File talk:2008 Democratic Primaries Popular Vote.png

Barack Obama did not win Washington State's primary by more than 6 per cent of the vote. See here: http://vote.wa.gov/elections/wei/results.aspx

This map reflects the caucus vote -- the one that counts. Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

New York

Clinton did not win by a 20 to 30% point margin in New York as the popular vote map indicates. Clinton's win was by 17% according to CNN and most other reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.200.10 (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

New York is shown correctly as 10-20% on the popular vote map. The only 20-30% state was Oklahoma. Northwesterner1 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Texas

Obama won in Texas 98-95 (primary + caucus) ([ref] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.56.182.2 (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Map represents popular vote, not delegate count. Use with care. Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Here is a map of delegates:

Alternate Version. Winners by delegate count.

The popular vote should consider those that participated in the caucus, and seeing as Obama came away winning the overall delegate lead in Texas, the map should reflect this change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.70.147 (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The map uses popular vote numbers from Wikipedia Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries‎ and the associated articles. In the case of Texas, Clinton won the popular vote + caucus vote when they are combined. There are other graphics that show pledged delegate numbers. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is not true, combining caucus and primary results gives Obama a small advantage. --Sloane (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sloane, do you have a source on that? Taking a closer look, I see this is an ambiguous result. Clinton won the popular vote in the primary by 1,459,814 to 1,358,785 -- a popular vote lead of 101,129. I have not been able to find actual turnout numbers for the caucus. I have seen reports that place it at around 1,000,000. With 41% of precincts reporting, Obama won the caucuses 56-44%. If that percentage were to hold and the turnout estimate is correct, he would have won the caucuses by 560,000-440,000, or a lead of 120,000. But we don't really know, since the other precincts didn't report and we don't have an accurate turnout estimate. He won the caucus delegates by 37-30, which projects to an estimated lead of around 100,000, again if the turnout estimate is correct. So it was probably very close if you count it that way. But we have a larger problem: how do we count the "popular vote" in a state like Texas? Do we count a person who showed up for both the primary and caucus events as two "popular votes"? In that case, Obama may come out ahead narrowly. Or do we only count them once, since everyone in the caucuses was also required to vote in the primary? That seems truest to the definition of a popular vote -- in which case Clinton comes out ahead. Or do we count a primary participant as 2/3 of a popular vote and a caucus participant as 1/3 of a popular vote, in accordance with the way Texas weighs the results -- in that case Clinton is also narrowly ahead. I think the existing map, showing a narrow Clinton lead in the popular vote is the most accurate and NPOV. I would be interested to see caucus popular vote numbers if anyone can provide a source.Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if you're gonna argue that we don't know the exact results, the state shouldn't be counted as a win for either candidate. I don't see a problem with counting caucus votes either since we do it in other states. In Texas Democrats indeed have two votes. Best way to solve this is a striped pattern, indicating they both won the state.--Sloane (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at our options more systematically:

• Method 1. The source for this table's data is Real Clear Politics and they list a "popular vote" winner for Texas that gives Clinton the win with no qualification. This is also the number used in the popular vote table at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which this map is intended to accompany. I feel like the map should rely on the source's interpretation of "popular vote"; to come up with our own interpretation of the term when our source defines it explicitly otherwise would be original research. RealClearPolitics is counting actual people who came out to vote in Texas on March 4, which seems to me in line with most people's common-sense definition of the popular vote.
  • Actually, I see that the source in the image description was not listed as RealClearPolitics but "Wikipedia data." I have changed it to RealClearPolitics, because I actually used that site as well as the state articles to create the map and because it is the source for the table this map accompanies; also, it is a stronger source than simply stating "wiki data." However, since I am using that source to argue a point here, I should disclose that this is a recent change.
• Method 2. Even if you argue that the Texas state system is special, voters there don't actually have two votes. They have 2/3 of a vote and 1/3 of a vote. Clinton still wins by that math. This seems to me to be the second best option.
• Method 3. For the third option, counting voters who participated in both the primary and caucus as two full votes, we don't have sufficient data. Even if we did have data, this would not be the method I would choose for the map.
• Method 4. We could split the state in two parts, one for the primary and one for the caucus, or make it striped. However, then we would also have to do that for the delegate map. I am reluctant to do this, because I think it is useful to show people on the delegate map that Obama won the most total delegates in the state (which many people still do not know).

If you examine my history of edits at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008, I think you'll find that I don't have a pro-Clinton bias. In this case, I believe Method 1 is the most appropriate solution, following our source's definition. I'm happy to be overruled if there is consensus against this. The best place for that discussion, in my opinion, would be at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Guam

Someone needs to add Obama's squeaker of a win in Guam [1], I suppose by writing GU in light purple above dems abroad all the way on the right. I would do it but I'm not sure what font was used. Anyone? Brianski (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just did it about twenty minutes ago. Clear your browser cache, and you should see the new version. The font is Blue Highway for future reference. Thanks! Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ohio

The official results for Ohio, including absentee and provisional ballots, now show Clinton winning by 8.8% rather then the preliminary 10.4%. The state should be changed and placed into the Hillary 0-10% column. Source: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/ElectionsVoter/Results2008.aspx?Section=3520 (totals come to 1,259,620 and 1,055,769 for a difference of 203,851). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.55.127 (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Put Florida and Michigan

This is the popular vote map not the delegate one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.86.218 (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This map is intended to accompany the article Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, where the table clearly mentions the popular vote in the problematic states of FL/MI. Popular vote totals in those states are disputed (same as with the delegate totals). As there is not consensus to include those state results in the popular vote total, they are not included in the map. Cheers. Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

we —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.145.230 (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)