Talk:1972 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mass

Notwithstanding that there should be no trivia sections,the section says this was the only time that Mass has voted republican, but it seems that in reality mass was the only state not to vote for Nixon (a republican), am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.235.227 (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Anderson's home state?

I couldn't figure out if Thomas J. Anderson (Thomas Jefferson “Tom” Anderson, b. 1910) was technically “of Tennessee” at the time of the 1972 election. It appears he may have been in Texas at the time. —Mulad 23:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comment. What source do you have that shows Anderson in Texas? He was born in Nashville, lived most of his life in Pigeon Forge, and currently lives in Gatlinburg (all in TN). He ran for the U.S. Senate on the American Party line in 1978 against Howard Baker. Source: http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=4490 . Chronicler3 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3

According to the Maryland Manual 1973-1974, he lived in Gatlinburg Tennessee during the election. Thus far I have seen nothing to indicate a Texas residency other than Mulad's comment. Unless any evidence for Texas does come forward, I see no reason to keep the confusing "Tennessee or Texas" text on the main page 24.125.168.51 22:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing talk pages

should i have been able to delete what i did on this page? seems odd that i am free to edit things on the page.... -- (unsigned contribution by 68.95.36.95 00:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) after deleting half of previous post)

Should you have been able to? Sure; this is a wiki page like any other. Should you have made the change you did? No; you broke the Wikipedia community's rules; in general, deletions on talk pages should be accomplished by striking through the offending text, not by removing it. I have therefore restored the deleted commentary. Does Wikipedia have defenses against such deletions? Yep, it's called Wikipedia editors, with the help of watchlists and history pages. — DLJessup 05:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Electoral picture peculiarity

Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This post has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy#Electoral picture peculiarity. Please direct your responses there.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a footnote or citation to back up the contention that an unspecified number of unidentified establishment Democrats and delegates to the 1972 Democratic National Convention were backing President Nixon in the 1972 elections? It seems controversial enough that I would wish to have some link or at least suggestion I could follow or investigate, to satisfy myself who were some of the main figures in this movement, or to see whether I can even find any second party other than the author of this article who believes this to have been the case.

Hospers

The page itself says the libertarian candidate only won 3,000-some votes in two states (Colorado and Washington) but the map has him winning an electoral vote in Virginia. Something is wrong here. Papercrab 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, nothing is wrong; Hospers did win one electoral vote in Virginia. This is known as the problem of the faithless elector, and it is explained on the page if you read to the bottom. There was an elector in Virginia, who despite being pledged to Nixon, chose to cast his vote for Hospers. This kind of thing is not infrequent (cf. the vote cast in Minnesota in 2004 for John Edwards for President). 76.100.8.154 18:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pete McCloskey.jpg

Image:Pete McCloskey.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Error in electoral-votes-counting for Tennessee

It looks like there's been a mistake in the counts of electoral votes in Tennessee. The artical has given 11 electoral votes for Nixon in this state, but there was only 10 electoral votes available for Tennessee in this election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.43.123 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nytimes1972electionpage.jpg

Image:Nytimes1972electionpage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Meo Zedong?

I would be grateful to anyone who could explain why Mao Zedong is listed as having won a delegate in the Democratic party vice-presidential race. KNVercingetorix (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Acid, amnesty, and abortion

I have removed from the opening of the article the claim that President Nixon ridiculed Senator McGovern as the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion." A section of the article deals with that appellation, and it appears that Senator Thomas Eagleton — who became McGovern's running mate — was the one who said it. I have not found any instance of Nixon himself using the phrase. — Walloon (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can a Vice Presidential candidate be "fired" by the Presidential candadate?

While Presidential candidate George McGovern "forced" the vice presidential candidate Thomas Eagleton to resign, should the article call this "being fired"?

Novak stuff

This article devotes several paragraphs to the Novak "amnesty, abortion and legalization of pot" stuff. I suggest that this be cut. First, it is unsourced, and second, Novak is not a reliable journalist IMO. Penskeer (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There was some editor who years ago inserted that material in about a dozen different articles. I weeded it out of several places before and it should be taken out of here as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I'll remove it. Penskeer (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Would Win

I don't believe the McGovern campaign believed it "would win" just because of the inclusion of 18-20 year-olds in the vote. They knew it would help them perhaps significantly, no doubt, and I'm sure they were positive about it, but they always knew it was going to be an uphill battle against the incumbent Nixon. The cited article is not being specific as to the overall campaign. In this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a203s39qPuI the campaign is rehashed by the participants, including Senator McGovern. I believe rewording this sentence does not take away from the spirit of the meaning. I also don't believe any campaign would automatically assume they would win for any single issue or condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanetWand (talk • contribs) 11:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Given that Hospers got votes in the electoral college, I - like Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin also believe that Hospers should be in the infobox. It's clear that we need to attain consensus. Please post your thoughts here. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I oppose this, and will delete it until we can come to an actual consensus on it. Sabot Cat (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Results section

Something is wrong with the results section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.224.181 (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Dem Primary Map

WHO decided to use that color scheme — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.109.87 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Archive 1