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)

Can't figure out where to put this, but footnote 71 has a typo, the lady's last name is Edwards with an S. thanks. 65.173.141.56 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 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)

I respect Clinton for staying until the end, which she certainly should do given the vast amount of support she has out there. But if the votes are all counted and Obama wins (as seems likely) and she refuses to bow out but instead takes it all the way to the convention, that respect will quickly turn to something else. Fighting the good fight is one thing. Fighting a losing war, in such a sensitive election, after it's become clear that she can't win, is something else. For the moment, she's still doing the former and I applaud her for it... but it looks increasingly likely that she'll have to bow out, and if/when that moment comes, I hope she knows how to do it gracefully. 76.106.145.195 (talk) 18:02, 1 June 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)

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)

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. Timmeh! 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. Timmeh! 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)

Just in case...

Please people, do not add McCain & Obama to the top of the article. The places are reserved for the person who wins the presidential election, and the person who's the runner-up. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Past elections that have split significantly three ways feature all three contenders up at top, and if an independent or third-party candidates makes a significant showing, the article can always be edited to reflect it. This is a dynamic media and it should reflect the reality of the moment, and right now the reality is that Obama and McCain are the two big players in this election. --Kudzu1 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It does say "nominee 1" and "nominee 2", not "winner" and "runner-up". -Rrius (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not correct. The left slot is for the election winner, the right slot is for the election runner up. A third (or fourth) candidate (particulary if the win any electoral votes) can be added underneath. Why can't ya'll be patient & wait until November 4, 2008? For all we know, Bob Barr could win the election & Ralph Nader be the runner-up. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the syntax of the template. It uses "nominee 1" and "nominee2", not "winner" and "runner-up". I just don't see where the idea that it has to wait until after the election comes from. -Rrius (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well, have it your (plural) way. I've given up trying. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean my question in a snarky or rhetorical way; I'm just asking where the notion comes from. I know New Zealand general election, 2008 has had its PM candidates in the same infobox template for ages, and that election is also likely to be in autumn. -Rrius (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

1) The previous United States presidential election articles, use their top spots for the Election Results. 2) Obama & McCain aren't their respective parties presidential nominees, yet. 3) There's other parties, in this election & thus it's crystal balling to have the Democrats & Republicans presumptive nominees at the top of the article. Trust me, you're going to have partison editors out there, demanding their candidate be at the top-left of the article. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

1) I don't think the present template was in place before this election year. 2) They will almost undoubtedly be the nominee, they're presumptive. 3) The other parties will likely get less than 10% of the vote combined, they are not one of the two major parties. Just wanted to get my two cents in. =) Timmeh! 17:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we leave it as is, but if it becomes a problem, we should remove the pictures. -Rrius (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. PS- Keeping my fingers crossed. GoodDay (talk)

Bob Barr

As you can see the Article Lists Barack Obama, and John McCain as the two 'major' Candidates in the infobox, to play it safe being that Bob Barr has 9% already in National Polls, should we not add him to the Box? I mean hes outdoing Ralph Nader three to one, polls place nader only with 3% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo III (talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we hold off because Barr just won the the Libertarian nomination and it is still rather early in the process (therefore, the polling is not totally reliable). -Rrius (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Which polls are you referring to? Can you link them? Timmeh! 02:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am skeptical. Rasmussen has them at 6% and 4% respectively: [4], and people tend to overstate how much they will vote for third party candidates. I say they both remain out. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It would make some sense to use a neutral standard such as the 15% cutoff used by the Commission on Presidential Debates. I know it is arbitrary, but so too would any other solution short of highlighting everyone on who made his or her way on to any state's ballot. -Rrius (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be no candidates at the top of the Article, until November 4, 2008. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me why that's the case, if the tags used are nominee 1 and nominee 2 (as opposed to winner and runner-up, as used in past elections) and no other candidates have reached 10% in the national polls (which, even if they had, tend to overstate support--case in point: in a Gallup poll before the 1992 election, Ross Perot registered 28% and ended up getting less than 20% of the vote)? What's your logic? I really don't understand why it makes sense to wait for 4 November 2007 to do anything. I'm with Rrius; I'm adding the pictures, and unless you can provide me with a rationale for omitting them, they should stay up. I really hope this isn't just your getting upset because your candidate isn't up there... Tenchi2 (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Having the Democratic & Republican presumptive presidential nominees in the TopInfobox gives the 'frist glance impression' that they're the top-2 finishers in the Election (which is crystal balling). PS- Guaranteed, McCain-leaning editors will switch his (McCain) image to the left side & Obama-leaning editors will switch them back; etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but let's face it--it's pretty unlikely any third party candidate will register more than 5% of the vote, and even that is a stretch. It happens once in blue moon, and it likely won't happen in this election. Whether McCain or Obama supporters reverse the placement of the images or not is irrelevant; the article should still convey graphically who the two major-party candidates are.

Tenchi2 (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is not whether the candidates should be represented in images; the question is whether those images should be in the infobox. Whether there are edit wars over placement is an issue whether you think it's relevant or not. Edit wars destabilize the article distract editors from making meaningful edits. Many edit wars lead to page protection, which means editors cannot make edits. Anyway, the discussion is now being dealt with below. -Rrius (talk) 15:38, 6 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 [5] [6]; not listed at [7]. 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[8]. 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)

Candidates in the Infobox

The candidates have been removed from the infobox again. I am now of the opinion that GoodDay and the new editor, Fifty7, are right. In the past the candidates have been left off until there is a general election winner. In addition to edit wars between those who want the candidates and those who do not, there will be edit wars over whose candidate goes on the left (which is where the winner goes after the election) and which minor parties should be included. Frankly, any method of choosing could be validly accused of being POV. The simplest answer is to do what has been done before: add the names at the end of the election. -Rrius (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Until November 4th, then. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, I understand. I was under the impression that we were waiting for the primaries to be over to add the faces in. Luckily, I wasn't involved in the edit war -- I edited it once and opted to discuss the matter here, so no war for me. =) -- Frightwolf (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's likely gonna be quite a struggle to keep those images off, when the Republican & Democratcs nominate their respective candidates. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone could put an appropriate comment in the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think so far we've avoided war; it's been more like a border skirmish. The only time I restored the pictures, I did it to restore a bunch of intermediate edits. -Rrius (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I completely disagree with this line of reasoning. It is no more a violation of the NPOV guidelines to put these images up than it is to decide, in previous elections, who was a "major" candidate (you will notice Ross Perot in some years, despite not getting any electoral votes). The question should come down to this: is the media calling them a major candidate? Are the major websites, television stations, and newspapers giving them credit for being major? I am not talking in the sense of "they have some articles about them" - I'm talking about, is the media giving them any realistic chance of winning in November? Are they on the electoral maps that are printed? Are they even on the ballot in every state? I strongly suggest we hold a poll and an RFC on this issue, as it will not be resolved, and will be constantly changed from here to early November unless we settle it permanently. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What's to settle? We simply wait until the Presidential Election results. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the Reform, Libertarian, Green, and Communist candidates be in the infobox? Why limit the list to "major-party" candidates? At what point is a candidate as important as Perot, who is in the 1992 infobox? What is your answer for when someone complains that McCain is in the "loser" slot? -Rrius (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Goodday - that's not an argument, 2) Rrius - I believe this is reductio ad absurdium. In fact, you just argued my point for me, unless you are willing to go remove the Perot-Republican-Democrat candidate images from previous elections, or add the communist ones. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer the Infobox having only the presidnetial candidates who receive Electoral Votes. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is, interestingly, not the way consensus has established it in the past. So you'd like to change consensus then? Unless you are going to remove Perot from 1992, and add Jonathon Edwards to 2000, then you have no ground to make your argument. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually want Perot removed from United States presidential election, 1992; Who's Jonathan Edwards? GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not reductio ad absurdium; these issues are going to come up. We have already had Bob Barr added. What I am trying to do is to get to the central issue, and you didn't answer any of the questions. As for 1992, I don't believe I am making your point. That article was written long after it happened, and the pictures on the other articles were not put up until after the election. During the 2000 election campaign, reasonable cases could have made that Nader, and to a lesser degree Buchanan, should have been included on the list.

The big problem here is that we will have to deal with an ongoing edit war from August (at the latest) to November. I guess I'll just sit back and let the rest of you deal with it; I'm not going to revert Spartan's edits on this or anyone else's. -21:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Guranteed Spartan. McCain leaning editors will switch the image around & Obama leaning editors will switch them back. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think McCain's image should be first, simply because he's the nominee of the incumbent party, and that's the rule used in articles about other upcoming elections (Next Australian federal election, Next United Kingdom general election). And I'm an Obama supporter. Cyclone49 (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should keep images off until the general election debates, then add all those who qualify for them. There's just something that feels wrong about just putting the Dem and GOP presumptive nominees there, assuming the candidates from the two major parties are inherently entitled to either mantle of winner or runner-up. With all that has gone on, and the incredible amount of enthusiasm and coverage about this election, it isn't unreasonable to assume a "third party" nominee could garner substantive popular vote support or a handful of electoral votes. -- Fifty7 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It all comes back to my original argument. Don't add images to the TopInfobox until after the presidential election. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm for that. Agreed with GoodDay. -- Fifty7 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To the Pollsters below: Please check over the other US presidential election articles: United States presidential election, 2004, United States presidential election, 2000 etc & reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should put the Democratic Party and the Republican Party Candidates right now and wait after the elections if the third party candidates like Bob Barr get at least one or two electoral votes then we should that candidate/s in the infobox Agree? Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Poll

Discussion is above.

Include images from two major parties as well as Bob Barr and Ralph Nader

1. I am for either this or no pictures until after the election. -- Fifty7 (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Include images of candidates from two major parties now

1. Good idea. All these candidates who are from parties which have qualified for major funding and have qualified for debates in the previous decade. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes, I think it's OK to do so now. conman33 (. . .talk) 22:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support, there's no reason not to. What we do here will likely set the precedent for future presidential elections since this template was not in use during the previous elections. It's also worth noting that this particular template (Template:Infobox Election) was not yet in existence until 2007 so it obviously could not have been used in the 2004 and 2000 election pages. Timmeh! 23:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
4. I think this is the best option as well, although I'd also be happy with the choice below (and if a third party candidate happens to reach Ross Perot/George Wallace style support, I think that's the option we should go for). Look at the articles for upcoming elections in other countries (Next Australian federal election, New Zealand general election, 2008, Next United Kingdom general election). It's not crystal balling, these two candidates will be the major candidates for the 2008 Election (barring some major turn of events), and again, the three other articles I've linked include candidates who could easily be ousted by the time the election comes around (I seriously doubt Brendan Nelson, the Australian opposition leader, is going to last more than a couple more months). In terms of the order of the candidates, I think John McCain should be first, simply because he is the incumbent party's nominee, which is the format used in other articles about elections that haven't happened yet. Cyclone49 (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Agree with the above. They're the two most important candidates in the election, at least at the moment. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Agree with No. 4. --Jedravent (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Include images of candidates who qualify for major debates

1. Doable, though my second choice. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Include no images now

1. Wait until after the 2008 Presidential election (see the other US presidential election articles ,1788 to 2004). GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Well, the articles from 1788-2000 were written after the elections took place, and taking a look at the revision history for the 2004 article, the infobox didn't even exist back then (and the 2004 article wasn't exacty featured artice status back then either) [9]. It's hardly a precedent. Moreso, if you look at the edits from around September/October, there is a table a the top of the article which DOES list George Bush as the republican nominee and John Kerry as the democratic nominee (plus various other third party candidates below) [10]. Cyclone49 (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: How the other articles did it, isn't important. Their end result is. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm for either this or Obama/McCain/Barr/Nader. -- Fifty7 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I like this or just the two main parties as a second alternative. Until we get closer to November its unclear how much of an impact the third parties and independents will have. Seen0288 (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
3. For reasons stated in prior discussion. -Rrius (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Nothing's decided yet, also inclusion of only two presumtive candidates would be in violation of NPOV, not to mention the problems of who goes in which slot...--Caranorn (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Ditto the comments of GoodDay and Caranorn. It is not only a violation of WP:NPOV but WP:FUTURE as well to feature only the two presumptive candidates.--JayJasper (talk) 15:47, 6 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)

What a shame. The Democratic party has faltered yet again, and they think we won't turn around and vote for McCain. In the words of the famed Harriet Christian, "Well I got news for all of you: McCain will be the next president of the United States!" 71.138.136.236 (talk) 08:49, 7 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)

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)

Infobox format suggestion - some help?

I tried to make an infobox for this article that included all of the six candidates (two major, four significant minor), but I had a lot of trouble. Basically, what I wanted to do was to list the major candidates (those with at least 15% support) in alphabetical order, then separately (below the major candidates) list the minor candidates (those from one of the significant third parties - the ones with voter registration over 100,000 - and significant independents - any with at least 2% support nationally) in alphabetical order. "Major Candidates" was to be a title above the heads of John McCain and Barack Obama with a reference to the criteria for major candidacy, and "Minor Candidates" was to be a title above the heads of Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, and the Green Party logo (they have not yet determined their candidate) with a reference to the criteria for minor candidacy. Unfortunately, I could not figure out how to separate the two major candidates and the four minor. I kept ending up with Chuck Baldwin's head next to Barack Obama's. I eventually gave up and decided to label each candidate as either major or minor, with major candidates' status bolded. I'm going to show what I have here, but if anyone can help design my original idea for the infobox, it would greatly be appreciated.

IMHO, it's something to consider in November. PS- I'd suggest using the electoral votes as the bar for inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Waiting until November would defeat the purpose, in this case. I think this is the infobox that should be used, just with a row of two (McCain/Obama) followed by a row of four (Baldwin/Barr/Nader/Green Nominee), unless one of the four should meet the official general election debates' standard of major candidacy sometime between now and Election Day. I just don't know how to separate it into a row of two and a row of four, only two rows of three. -- Fifty7 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember, the only thing I prefer in the Infobox (until November) is the USA electoral map. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I agreed with that. But since that's not what is going to happen, I figure we should do our best to reflect the reality of the situation rather than contribute to the willful ignorance of minor candidacies to the benefit of the two major parties in what amounts to an article with a technically non-neutral point of view:. I want to note, I am not a supporter of one of the third party candidates, I'm actually a fervent Obama supporter. I just think that the article should be accurate, and to be accurate, it should label the major candidates and any minor candidates that have any kind of impact on the national election. The Libertarian, Constitution, and Green parties are recognized as the three Third Parties in America, and Nader is a prominent figure who has enough support to merit mention without being nominated by one of the minor three. While they are certainly of lesser status than the Democratic and Republican presumptive nominees, there is historic and contemporary precedent for a third candidate to break through into that 'major candidacy' status, and the four minor candidates are certainly of a higher status than, say, the Socialist Party USA's nominee. So I think we should reflect that.

I'm just trying to figure out how to do it in rows of two then four. x_x Fifty7 (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just one voice in all of this. Do as you see fit; it doesn't hurt to experiment. I'll be watching, to see what happens. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I wouldn't dare try to change this without input from others who have been working on the article. You wouldn't happen to know how to structure the info box in the way I'm trying, would you? I figure it would look much more reasonable if it visibly separated "Major Candidates" and "Minor Candidates". Fifty7 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to ask somebody else. I don't know how to make/fix/change Infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

hold on a minute, I already made it its on the pageAndrew L. Lessig III 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. I didn't think it was sufficient. Fifty7 (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The info box looks good to me. The only thing I noticed is that the candidates' pictures are sized differently causing the lines below to not be in line with one another. I do not know too much about editing info boxes and images, but if possible resizing the pictures would make it look a lot cleaner IMO. Seen0288 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's the result of resizing. I could externally edit all the pictures and upload them specifically for this infobox though. Are there any objections to using this in the article? Remember that there's no precedent for pre-election use of a US Presidential Election Infobox, so this kind of inclusion would be a positive thing to do. Fifty7 (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I do question the need to label them "major" and "minor" or any such. It made sense with two infoboxes because we needed to explain why there was all of a sudden a whole other group of candidates. By putting them in one box, I think we can leave it to the article to explain to people who don't already know that the Democrats and Republicans are the major parties.

Two motivations for the labeling - there's specific criteria involved, and so that there isn't any controversy or presumed non-neutral motivation over the notion of putting Baldwin, Barr, Nader, and the Green nominee "in the same league" as Obama and McCain. Fifty7 (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't we let the fact that they are not Democrats or Republicans (and the body of the article) make that point? At the very least can we not call them "third parties" as is done for the Lib Dems on UK general election pages? -Rrius (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, are we leaving the infobox on this page or can we either delete it or move it to a sandbox? I volunteer to use mine. -Rrius (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, it'll preserve it without taking up room here. I'm about to upload the resized pictures now, I'll note here when the infobox is ready to be moved to both the article (which I'll do) and your sandbox. Fifty7 (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it's updated. Moving to the article now. Feel free to remove from here.

I think it's great that you all reached a compromise like this. I think it looks great right now with the six candidates up there. -- Frightwolf (talk) 03:53, 7 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)

All candidates' pictures

Why do we have the minor candidates included on the side box? Shouldn't we go back and update the 2004 election page and 2000 page to make it suitable for them all? I mean, come on. If Barr has less than 10% I don't think he has any chance in winning. All their faces on the page makes this article look like it's full of wayyyy too much information. I really don't mean to sound like a jerk and I give TOTAL credit to the person responsible for taking the time to make such a side info box for the article, I'm just voicing my opinion in saying that this article looks way too crowded with all other candidates besides McCain and Obama. If anything, I think Nader deserves to be in the 2000 election info box because there was the controversy surrounding how he supposedly "stole" votes from Gore in Florida. I see Perot is in the 1992 election box. Again, please don't think I'm being rude, I'm just voicing what I think should be done. conman33 (. . .talk) 05:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

ADDING TO MY OWN COMMENT: I saw that the 1968 election has Wallace included in the info box because he actually won electoral votes and was a big part in how the electoral college was tallied, and in 1992's election Perot got a huge amount of the popular vote. I'm just saying the few million that Barr, McKinney, and etc. will gather doesn't look like it will be as huge as Wallace and Perot's efforts. I give them lots of respect for running, but I'm just saying the info box shouldn't be as big as it is right now. Am I crazy for thinking this or are there others with me? If not, I'll just shut up : ) conman33 (. . .talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an ongoing elections; those others are over. When this one is done there will be a strong sentiment to drop it down to the two bigs. -Rrius (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus to add the minor party candidates in, looking at the recent poll above. This looks like POV-pushing to me. Harro5 07:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC) If we are going to add all the candidates, then why not the Socialist, Communist, etc?