Talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about 2008 United States presidential election. 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

→

Add John Cox under Republican party

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)

John Cox? How come I've nevered heard of him? GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're not actually following the presidential campaign close enough. He was the first Republican to announce his presidency. He ran a nationwide campaign and was in national debates. He needs to be included or this page and wikipedia will be showing their bias. Casey14 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Will someone add Cox? I do not know how to create the boxes for candidates, and to be non-biased he needs to be added! Casey14 (talk) 23:49, 16 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)

Stephen Colbert

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)

I have to agree. Although I'm sure he was beating Gravel... Paragon12321 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Who didn't beat Gravel? ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed before, he should be removed. -- Macduff (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he doesn't belong on the Dem/GOP listings, but I believe there should be some mention of him, if only a miniscule one, somewhere on the page, considering he has his own campaign article and was met with immense public support prior to withdrawing -- Myspace69 (talk)

Alan Keyes?

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)

Keyes, as a presidential candidate, is currently in limbo. After having failed to gain the Constitution Party's presidential nomination (and chosen not to support that party's presidential nominee), he considering running as an independant. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong order of languages

At least finnish (suomi) is at wrong place. -82.128.207.76 (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain public financing controversy

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)

Because Youtube is clearly a reliable source... Beware of this editor. He has recently been blocked from the 9/11 talk page for hijacking it. Take everything he/she says with a heavy dose of salt. --Tarage (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What is unreliable about this video documentary? Are you willing to say the complaint has not been filed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.77.237 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source. One can only pray the wikipedia deities will deem it reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.77.237 (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.77.237 (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

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)

Editor Diligent Terrier (talk · contribs) added that tag on April 4, replacing a 'verylong' tag. I put a comment in his/her Talk page, referring here. Also, I renamed this section "Cleanup tag", was "Yahoo link". -Colfer2 (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, do we need the warning that This article or section contains information about an upcoming or ongoing election in the United States? That box was removed last fall, after discussion on this page, appropriately titled "Someone thinks we are all imbeciles". But it seems to have snuck back in through the infobox, which I didn't notice until now. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be all for taking them both out, especially if it's already been discussed. Looks like Diligent Terrier is on a wikibreak, though. Should we wait, or just take them out if no one objects here? --JaGa (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If nobody explains what is the wrong with the article, I say take out both tags at the top. -Colfer2 (talk) 11:04, 19 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)

You make good points, but I wish you wouldn't reverse it based on your own opinion. We had consensus to take the tags out, and we shouldn't put them back until we have consensus to do that. Could some other people weigh in? --JaGa (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The organization is OK. After June or so, most it can be moved to the Primaries pages for each party. Other issues:

A big problem in the design look is the use of 'CENTER' tags around the tables. Wide screens have made that tag problematic. So I am removing the center tags. It's easy enough to revert if consensus says to.
Pictures of withdrawn candidates are unnecessary in an article this long and complex. A simple list would be a big improvement. The pics are on their own bio articles anyway.

-Colfer2 (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see an actual argument for keeping the "this article is about an upcoming election" banner, not just claims that this ridiculous notice is "standard". What does it add to the article to make up for looking like a bad joke? If such arguments have been presented elsewhere, feel free just to point me there (I don't see anything on Template talk:Infobox Election). -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 05:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree the title of the article speaks for itself. Both tags should be removed. -Colfer2 (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the cleanup tag is still required because, even with 'centering' the images, the article as a whole still looks absolutely atrocious. There's just no comprehensive sense to any of the organization, and it doesn't tell a story of the election from its beginnings through the present day, not to mention that it's laced with all sorts of POV. The 'upcoming event' tag is also strongly needed, not only because it's standard practice, but also just a good idea and common sense in this case. This event is a hot button item with a lot of people, and is and will be edited by a lot of people until after november. It is very important to point this out to non-wikipedian users that might view the page, particularly that this page has information that will change rapidly, and that it is a non-authoritative source that may be 'edited by anyone'.

To help cleanup the article, the first thing I would propose is to eliminate the photos of candidates. I don't think it's needed, and would instead favor a simple table listing all candidates and all parties. Allowing some of the more major candidates of the major parties to have photos, while some of the less obscure candidates and candidates that have quit to not have photos, is actually a violation of WP:NPOV, as it emphasizes some over others. It also just looks very sloppy and unprofessional. The images also make the article look more like an advertisement than an actual informative encyclopedia article. All the candidates should simply be listed in a table, and if people want to know what they look like, they can click on their article. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I un-centered the tables, not centered the images. You make some good points though. Also I wasn't suggesting removing photos of obscure candidates, just the withdrawn candidates. -Colfer2 (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Too many images

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)

I'll second that. We can keep the pertinent info without cluttering the page. If someone wants to see the images, they can click on the candidates' article links.--JayJasper (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and remove the images, seeing how someone made the bold move of removing the withdrawn candidates without (thus far) causing a stir. We'll see how it plays out, but I think it was a long overdue move.--JayJasper (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, that looks much neater. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Time to archive

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)

Indeed, archive away. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried archiving it. But for some reason, my paste, won't work (I can't transfer the old postings to the new Archive page). GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's anybody out there, whose paste is working, would you please archive this talk page? GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Request granted. All threads before April 4 are now archived. —Kurykh 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Kurykh. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you indeed. This is much better!--JayJasper (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Elections are historical

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

Finance

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)

Primaries

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)

I absolutely agree; in fact, I was just going to say that here but I realized that you did. It makes it seem as though Obama would have won if there were winner-take-all primaries, but in fact Clinton would have won long ago if they were winner-take-all. Total bias, and it's just our luck that the page is protected. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 13:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Waa, waa. It's only semi-protected, so I fixed it for you lazy crybabies. ;) I kid I kid! -Colfer2 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

These are sensitive times for this article, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

South Carolina a Swing State?

Really? 24.33.149.118 (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Only one poll, all the major sources have it listed as a non-swing state. See [1] [2]; not listed at [3]. It is original research to conclude it is. Please note that polls will regularly produce results that are several points off. Again, please do not violate policy by including original research. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:55, 4 June 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)

Delegate count

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)

Actually its 2117.5, and after Al Wynn resigns tomorrow it will be 2,117.0

Sorry, I was pulling those numbers from memory. Anyway, thanks to whoever updated them. Tim meh ! 15:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Clinton ending campaign?

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)

Publicly, they are still saying they will be calling the superdelegates starting Wednesday. At the same time, MSNBC is reporting that members of the advance team are being cut loose and the national co-chairs have been told it's over. I don't think any of this is worthy of the article yet (especially when we will have more information tomorrow. -Rrius (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nebraska and South Carolina

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)

Nope. Only one poll, all the major sources have it listed as a non-swing state. See [4] [5]; not listed at [6]. It is original research to conclude it is. Please note that polls will regularly produce results that are several points off. Again, please do not violate policy by including original research.

As for Nebraska, all recent polls show it's not close. However, if it's included under the congressional district argument, then we ought to include Maine as well. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include Maine. The poll cited is the very same Survey USA poll cited in the other sources. The Congressional district issue is important because there are various scenarios where who wins those two districts could be the difference between a McCain win, an Obama win, or a tie. Your argument that this is somehow POV is nonsense because the statement is verified by reliable source. No where in the text added does it say the whole of Nebraska is close. It says two are and three aren't. -Rrius (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking about South Carolina, and I was claiming it was Original Research, not that it was biased. I have added Maine. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I like your solution. Second, I meant to write "OR", not "POV" (I guess I'm just used to POV fights). Third, I never reverted your SC edit—I explicitly said I agreed—so I am confused as to why you would bring it up, especially without stating that you were talking about SC. -Rrius (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary led me to believe you were reinserting the whole material. While I usually check the edits, popups is going slowly, and apparently I erred badly and didn't check the diff. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee vs. Projected nominee

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)

It could also be uncertainty about whether the Florida and Michigan delegations will end up with full votes. If so, I would expect to see them use "presumptive" after passing 2210 delegates. -Rrius (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Even worst, these 2 candidates (Obama & McCain, who've yet to actually get their respective parties presidential nominations), had their images posted at the top of this article. Why can't people wait until the Election Results in November? GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

nomination

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)

Obama has a majority (super & pledged combined) of the delegates for the Dems presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

PS- Unless something completely off the wall happens? Obama will be nominted for President, at the 2008 Democratic National Convention (in August). GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is thought that he is not nominee until the super delegates have voted. The current situation is premature even though it is the most likely outcome.--Caranorn (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, all the Networks in the USA, are calling him the presumptive nominee (note: not the nominee). Best to go with that (if & until things suddenly change). GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is why it says "presumptive" under his name. Even under the .02% chance Obama isn't nominated, we can change it. The major networks are all calling this - I believe it is proper for Wikipedia to do so as well. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:02, 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)

Indeed. It's another 2-3 months, until the Democrats & Republicans nominate their respective presidential & vice presidential candidates. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Added info on candidates' "origins and age"

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)

Clinton has dropped out

Here's a source She says she will back Obama. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, she's suspending here presidential campaign on Saturday (June 7th). GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive nominees

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)

That said, the DNC is referring to Obama as the "Democratic Presidential Nominee," as can be seen at the official website at democrats.org. 17:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.152.238 (talk)

Two senators

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)

Perhaps we should wait, until their respective parties nominate them. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They're the nominees, presumptive or not its simple mathematical fact, keep it as "will be" as opposed to "is", but, as the article and infobox now openly state, these are going to be the nominees.134.226.1.194 (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying "will represent the two major parties" until September, when we can change it to "nominee", should work. -Rrius (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

tone consideration - use of 'barred'

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)

"Barred" is pretty standard when talking about the effect a term limit. I agree that the word implies an opposing force; there is one here: the term limits imposed by the 22nd amendment. I do not agree that it implies someone tried to run. It is no different in that respect from "prevented from" as you suggest, or even your other suggestion of "not eligible". I don't think anyone will be misled by the text as it is. -Rrius (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually when I first read it, I kind of thought, What, did Bush want to/try to run? Theshibboleth (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be no different with the alternatives presented here. If you want to recast it in a way that actually avoids that possible miscue, have at it. -Rrius (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Greens

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)

Another editor came to me with something saying she was 'likely', and I figured given that the only other candidate with triple-digit delegates was Nader, who isn't running for the nomination anyway, that I'd put it up. But you're right. Fifty7 (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_9216109 - Second link, this time a news publication, referring to her as the presumptive nominee. Going to add her back in provisionally, until we can get confirmation, as the math is just about entirely on her side anyway. Fifty7 (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing a Google News search, I see a lot of "leading candidate" and "frontrunner" articles. More importantly, the standard that has been used here and in the bulk of the media for other parties is the point when a person has the delegates. When Barack Obama made it virtually impossible for Hillary to meet the magic number, he was still just the frontrunner. I have serious objections to using this one article over the bulk of media reporting and logic. -Rrius (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Cynthia McKinney hasn't won yet, so her image shouldn't be up there.69.18.226.204 (talk) 22:18, 8 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)

I've a better idea. Remove all candidates & wait until after the election. In the meantime, ya'll are correct McKinney doesn't have the majority of Green delegates 'yet'. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I like your idea. It would stop all this bickering over which candidates should be in the infobox. We don't need any candidates there until after the election. Tim meh ! 22:42, 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)

PS - I did another google search, this time using the words "cynthia", "mckinney", and "presumptive". There were three hits; the only one that calls her that is the Times-Standard interview. The paper is a relatively small one, and the article is from 10 May, making the claim even more ridiculous. -Rrius (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are to handle the issue at hand alone (that of the Greens): it is not appropriate to add a candidate that has not been called the presumptive nominee except by a small newspaper, and who has not gotten the magic number. Anymore than it seemed obvious that Obama was the nominee, and we didn't add him. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect age disparity

Barack Obama and John McCain are slightly less than 25 years apart in age. This is the largest age disparity between the two major party candidates since Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush (roughly 22 years apart in age) ran against each other in 1992.

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)

The section ...since Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush... should read ...surpassing Bill Clinton and Bob Dole.... GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fear not; I've fixed the problem. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

PS- I clarified it as presidential candidates; as there was a 29 years gap between the 1904 major party vice presidential candidates (Henry G. Davis & Charles W. Fairbanks). -- GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaluo

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)

Ahh hah, you have brought this here (instead of edit warring). Jolly good show. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Kenya would be analogous to Poland, and Jaluo would be analogous to Slavic. Since most people do not know what "Jaluo" means, they need context. If you think that should be "Kenya", have at it. I doubt however that "Jaluo" is relevant here. It makes sense to include it at Barack Obama or even an longer discussion of Obama in this article. Mentioning it in a sentence that is trying to say he would be the first black president is giving undue weight to this detail, regardless of how "fine" or "proud" the Jaluo are. For the moment, I will not revert "Jaluo" if you will refrain from removing the context. -Rrius (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's not like Slavic to Polish. If it weren't for European colonization, there would be no Kenyan, but there would be for sure a Jaluo. African tribes aren't like what we imagine tribes to be, more like Sioux or Cherokee. They are very organized and very important part of one's identity and daily life in Kenya. I just don't get the logic that because you imagine others not knowing about it, then it shouldn't be mentioned. Is that kind of the opposite of learning, especially here on Wikipedia where one is able to just click and learn. If anything, Jaluo is more important since the article on African is far more vague and a lot of it isn't relevent to Barack Obama, Sr., while the Jaluo article is persisly on the area, culture, language, geography, etc... of Obama Sr.'s origins. I would take out African, but it's an edit war thing and Cladeal832 (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't get the logic because that is not what I am saying. I am saying that if you include something unfamiliar like "Jaluo", you need to give the reader some context. The best would be to explain that it is an ethnic group in Africa (or Kenya or whatever). At the same time, I am saying that getting into details of subracial ethnic groups is too detailed for the particular paragraph at issue. Not because people shouldn't learn things, but because it is a brief paragraphs about being the first such and such to become president. It is odd to me that you are so determined to have this information here, where it doesn't really go, but you have not bothered to put it where it belongs (at Barack Obama). Finally, it is like Slavic to Polish. Poland is a equally an artificial construct comprising an area determined by wars among other European powers. -Rrius (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I replaced "Africa" with "Kenya". To address more of your points, I think I know what you think "we" imagine African tribes to be like, and I do not appreciate the implication. As to how important tribes are to Africans, what you are forgetting is that the people reading this article do not know the names of most tribes, so when confronted with "Jaluo", don't know that it is a tribe. Wikilinking is not an alternative to good writing. Not allowing the reader to understand from context what it means is, frankly, stupid. That is especially so here, where the word is not vital to the sentence. We could just as easily leave out the references to his parents without changing the overall meaning of the sentence. If people want to learn about Obama's ethnicity, the best place to do so is Barack Obama. The point of the paragraph at issue is inform readers about all the particulars of the candidate's backgrounds. -Rrius (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing the explanation that "Jaluo" is a tribe, or I will start removing the reference altogether since (as I have said many times now without any response from you) it belongs at Barack Obama, not here. -Rrius (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You just edited it and made African (Jaluo) and then acted like that was final answer. The whole point of that sentence is that he is black and biracial and it's just give a few words of context to it and what is wrong with Jaluo-Kenyan, a term used in Kenya? This is not an edit war stuff. Being Kenyan doesn't equal black, plenty of native Kenyans whose families goes back generations aren't black, but Indian or European or whatever so just giving it context and making it shorter then Kenyan of the Jaluo tribe to Jaluo-Kenyan. It's like American of Irish origins as a opposed to Irish-American? And as to White American part, look at that article and you'll it's a very real term describing a particular group as opposed to just white.Cladeal832 (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That "Jaluo-Kenyan" is a term used in Kenya is not help to the vast majority of people who are not from Kenya! Why are you so opposed to giving readers context for what they are reading? It is unfathomable. As to your point about not all Kenyans and Africans being black, it is clear from the fact that we say Obama would be the first black that his father was in fact a black African. As for "White American", it is not a big deal, but it is more words than necessary for the sentence. Why not pipe link it? -Rrius (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I did not edit it and act as though that was the final answer. You had once again removed the context, and I once again responded. You have acted as though the inclusion of "Jaluo", which given your remarks above comes from your own personal beliefs about the Jaluo, has been completely without justification, so please do not accuse me of acting as though I am giving the final answer when you have included information without really explaining why it matters to this section and continually remove the context for the information without any justification whatsoever. -Rrius (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that in your latest edit you took out the reference to Kenya again. Retaining "Kenya" helps people know that the Jaluo ethinic group has something to do with Kenya. -Rrius (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice how you change the edits without discussion. So if it's not relevant that his mother is American, then why does it matter if his Kenyan to that particular one sentence. It's about racial origins, not citizenship. Luo people are all over Eastern Africa, not just Kenya. His father could have been born and raised in Samoa, the whole context is not being black and therefore the first black and biracial president. If a reader finishes the sentence and see that because of his father being Luo and his mother being white, and their son is black, think they can infer that Luo has something to do with Africa origins?Cladeal832 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

His father was Kenyan, though. The connection with Kenya is mentioned no fewer than eight times at Barack Obama. I believe his being Luo is mentioned once in passing while talking about his book. Giving people the context that this has something to do with Kenya is helpful to the reader, regardless of whether Luo people are found in other continents. Even the ref you added has "Kenyans" in the title. You, too, changed the article without discussion, so please do not throw stones. Finally, the beginning part of the sentence only serves to explain the second. It should be clear from the clause that his mother is white and his father black. -Rrius (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama's Picture Vote

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)

I prefer the old one (the one before yours) in this context unless you do something similar with McCain. When you added your picture, it made McCain more prominent, which will undoubtedly start some sort of conflict here. My opinion would therefore change if you had one of McCain that was more similar to your Obama pic. -Rrius (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All images should be removed from the Infobox until the Election. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 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)

Here's a second vote for no images until after the election, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:FUTURE.--JayJasper (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you stop spouting WP:WHATEVER and use a little thing called common sense? Whatever, I don't care what you reply, considering you lost anyway. Don't even bother replying. And even your precious policies prove you wrong btw, read them throughly.(189.148.8.220 (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC))

I just read the policies, and I don't get what you mean. Could you explain? -Rrius (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he is saying sometimes rules don't apply... Though... I think these do. Personally, I think no pictures until the election. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 21:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

New future template

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)

Let'er go. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Done--JayJasper (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss popular vote controversy

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)

I haven't a clue as to who won more popular votes (noting of course, delegate votes is what counts). GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Who cares delegates are the only thing that matters the only reason this made news was because the Clintons were using it as a tactic to get super-delegates on their side it wasn't a controversy as much as it was a claim by the Clinton camp not to mention she endorsed Obama so if she now goes to the convention with a fight she will be done in politics for good. No mention needed outside maybe Clintons presidential campaign wiki. Gang14 (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Per Gang14, not a relevent subject for this article.--JayJasper (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

the only reason she was even close was because of Operation Chaos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.18.226.204 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Are In-Depth Primary discussions needed?

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)

That's fine with I. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Floridianed (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed Fivethirtyeight projection

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)

See, when you acknowledge the validity of the 538 model, you destroy my argument. >_> Fair removal, since nothing but links to the articles on various polling are listed anyway. It belongs elsewhere, my bad. -- Fifty7 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevada, Florida, and Missouri

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)

Current polls in Florida do not show Obama with a lead; only a few do, and most show otherwise. Anyway, if you make a few more edits, then your account will be autoconfirmed, and you can do it yourself. 64.178.97.27 (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Battleground states

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)