File talk:Democratic Primary Results.png

Guam

Nice graphic, but why isn't Guam listed? --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just added it. CoolKid1993 (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Again, very nice graphic. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

DC?

I hesitate to criticize a finer piece of work than I could produce, but this map (and its Republican equivalent) is missing DC. Not sure if it would be best to have it on the main map or floating next to the other territories in the Atlantic (given its small size), but it should be there.

Also, does anyone know if the N. Marianas Islands hold caucuses or primaries? --Jfruh (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

I do not think that the Northern Marianas Islands have any delegates. Though I may be wrong. CoolKid1993 (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just found out that only the Republicans have a primary in the Northern Mariana Islands. CoolKid1993 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why DC is floating around in the top right corner when it is in fact physically part of the contiguous United States? --- Rogsheng (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's small enough that if it were depicted to scale in its proper geographic location, it would be borderline invisible, and certainly impossible to distinguish from MD or VA if it were the same color. Perhaps there should be some visual sign that it represents an inset map? --Jfruh (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, DC should be swapped with American Samoa and there should be lines pointing to DC's location on the larger map similar to this image. ~ Paul^C/_T+ 21:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Source? vector version?

How is the image made and could a vector version (SVG) be uploaded so that future editors can update/change the map also? ~ Paul^C/_T+ 01:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I drew this image in CorelDRAW, and I would be more than happy to export it as an SVG if it gave me the option to do so. Is there a similar file format that is supported as an uploadable file type that wouldn't reduce the quality and allow other people ammend the image other than SVG? CoolKid1993 (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

NV?

Should it be red for Clinton (who won the popular vote) or blue for Obama (who won the most delegates)? Of course it's coloured elsewhere by the popular vote, even where there were ties on delegates (MI, NH). —Ashley Y 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Kucinich

As Kucinich has dropped out, he should be removed, no? john k (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Percentage of vote"

"Percentage of vote" is incorrect, it should be "percentage of county delegates". —Ashley Y 01:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not for every state, it varies. "Based on percentage of votes" is probably the most inclusive way to phrase it, maybe vote percentage?. The capitalization should be changed to reflect WP:MOS ("Democratic primary results, 2008"; "Based on vote percentage") ~ Paul^C/_T+ 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Font

Is there a compelling reason to use a font that doesn't distinguish between the letters t, i, and f? 128.84.0.173 (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Gravel?

Isn't it a bit pointless having Mike Gravel in the legend? He is polling 0% in all states and is plainly not a viable candidate. Even in his home state of Alaska, he has failed to garner a single delegate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.199.107 (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Gravel is still a national candidate. He shouldn't be discredited in a fair Wikipedia article. We aren't the MS Media and I intend on keeping him on the map until he decides to drop out of the race, which he has stated that he had no current intention of doing. So until he does, he will remain on the map. CoolKid1993 (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Under that logic, you might as well add me, too since I'm running for President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.243.42 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have a national campaign. CoolKid1993 (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment, but it seems like backwards reasoning to me. Let's look at it another way: imagine Edwards had won, say, Iowa, but had subsequently dropped out. He would still be on the wins map, right? I have nothing against any candidate great or small being included, but I feel it's nonsense to have someone in the legend who's not actually, you know, on the map itself. Goodnewsfortheinsane (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The point of a graphic is to convey pertinent information in a clear and concise manner. You shouldn't jeopardize the effectiveness of your graphic just to get in your personal beliefs.Kajillion (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that Ron Paul should be removed from the Republican map also, just because he isn't on the map itself either, Goodnewsfortheinsane? CoolKid1993 (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Edwards is green on the primary map so its even more confusing Kajillion (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(Restarted indention) Absolutely, CoolKid1993. Before you induce some sort of ideological motive from this, allow me to clarify: I feel it is important for an encyclopedic map to be pragmatic, in the sense that the legend should not show information that is not in the map. Compare e.g. the US ancestries map, which shows ancestry pluralities by county. Are there people of Chinese ancestry in the US? Yes, but no county holds a plurality of people of Chinese descent, so "Chinese" is neither on the map nor in the legend. Remember that many readers will be much less informed about the election than those of us creating Wikipedia content about it: a casual reader might see the map and think, "Huh, Gravel won a state?" before poring over the map and confirming that this isn't the case. Of course, as soon as Gravel or Paul win a state, I'm all for reinclusion. Goodnewsfortheinsane (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for the good work, CoolKid1993, it looks great. Goodnewsfortheinsane (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please upload as SVG

A request has been made at the graphics lab that an SVG version of the image be made. I'm guessing that you might just have one. If you do , please consider uploading it. Thanks, Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

CorelDRAW does not allow me to export an image in SVG format. I would upload one if I could, but it does not give me the option to do so. CoolKid1993 (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Additions

Just a reminder. Utah and Missouri should be colored for Obama and New Mexico should be colored once it's called. --Aranae (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

New Mexico

Why is NM shaded red while not a single network or source has called the state yet? There is a 162 vote difference between the candidates and the news reports say 17,000 provisional ballots remain to be counted. This should go back to gray until a winner is determined (which could take some time). WTStoffs (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Also, should Michigan and Florida just be removed from the map altogether or left uncolored? They don't count, so nobody can win them. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, looks like Clinton officialy won. --Jedravent (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Iowa font color

Why is Iowa's font a different color from the rest? It looks like it's glowing. --Siradia (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This was recently changed on the Republican map, so someone is aware of it. It still needs to be changed on this one tho. ~ Paul^T+/_C 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinton Color

Why are the states won by Clinton in green, the counties at the map below in red? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.185.216 (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The map showing Clinton in red is outdated.CoolKid1993 (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Results

Could someone add the Montana and South Dakota results in and complete the map? Thanks.125.239.169.215 (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)