This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Cox ran a nationwide campaign, in more states than Gravel or Keyes and was in nationwide debates. Under wikipedia's non biased POV, he needs to be listed. Casey14 ( talk) 21:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he does. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 23:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to run a purposefully dis-informational website on the nominated political candidates. In late 2007 I updated every single one of the top 20 candidates with links to votesmart and another website with position listings based on past votes but they were promptly removed. I complained about this and also pointed out the listing for Republican candidates was incorrect (missing some and had some who were no longer in the race) but wikipedia refused to update the article. Finally, I now see they do not list the liberterian candidate on this page about the election. I believe the staff of wikipedia needs to focus on editorial correctness. At this time I believe the information they display is based on two things:
1st and foremost) bias of editor(s) for an article. This is clear in the political section as directly false or totally omitted position statements were made on several candidate's pages.
2nd) possible popularity. This is bad as facts cannot be changed by overwhelming opinion. Wrong facts are still wrong facts and really have no place in an encyclopedia.
Timjowers (
talk) 13:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
With the understanding: The top of this article is preserverd for the Election winner & runners-up? I've reverted the recent multiple changes by editor Will. GoodDay ( talk) 17:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Can't figure out where to put this, but footnote 71 has a typo, the lady's last name is Edwards with an S. thanks. 65.173.141.56 ( talk) 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Will someone please remove Stephen Colbert from the Dem/GOP listings? He was not a major candidate!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.171.229 ( talk) 09:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Has Alan Keyes actually dropped out? The page merely says he's switched parties to the Constitution party. It is possible to run for the nomination of two parties concurrently -- has he actually made a statement saying that he's dropped out? Ramorum ( talk) 06:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, he has not made an official announcement or released an official statement. But his campaign has stated that he is leaving the GOP. He himself will make a statement about it on April 15. And it has been reported in various places that he will be leaving. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 18:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
At least finnish (suomi) is at wrong place. - 82.128.207.76 ( talk) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Should the complaint against McCain with the FEC be incorporated in this article?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-u3WbiCcQ8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 ( talk) 20:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So, what needs to be done to remove that cleanup tag? Yahoo is linking to this article and the cleanup tag makes it look sloppy. What's wrong with the article? -- JaGa ( talk) 10:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Both tags have been re-added. They are necessary at this point. Please do not remove them until the issues are addressed.
The cleanup tag is necessary here, and should not be removed just because "yahoo is linking to the article". The article organization is absolutely atrocious, there are too many sections, subsections, subsubsections. There candidates' listing is a horrible collection of images combined with text listings, and random delegate totals. The lead section is too short. Some sections have way too much text, while others have too little. The whole article just needs a complete overhaul here.
The 'upcoming' tag is standard wiki practice for events that are changing. It should not be removed. Dr. Cash ( talk) 21:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Somebody mentioned it earlier. There's way too many images at this article. No offense to the 'third party candidates' but they shouldn't have images; just their names will do. Furthermore, all withdrawn candidates should have their images removed; keeping their names only. GoodDay ( talk) 22:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, that looks much neater. GoodDay ( talk) 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier, this page is getting massive (77 threads as of this one). Isn't it about time to do some archiving?-- JayJasper ( talk) 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This article should not be a running tally of present candidates. Election articles in Wikipedia are historical and should contain ALL candidates, even the ones who dropped out or lost or what ever. Look at United States presidential election, 2004: Should every candidate except George W. Bush be removed because only he won? This is a historical article which has a present & future component. — Markles
I think clinton is the only on in debt..any sources of net finance situation of all campagnes?. Rodrigue ( talk) 15:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
First paragraph of that section it says Obama has won an overwhelming majority of the popular vote. This is simply untrue. Its biased towards Obama. As of right now the popular vote tallies are disputed depending of if you include Florida and Michigan. Regardless CNN puts Obama's lead at 700,000 a slim majority, not overwhelming.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamisonia ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Really? 24.33.149.118 ( talk) 02:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What about Minnesota and North Carolina? Many polls, including Rasmussen, indicate that both states could be put in play this election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasi98 ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Does someone want to update the delegate chart with the latest numbers decided on after the rules committee today? The new magic number is now 2,118; Obama has 2,050 and I forgot Clinton's amount. There was just a picture on CNN of the numbers, but they didn't update their website yet. Tim meh ! 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There's rumblings, that Clinton will be having her post-primaries speech in New York (tommorow), thus creating the impression that she's ending her bid for the Dems presidential nomination. Is this just a rumour or factual? Should we add this to the article? GoodDay ( talk) 18:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay ( talk) 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The Evil Spartan reverted blurbs on Nebraska and South Carolina. In doing so, he referred us to a previous edit summary of his and the opinion poll article. I presume the edit summary he is referring to is the one that said that according to Fox News and Rassmussen South Carolina is safe Republican. He also made the bald assertion that Nebraska is safe. The South Carolina edit was based on a single poll from late February, so I agree that it is not reliable.
Nebraska, however, is. The blurb is based on a poll released Sunday by a reputable polling firm. Moreover, I heard the possibility of Obama picking off one or two of Nebraska's electoral votes twice during Tuesday night's election coverage. The fact that another Wikipedia does not yet reflect that poll is not a reason to revert the change on this one. What may be contributing to the confusion is that each of its three congressional districts to the winner of the districts' popular vote totals and the remaining two votes are awarded to the winner of the state-wide vote. It is therefore quite possible to be far behind statewide, but pick off a district elector. - Rrius ( talk) 05:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that CNN is currently listing Obama as the Democratic Projected nominee rather than the Presumptive nominee [7]. I am guessing this is because Clinton has not dropped out and Obama's absolute majority is backed up by superdelegates, but I am not certain. If anyone knows for sure, is there a difference in the two titles and do you think that should be noted in this article? Seen0288 ( talk) 09:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The superdelegate tally right now is really unofficial, and the count even varies by source, and its likely several will not vote officially as piblicly suggested, not to mention florida/michigan...nothing has really changed, obama is no more likely the nominee than a week a ago, he just got some more delegates. Rodrigue ( talk) 13:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Given McCain's age, I suppose it's also possible for him to have a heart attack and croak before August. Granted, that's still very unlikely, but it **could** happen. This is why we use the word, "presumptive". Dr. Cash ( talk) 18:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see this mentioned in the first few sections ("Characteristics") and I think it's important to note McCain/Obama's ages and birthplaces. It may have been in the article before and I didn't see it, but I'm blind as a bat. conman33 ( . . .talk) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's a source She says she will back Obama. 129.67.53.232 ( talk) 09:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I added a note to the picture of the nominees clarifying that their respective nominations are presumptive until formalized by the national conventions in August and September Nevermore27 ( talk) 11:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Article should note that, based on the presumptive nominees, this will be the first presidential election where two serving senators are the principal nominees. 198.74.13.100 ( talk) 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
this might be a little nit-picky, but in the sentence: "The incumbent President, George W. Bush, ... is barred from running again due to term limits..." 'barred' connotates denial of action by an opposing force, as in, "Bush tried to run again, but the law stopped him." More neutral phrasing wouldn't hurt - "is prevented from running again," or "is not elligable to run again," et cetera. - matt lohkamp 1:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If McCain wasn't the presumptive nominee until he had 1191 delegates and Obama wasn't until he had 2118 (or 2117 or 2210) delegates, why is McKinney the presumptive nominee before she reaches 419? According to the article, which was updated today, she has 271. I'm going to remover her. - Rrius ( talk) 04:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of who's calling her the presumptive nominee, she hasn't won enough delegates yet and therefore hasn't won the nomination. She should be removed until she gets the number of delegates needed to win the nomination. Tim meh ! 22:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Timmeh put it exactly right. This article has used "presumptive" to mean the person has enough delegates to be nominated at the party convention, regardless of whether the candidate is a Republican, Democrat, or Green. You can find all the news sources using the word "presumptive" you want. It does not make it true in the way that word has traditionally been used in presidential elections or the way that the bulk of the news sources use it. We should not call anyone the presumptive nominee of any party until it is mathematically impossible for anyone else to win without delegates changing their minds. - Rrius ( talk) 04:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, since the Obama-McCain age disparity is larger, it goes back further, and is the largest age disparity since ___________. Could a knowledgeable person correct this sentence? I'll tag it. Tempshill ( talk) 17:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
His father was a member of the Jaluo people of Kenya and don't see what is wrong with using that term. If his father was born and raised in Poland, nobody would use European, they'd use Polish. And if his father was Zulu, that would probably be fine since people outside Africa are more familiar with that name, but the fine Jaluo people who I lived and worked with for years and are fiercely proud to be Jaluo and so that is why I mention it in the article. Cladeal832 ( talk) 21:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I know there has been alot of controversy around adding canidates or there pictures. Know here's my problem, Obama's picture in this article is no offense not that great, and even Mccain could use a little update. So I Updated Obamas picture to look more like that of the pictures from 2004 and my edit got reverted for no reason. I would like to get a vote on which picture is more proferable the one on the article now or change it back to my revison.
This being said I would like a vote to keep the current picture or change it in favor of a new one. - Marcusmax ( talk) 19:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed Rrius, I find that to be a great idea, look back at all the past election articles, and the majority of the candiates in recent election had something of prominence in the background. So yes I find giving obama eqaul prominence, using better pictures is fair. - Marcusmax ( talk) 22:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
MarcusMax added the {{ crystal}} template a couple days ago. Is there speculation in the article beyond what would be anticipated in an election article? In other words, is it saying anything that is not necessarily implied by the ongoing election template? If not, I think it should go. - Rrius ( talk) 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The link in this article on the disputed Clinton claim to winning the popular vote (note #16) goes to a May 2008 article, and this claim is still being made even after Obama won the nomination and Clinton endorsed in June. Caucuses need to be discussed -- are they excluded in popular vote count, or weighted in some way? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.203.16 ( talk) 23:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems as though this page is far too in-depth in regards to the primary procedure. There are already existing articles to cover indepth primary material
and
So, I propose we offer a summary of the Demcorats and Republicans Primaries like in the 2004 Election and cover mroe General Election detail. Bigvinu ( talk) 13:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally I feel that www.fivethirtyeight.com is a pretty accurate model, but then it is only one of many models and should not be used as the sole model in Wikipedia. One should also note that 538 uses many other factors in its calculation, apart from simply polls. This means that there'll obviously be significant differences between its model and other models since they don't have a common method of calculation. In other words, the projection should be treated merely as one of many projections, just as a pollster should be treated as one of many, due to significant differences in polling methods. Naurmacil ( talk) 14:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
All current polls in Nevada after March show John McCain with a slight lead (2 - 6%) in Nevada. Please indicate that. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nv/nevada_mccain_vs_obama-252.html
Please also indicate that McCain has a lead in Missouri. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mo/missouri_mccain_vs_obama-545.html McCain leads in every poll this year except for just one.
Polls in Florida show that it is a toss up much more than leaning towards Obama. (I would say McCain has a slight lead in FL but I know people here are Obama supporters so let's just make everyone happy and say it's a toss up based on facts.) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_obama-418.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchow2 ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were recently removed on the grounds that the campaigns do not consider these to be battlegrounds. It is unclear exactly what this assertion was based on. All four are widely reported in the media as battlegrounds, and each state is considered a battleground by at least one of the candidates. I also removed the edits of an editor who added Ohio back in as an incident to restoring the older version; the spirit of the edit was upheld, though. - Rrius ( talk) 18:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
This whole section is hopelessly POV and continually wayyyyy out-of-date. (Georgia, Montana and even Alaska are moving into the realm of 'battlegrounds' and yet are listed as safely Republican). It really has no place in this article except, perhaps, in a very general sense to describe how some states are considered to be battleground and others are not. Setwisohi ( talk) 10:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Cox ran a nationwide campaign, in more states than Gravel or Keyes and was in nationwide debates. Under wikipedia's non biased POV, he needs to be listed. Casey14 ( talk) 21:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he does. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 23:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to run a purposefully dis-informational website on the nominated political candidates. In late 2007 I updated every single one of the top 20 candidates with links to votesmart and another website with position listings based on past votes but they were promptly removed. I complained about this and also pointed out the listing for Republican candidates was incorrect (missing some and had some who were no longer in the race) but wikipedia refused to update the article. Finally, I now see they do not list the liberterian candidate on this page about the election. I believe the staff of wikipedia needs to focus on editorial correctness. At this time I believe the information they display is based on two things:
1st and foremost) bias of editor(s) for an article. This is clear in the political section as directly false or totally omitted position statements were made on several candidate's pages.
2nd) possible popularity. This is bad as facts cannot be changed by overwhelming opinion. Wrong facts are still wrong facts and really have no place in an encyclopedia.
Timjowers (
talk) 13:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
With the understanding: The top of this article is preserverd for the Election winner & runners-up? I've reverted the recent multiple changes by editor Will. GoodDay ( talk) 17:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Can't figure out where to put this, but footnote 71 has a typo, the lady's last name is Edwards with an S. thanks. 65.173.141.56 ( talk) 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Will someone please remove Stephen Colbert from the Dem/GOP listings? He was not a major candidate!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.171.229 ( talk) 09:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Has Alan Keyes actually dropped out? The page merely says he's switched parties to the Constitution party. It is possible to run for the nomination of two parties concurrently -- has he actually made a statement saying that he's dropped out? Ramorum ( talk) 06:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, he has not made an official announcement or released an official statement. But his campaign has stated that he is leaving the GOP. He himself will make a statement about it on April 15. And it has been reported in various places that he will be leaving. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 18:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
At least finnish (suomi) is at wrong place. - 82.128.207.76 ( talk) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Should the complaint against McCain with the FEC be incorporated in this article?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-u3WbiCcQ8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 ( talk) 20:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So, what needs to be done to remove that cleanup tag? Yahoo is linking to this article and the cleanup tag makes it look sloppy. What's wrong with the article? -- JaGa ( talk) 10:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Both tags have been re-added. They are necessary at this point. Please do not remove them until the issues are addressed.
The cleanup tag is necessary here, and should not be removed just because "yahoo is linking to the article". The article organization is absolutely atrocious, there are too many sections, subsections, subsubsections. There candidates' listing is a horrible collection of images combined with text listings, and random delegate totals. The lead section is too short. Some sections have way too much text, while others have too little. The whole article just needs a complete overhaul here.
The 'upcoming' tag is standard wiki practice for events that are changing. It should not be removed. Dr. Cash ( talk) 21:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Somebody mentioned it earlier. There's way too many images at this article. No offense to the 'third party candidates' but they shouldn't have images; just their names will do. Furthermore, all withdrawn candidates should have their images removed; keeping their names only. GoodDay ( talk) 22:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, that looks much neater. GoodDay ( talk) 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier, this page is getting massive (77 threads as of this one). Isn't it about time to do some archiving?-- JayJasper ( talk) 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This article should not be a running tally of present candidates. Election articles in Wikipedia are historical and should contain ALL candidates, even the ones who dropped out or lost or what ever. Look at United States presidential election, 2004: Should every candidate except George W. Bush be removed because only he won? This is a historical article which has a present & future component. — Markles
I think clinton is the only on in debt..any sources of net finance situation of all campagnes?. Rodrigue ( talk) 15:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
First paragraph of that section it says Obama has won an overwhelming majority of the popular vote. This is simply untrue. Its biased towards Obama. As of right now the popular vote tallies are disputed depending of if you include Florida and Michigan. Regardless CNN puts Obama's lead at 700,000 a slim majority, not overwhelming.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamisonia ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Really? 24.33.149.118 ( talk) 02:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What about Minnesota and North Carolina? Many polls, including Rasmussen, indicate that both states could be put in play this election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasi98 ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Does someone want to update the delegate chart with the latest numbers decided on after the rules committee today? The new magic number is now 2,118; Obama has 2,050 and I forgot Clinton's amount. There was just a picture on CNN of the numbers, but they didn't update their website yet. Tim meh ! 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There's rumblings, that Clinton will be having her post-primaries speech in New York (tommorow), thus creating the impression that she's ending her bid for the Dems presidential nomination. Is this just a rumour or factual? Should we add this to the article? GoodDay ( talk) 18:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay ( talk) 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The Evil Spartan reverted blurbs on Nebraska and South Carolina. In doing so, he referred us to a previous edit summary of his and the opinion poll article. I presume the edit summary he is referring to is the one that said that according to Fox News and Rassmussen South Carolina is safe Republican. He also made the bald assertion that Nebraska is safe. The South Carolina edit was based on a single poll from late February, so I agree that it is not reliable.
Nebraska, however, is. The blurb is based on a poll released Sunday by a reputable polling firm. Moreover, I heard the possibility of Obama picking off one or two of Nebraska's electoral votes twice during Tuesday night's election coverage. The fact that another Wikipedia does not yet reflect that poll is not a reason to revert the change on this one. What may be contributing to the confusion is that each of its three congressional districts to the winner of the districts' popular vote totals and the remaining two votes are awarded to the winner of the state-wide vote. It is therefore quite possible to be far behind statewide, but pick off a district elector. - Rrius ( talk) 05:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that CNN is currently listing Obama as the Democratic Projected nominee rather than the Presumptive nominee [7]. I am guessing this is because Clinton has not dropped out and Obama's absolute majority is backed up by superdelegates, but I am not certain. If anyone knows for sure, is there a difference in the two titles and do you think that should be noted in this article? Seen0288 ( talk) 09:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The superdelegate tally right now is really unofficial, and the count even varies by source, and its likely several will not vote officially as piblicly suggested, not to mention florida/michigan...nothing has really changed, obama is no more likely the nominee than a week a ago, he just got some more delegates. Rodrigue ( talk) 13:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Given McCain's age, I suppose it's also possible for him to have a heart attack and croak before August. Granted, that's still very unlikely, but it **could** happen. This is why we use the word, "presumptive". Dr. Cash ( talk) 18:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see this mentioned in the first few sections ("Characteristics") and I think it's important to note McCain/Obama's ages and birthplaces. It may have been in the article before and I didn't see it, but I'm blind as a bat. conman33 ( . . .talk) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's a source She says she will back Obama. 129.67.53.232 ( talk) 09:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I added a note to the picture of the nominees clarifying that their respective nominations are presumptive until formalized by the national conventions in August and September Nevermore27 ( talk) 11:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Article should note that, based on the presumptive nominees, this will be the first presidential election where two serving senators are the principal nominees. 198.74.13.100 ( talk) 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
this might be a little nit-picky, but in the sentence: "The incumbent President, George W. Bush, ... is barred from running again due to term limits..." 'barred' connotates denial of action by an opposing force, as in, "Bush tried to run again, but the law stopped him." More neutral phrasing wouldn't hurt - "is prevented from running again," or "is not elligable to run again," et cetera. - matt lohkamp 1:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If McCain wasn't the presumptive nominee until he had 1191 delegates and Obama wasn't until he had 2118 (or 2117 or 2210) delegates, why is McKinney the presumptive nominee before she reaches 419? According to the article, which was updated today, she has 271. I'm going to remover her. - Rrius ( talk) 04:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of who's calling her the presumptive nominee, she hasn't won enough delegates yet and therefore hasn't won the nomination. She should be removed until she gets the number of delegates needed to win the nomination. Tim meh ! 22:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Timmeh put it exactly right. This article has used "presumptive" to mean the person has enough delegates to be nominated at the party convention, regardless of whether the candidate is a Republican, Democrat, or Green. You can find all the news sources using the word "presumptive" you want. It does not make it true in the way that word has traditionally been used in presidential elections or the way that the bulk of the news sources use it. We should not call anyone the presumptive nominee of any party until it is mathematically impossible for anyone else to win without delegates changing their minds. - Rrius ( talk) 04:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, since the Obama-McCain age disparity is larger, it goes back further, and is the largest age disparity since ___________. Could a knowledgeable person correct this sentence? I'll tag it. Tempshill ( talk) 17:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
His father was a member of the Jaluo people of Kenya and don't see what is wrong with using that term. If his father was born and raised in Poland, nobody would use European, they'd use Polish. And if his father was Zulu, that would probably be fine since people outside Africa are more familiar with that name, but the fine Jaluo people who I lived and worked with for years and are fiercely proud to be Jaluo and so that is why I mention it in the article. Cladeal832 ( talk) 21:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I know there has been alot of controversy around adding canidates or there pictures. Know here's my problem, Obama's picture in this article is no offense not that great, and even Mccain could use a little update. So I Updated Obamas picture to look more like that of the pictures from 2004 and my edit got reverted for no reason. I would like to get a vote on which picture is more proferable the one on the article now or change it back to my revison.
This being said I would like a vote to keep the current picture or change it in favor of a new one. - Marcusmax ( talk) 19:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed Rrius, I find that to be a great idea, look back at all the past election articles, and the majority of the candiates in recent election had something of prominence in the background. So yes I find giving obama eqaul prominence, using better pictures is fair. - Marcusmax ( talk) 22:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
MarcusMax added the {{ crystal}} template a couple days ago. Is there speculation in the article beyond what would be anticipated in an election article? In other words, is it saying anything that is not necessarily implied by the ongoing election template? If not, I think it should go. - Rrius ( talk) 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The link in this article on the disputed Clinton claim to winning the popular vote (note #16) goes to a May 2008 article, and this claim is still being made even after Obama won the nomination and Clinton endorsed in June. Caucuses need to be discussed -- are they excluded in popular vote count, or weighted in some way? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.203.16 ( talk) 23:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems as though this page is far too in-depth in regards to the primary procedure. There are already existing articles to cover indepth primary material
and
So, I propose we offer a summary of the Demcorats and Republicans Primaries like in the 2004 Election and cover mroe General Election detail. Bigvinu ( talk) 13:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally I feel that www.fivethirtyeight.com is a pretty accurate model, but then it is only one of many models and should not be used as the sole model in Wikipedia. One should also note that 538 uses many other factors in its calculation, apart from simply polls. This means that there'll obviously be significant differences between its model and other models since they don't have a common method of calculation. In other words, the projection should be treated merely as one of many projections, just as a pollster should be treated as one of many, due to significant differences in polling methods. Naurmacil ( talk) 14:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
All current polls in Nevada after March show John McCain with a slight lead (2 - 6%) in Nevada. Please indicate that. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nv/nevada_mccain_vs_obama-252.html
Please also indicate that McCain has a lead in Missouri. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mo/missouri_mccain_vs_obama-545.html McCain leads in every poll this year except for just one.
Polls in Florida show that it is a toss up much more than leaning towards Obama. (I would say McCain has a slight lead in FL but I know people here are Obama supporters so let's just make everyone happy and say it's a toss up based on facts.) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_obama-418.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchow2 ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were recently removed on the grounds that the campaigns do not consider these to be battlegrounds. It is unclear exactly what this assertion was based on. All four are widely reported in the media as battlegrounds, and each state is considered a battleground by at least one of the candidates. I also removed the edits of an editor who added Ohio back in as an incident to restoring the older version; the spirit of the edit was upheld, though. - Rrius ( talk) 18:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
This whole section is hopelessly POV and continually wayyyyy out-of-date. (Georgia, Montana and even Alaska are moving into the realm of 'battlegrounds' and yet are listed as safely Republican). It really has no place in this article except, perhaps, in a very general sense to describe how some states are considered to be battleground and others are not. Setwisohi ( talk) 10:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |