Talk:John B. Anderson
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This article really should have more complete information about his campaign platform in 1980. It would also be interesting to know who he supported in the 2004 presidential election. If anyone reading this knows anything about either of these things, please add it. Academic Challenger 04:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
1. In "Radicals for Capitalism", it is asserted that the Libertarian Party in 1984 considered trying to get Anderson to run as a Libertarian. Anderson did well enough in 1980 that he would have qualified for federal funding had he run and the Libertarians were somewhat in disary following internal bickering.
2. I am not sure the Anderson race really was an example of IRV -- Reagan got more than 50% of the vote anyway.
Dropping out of the House
The article suggests that Anderson didn't run for reelection for his House seat in 1980 because of the crowded field of candidates. It's more likely that he had to drop out because state law prevented him from running for two offices at once. Most states don't allow this, consequently most House members who run for President or Vice President have to leave the House to do so. Does anybody know for sure? --MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Something needs to be done about the severely unencyclopedic language in this article.
Its quite obvious that this was written not as fact, but as a story about John Anderson. Don Lyon, was not and would not be considered by any standard in the local area a fundamentalist. Written in a style that more a campaign article or auto-biographical summation. I'm sorry but this reads like a fifth grade novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's that bad. It's a nice short read that sounds as if it's lifted right from a book on the 1980 election. Hopefully that's not the case... At any rate only a few things need changed: dropping some adjectives and any similes or idioms, making the tone more neutral(not POV, but language overall) I think it's pretty well written and gave me a good idea of what his 1980 campaign was like start to finish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I worked a little bit on the tone (e.g. "voters who had considered him a fair and moral fellow") as part of a series of changes I made in several parts of the article, tone that I assume is due to the use of the 2011 book by Mason cited in the references. The unencyclopedic tone needs further work. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree the language is very odd, not just the flowery stuff but it just seems off somehow. There are also an awful lot of uncited statements, making me wonder if there is some WP:OR here. --Nstrauss (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I removed the quote section because Wikiquote can cover that material. In fact, I just now created that entry. The material is not encyclopedic enough for this article. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
This quote -- "Anderson's campaign turned out to be "simply another option for frustrated voters who had already decided not to back Carter for another term. Polls found Anderson voters nearly as likely to list Reagan as their second choice as Carter"" -- isn't supported in any way. The link is dead, and even if it was "alive," it's a link to 'Doonesbury!' If someone has a real link to a legitimate poll or study, post it.