Talk:Timeline of the 2008 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Iowa NPR debate moved

This wiki page lists it in mid January, but it was moved to December (reschedule happened due to iowa caucus dates moving up) Source here: http://iowapublicradio.org/blogs/connecting/2007/09/19/npr-newsiowa-public-radio-debates-leap-forward/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williameis (talk • contribs) 06:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Significant events

What's the method of selecting significant events to place on the timeline? It seems like editorial pieces would be arbitrarily selected; for instance, despite Maureen Dowd's influence, her columns may repeatedly discuss the 2008 election, not to mention other columnists. If this page is going to exist, it seems like the only events that should be on it are (1) formal announcements of candidacy, (2) formal withdrawals from candidacy, (3) party primary dates, (4) matters of significant historic influence (e.g., the "Deam Scream," the "read my lips" promise, Biden's '88 plagiarism charges), and (5) the actual federal election timeline. That means that (1) general newspaper pieces and (2) announcements or withdrawals of general interest (e.g., Clinton, Obama, and Kerry expressing interest in running, and Warner no longer expressing interest) should be excluded. That makes it more streamlined and prevents unnecessary focus on certain candidates over others based on POV, or pro- or anti-candidate editing. Zz414 23:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, what's the standard for listing events? And how is this article useful? Doesn't it just duplicate the Presidential Election page? Zz414 16:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, any standard or usefulness? If not, I'll AfD it shortly. Zz414 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Arn't we being a little...presumptuous?

We arn't positive that the 2008 Elections will even happen. 35.11.183.95 22:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Yeah, but the campaign has been going on like gangbusters for a while now.

The use of Polls

As you can see I put some poll numbers on January 1, 2007. I figure that to make the timeline slightly more comprehensible, the state of the race according to newspaper polls should be put up quarterly. The results from "cattle call" straw polls should be put up too, as they actually have some effect on the race as a whole. The reason that I chose Gallup is that it's the oldest and most venerable, the Des Moines Register poll was the closest Iowa poll to the first of the year.(another one just came out, but the polling was done in October, and really didn't count for anything.)

The "announcement" phase is going to go on like gangbusters until the middle of February, with Al Gore dickering until late spring. The first fundraising figures should be made public at the end of March, which is a good time to take another look.Ericl 16:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Ericl.

Removing the poll numbers. There are specific articles about polling that already exist. By putting this information into an article that one would not expect this information to be in can have an indirect impact on the voting results. A person should specifically bring up the polling article to see that information, otherwise this article could indirectly impact the election results. Zzmonty (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to cite sources

The timeline approach was really valuable for building out the 2004 election page (started in 2002). However, one thing I regretted that I didn't do and that others didn't do either was to cite sources in a way the articles could be found (e.g. not just the link, but the headline, the source name, etc). News stories tend to be really ephemeral, and only by capturing the sources can you go back and do a bang-up job creating a good article from the timeline article. -- RobLa 06:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Phew, I've completed my self-assigned mission to find and assign sources for just about all items on the article using the {cite news} template, at least for all of the now "historic" ones and also for many of the "future" items. Please keep up the current level of 'attributability' when editing this article. Peterbr 21:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

NM Governor Bill Richardson comment sourced

Hey! Democratic presidential candidate and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson told a group of supporters at a breakfast in Iowa that he believes the Democratic contest will be over at the end of January, 2008 after the first four state contests (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina). It is a relevant statement and the Associated Press is a reliable source, so I noted it in the article and cited the source--here: [1] ProfessorPaul 00:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

my beautiful new chart

I've been doing a large new revision, and I decided that since there are going to be twenty primaries/caucuses on that date, It would look better if the winners were listed on a chart. It looks cool, don't it? Ericl 15:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Super Duper Tuesday?

• Illinois is listed on Super Duper Tuesday, but also on March 18.
• Georgia is listed on Super Duper Tuesday, but also March 4.
• West Virginia is listed on Super Duper Tuesday, but also on May 13.

Can someone explain? Or are these errors?

Kingturtle 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Two states missing

When are North Carolina and Mississippi having their primaries? They are not listed on the article. Kingturtle 22:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Linear Regression???

Trends are not linear for many reasons and therefore linear regressions mislead more than they enlighten. According to linear regression, every candidate would eventually end up below zero or above hundred percent CuriousOliver 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your statement, that every candidate would eventually end up below zero or above 100%, presumes that the timeline is infinite. But, in this case, the endpoint is finite, that is, primaries will be January to June 2008, and the presidential election will be held in November 2008. Also, as time progresses, the linear regressions will flatten. The primary advantage of linear regressions is that it diminishes anomalous data. For example, if a biased poll takes place, then it is mitigated by other non-biased polls. I will be the first to admit that a linear regression has its limitations, but I think it's highly useful in spotting overall trends in the data.--Robapalooza 16:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary dates

It seems like the dates for the primaries have been kinda thrown together and ignored. Understandable 6 months ago, but there should be an overhaul pretty soon. The dates are pretty much finalized by now, I'd think, and not too awful far away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.233.10 (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, this article needs a good scrubbing

Thoughts?--Robapalooza 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. One easy fix:

• Use PNG instead of JPEG for graphs. JPEG is not appropriate for line-drawing type images, as it uses lossy compression which relies on smooth transitions between colors. This renders graphs fuzzy.

Harder fixes:

• Include more candidates than just those that the mainstream media has crowned as "first tier". Showing only information for three candidates in a wide field is POV.

• Break into several articles for readability. The simple fact that this article uses 6th level headings is a clear indication that it is trying to cover too much.

--128.101.220.46 13:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Super Duper Tuesday

It's the day! I'm filling in all the blank areas on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthBotto (talk • contribs) 05:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Halfway point

How is the "halfway point" determined? - dcljr (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Halfway means half the primaries, half the delegates, you know....HALF way.Ericl (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of nomination and acceptance speech

How is the chronology of Sarah Palin's formal nomination and acceptance speech? Her speech was at Wednesday, September 3. This was also the occasion when she accepted the nomination.[2] But according to the articles I've read she was nominated on Thursday, September 4.

E.g. "Palin nominated by acclamation Associated Press - September 4, 2008 8:23 PM ET MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - The Republicans have nominated Sarah Palin by acclamation as their vice-presidential pick. It comes just hours before John McCain makes his acceptance speech tonight at the convention in St. Paul." [3]

Also here: "Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, was officially named the Republican vice-presidential candidate Thursday evening. The nomination was made by acclamation."

Shouldn't she be first nominated and then accept the nomination, not the other way around? It was like this for Obama. Vints (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An error and an omission

The error: Under June 2008, June 3, the article states: "Montana and South Dakota Democratic primaries won by Barack Obama." In fact, Hillary Clinton won the South Dakota primary, as the link shows (confirming my memory of the event). Nevertheless, Obama did win enough delegates that day (along with superdelegates) to put him over the top according to most counts.

(Also, a matter of punctuation: The sentence that follows the erroneous one quoted above reads, "Obama wins enough delegates to officially become the Democratic nominee, however, his opponent Hillary Clinton does not concede." The first comma should be a semicolon. Trust me. The sentence should read: "Obama wins enough delegates to officially become the Democratic nominee; however, his opponent Hillary Clinton does not concede." Or it could be reworded: "Obama wins enough delegates, including declared superdelegates, to become the Democratic nominee; however, his opponent Hillary Clinton does not concede.")

The omission: I can't find a mention of what I thought to be a very important event. On May 31, 2008, the Democratic National Committee met on the issue of Michigan and Florida delegates, deciding to allow them votes at the convention but reducing their votes by half and determining how many votes Obama and Clinton would receive from each state. One source on the event: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/31/the-dnc-deliberates/?hp

Nairdainreverse (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

split article(s)

I would do this pre-2007, 2007, and 2008 to election day. This article is kinda long.--Levineps (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you've got a point, but I don't know if there's any precident for splitting timelines. WP:SIZE seems to indicate that lists shouldn't be split, and I'd consider this a list. Perhaps the best way to deal with this article's size would be to cut out some of the unsourced and/or unnecessary stuff? — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 21:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

removal of information regarding Obama's earlier career

A little while ago I removed the following points from this page

• July - Illinois State Senator Barack Obama launches an exploratory committee for the United States Senate seat then held by Republican Peter Fitzgerald.
• March 16 - Owing to scandals surrounding his main primary opponent and an endorsement from the family of the late Senator Paul Simon, State Senator Barack Obama wins the nomination of the Democratic Party for the 2004 Illinois United States Senatorial election by an unexpected landslide. His initial opponent is Republican Jack Ryan. Incumbent Senator Fitzgerald declines to run for reelection.
• July 27 - Much of America and the world is first introduced to Illinois State Senator Barack Obama when he makes a well-received speech at the Democratic National Convention, as a candidate for United States Senator in the state of Illinois. Afterwards, political experts and Democratic insiders begin to speculate Obama as a future candidate for higher political office.
• November 2 - Obama defeats GOP candidate Alan Keyes 69% to 27% in the Illinois United States Senatorial election. Keyes replaced Ryan after a scandal forced him to withdraw.

on the grounds that they don't directly relate to the election, would necessitate the inclusion of similar information relating to other candidates (which in an extreme case would span back at least to 1962), and add further data of questionable noteworthiness to a page which is already too long. I've since restored the point dated July 27, as I feel the last part, though in some need of a reference, gives it a tenuous relationship to the subject of this article. Also, User:Shikata Ganai restored the point dated simply 'July', with the edit summary What a ridiculous reason to delete anything. Obama got elected president, in case you didn't notice, within four years of being first elected to national office. So this post is really just a lengthy way of saying that I plan on reverting this, and I'd ask anyone planning on restoring it or any other point again to consider the points I've detailed above and if possible post a reply here. Thanks. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Early items

The 3 items before 2006 seem kind of minor to me. Especially the one about Cheney saying he wouldn't run.Borock (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure which specific three items you're talking about, but I do think that all of the pre-2006 items belong. Cheney was, for a while, considered a potential candidate, and him putting an end to that speculation is relevant information. There are similar items for other potential candidates like Mark Warner and Bill Frist. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 13:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think so I will not object more. I don't remember Cheney ever being a serious choice because of his health. The president has a much more difficult daily schedule than the VP. Oh, and I see that there are 6 items. I'm not sure why I counted them as 3. Sorry about that. Borock (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)