Talk:List of superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Old donations to Clinton PACs are not proof of current endorsements for the nomination

Several sources quoted here to place delegates in the Clinton camp are donation receipts filed by the Federal Election Commission. Many such receipts pre-date the 2016 nomination race, with some dating from 2014 and early 2015. Regardless of the date, inferring a Clinton endorsement by superdelegates today on the basis of past donations to her PACs is a tenuous link at best, and violates the WP:NOR guidelines. We need a public statement of support from each superdelegate before switching them from Uncommitted to Clinton or Sanders. I have reverted today's additions of 2 NM delegates for Clinton by User:Kingerc on this basis and I'd like to open this question to consensus here. — JFG ^talk 09:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Support of superdelegates currently sourced to donation receipts: Stephen Bittel (FL), Dean Boerste (IN), Mary Beth Cahill (DC), Maria Echaveste (CA), Barry Goodman (MI), Stanley Grossman (DA), Lacy Johnson (IN), Caitlin Kraft-Buchman (DA), Andrew Lachman (CA), Marcus Mason (DC), John Pérez (CA), Garry Shay (CA), Laurence Zakson (CA). Better sources welcome. — JFG ^talk 11:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concern; we've made mistakes as a result of this before (notably, Debra Haaland, also of New Mexico, and, to a lesser extent, Maryland's Heather Mizeur). Generally, we've viewed news reports of people donating or attending fundraiser for Ready for Hillary as endorsements enough for this list. There's certainly an argument to be made that endorsements made before Clinton entered the race (April 12, 2015; Sanders entered on May 25) may be too old to be valid...but on the other hand, if you (implicitly) endorsed Clinton, I'd say our presumption should be that that endorsement continues unless you explicitly say otherwise. I will admit to being not well-versed in the finer points of WP:NOR, but personally I feel that FEC receipts are little different from fundraiser invitations/guest lists, which we've used before extensively.

That said, I'm certainly open to improving the sources on these folks. I do have alternative sources for the following superdelegates, if you'd like to update them accordingly.

• Dean Boerste (IN) [1]
• Mary Beth Cahill (CA) [2] (though this one again only refers to fundraising) [She donated the max amount of $2700 in 2015, in two donations made on 4/12 and 6/21 Kingerc (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)]
• Maria Echaveste (CA) [3]
• Barry Goodman (MI) [4]
• Stanley Grossman (DA) [5]
• Lacy Johnson (IN) [6]
• Caitlin Kraft-Buchman (DA) [7] (serving as co-chair for the PAC seems more committed than just donating)
• Andrew Lachman (CA) [8]

There's also perhaps a difference between a donation to her PAC before she entered the race and a donation to her actual campaign after she entered the race (on 4/12/15). Of the remaining for which we have no other sources:

• Stephen Bittel (FL): $2700 (max amount) to the Clinton campaign on 4/13/15 (one day after she entered the race)
• Marcus Mason (DC): $2700 (max amount) to the Clinton campaign on 4/29/15
• Laurence Zakson (CA): $2700 (max amount) to the Clinton campaign on 6/1/15
• John Pérez (CA): $1000 to the Clinton campaign on 8/19/15 (well after Sanders entered the race)
• Garry Shay (CA): $250 to the Clinton campaign on 8/4/15 (well after Sanders entered the race)

Fred Harris' contribution to the Ready PAC (Clinton's PAC), in the nicely symbolic amount of $201.60, was made on 4/27/15, after she entered the race. Joni Gutierrez' was made in 2014 (although it was larger), so that one is a bit iffier. Kingerc (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kingerc: thanks for the alternate sources; some of them demonstrate active support, others don't, so we should decide each case on its merits, based on a clear rationale. For example, Echaveste is quoted in your source as actively fundraising for Clinton, so she's undoubtely on her side. As another example, Kraft-Buchman's case is not so clear, as the source is just a list of hundreds of "co-chairs" and she's listed for New York whereas she acts as a superdelegate for Democrats Abroad, and in your DA source she is listed as not responding to enquiries: the whole picture doesn't give me an impression of clear Clinton support from her. I'd suggest to call upon other editors to weigh in. — JFG ^talk 22:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

After a bit more consideration over the weekend, here is my position on this issue:

• ✗ A campaign donation by itself shouldn't be considered a public endorsement, no matter the amount or the date;
• ✓ A recent primary source where the delegate voices his/her support is sufficient (e.g. a Twitter post from the delegate directly expressing their intended vote at the convention);
• ✓ A recent and reliable secondary source quoting the delegate as expressing such support is sufficient;
• ✗ A primary or secondary source tangentially linking the delegate to a candidate's activity is not sufficient (e.g. delegate was seen at a rally but didn't speak there or wasn't interviewed with a question about their stance as a superdelegate);
• ✗ A secondary source listing the delegate's name in party-related activities but not mentioning their specific role is not sufficient, absent more specific information (e.g. the case of Kraft-Buchman above whose name was listed by a Clinton PAC together with hundreds of other supporters);
• "Recent" means during the active part of this primary season, let's say from July 2015 onwards.

With these criteria and the sources mentioned above, we would get those results:

• Dean Boerste (IN) ✗ The Courier Press source is not really conclusive about him; the writer only says "Sources are telling me that Clinton has all but two of the super delegates committed, with Visclosky and Zody staying neutral." — we don't know who is making that statement, it could be just hearsay. Another source we already quote about Indiana mentions that Boerste declined to answer the AP survey; his own tweeter feed is silent and I couldn't find a mention elsewhere about his endorsement or lack thereof, so all we have to work with is his donation; that's not enough.
• Lacy Johnson (IN) ✓ Same sources and same story as Boerste, but I found other sources quoting him as a Clinton supporter, so he passes the test.
• David Frye (IN) ✗ Same sources as Boerste (original article by Brian Howey was reprinted by Courier Press above), same unconclusive mentions. Couldn't find other sources
• Mary Beth Cahill (CA) ✓ Multiple sources show her as a co-founder of a fundraising effort backing Clinton (board member among 15 people, so has significant weight)
• Maria Echaveste (CA) ✓ Clear sources demonstrating her longstanding support for Clinton
• Barry Goodman (MI) ✓ Clear quote in secondary source
• Stanley Grossman (DA) ✓ Clear support from official source
• Caitlin Kraft-Buchman (DA) ✗ appears as co-chair for a PAC among hundreds of other names, undated, and listed for New York, whereas she now represents Democrats Abroad, and their official source says she didn't disclose her endorsement or lack thereof. Doesn't pass scrutiny unless we found a more direct and recent acknowledgment of her support for Clinton.
• Andrew Lachman (CA) ✗ The source is an archive where Lachman called for Clinton fundraising at the start of the primary season, and I couldn't find anything recent from him or about him confirming his endorsement. Need a good recent source to list him as a supporter.
• Stephen Bittel (FL), Marcus Mason (DC), Laurence Zakson (CA), John Pérez (CA), Garry Shay (CA): ✗, we should find other sources than donation receipts

I also reviewed delegates from the list where endorsement is currently sourced to a tweet, here's how it looks:

• Shawn Bagley (CA): ✗ The source we have is a tweet saying "VIVA Hillary!" with a picture from a parade in September 2015 — not enough to demonstrate an endorsement for the convention — ✓ but I found a newspaper article from two days ago confirming his Clinton support and being negative about Sanders, so I'll replace the source.
• Erin Bilbray (NV): ✓ Source is a tweet from an AP reporter quoting her support for Sanders
• Muriel Bowser (DC): ✓ Clear, direct Clinton endorsement from her own tweet in December 2015
• J. David Cox (NC): ✓ Tweeted repeatedly about his AFGE union supporting Clinton
• Olma Echeverri (NC): ✓ Direct tweets supporting Clinton
• Alma Gonzalez (FL): ✓ Direct tweet voicing her support for Clinton
• Jaime Harrison (SC): ✓ Tweets from two journalists reporting his support for Clinton
• Kenneth McClintock (PR): ✓ Direct tweets explicitly announcing his superdelegate vote for Clinton
• David Paterson (NY): ✗ Tweeted about attending a Clinton event with Bon Jovi in June 2015 but didn't directly voice his support; we need a better source and I couldn't find one after 30 minutes of googling...

Paterson is actually no longer a superdelegate. Updating the list accordingly. Kingerc (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting; where did you find that he is out? So, are we stepping back to 718 people / 714 votes, or will Paterson be replaced? (in which case we need to add another "empty seat" line to the table for consistency). — JFG ^talk 21:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC) (He'll presumably be replaced as Chair at some point, though apparently Cuomo has yet to do so. I added an empty seat line for him when I removed Paterson, along with a cite for the vacancy. Kingerc (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC))

I'll refrain from changing any endorsements on the list immediately; please give me your feedback and let's act upon it after reaching an agreement. — JFG ^talk 16:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If Citizens United has taught us anything, it's that money is speech. ;) Seriously, though, honestly I think that a donation is, if anything, a more reliable indicator of committed support than speech; they've "put their money where their mouth is," so to speak. Sanders announced his intention to run for President on April 30, 2015; so I'd say anything, including donations, is fair game as an indicator of support from that date forward. There is a small class of people who maxed out ($2700) their 2015 donations between April 12 (Hillary entering) and April 30; I'd also view such individuals as committed Clinton supporters, personally. Additionally, there are some people whose only committed statement of support for Clinton also falls in that time span; I would still count them, as well. Kingerc (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that those whose only indication of support is from before May/April 2015 are quite iffy, and we should try to update them if possible. Going through the list and doing so now. Kingerc (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Every source obviously dating from before April 12, 2015 has now been updated to a newer source, though there may still be some lurking. Kingerc (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Current status: I've added the sources that mentioned explicit support for candidates marked ✓ green above; you updated sources from before Aprila 2015 and you replaced Paterson with a vacant position. Now I still think we need to find better sources for the cases of Dean Boerste (IN), David Frye (IN), Caitlin Kraft-Buchman (DA), Andrew Lachman (CA), Stephen Bittel (FL), Marcus Mason (DC), Laurence Zakson (CA), John Pérez (CA), Garry Shay (CA). Any hints? — JFG ^talk 16:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's a June 2015 facebook post by Caitlin Kraft-Buchman (DA) asking for donations for Hillary for America; that should be more than sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingerc (talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ That will do. And she lives in Geneva now, that explains the change from NY to DA. — JFG ^talk 22:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Lachman essentially confirms his support for Clinton in his replies to this post on Facebook in February; his Twitter feed also makes his support quite clear. Not to mention a $2675 donation to Hillary last May and a $2700 donation this February. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingerc (talk • contribs) 17:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

✗ The Facebook post you quote is apparently not public. On his public profile you can see him posing both with Sanders on August 27 and with Clinton on November 17, and there is no expression of support for either. Finally the 2016 donation you found is from another Andrew Lachman, living in CT not CA. I would count him as uncommitted now. — JFG ^talk 22:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, that is indeed a different Andrew Lachman with the 2016 donation (the superdelegate didn't move). For those photos, he makes it extremely, extremely clear that those photos do not imply an endorsement (so his photo with Bernie shouldn't imply a wavering of his Clinton support either). The post I quoted is public (or at the very least public to anyone with a Facebook account); someone criticizes him for endorsing Clinton before the California primary and he says, well, I hope you criticize the Bernie-endorsing super from MS the same way. This, in combination with his $2675 donation to Clinton, the general flow of his Twitter feed, his fundraising efforts for Clinton, etc., is enough evidence for me to say that he's on the Clinton bandwagon. Kingerc (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Of the remainder, I know you don't agree with me that donations are a sufficient sign of support, but Dean Boerste, Stephen Bittel, Marcus Mason, and Laurence Zakson all gave the maximum amount of $2700 to Hillary's campaign in 2015. Kingerc (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ OK let's keep them; small money talks, big money shouts! — JFG ^talk 22:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Remaining cases:

• David Frye (IN) ✗ Again, the article we quote is unclear about him while being clear on most other Indiana delegates and there are places (admittedly partisan and unquotable) listing him as uncommitted. No donation quote. I would remove him for lack of positive proof of support.
• John Pérez (CA)  Inconclusive He donated $1000 in August 2015, hosted a Clinton fundraiser in February 2015, says nothing on his public web site or his Twitter account besides a selfie with Clinton on August 28, 2015. Looks inconclusive.
• Garry Shay (CA) ✗ just donated $250 in August 2015; googling his name with Clinton's mostly points to his activities in 2008, and he ultimately voted for Obama. I would remove him from supporters.

So I switched Frye, Lachman and Shay to "No endorsement", leaving Pérez on the Clinton bandwagon although an affirmative source for his support would be welcome. — JFG ^talk 22:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with these. Kingerc (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry to miss the party. I think our best source for Frye is the one you cite - I don't see why you read that as unclear. I also agree with Kingerc's interpretation of this: [9] for Lachman. This combined with his photo with Clinton where he has the campaign's logo on his lapel seem to be pretty clear evidence. I am changing these two back to Clinton pending clarification. I do agree with Kingerc that putting down $250 for one candidate and not the other indicates in principle that you would like that candidate to win, but I don't feel that strongly about it so I will leave Shay as "None." Meanwhile, I would suggest that anyone who indicates they would support the pledged delegate winner receive a footnote instead of the "(flexble)" tag. That they are indicating they could switch in turn indicates that they are presently committed to the candidate they would switch from. We need track current support because tracking a future vote is problematic per WP:CRYSTAL; that doesn't mean though that we shouldn't put that support in its proper context.PotvinSux (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of David Paterson (NY)

Are there any WP:RS that show that Clinton now has 39 endorsements in New York? I took a look at TGP and it still lists Clinton with 40. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As it says on their website, TGP's source is the Wikipedia superdelegate list. A source that uses Wikipedia as its source is not a WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltshaker25 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Then per WP:CIRCULAR this is a huge issue. The other source which TGP uses is this one: [10] Clinton is at 40 delegates in NY. Wikipedia is not a WP:RS as you said so the 39 needs to go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

TGP's second source states at the bottom: (Pledged delegate counts from Green Papers, Superdelegates from Wikipedia), and is thus another WP:CIRCULAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltshaker25 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay that one as well, please show me where it says Clinton has 39 Superdelegates in New York? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems pretty covered by WP:CIRCULAR; the sources you are citing only point back to us, and we have never used those sources as proof of endorsements. Also, with certain exceptions where we can logically use the counts to determine the last endorsement in a state, we do not use sources that only list a total number of endorsements per state, and not the individuals doing the endorsing. We're tracking verifiable endorsements by individual, not the gross count; every one of the remaining 39 endorsements in New York has a non-circular source for it. Note that this means we are behind the AP in certain states (like West Virginia, see above) but ahead of them in others (like in New York, where the AP only lists 34 for Clinton). Kingerc (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that we do use The Green Papers as a citation on occasion for the total number of superdelegates, and the number of superdelegates per state. They get this information from the DNC, not from us, and is thus not a violation of WP:CIRCULAR. They get their information on whom those superdelegates are endorsing from us; we do not use that information as a source for any of our endorsements. It's a bit confusing, but there's no violation of WP:CIRCULAR here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingerc (talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Again though, you aren't showing any sources that invalidate David Paterson from being a superdelegate which is a concern. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a citation on the NY Chair slot that says he resigned as party chair in October. His superdelegate status was tied to being Chair of the NY Democratic Party, so he's no longer a superdelegate. Kingerc (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Now also TGP says 39.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Endorsement choice of words

IP editor 205.185.130.210 (talk) just changed the word "Uncommitted" to "No Endorsement" for those superdelegates who do not currently endorse one of the candidates. This sounds like a good idea because in reality all superdelegates are by definition unpledged or "uncommitted", even those who have publicly endorsed a candidate. However, in the interest of brevity, and to avoid defining their position by a negative statement, I would suggest that we use the word "Neutral" instead. Or perhaps we can make a further distinction between people who haven't publicly expressed a preference ("Silent") and those who have explicitly declared that they would remain neutral ("Neutral"). On the other hand, maybe that's stretching things a bit; sources should speak for themselves. Opinions? — JFG ^talk 13:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

To me, "Neutral" would imply actual neutrality, whereas a delegate may in fact have a preference but simply not publicly announced it yet. Saltshaker25 (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe "None" instead of "No Endorsement" for brevity? Kingerc (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds even better. But we should say "No endorsement" in the summary table for clarity. — JFG ^talk 21:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

They are unpledged by definition - not uncommitted. To my knowledge (and memory of the '08 race) "uncommitted" is the word generally used for Superdelegates who have not made a choice about who to support. That said, most of what we have sources for are actually endorsements rather than commitments per se - so I think that is an improvement. Does this mean that Leahy, who has endorsed Clinton and affirmed his endorsement more recently, should be listed as Clinton though he has said his Superdelegate vote will go to the pledged delegate winner?PotvinSux (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Leahy's position can be interpreted in different ways; I think we need to give more weight to declarations which are specifically about the convention, rather than about candidate support. So I would keep the "Pelosi Club consensus" for delegates vowing to cast their ballot for the leading candidate, despite their personal endorsement: count them as neutral. — JFG ^talk 05:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sanders superdelegate count

Bernie Sanders obviously has 30 DNC members, which would give him a total of 42 superdelegates, will someone please edit this and change that mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javert2016 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Javert2016: Our count at the top of the page is counting votes, not bodies. DNC members from Democrats Abroad (of which there are 8) only have a half-vote at the convention, so you have to take that into account. As a result, the total vote count is four less than the total count of bodies; Sanders' vote count is one less (as he has 2 DA DNC endorsements), and Clinton's vote count is two less (as she has 4 DA DNC endorsements). Hope that explains the discrepancy for you. Kingerc (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Vacant Slots

At present, we have six of these.

• Kentucky Vice Chair: will apparently be filled on April 30.
• New York (Sheldon Silver's seat): apparently to be filled in May; guessing around the 16th or the 23rd.
• New York Chair (David Paterson resigned in October 2015): unclear if Gov. Cuomo is planning to fill this. Kingerc (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Alabama Vice Chair (left vacant by Redding Pitt's death)
• College Democrats of America Vice President (left vacant when Marv McMoore became President upon previous President's resignation). Seems likely to be filled perhaps only the day before the national convention, at the CDA National Convention, July 22-24. Marv McMoore is likely to be replaced at the same time. Kingerc (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• DNC Vice Chair (left vacant by Tulsi Gabbard's resignation)

The one "unknown" superdelegate is Greg Pettis, representing the National Democratic Municipal Officials (my only source would count as original research, however). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingerc (talk • contribs) 19:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC) (This info appears to have made it to reliable sources and someone added him to the list accordingly. Kingerc (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC))

We now have another "unknown" superdelegate, the Chair of the Democratic Party of Guam. This article says Rory Respicio is no longer chair, but is now a National Committeeman, replacing David Shimizu, who apparently resigned. I don't know who replaced Respicio as chair; we should also check if Bretania-Underwood is still Vice Chair. Kingerc (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Found the new chair, Joaquin Perez. Still unsure about Bretania-Underwood, though; this article suggests it could be Sarah Thomas-Nededog, but it gets other details wrong (half-votes from the territories, there being six superdelegates, etc.). Kingerc (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Where Bloomberg is ahead of us

Resurrecting and updating this discussion, which had been archived. The AP carries out surveys of the superdelegates, and Bloomberg provides a breakdown by state. In some places, we're ahead of them; in other cases, they're ahead of us. I'm providing this information here in case it proves useful for tracking down missing endorsements. Since Sanders endorsements have been very-well publicized, all of these are missing Clinton endorsements.

• Colorado (1): perhaps they forgot to remove Michael Hancock
• Georgia (1)
• Massachusetts (2)
• Tennessee (1): perhaps they forgot to remove Myron Lowery
• Texas (1)
• Vermont (1): they seem to still count Pat Leahy as Clinton
• Michigan (1)
• Illinois (1)
• North Carolina (2)
• Wisconsin (1)
• Guam (1)
• West Virginia (2)
• Virgin Islands (1)
• California (13): likely includes the folks we have weak evidence for: Kerman Maddox, Garry Shay, Joe Buscaino, plus apparently 10 others.
• Montana (1): apparently Jacquie Helt, though she denies it.
• New Jersey (1)
• New Mexico (2): likely Fred Harris and Joni Gutierrez, who we have evidence for. Possibly Debra Haaland instead, though less likely.
• South Dakota (1)

They also have all of Missouri's superdelegates endorsing Clinton; as a result, I have switched Roy Temple and Matt Robinson to Clinton. Kingerc (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Future of this Article

How do we want to address the forthcoming end of the campaign in this article. Supposing that (as current trends indicate) Clinton will mathematically have the nomination secured before the convention, what is the most useful place to "freeze history"?

I am are these events may not come to pass.

1. Stop updating the list at the moment Sanders drops out?

2. Stop updating this article at the moment when the media calls Clinton the nominee?

3. Stop updating this article at the moment Sanders releases his delegates?

4. Stop updating this article at the moment the convention begins?

5. Stop updating this article after the super delegates cast their votes?

ObieGrad (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If Sanders should suspend his campaign (possible to happen before June 7, but it seems increasingly unlikely), we should certainly pause it then. The open question is what to do if Clinton gets a delegate majority (as she appears on course to do on or around June 7) but Sanders refuses to concede and begins a quixotic superdelegate-converting endeavor; I suppose we should continue the tracking in that case. Whether we go with (4) or (5) in that eventuality depends on whether Sanders is actually contesting the nomination at the convention or not. Kingerc (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we can freeze history until Sanders has conceded or the convention has taken place. At the given moment, I cannot imagine that Sanders will actually flip any Superdelegates, but I'm not sure why we would artificially foreclose that possibility.PotvinSux (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Lipinski case

@PotvinSux: You recently moved Lipinski back to neutral, arguing that his support of Sanders would only come if there is a contested convention, a crystalline hypothesis. However, reading his quote carefully, he says that his convention vote is a consequence of the popular vote in his district, where Sanders won:

As a Democratic member of Congress, I have a vote at the Democratic National Convention as a superdelegate. Before the Illinois primary I told Democrats in the 3rd District that I decided that I would pledge my vote to whichever candidate won the district. When the votes were counted, Sen. Bernie Sanders received 54 percent and Secretary Hillary Clinton received 45 percent in my district. Therefore, if there is a contested vote at the Democratic National Convention in July, I will vote for Sen. Sanders.

— Dan Lipinski

So we know what he will do, there is no more crystalline speculation involved: we should list him as a Sanders vote for purposes of the convention, which is what we are tracking here. Note how this stance differs from the Pelosi Club members who say they will vote for the overall leader in pledged delegates (which we can't predict), whereas Lipinski says he will support the leading candidate in his own district (which is certain). — JFG ^talk 10:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: I don't think we're parsing his words all that differently. The difference of opinion is in how we are applying them against the scope of this article (which might itself be unclear). He's specifically premised his support on two factors - a) a candidate winning the majority of the support in his district and b) there being a contested vote. The first factor is neither necessary nor sufficient. The second is necessary. I don't think we have grounds to assume that condition will be met any more than we have grounds to assume that Clinton will be the pledged delegate winner and thus have Leahy's vote.PotvinSux (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we're implicitly tracking the votes in the event of a contested convention on this page, so it's fair to count Lipinski for Sanders. If it's not a contested convention (as happened in 2008), one would expect many, many superdelegates to switch sides; information as to what candidates may or may not do in the eventuality of a non-contested convention (i.e. a rubber stamp for one candidate or the other) is not really useful for the average reader. Kingerc (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What Kingerc said. The vote of superdelegates only has an influence in case no candidate clinches the nomination with pledged delegates only, i.e. yielding a contested convention (although it doesn't look like there could be much of a contest given the overwhelming dominance of Clinton support in unpledged delegates). So Leahy for Clinton and Lipinski for Sanders; Pelosi Club neutral (I think we have a few of them listed for Clinton, we may want to double-check their statements for accuracy). — JFG ^talk 14:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite see the logic of changing Leahy to Clinton and the rest of the Pelosi Club to neutral; that just seems to create a reverse negative of what we have now without making the article any more consistent. I do agree that if the Pelosi Club members are going to be changed that their statements should be checked carefully; in some cases they seem to really be neutral, while in other cases their statements seem intended to condition their vote on some eventuality that they view as unlikely to occur, as a concession to Sanders supporters, while still seeming to support Clinton and intending to cast their vote for her. Saltshaker25 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggested rule: If a delegate has never publicly supported either Sanders or Clinton, and says they will cast their vote for the pledged delegate winner, they should be listed as None with a Pelosi club footnote. If a delegate has publicly supported Clinton, but later said they will follow the Pelosi rule, they should be listed as Clinton with a Pelosi Club footnote. If a delegate says they will support the winner of their state, congressional district, etc., and the election has occurred and the winner is known, they should be listed as supporting the specified winner. Saltshaker25 (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Saltshaker25: You nailed it; that looks like the best way of reflecting reality. — JFG ^talk 18:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@JFG:@Saltshaker25:These rules work for me. This would mean Leahy goes to Clinton?PotvinSux (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

(followup discussion moved to #"Pelosi Club" section above)

'Read More' section at bottom of Wikipedia mobile app

The 'Read More' section at the bottom of the mobile Wikipedia app links to only one of the two candidates (Clinton). In the past, links to both candidates (Sanders and Clinton) appeared in this 'Read More' section on the mobile app. Can someone please correct this by putting the link to Sanders Wikipedia page back in here where it belongs? (The 'Read More' page does not appear at all on the full website, so no need to change anything there.) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.248.242 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the mechanism to add a link in the 'Read More' section of this page on the mobile Wikipedia app? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9200:429A:9FC:2801:AC69:3E4E (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The 'Read More' section appearing at the bottom of the mobile Wikipedia app provides a link to only one of the candidates (Clinton). The link to Senator Sanders is missing. Please correct this omission or please let me know how to edit this section. I cannot find a way to edit this 'Read More' section which appears in the mobile app but not on the full webpage. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9200:429A:35A8:5018:95E6:E2BE (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)