Talk:List of candidates in the 2004 United States presidential election

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

Proposed merger[edit]

I have proposed that Full list of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2004 be merged into this article. I don't think there is enough additional information in the full list to justify a separate article -- many of those listed on the "full list" are already listed here, and those that are not could be included very easily through some sort of "Independents and others" section. They should probably also be vetted and sourced to make sure they're all legit. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 00:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has objected, I will carry out the merge and turn the "Full list..." into a redirect to the "List...". -David Schaich Talk/Cont 15:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party[edit]

The following reliable sources (among many others) all agree that the Green Party's ticket of Cobb and LaMarche were not on the ballot in Illinois, Utah and Vermont:

  • Ballot Access News (link);
  • The Green Party itself (link);
  • The Federal Election Commission (link) (pages 36 and 44).

Is there any source at all that says they were on the ballot in those three states? All that's been put forward so far is a map without any comments or explanations, which illustrates the Green Party as having had some unspecified sort of ballot access in those three states, not necessarily for its presidential ticket. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that second link states that Vermont maintained status from 2004, thus meaning it was on the ballot in 2004, and that Utah lost status from the 2004 election results, meaning that they were on the Utah ballot but did not receive enough votes to automatically obtain the 2008 ballot access of the state. You are correct, Illinois is not listed.
Secondly, the map "without any comments or explanations" lists status in 2008 and 2004, not 2006 which was a national election (which I believe called for ballot runs), so it is clearly for the presidential elections.
Finally, this site states that Utah and Vermont had Ballot Access in 2004 and that Illinois had partial status. Connecticut and Nebraska are also listed as partial, and they are on this article.Chastayo (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the second link: "The Green Party has ballot status in Utah and Vermont. However, Cobb/LaMarche did not appear on the ballot lines in these two states." Is there any source at all that says Cobb and LaMarche were on the ballot in Illinois, Utah, and Vermont? Please note that this article deals with the ballot access for candidates in the 2004 United States presidential election -- not for other offices or parties generically: "The table below shows which third-party candidates were able to gain ballot access in each State" (emphasis added).
I think it will be worthwhile to add a note concerning Utah and Vermont to help deal with any potential confusion. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 00:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you think there isn't a site that says the Green Party has ballot access in Utah, Vermont, and Illinois, when I already provided a site this site that shows the Party had access in Utah and Vermont and partial in Illinois (remembering that partial is also listed on other states in this article). This site, although not stating Green Party ballot status in Vermont and Illinois, states that they have some of the highest Greens in the nation. This implies that they have ballot status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chastayo (talkcontribs) 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse my ignorance, after looking online I found that you are correct. Thank you for informing me :-)Chastayo (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2004. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]