Talk:2008 United States presidential election

Template:U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link

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)

Top of article

With the understanding: The top of this article is preserverd for the Election winner & runners-up? I've reverted the recent multiple changes by editor Will. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 6 April 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)

Brian Holland

Is there a candidate Brian Holland running for the American Nazi Party?

http://www.holland08.com/

I came across that, but cant find an article on the dude, his campaign, or anything here on wiki.209.244.42.141 (talk) 16:42, 27 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

Elections are not over!

Everyone in the Democrat Party as well as many Obama supporters want to see Hillary Rodham Clinton to drop out of the race for the sake of the party they say. Yet, in a democracy people are entitled to free speech and to make their statement as Hillary is now doing. Her remaining as a candidate helps the party as it gives them another voice to choose from. If it is later shown that Barack Obama's whole life and Presidential candidacy was a fraud and that it was full of political corruption, dirty dealings, and political paybacks, then the Democrat Party's only hope lies in Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary is not such a bad person and she would make a very good US President as compared to Barack Obama.

If it were not for Barack Obama (if he decided not to run in the early beginning), this year would belong Hillary Clinton. The truth would come out about Hillary and the truth would speak very favorably about this woman. She would like beat John McCain and be our next President. It is the Obama supporters and the Obama political campaign that have bad mouther Hillary in a very unprofessional and slanderous way apart from the truth and professionalism.

What I am waiting for is for indictments to come down against Barack Obama for his lifelong and Presidential campaign dealings, which would disqualify him from the race.

If such happens, then the people on the Republican side, like Huckabee and Romney, also, deserve another shot at the race.

Wikipedia taking these people's names off of their list and removing links, political, and campaign information about these men was, in my opinion, premature.

Any comments?

(I am planing to amend the "United States presidential election, 2008" page. If such amendment is in error at least my comments will remain here in the discussion page. My complaint is that information about the other candidates was removed too soon. Especially with a possible indictment coming down on Barack Obama for campaign fraud and other violations of the law!)

Lchow (TN) (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC) lchow (TN)

Yeah I've a comment. What candidates information have we deleted from this article, that you're concerned about? Also, (correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be suggesting this article is somehow Pro-John McCain & Pro-Barack Obama. The article is actually NPOV (i.e. apolitical). Also, I've never heard anything about an impending Obama indictment. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't seriously believe Hillary Clinton has a chance of winning the nomination. The numbers are stacked against her; every metric is in Obama's favor. Pledged delegates, super delegates, popular vote, "electability", heck... even in the female demographic he has a lead (exception for women over 50, where he trails by 1%). She can't win unless Obama gets shot.--Jaymo (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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)