Talk:Timeline of the 2004 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

I've been posting the news I read, but I read mostly conservative sources so I am missing allegations against the Republicans and support for the Democrats. Are there any readers who would like to add events that cast Kerry in favorable light and Bush in a negative one? Could you also spot check my additions so that I am being factual about the events and avoiding biased comments? I think as we get near to elections that there is going to be a lot of exciting things happening and I want to detail them carefully, including all the back-and-forth on the voter fraud issues. Thanks. Jgardner 05:54, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

You should cite your sources on this material. For example, the October 12 entry regarding the John Edwards quote is horribly misleading. Edwards made his statement at a rally on October 10 (before Reeve's death had been reported), and was taken way out of context. Here's the quote:

EDWARDS: Christopher Reeve just passed away. And America just lost a great champion for this cause. Somebody who is a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him, who have gone through the tragedy. Well, if we can do the work that we can do in this country -- the work we will do when John Kerry is president -- people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.

According to Media Matters, Edwards was being slimed by Drudge [1]. -- RobLa 07:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It may be slime, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Edwards said what he said, and it is worth mentioning because it may influence the outcome of the election. Jgardner 16:06, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

I think plenty of the material you added does cast Kerry in a favourable light, and Bush in a bad one. But you should cite sources wherever possible for more controversial claims. And some of the things you added weren't entirely factual, but I think they're OK now.

This item was removed. I'd like to emphasize that it is extremely troubling to the right and it is probably worth mention. What were the reasons for removing it? I can't tell by looking at the history?

• • Republican nominee for State House District 82 in Tennessee, Dave Dahl, denounced a flyer distributed by Democrat State Representative Craig Fitzhugh that superimposes a picture of George Bush on a running child with the caption "Voting for Bush Is Like Running In The Special Olympics. Even If You Win, You're Still Retarded." [2]

If there is no objection, I'd like to add it back in. If it's not balanced or accurate, could you please correct it? Jgardner 16:04, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Breaking this page out?

We've gone over the recommended limit. Should we break this page out into seperate years, and then seperate pages for the last month? How about "U.S. presidential election, 2004 timeline, 2002-2003", "U.S. presidential election, 2004 timeline, 2004, January-June", "U.S. presidential election, 2004 timeline, July-September", "U.S. presidential election, 2004 timeline, October-November"? Jgardner 16:43, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Wow! No wonder it is so big. It seems we got two of the same stuff everywhere. I'm going to go in and fix it... hold off on editing the page until I get it done.. thanks. Jgardner 16:57, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

That didn't seem to fix it... we should break out. Any objections? Jgardner 06:57, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the page should be seperated into sub-articles until the election is over. At that point we can see the timeline in its entirety, perhaps go through and remove some things that don't mater so much, and add in anything we see is missing, and then seperate it in an appropriate manner (it may be more useful to pick key events for seperating it, rather than years).

Drudge article in "pre-emptive strike" - 10/14

I think this should be in here. First, the democrat website shows the excerpt and it does indeed say what Drudge said it said. [3]. They merely claim that it doesn't mean what it says. Second, even if it were a wild claim, it should be posted AND refuted because it will affect the way people vote in this election. Compare with the Rathergate / Memogate wherein documents were invented. We have that link here because it is important and has an effect on the election. Third, Drudge is usually right, at least as often as Rather. Remember, he broke the Monica Lewinsky story. While the left hates Drudge, he influences a lot of people in the middle and right (and perhaps influences the left in the negative direction.) Jgardner 06:57, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Removed from Article Text

The Federalist Patriot, "The Conservative E-Journal of Record," circulates a petition asking Richard Cheney, Bill Frist, and John Ashcroft for the disqualification of John Kerry from office and his prosecution for treason. Though over 170,000 sign the petition, Cheney, Ashcroft, and Frist do not immediately move to strike Kerry from the ballot. Text of Petition

I've removed this, not only because I've failed to see this mentioned either on the Internet or in my hometown newspaper (the Portland Oregonian, which has a moderate Republican POV), but it is non-noteable: so an email-based petition is delivered from an otherwise unknown group? There are lots of petitions floating around on the Internet; what makes this one different from, say, the one I signed protesting SCO's lawsuit of IBM, which had several clearly fake names on it? -- llywrch 22:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How long will vote-counting take?

Assuming that no state pulls a Florida, the article (or the timeline) could use a mention of the estimated time it will take to reliably determine the winner. I know I will need that information, if I'm to sleep at all this week. -- Kizor 08:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)