the table. However, it is true that Gravel has announced on his own web site that he is leaving the Democratic Party and joining the Libertarian Party. This amounts to a public announcement of withdrawal from the Democratic Party presidential race. I've therefore shaded as "Withdrawn" the remainder of the rows in Gravel's column and moved the column over. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think switching to another party validates listing him as withdrawn. See his campaign Web site. – Zntrip 00:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Democrats Abroad Events

It looks like an editor has added the democrats abroad cacus delegates to the democrats abroad primary and deleted the line for the cacus instead of using it and deleted the comment on the primary about it only having part of the delegation. Jon (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the Democratic Abroad subarticle has the same problem of now comingling primary & cacus results. Prior to the results coming in from their cacus these articles were all claiming something like 1 1/2 delegates would be betermined at the convention intead of the primary. Jon (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the editor that made the changes to both articles. A closer reading of the recently revised and official Democrats Abroad Delegate Selection Plan reveals (in section I.A.4) that the results of the primary determine the allocation of all 7 delegate votes to each candidate. Subsequent caucus events determine only who will serve as delegates, not how many delegates are bound to each candidate. I've added notes to this effect (with appropriate citations) in the Democrats Abroad subarticle. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Calculate percentages as a total of delegates TO DATE, not ALL delegates

Several days ago, this edit on the main primary article changed the practice for reporting delegate percentages in the summary table on that article. Whereas the pledged delegate count used to read 53-47% (based on the percentage of all delegates projected to date), it was changed to 43-39% (based on the percentage of all delegates available, including states that haven't voted yet). There was no edit summary to explain the change, but I assume the editor changed it to match the results article. which has an extra column for "uncommitted delegates" and includes a percentage for that column (e.g. 43-39-18%)

I would like to revert to the original practice on the main primary article, reporting a percentage of all delegates projected to date. In addition, I would like to change the current practice on this results article. Candidate percentages should be calculated as a percentage of all delegates awarded or projected thus far, excluding future contests. Percentages should be removed from the uncommitted column. Percentages should also be removed from the "Uncommitted" superdelegates and the "Uncommitted" grand total, although they may be maintained in state rows where appropriate.

Reasons:

• As the main article does not have an uncommitted column, it's very confusing when these numbers don't add up to 100.
• The current practice is at odds with accepted statistical practice just about everywhere in the real world. When the numbers are rolling in for State X, CNN says "with 50% of precincts reporting, Candidate A has 60% of the vote, and Candidate B has 40% of the vote." They don't say, "Candidate A has 30% of the vote, Candidate B has 20% of the vote, and 50% is undetermined."
• The current practice introduces a POV problem, as it artificially narrows the gap between the two candidates on all measures.

Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mostly neutral. I feel ambivalent toward most of this proposal. Either way is fine. The one point I disagree with is that the percentages should be removed from the uncommitted column on the results article. As its footnote indicates, that column doesn't (and shouldn't) indicate the number of potential delegates in upcoming contests. It measures the pseudo-candidate "uncommitted" which is a valid candidate choice in most contests. We show percentages for all the other candidates, so we should show percentages for the "uncommitted" candidate as well. Part of the problem here is that we currently fudge this meaning somewhat in the superdelegate estimate row. I suppose the (weak) argument is that the superdelegates that have not endorsed a candidate have so far "picked" uncommitted. If you don't buy that argument, then perhaps a different way to fix the uncommitted issue you see would be to mark the delegate count in the uncommitted column of the superdelegates row as "0". However, that wouldn't prevent the issue arising again later if a particular contest again yielded some true uncommitted delegates (or if Michigan's delegates somehow got seated as is). Another possible solution would be to simply let the main and results articles show different percentages, each with the percentages appropriate to the particular way they display their numbers. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I misread the uncommitted column. I'm withdrawing that part of the proposal.Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That changes my vote to just plain neutral. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Support On the main primaries article, I also found it confusing seeing the percentages not adding up to 100%. Andareed (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Well, it's not exactly overwhelming consensus here with two votes in support, but I'm going to make this change, as there is no opposition. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what's up with the Texas caucus, which shows 50% uncommited 22% Clinton 28% Obama? By the same logic, shouldn't that be 44% Clinton 56% Obama, with 41% of precincts reporting? The state article says there were no "uncommitted" delegates, only "undetermined" delegates.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about updating pledged delegate totals

I apologize in advance if I'm breaking any kind of convention.

I've been hearing various news sources updating delegate totals. However, these changes don't seem to be propagating to all the various news organizations (eg NY Times [1]). For example, there are these two articles I have heard/read (Chicago Public Radio [2] and MSNBC [3]). Both of these articles are from what I would call reputable news sources and they correct previously published delegate totals. However, I have tried to find further references about these particular issues but have come up empty handed.

My question is basically: given how complex this particular race has been, what is the criteria for selecting sources for delegate totals for this article? DavidForero (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All lines in this table (and the "main" democratic article) use the linked state pages for the pledged delegates and DemConWatch for the superdelegates. So when DemConWatch changes, we'll change the superdelegates to match. For a pledged delegate change, we fix the state page first and then the tables. (On the state primary pages, the prefered source for vote count is certified state results, but that's often not advaible for a couple of weeks, pending which we use a major news site. Also the states don't tend to keep track of delegates so a major news site is used for that was well.)Jon (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For more context, see the section Reporting delegate totals in the main article Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: split Overview of results section

I propose we split the Overview of results section into two sections: National summary and Local contests. The first section would contain the first four "totals" rows of the current section's table. The second section would contain the remaining "events" rows. The split would provide the following advantages:

• Allows expansion or reformatting of information in the "totals" rows without trying to shoe-horn it into the existing table format. For example, we would be free to split the information into two totals tables: an "agressive" table that totals estimated pledged delegates with estimated superdelegates and a "conservative" table that totals only bound pledged delegates with no superdelegates.
• Provides the ability to break up the current section's long explanatory text into smaller chunks.
• Provides more flexibility in organizing the "events" rows. For example, we could make the events rows sortable by date or location, letting readers see a nation-focused cross-state progression of events or a state-focused local progression of events.

Please add your support for, opposition to, or comments on this proposal below. Listing any advantages or disadvantages I've missed would be helpful. As much as possible, let's try to keep the focus on whether or not we should split the section and avoid getting too caught up in the details of how we'd format or wordsmith the resulting two sections. We can work out those details later, either with successive edits or new discussion sections on this talk page. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support I agree we could write clearer and more concise explanatory text by concentrating on the two parts separately. I also still like the idea of making event rows sortable by state. Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Same as above. ChPr (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Though there haven't been many votes cast on this over the past week, there has been no opposition, so I've gone ahead and split the section. Now we can begin making refinements to each separate section. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, Bryan! Thanks for doing all that work. The sortable tables aren't working quite right, though. They seem to be sorting numerical values alphabetically, e.g. 150 comes after 10 but before 20. I'll try to take a look at the syntax later unless you know right offhand how to fix it.Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The brackets might be causing the software to interpret some columns as text rather than numbers (see Help:Sorting#Sort_modes). When I get a chance, I'll see if I can fix it (unless you fix it first). --Bryan H Bell (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I played around with the instructions at Help:Sorting and couldn't get it to work. I decided just to make the first two columns sortable for now, as that seems the most important... Northwesterner1 (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried messing around with this as well and couldn't get a satisfactory result. We could force the correct sorting by adding hidden text for each cell, but that seems like a clumsy, tedious, and error-prone way to handle it. I think your solution works best for now. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegates

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)

Speaking of superdelegates, I think the blog post is behind on counting them. According to FirstRead, Clinton holds a 256-225 superdelegate lead over Obama. In the overall count, Obama leads by 133 (1,641 to 1,508). He has a 164 pledged-delegate lead (1,416 to 1,252). The pledged delegates are almost exactly the same, but the gap is with the count of supers. ChPr (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't quickly reconcile the difference between First Read and the current DCW watch based on the count alone with First Read giving Clinton more delegates than DCW and yet Obama fewer than DCW. (If First Read had higher counts for both or lower counts for both it would make more sense.) DCW does however list every single delegate. Unless First Read does the same it's going to be impossible to reconcile them. Jon (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

FirstRead: Obama 1416 + 230 = 1646, Clinton 1252 + 260 = 1512

DemConWatch: Obama 1416 + 222 = 1638, Clinton 1253 + 246 = 1499

The difference between FirstRead's and DCW's pledged delegates, is that FirstRead has one remaining delegate to allocate from the Democrat's Abroad, which DCW gives to Clinton. FirstRead's superdelegate count is higher for both, however. ChPr (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Popular Vote discussion

The discussion of counting popular vote is factually flawed with regard to one of the examples. Specifically, the numbers for Washington that are said to be of caucus participants are nothing of the sort. The reported numbers are of delegates elected by the caucus precincts, to be sent to the county & congressional district conventions. The number of these precinct delegates given each precinct was assigned based on the turnout there in the previous presidential election, and have no direct relationship to the actual participation in the precinct during the caucus. Obama did not receive 11,700 more votes, but rather, an unknown number of caucus voters sent 11,700 more delegates to the next level than did an unknown number of Clinton voters (a ballpark estimate would be at about 10 times as many participants as delegates). Not knowing exactly which numbers were included in the table, I cannot provide an alternative discussion of the problem, but a fix is in order. Agricolae (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. I've returned it to the old example (Hawaii + Rhode Island), as we have an actual popular vote count for the Hawaii caucus.Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

ND legislative caucus cut

Per the exclude zero impact events discussion above, I have cut the ND legislative cacus. Jon (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bryan, either North Dakota shows numbers, or else Michigan and Florida do not. You cannot have it both ways, and appear neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.209.46 (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jon, I reverted your edit because the North Dakoka legislative district caucuses have what I had categorized above as a "proxy impact" on the final allocation of ND's delegates to each candidate. Like the Washington legislative district caucuses, the delegates chosen at the North Dakota legislative district caucuses will act as proxies at subsequent events in deciding the final delegate-to-candidate allocation. Therefore, the event does have an impact, albeit a weak one. One problem we face with this ND LD event, however, is that it is hard to locate a source for its results. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

While not an official release, I found the following in an AP story of 7 Apr: "The caucus results suggested Obama should get eight of the 13 delegates, with Clinton getting the remaining five. Although the February vote was advisory, Sunday's delegate selections followed its blueprint. Eight of the 13 delegates are Obama supporters, while five are backing Clinton." http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:riFG2vOFNocJ:www.in-forum.com/ap/index.cfm%3Fpage%3Dview%26id%3DD8VSMFN02+north+dakota+convention+delegate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us&client=firefox-a Agricolae (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem now is that this article is now in an inconsistent state. We either need to drop that line or add that same estimate to the line; otherwise it looks like a zero impact event here. And if that same estimate is made here, it also needs backed filled on the North Dakota cacus article as well; it's looking like a zero impact there as well. Jon (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's frustrating not being able to find any published state-wide results for the ND legislative conventions (and boy, have I looked). Of course, our inability to find published results has no bearing on whether or not the contest actually had an impact on ND's delegate-to-candidate allocation (even if that impact didn't result in a change to the allocation). I therefore don't think we should remove the contest from this article (unless we change the criteria by which we decide whether or not to include events). However, I agree that it looks weird having no listed results for the LD contest when results are listed for the state convention. I don't think listing the estimate from other contests (either the precinct caucuses or the state convention) is appropriate. The estimates should reflect what sources were saying at the time of the contest. I think we should either leave things as they are (even though it may look a little strange) or add some kind of note explaining that results are unavailable for this contest. Whatever we decide, we should keep in mind that this situation is likely to arise with some other state contests. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Agricolae for finding this article and using its contents to update the state convention results in the North Dakota article. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for prior events with no known reliable sources in which we have a reliable source for a later event

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)

Support ChPr (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Support As the proposer. Jon (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment We have previously agreed to include such events under Bryan's "proxy" indicator proposal. However, I do agree that we need to reconsider whether such events are noteworthy for the encyclopedia if no reliable sources provide information about them.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I don't strongly oppose as I agree the current situation makes the table look odd. However, as Northwesterner says, we had previously agreed to include events such as these. I think we may run into problems like this in the future with similar "proxy impact" events. Perhaps we should reconsider whether we want to include these types of events. I guess we could selectively remove events as we go whenever we have trouble finding results, but such an approach itself would introduce inconsistency to the article. Regarding the notability argument, availability of results doesn't necessarily indicate that events are not notable. In the case of the ND LD events, I am able to find sources that indicate the events took place and had some noteable features (unrelated to this article). I'm even able to locate the results for some LD events. I'm just not able to locate state-wide summary results. Finally, it might be premature to say that it's unlikely we we'll ever find any sources for the events. It's only been a month since the events ended. It sometimes takes a long time for Democratic state parties to publish their results. What about leaving the event in place with a notation explaining that results are currently unavailable? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, we have proxy inital results, and already have final results in agreement with the initial, so we don't have a particularly news-worthy item (the intermedate level). All the more so because (sorry those living in ND), North Dakota is a small state. After the primary when the primary narative is written, it's going to heavily focus on proxy initial results and only mention the later ones where it changes the outcome from prior results. Jon (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened to it?

What happened to the straight up map that had certain colored clinton and certain states colored obama?

Most editors seemed to prefer the maps shaded by margin of victory, since the Democratic primaries (unlike the Republican primaries) are not winner-take-all.Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Republican primaries were a mix of winner take all and proportional; and just about everything in between. The Democratic primaries though are all proportional for both "district" & "statewide" ones by rule. Most (all?) of the district allocations are by democratic performance in recent elections. The only major difference between states I've seen on the Democratic side is that Texas assigned the district ones by state senate districts instead of by congressional district. Jon (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Source

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)

By consensus, we've switched to using data from each state's respective primary/caucus article. This is explained under the section "Local contests," additional notes: "Except where indicated, data comes from sources referenced at each state's primary or caucus Wikipedia article, available by clicking on a state's name." I agree it could be missed. Want to take a stab at making it more clear? Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Primary Stats

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)

Popular vote

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)

Yes, we should make the sourcing in this section stronger. However, I oppose the inclusion of MI popular vote results. I don't think it's appropriate to give Obama the uncommitted votes, and I don't see how we can put a popular vote number up there for Clinton but not for Obama. I don't think anybody is making the argument with a straight face that we should count the nationwide popular vote with MI for Clinton and nothing for Obama. If others feel it's necessary to include Michigan, I could weakly support a table without totals (see example below) but I think including MI results in any kind of popular vote total is misleading.Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree on not including MI for the same reason as Northwestern. What I'm curious about on the first two is weather or not they are including estimated popular vote in the cacus states? If not I think we need some that do as well. Of note, last night CNN had three charts, one for primaries only (exclude FL/MI), the next that included the cacus states, and the 3rd included FL (but not MI). I would guess they should be on their web site somewhere. Jon (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Our table includes the actual number of people who showed up to caucus (where available). In the four states that do not do report this, the table provides an estimate of the caucus popular vote (calculated by RealClearPolitics) based on delegate split, as outlined in the first bullet point. I think those two things are relatively uncontroversial, although recently I have noticed that some outlets (CNN) have started reporting a primary popular vote without caucus vote totals. Our table does not include an "estimated popular vote" that extrapolates from caucus numbers to suggest what the popular vote might have been if those states had used primaries. (I'm not sure if that's what you're suggesting or not.) I have seen some analyses that report such extrapolations, but I think they are problematic enough that we would not do so here. Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I wasn't sugesting anything like X times more people would have voted if this were a primary instead of a cacus. Just the estimated cacus popular vote. The only interest in what a popular vote might have been is the Obama campaign to the superdelegates; like wise the only interest in exculde all cacuses but included both Florida & Michigan is the Clinton campaign to the superdelegates. Jon (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Popular Vote Count (through April 22, 2008)
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

Are the totals wrong?

I mean, the ones in the first table. Can anybody control them? Thanks. 79.19.237.201 (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the totals in the "National summary" section's table (correct me if that's not the table you were asking about) and they are correct. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)