Misplaced Pages

Talk:2008 United States presidential election: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:51, 23 September 2008 editHydrogen Iodide (talk | contribs)Rollbackers127,969 editsm Reverted edits by 75.5.66.17 to last version by Liftmeup (HG)← Previous edit Revision as of 23:52, 23 September 2008 edit undo75.5.66.17 (talk) ←Replaced content with 'McCain is a dumbass! He sucks ballz! http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=645739286&ref=name http://myspace.com/dannyduignan'Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
McCain is a dumbass! He sucks ballz!
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=PR
|action1date=20:45, 12 May 2006
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/United States presidential election, 2008/archive1
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=52868489


http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=645739286&ref=name
|action2=FAC
|action2date=00:20, 27 January 2008
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/United States presidential election, 2008/archive1
|action2result=not promoted
|action2oldid=187136972


http://myspace.com/dannyduignan
|currentstatus=FFAC
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1=
{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|nested=yes|class=B|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject United States|nested=yes|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Elections and Referenda|nested=yes|class=B|importance=mid}}
}}
{{Elections are historical}}
{{controversial}}
{{U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link}}

{{Archive box|1. ] <br>2. ] <br>3. ] <br>4. ] <br>5. ] <br>6. ] <br>7. ]}}

<!-- Metadata: see ] -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 6
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:United States presidential election, 2008/Archive %(counter)d
}}
<big><big> '''Put new text under old text.''' <span class="plainlinks"></span>.</big></big>

== Republican Party ==

The picture of the presumptive Republic VP is there but no one updated the comment below to say he has picked the VP candiate, Sarah Palin of Alaksa. Needs updated.

== Ron Paul as an independent candidate? ==

news is floating that ron paul would run for the elections as an indpendent but more imp all other third party candidates might drop and endorse him as an alternative to the rep and dems

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/09/ron-paul-to-make-major-announcement.html

*Turned out to be a false rumor. Paul had --] (]) 18:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

== Subtle POV in order of candidates. ==

Why is McCain placed above Ralph Nader? Isn't this biased? Ok, you say that McCain is a major candidate. If so, that logic requires that candidates be placed in some logical order. The best logic is to look at the last election and place the candidates in order of the number of votes to that party's candidate.

] (]) 05:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Near the end of the article, the order should be (based on Misplaced Pages's 2004 campaign article)

McCain
Obama
Ralph Nader
Libertarian
Constitution
Green
Peace and Freedom
Socialist
Socialist Workers
then the rest, possibly in alphabetical order of last name
] (]) 05:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't the list alphabetical? It seems the least likely to be a POV violation. Start at A, end at Z, don't distinguish between 'major' and 'minor'. ] (]) 03:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:Look at the list carefully. First we have the candidates for the major partities, then the candidates for the other parties. The fact that the Democracts and Republicans are the only two major parties contesting this election is only likely to be disputed by an extreme minority of sources, probably not even most or all the other parties. It's clearly not a NPOV violation when it's supported by the vast majority of sources ] (]) 09:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

::If we are going by notability, I think this would be the most fair way to list the candidates, in three different categories:

::1. the 'major party' candidates in alphabetical order by party label.
::2. the 'second tier' 'third party/independent candidates' (i.e. Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin)
::3. the rest, in alphabetical order by party label. ] (]) 01:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Another, and perhaps even more objective method, would be to list the candidates in order of the amount of electoral votes that they could hypothetically win. That would be: Obama/McCain, Barr, Nader, McKinney, Baldwin, La Riva, Moore, Calero, Keyes, etc. ] (]) 01:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Either of those methods sounds fine to me. The first is easier, but the second is possible now that we're getting to the end of the ballot access "season". -] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 02:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We only assume that the Democratic and Republican Parties are major because of their previous votes. So look at the last election and rank the parties in order of votes. If we don't have information on a party or if it did not run in 2004, then put those in alphabetical order in the bottom. ] (]) 03:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The top picture of Obama and McCain keep getting switched. Obama on the left may be preferred as a compromise for 2 reasons. Obama is considered leftist and McCain rightist. So McCain on the right, Obama on the left. Since English is read left to right, this also puts Obama first. To balance that, the bottom part of the article (political parties) lists, or should list, the Republican Party first because they received the most votes during the last Presidential election. The last election is important because that gives the order of the smaller parties, distinguishing the larger smaller parties (like Ralph Nader and the Libertarian Party) from the tiny parties.

This is also reason why, at the bottom, McCain should come first, Obama second, Ralph Nader third, etc. ] (]) 06:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

:It would look very odd to me to go against alphabetical order for the major parties. The "other parties" are ordered alphabetically, while the "third parties" are distinguished from them by the number of electoral votes in the states where they're on the ballot in this current election. I find the 2004 election (in which few of these candidates actually ran) to be of little importance, and would support ordering third party candidates fully by ballot access, as proposed above. -] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 01:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

== We must be fair in Misplaced Pages ==

We must treat everyone the same. We can't call some people "Presidential Candidate" and then not others (see the picture captions). We must label Mrs. Palin and Mr. Biden the same way. I've corrected the spacing so they are exactly the same. ] (]) 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:I don't understand what your second edit has to do with fairness. For my browser, it was no change at all. On yours, it must have rendered "Senator" for Biden before a line break in his image caption, but "Governor" after the line break in Palin's. I frankly can't understand where fairness comes in. The two captions were parallel, but the number of letters was unequal. I think we need to stop being so sensitive about about this stuff. Whether the break is before or after the official's title is not a matter of fairness. Who's picture is on the left is not a matter of fairness. Frankly, the terms "minor" and "major" when used to describe parties is not a matter of fairness. The minor parties have no Representatives in the House, have no Senators, have no governors, and have never even come in second in a presidential elections. To describe the parties as such is not unfair. It is hypersensitive to suggest otherwise. -] (]) 04:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== Unprotected ==

On January 31, . After , I thought it would be fine to unprotect it. If there is significant vandalism to the page, please request protection again at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 14:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
:I wasn't even aware it was semi-protected. ] (]) 15:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

== Suggested Edits to the wiki-article ==

*To the Dick Cheney's quote "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve", add to the reference that Cheney is echoing what ] said in 1884 when people talked of nominating him for President. ] (]) 15:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

*Under the heading "Media Criticism" add a contrasting paragraph about Rev. ]'s well-regarded interviews of the candidates on 16 Aug 2008. ] (]) 15:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:Ughh. Whatever happened to seperation of Church & State. And to think, US Presidents confided in ]. -- ] (]) 15:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

*This statement is incorrect: "as either the first African American will be elected President or the first woman or the first Roman Catholic will be elected Vice President." The "or/or" structure makes it sound like "A or B or C," when in reality it is "(A and C) or (B)." If the first African American is elected President (Obama), then the first Roman Catholic will also be elected Vice President (Biden). If not, then the first woman will be elected Vice President (Palin). Better phrasing: "as either the first African American will be elected President and the first Roman Catholic will be elected Vice President, or the first woman will be elected Vice President." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Live Election Night Editing ==

I'm not really sure if this is something that is done on Misplaced Pages, but I thought I'd throw out the idea anyways.

I'd like to keep this article updated live while election results are revealed live on the news. I already have an SVG electoral map made up, so that I could re-upload showing a "live" electoral map on this article as the election results are announced.

Is this article the right place to do this, or is there going to be a separate article for this?

] (]) 06:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
:Trust me, on the night of November 4? This article will be updated momment by momment, guarenteed. ] (]) 12:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any precedent for when we call a state? Is it when some number of outlets call it? When ''someone'' calls it? I'm more asking for general knowledge than for myself, as I will be watching coverage with my spreadsheets, maps, and coloured pencils. -] (]) 20:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
:I'd go by CNN, despite what happend in 2000. ] (]) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

:How about locking the article to edits on election night, and only allow admins to update it (also having 1 user in charge of updating the electoral map to avoid confusion). Trusted sources to "call states" could be when all major networks (CNN, NBC, FOX etc) call a state - and leave the to "close to call" states till there is a solid winner of the state. ] (]) 11:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

== Charts ==

Moved old charts to United_States_presidential_election,_2008/sandbox - maybe difficult to keep these as would need to regularly update ], ] (]) 11:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

== Infobox images (again) ==

I wish ya'll would reconsider & remove the Obama & McCain images. Right now, it appears as though Obama is presumed to be the winner (and when McCain is on the left, he appears the assumed winner). There's an obvious appearance of political bias, having the images in the infobox ''before'' the election results. ] (]) 13:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
::I agree, even the '04 article didn't do this.] (]) 18:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Well right now both candidates seem to be rotating between being on the left or right. How about just switching who's on the left and right each day, so one day it will be Obama, the next Mccain, the next Obama and so on... Or how about just putting them alphabetical order or something with a side note saying "Candidates listed in alphabetical order". ] (]) 19:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It would be less hassle, if we delete them from the infobox ('til November 4). ] (]) 19:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:How about.....it doesn't really matter. I have a bigger problem with the fact that John McCain's head is smaller than Barack Obama's on the pictures than I do the order of the pictures. I think we are reading way too much into this. ] (]) 21:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:I really don't see myself how left=winner and right=loser. There's nothing wrong with the pictures. -- ] (]) 23:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Check the following articles ], ] etc. All previous US prez election articles have the ''president-elect'' on the topleft side. ] (]) 23:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
::Even if there is a potential conflict, shouldn't priority go to the party of the current president? I mean, that is how they decide which convention goes first and which one goes second...they let the party of the current president choose. I have always seen priority over small issues (not just on Wiki, but on other sites and in the media/election process) go to the party with the president in office. ] (]) 01:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Customarily on Misplaced Pages, the incumbent party comes first, yes. Or maybe that's just me, but I've seen quite a lot of election articles that use this rule of thumb. But really, aren't there more productive things to do? —'''<font face="Comic Sans MS">]]</font>''' 01:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Easier said then done. The closer we get to November 4? the more likely political PoV pushers will invade this article & push their candidates to the top left-corner. ] (]) 01:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:::How about the frontrunner in the RealClearPolitics.com average of polls gets to be the top-left corner image.] (]) 01:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
You're free to try ''any'' of your suggestions. I wish you luck (you'll need it). ] (]) 01:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How about we alternate the images every six hours beginning at 00:01 UTC, but if a third-party candidate hits 5% in any poll acknowledged as important by any three editors on this talk page, then rotate counter-clockwise every four hours beginning at 00:01 UTC or at the next multiple of four hours after the poll is so acknowledged, with the inclusion to continue until one week has passed since the last poll showing that candidate at 5% that any three editors acknowledge as important. If two third-party candidates meet the 5% threshold, pictures shall be rotated counter-clockwise every three hours beginning at the first multiple of three house after 00:01 UTC after the second candidate is acknowledged on this page. When one third-party candidate ceases to qualify, but another continues, drop the candidate at the multiple of four hours after 00:01 UTC after he or she ceases to qualify. It's all rather simple. -] (]) 03:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::I really dont think people will see it as a bias. Perhaps people will look to MSNBC, Huffington Post, FOX News, The Weekly Standard, or Newsweek to cite bias rather than Misplaced Pages.] (]) 04:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:::It's really quite simple./ Obama's a leftist, McCain's a Right-winger. Use logic?<br>''']] ]''' 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::Ha ha haaa; that's a kneeslapper. ''Luv'' it. ] (]) 00:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
==Very disturbing removing of "Swing states"==
I've noticed that one user has been trying to remove several states from the "Swing states" section, including Florida, Missouri and North Carolina, despite polls showing these states in play and in flux. This person used language like " RealClearPolitics shows Missouri safely in McCain's favor, and recent polls show him up 5%-10% according to RealClearPolitics" and "new poll shows 6 point McCain lead in FL, RealClearPolitics no longer shows it as a toss up" . Not only did this user not remove the states that show Obama polling ahead by similar margins (New Mexico for instance), but is now attempting to remove the reliably sourced North Carolina section with the reasoning "one 'poll' showing it to be a toss up is not reliable." , of course completely contradicting their own "new poll" reasoning when attempting to remove Florida.

I'm not saying this user has a McCain bias, but their actions might appear so to the public. We need to be very diligent in ensuring there does not appear to be any bias in what is presented here.--] (]) 00:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:Personally, I wouldn't even bother with having ''swing states'' in this article. ] (PM of my country, 1957-63) had an interesting view, on Polls. ] (]) 00:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::I won't have issue with removal of the section, but if it remains, we must appear non-biased with its content. --] (]) 00:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:Theoretically, all 50 states are potentially ''swing states''. ] (]) 00:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Since people cannot check their political biases at the door, I think states should only be removed once consensus is reached here. -] (]) 00:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::If you looked, Oakshade, I reinsterted your awfully formatted and poorly written North Carolina bit, but also added New Jersey as well to keep it balanced. Saying that RCP is not valid is a poor excuse considering they take the average of all the polls....it is not just one poll that determines the outcome. Even when your "oddball" poll was averaged into the RCP average, it STILL didn't declare NC a toss up state. According to them, North Carolina is not a toss up. I added New Jersey previously because RCP had it as a toss up, but then they moved it into the Obama category, so I removed it. You need to calm down. Missouri is NOT shown as an RCP toss up, so that is why I advocated deleting it. Neither is New Mexico. I am just trying to show the same states RCP show's as toss ups as toss up's on Wiki because RCP is an average of all polls. ] (]) 05:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Oakshade didn't say RCP isn't valid, just that it is not the be-all, end-all. RCP does not cover every valid poll and the output of averaging the most recent of the polls it does include is not the only (or even an especially good) way of figuring out which states are battleground states. -] (]) 05:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Ocexpo, as Rrius indicated, I never said or implied that RCP isn't valid. It's only one source. There are many other sources Misplaced Pages relies on for its content. With an issue like this election, there are literally thousands of reliable sources that Misplaced Pages bases its content on and there are many reliable sources that show Florida, Missouri and North Carolina are in contention. Otherwise the candidates wouldn't be campaigning in all three as they are doing now. To say RCP invalidates every other source is ludicrous. And Ocexpo, as you are a new user (unless you are a sock), please read ]. Attacking an editor's content as "awfully formatted and poorly writted" (sic) is not worth responding to.--] (]) 06:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Ok, so New Mexico, Washington state, and New Jersey are also considered "battleground" states by your standard then. That is why they are inserted in the article. Perhaps we should add Iowa to that list too. And I think you need to stop calling the kettle black because you basically told me "dont revert my edit you new user" which is why I responded the way I did. ] (]) 06:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Actually the wording was "to new user Ocexpo, stop removing sourced material" which is what you were doing and not a personal attack as your invented wording would be. I have no problem with New Mexico, Washington and New Jersey being included on the list. --] (]) 06:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:Oakshade, STOP inserting the results of ONE of the polls into the description. In the OVERALL picture, the average of ALL the polls (including your little one) John McCain has a lead in North Carolina. It is dumb to say "In the average of all polls, John McCain has a sizeable lead, but one of the polls shows it to be a tie..." that is not a way to report it. We dont need a report on each individual poll for the state of North Carolina. One of the polls shows McCain to be ahead 17 points, another says 14 points....but thats the beauty of an AVERAGE is that all the polls are AVERAGED together, and that is what determines where they stand. You seem to have a hard time with this concept...we arent here to "find the poll that Obama is doing the best in and report only what that poll says."] (]) 07:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::Actually, two of the three most recent polls show a tie. As we are trying to explain to you, RCP is not the only source on polling. It averages the five most recent polls and that's useful but not the end-all. Even that 17 point McCain lead that's currently factored in was in fact the oldest of the five polls - from September 8 to Septebmer 10. The most recent 4 polls show either a tie or a McCain lead by 1 to 3 percent (by the way, none of the current RCP polls factored into its current average shows a 14 point McCain lead ). When the next poll comes out (probably soon), that obviously inaccurate 17 point McCain lead will be factored out.--] (]) 07:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Either way, since you complained enough, I added a clause describing individual polls and how some show a sizeable lead for McCain while others show it to be a tie. NC is now the ONLY state on that list that cites a specific poll individually...all the others are just averages. I still think we should only list averages like we did on every other state, but since you insist on including "the poll Obama is doing the best" in the description, I need to balance it out.] (]) 07:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::::That "the poll Obama is doing the best" ] is inaccurate as we are trying to show the current status of the race. The four most recent polls show in NC that McCain "double digit lead" is not correct and that in fact the race is currently very tight. The original "dead heat" wording is supported by the RCP source. We appreciate your effort to "to balance it out" which is a great improvement over your previous attempts to remove several of the states from this section. --] (]) 08:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

== The Swing State Electoral Vote Count is added up wrong ==

It is supposed to be 204, while it is listed as 210. It's simple to see if you do the math.] (]) 20:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

== Under Swing Vote Section ==

(Sorry I didn't add this to the previous post)

It is listed as Democrats having 165 electoral votes when adding up all of the uncontested states listed in that sentence. The correct calculation is 171. Someone, please fix this. Thanks ] (]) 20:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:52, 23 September 2008

McCain is a dumbass! He sucks ballz!

http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=645739286&ref=name

http://myspace.com/dannyduignan