Talk:2008 Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary

Felons
The article previously referenced a law forbidding convicted felons from voting until five years after the end of their incarceration. According to Pennsylvania's Department of State website, the Supreme Court struck that law down in 2000 based on unconstitutionality. However, felons in prison are still barred from voting. I totally removed any reference to the false restrictions, if someone would like to clarify them as false within the article, be my guest. LicenseAppliedFor (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Campaign Section
I moved this section here until it is expanded, or decided that it is actually needed. The statment is unreferenced, and the picture, I think, shouldn't be there unless there is one from an Obama rally as well..--Shniken1 (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Campaign


Most political observers believe Pennsylvania is a "must-win" for Senator Clinton to continue her campaign.

Should small polls be mentioned?
By that, I mean that a very small poll is being given a lot of importance. 659 people isn't exactly a huge number in comparison to the entire state and it seems it is being given too much importance. Bigger samples give more accurate results, and it seems misleading to not give that many details. Just saying. 162.83.198.212 (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the previous poll (Muhlenberg College) had an even smaller sample size: 406. The poll previous to that was quite large (1,224), though that poll had Obama leading Clinton, something that no other poll has shown. My personal criteria for including a poll is to take the most recent poll from Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008. Pollster is a also a reputable source for getting polls (it lists all the polls I've mentioned). Andareed (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do formal polls need to be used? I mean, the AOL straw poll gives drastically different results and has so far surveyed over 10 times as many people. I'm guessing it is because the poll is an active one. Just saying I think it is seriously misleading and doing readers a disservice to even mention very small polls. SkepticBanner (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The sample size of major state-wide polls are usually done within the regularly accepted statistical methods. Often national polls are conducted on 3,000 people, so 400 isn't out of line for PA. I would prefer to use Gallup, Quinnipiac, F&M (Terry Madonna), or Rasmussen. But, then again, I wouldn't worry too much about the polls in this article, since they change all the time, and won't matter anymore in 2 weeks.--CodeneBlues (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit ridiculous to base the vote of hundreds of thousands if not over a million people based on a couple hundred people's voices on a survey. I've always been taught that big sample sizes are needed. But I'll assume for now that the case for using these polls has been made. SkepticBanner (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sample sizes are determined by a statistical formula taking into account the "confidence level" you desire (usually 95%), the "margin of error" desired (usually +/- 5%), and the size of the population. Here is a decent explanation. Essentially, pollsters could survey a lot more people, but it wouldn't increase the accuracy of the poll enough to justify the expense of the extra surveys. For example, there's no point in doubling the cost of your poll just to increase the accuracy by only 2 percent. Again, none of this will matter in a few days.--CodeneBlues (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point and like you said, this won't matter once the results are in. I'm tired of hearing this and that: I just want to know the results. By the way, how come other articles like the ones for North Carolina and Indiana aren't getting as much attention? They each hand out a fair amount of delegates in their primaries. SkepticBanner (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure why this one is getting extra attention. It seems like there is a decent amount of IP editing, so perhaps there's some interest from activists? I dunno (and it doesn't matter either way). After the election, I plan on giving this article some attention and filling out some of the dynamics of the race. The to-do list seems like a good place to start. Would you like to help me out on that? --CodeneBlues (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

One-sided "Controversy" Section Smacks of Bias
As if Obama's "bitter" comments are the only contentious points to the Pennsylvania campaign. Sorry, but this is biased, don't you think? 118.7.165.165 (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add any other controversies. I think once the election is over we will give this article a more thorough treatment.--CodeneBlues (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any other "controversies" that deal with the Pennsylvania electorate directly? If so, those should probably be added. Clearly, the Obama slip is notable and relevant to this article as it mentions the Pennsylvanian electorate explicitly and may factor into the primary's ultimate outcome. --Kallahan (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Percent of precients in still at 0%???
I have placed that tag since it's offically wrong with the numbers. It should be at least in the mid 30s; and if updated within past two minutes, considerly higher. I've also requesting which source is being used for the popular vote count and percent. Jon (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting irregularities
I read of some people receiving sample ballots from poll workers which were not marked as sample ballots. These forms DID NOT include Barack Obama's name and were being distributed as official Democratic Primary ballots erroneously. Here is the URL of one such ballot:

"Official Democratic Ballot"

I've seen incidents like this noted on Fark and Digg, but has anyone else read of this being looked into by state officials or the DNC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.56.137 (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding of this is that the ballot is a flyer handed out at the polling locations. My guess is that this wouldn't look enough like the actual physical ballot to be used by a precinct worker to fool anyone. Before fueling that rumor, I'd look for a specimen ballot and find out the type of ballot machine used. For example if its a punchcard ballot machine handing that flyer to someone wouldn't fool anyone. 83.55.177.158 (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)