Jump to content

Talk:2009 Virginia gubernatorial election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lt Governor and AG Elections

[edit]

Seems to me those elections should be in a separate page, or two separate pages, and the gubernatorial election should have its own. Other gubernatorial election pages don't have other elections on the page. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

[edit]

Anyone else think the table of endorsements is excessive? To extend it out until June would make it huge. I don't see it's point.--Patrick «» 03:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photos are the same as in the new gallery above, so I'm going ahead and removing it.--Patrick «» 23:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate Pictures

[edit]

Maybe it's just my browser but the picture of Bob McDonnell is hidden by the box on the right. Can something be done about this? JeffConn (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Nomination

[edit]

The Virginia Republicans are using a convention, not a primary, to nominate McDonnell. Virginia law is funky in that it allows the party to pick the method of nomination, so the two parties are using different methods.Tyrenon (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article on Deed's campaign

[edit]

This is the first time that I've seen a state-level contest where there is a separate article on one candidate's campaign: Creigh Deeds gubernatorial campaign, 2009. Perhaps there are other examples of this; if so, I'd appreciate if someone can point those out. In any case, I think it would be better if the Deeds campaign article were merged into this one, since there will obviously be massive overlap, and there really is no way that I can see to separate the two articles using summary style, the normal way that this problem is avoided. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Too much duplication of content across the articles. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merge would be sensible, given the aforementioned overlap of content.--JayJasper (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Wouldn't it probably be better to merge it with Creigh Deeds? Lots of information would fit into both articles, though. There's also Creigh Deeds attorney general campaign, 2005, which should also probably be merged with Deeds::'s page. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 22:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Hysteria. Should be merged into Creigh Deeds, not Virginia gubernatorial election, 2009 Bigvinu (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, looking back, it seems John wants this article merged not as a matter of content rather of precedent. On that note, I disagree. Wikipedia is used as a medium for many for election info, and anyone that doubts that completely is ignorant ( see here, here, and here). I challenge John to find anything wrong with providing people with an way to find information and get a good read. Is there not enough space on Wikipedia? As if. Is there something wrong with not following precedent because it gives readers a resourceful page? As far as I can tell no. I support keeping the article intact and as is. Bigvinu (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also with Hysteria, merge into Creigh Deeds. It's reasonable to expect additional info, specific to Deeds, that might go in that article, and not here.--Patrick «» 21:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with moving campaign information to Creigh Deeds is that, per WP:NPOV (space and weight), it would be appropriate to have only two to three paragraphs of information there. By contrast, the gubernatorial election article already has a major section on the Democratic candidates (including Deeds) and another major section on the Democratic primary, which includes Deed's campaign.
Perhaps there is a concern that the gubernatorial article is already fairly long, and a merger would lengthen it further? If so, it (and the information in the Deeds campaign article) could be compressed in several ways, as well as trimming of minor details that interested readers can find in the sources. For example, the lengthy section that lists endorsements could be converted to narrative ("Moran was endorsed by his brother, Congressman Jim Moran, by majors of the Virginia cities of A, B, C, D, and E, and by ... "). Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of information. More importantly, masses of detail make it harder for readers to get an overview of a subject, and that's what encyclopedias, including (explicitly) Wikipedia, aim to do. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually disagree that this gubernatorial article is long at all, at only 8.8k of prose. Alternatively, if you want, we can split off the primary info, the section and its relevant opinion polls, off into "Democratic Party (United States) gubernatorial primaries in Virginia, 2009" or similar. I assume a lot of Creigh Deeds gubernatorial campaign, 2009 might fit there. It being the first such primary in 20 year probably makes it notable enough. All in all, I ultimately support keeping Deeds' campaign article. Let's see how it develops and if it needs to be merged, maybe that's a decision for after November.--Patrick «» 18:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A recap. 3 2 in favor of merging with Virginia gubernatorial election, 2009, 2 in favor of merging w/ Creigh Deeds and 2 3 in favor of leaving as is. Not much of a consensus yet. Bigvinu (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'd support merging various aspects of the article into either Virginia gubernatorial election, 2009 or Creigh Deeds, as appropriate. For what it's worth. Qqqqqq (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upon furher review, I now agree with Bigvinu and Patrick that the campaign article should be kept intact, at least for the time being. The fact that there is no apparent precedent is not itself a reason to merge - there's a first time for everything. As Patrick suggests, let's how things develop over the next several months before deciding whether or not a merge is needed.--JayJasper (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the Deeds gubernatorial article is going to remain separate for now, then there absolutely should be at least one link from this article to that one, and probably multiple. And not in the "See also" section; the Deeds gubernatorial article should be handled like a daughter article per WP:SS, to avoid duplication. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is such a link under Deeds' photo in the "Democratic candidates" section.--JayJasper (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like basic consensus and inertia are on the side of keeping the article; I'm going to be bold and remove the "suggested merge" template at the top of the article now. WWB (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No third-party candidates?

[edit]

Since this article only discusses Deeds and McDonnell, are we to assume that there are no third-party candidates? --JHP (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who wins?

[edit]

So is this election (and New Jerseys) just whoever gets the most votes? Do you have to cross 50% or is a plurality sufficient? 124.184.96.26 (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever gets the most votes is the winner. There will be no runoff. Gage (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the News section on the front page

[edit]

I've posted this on the talk page for the New Jersey gubernatorial election article too, but I think we have a decent chance of getting this article on the front page of Wikipedia tonight, in the "In the News" section on the right side. I think we have an even better chance if we come up with a good hook that covers both this and the NJ articles. The hook used on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates right now is:

"Voters go to the polls in elections in the United States for Governors of Virginia, New Jersey and the Northern Mariana Islands, and special elections for two Congressional districts, and several municipal elections."

That seems a bit lengthy to me, and less likely to be picked. Any suggestions to tighten that? We might drop the Marianas, and maybe the congressional districts? Certainly if the winners are of the same party, it will make for a tighter statement, like "Republicans Bob and Chris won..." verses mixed results that turn out like "Republican Bob won in VA while Democrat Jon won in NJ..." Not to say that's my politics, but that how it might start for the main page. If the Conservative Doug Hoffman wins in NY-23, it could get even longer "Republican Bob, Democrat Jon, and Conservative Doug won..." which might led us to drop party monikers. Ideas?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. Gage (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results

[edit]

Coming in live here --Vishnu2011 (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highest Percentage of any Gubernatorial Victory? False.

[edit]

Several governors have been elected to high office with over 60% of the vote e.g. Democrat Jim Hunt in North Carolina in 1980 and Republican Terry Branstad in Iowa in 1990. Since, this claim is false and reflects poorly on Wikipedia's credibility, I have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.113.249.184 (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Virginia gubernatorial election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precinct map

[edit]

Hi, can you create aPrecinct map Jm33746 (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Virginia_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1236329074"