Talk:2008 United States presidential election

Electoral College Map

The small electoral college map in the sidebar is just plain wrong. It links to a larger map which seems correct.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/US_Electoral_College_Map_2008.svg/350px-US_Electoral_College_Map_2008.svg.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Electoral_College_Map_2008.svg

Compare and contrast. These maps don't look even remotely similar. Shaunm (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

After refreshing the small map, it seems correct. I must have been seeing an old cached version. Sorry for the noise. Shaunm (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image placement

In all other Wikipedia articles on Presidential elections, the winning candidate has his image placed on the left-side of the candidates' profiles.

Since a winner has not yet been determined, I propose two neutral methods of placement:

1. Place them, left-to-right, alphabetically. 2. Put the candidate who shares the incumbent's party on the left.

Either way, McCain should be placed on the left.

It strikes me that having Obama on the left, without a good neutral reason for doing so, conveys an implicit assumption that he will win. Since, to the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia is not in the business of making predictions, I propose that we switch the order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Settl746 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Other neutral methods of placement would be to go by parties' alphabetical order, or candidate by first name. Either way, Obama comes first.</sarcasm> Seriously, though, please review the archives of this talk page for discussion on this. —kurykh 04:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the status quo of having Obama come up on the left side of the infobox and McCain come up first in the article order is good enough. —kurykh 04:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the writer. Having the incumbent party sit on the left makes senses.User:Unknown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.28.127 (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer no images in the Infobox during the campaign. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As I stated in the thread immediately before this one, there are neutral reasons for either choice and continuing to change back and forth is idiotic. Just because people want to see their candidates on the left that is not a good enough reason to switch them around. It is a question of style, not substance. As such, the status quo should be respected. -Rrius (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously someone should script a randomizer that determines order at page load. It's only fair. -- Anationofmillions (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Really, why are everybody so jealous of the one to the left? On my computer, the one on the right LOADS first - meaning there's a few seconds where McCain is there and Obama isn't. And this is outweighed by Obama apparently being in the desirable box. So why don't people just think of it as a score of 1-1? Obama gets the desirable position, but McCain's picture loads first? (unless of course he loads differently on other computers than mine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.24.213 (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are the pictures of the other candidates? Historical precedent of two major elitist conservative parties winning American elections should not determine which candidates you show on the main page. Look at election pages for other countries including Canada Canadian federal election, 2008 and you'll see how it's done. It's like you guys approve of the fact you only have two parties.99.246.183.10 (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please actually check how many parties are in the Canadian Parliament, then check how many parties are in the United States Congress, then come back. —kurykh 07:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling the election

I may as well raise this now. At what point can we call the election e.g. edit either Obama or McCain's biography to describe him as the 44th president of the US, and make similar changes to other articles? Or would president-elect be better at first? I suggest it would be best to do this when the other candidate makes his concession speech.

Could we have something about the times the polls close in various states. Remember there are some states which cross time zones e.g. Florida, Texas. PatGallacher (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't describe anybody as the 44th President, until he/she assumes office on January 20, 2009. Until then, we can only describe him/her as president-elect. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but when can we reasonably describe someone as president-elect? PatGallacher (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, whenever the American news medias declare somebody has recieved 270 electoral votes (I'd go by CNN, despite the bloopers of 2000). In truth though, the Electoral College doesn't vote until mid-December (their vote is the real vote); so one could argue, not until mid-December. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, your opinion that a candidate can "reasonably" be described as president-elect assumes that the voting public elects him, which as you've pointed out is not true. How can someone be reasonably described as "president-elect" before they have been elected? 72.184.7.20 (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the electoral votes can be disregarded as well theoretically. So going by tallies of the popular vote is about as accurate as you can get. If you are just disputing the terminology, should we refer to the candidate as becoming "presumed president-elect"?72.145.147.223 (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama (or McCain, as the case may be) is not the President until he is sworn in on January 20, 2009. We shouldn't definitively call the election until enough states officially release complete vote tallies putting a candidate over 270 electoral votes. The concession speech by the apparent loser is too early-- in 2004, we had a situation where the Ohio vote was challenged without Kerry's cooperation after his concession speech. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems unfortunate if you want to stay extremely accurate. Technically speaking, even after the polls close, the most accurate thing we could say about the victor is they are the "Presumptive President-Elect." This would match language used in the primaries where technically the delegates were selected, but had not yet voted. The same theory really applies for the electoral college. There's no precedent here either since the George W. Bush article wasn't even created until December 2001. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make the "OH MY GOD AMERICA BIAS!" smear, but I think you're forgetting that we could use articles about other elections as precedent. I know the American system doesn't have an exact replica, especially considering the electoral college, but that could help. And everyone revising the terms isn't really helping the main point. Whether we call him the president-elect or presumptive president-elect is irrelevant; the point is when the Wikipedia article should assume he's won. We could also use when Wikipedia called the 2004 election for Bush as a reference. Although, I'm sure a bunch of drive-by edits are going to make the probable winner the winner a bunch of times and by the time we can stop them there will be a clear winner. D prime (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Kerry's speech was the one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2004&offset=20041117092512&limit=500&action=history. Wikipedia's policy is based on the principle that it's not the contributor's estimation, but the established consensus that we are to refer to. I think if we have a concession speech and a major news sources reporting a winner, with none reporting the opposite winner, we should change it. If we have a 2000 situation and that turns out to be wrong, it's not Wikipedia's editors (our) job to make it *smarter* than the established media. If they change their mind, Wikipedia does. D prime (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

African American

Why is it written in print over and over (as if fact) that Obama is the first African American is a presidential nominee????

Obama is not african american. His mother is white. My children are bi racial and my husband and I DO NOT consider them soley white or soley african american. I think it's irresponsible journalism to report the following statement as fact when it's not correct.

"The 2008 election is particularly notable because it is the first time in U.S. history that two sitting senators will run against each other for president, and because it is the first time an African American is a presidential nominee for a major party, as well as the first time both major candidates were born outside the continental United States—Hawaii for Obama and the Panama Canal Zone for McCain"

What do you think???

Sara76.185.73.168 (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to the exact definition of Afican American.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as an American who is part Italian and part Irish can say he be called "Italian-American", so can a half-White, half-Black person (especially one whose father actually was African) be called "African-American". Acknowledging Obama's father's heritage does not deny his mothers. It is frankly your choice, Sara, to read references to Obama as African-America as saying he is solely Black, but that is not the intent. -Rrius (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

From African American: "African Americans or Black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa.[4] In the United States, the term is generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry." Timmeh! 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please! in America you have to be 1/8 of something to be that race. Obama's Father may have been BORN in Kenya, but his only relative that was Black was his Great-Grandma (Senator Obama's Great-Great-Grandma). Making Senator Obama 1/16 African. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.129.138 (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama self-identifies as African-American, so I think this is a non-issue. You are, of course, free to not call him that. For WP purposes though, that doesn't really matter. --Kickstart70TC 20:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama is 50% Caucasian, 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African. The identification of him as the first "African American candidate for president" is just ridiculous. What compounds this issue even further is that he is actually descended from Arab slave traders. You can read about the entire issue at: Kenneth Lamb's Article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorun (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pshaw. This statistic isn't in the article you cited. Stuck way down among the replies to the article is this:

"Posted by journalist Kenneth E. Lamb, February 14, 2008 at:
http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html
(which itself is uncited, verifying itself with the challenge to "go research the Kenyan records yourself". Yeah, right)
“THIS ARTICLE PRESENTS NEW, PREVIOUSLY UNPUBLISHED documentation concerning ethnic identity claims. It is based upon original research that the author openly invites for further inquiry and academic verification”
(NEW! IMPROVED! GETS OUT MORE 10% MORE DIRT! And in the fine print: WP:OR,WP:CITE,WP:V)
“Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African from his father's side.”
“Federal law requires that to claim a minority status, one must be at least 12.5% of the racial component you claim for minority status. Mr. Obama, claiming to be African-American, is half the legal threshold.”"
Anarchangel (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether he is actually African American or not is not for us to decide. To do so is pure original research. We are going by what he identifies as, and what major reputable sources say he is, not by what some people may speculate he is. —kurykh 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The black community regards him as black, he is generally regarded by non-blacks as black, and he himself says he is black. So, he's black. In fact he is literally African-American: his father was from Kenya. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This section is largely pointless. Ethnicity is an entirely social construct which people apply based on a perceived shared genealogy. If it wasn't for the fact that people put so much emphasis on race, it wouldn't be an issue, but because they do, I suggest we stop worrying about which made-up label is most precise or most politically correct so we can focus on more important matters. Meanwhile we can stick with a less exclusive term. Dude's black, no matter where his great-great-grandmother's half-brother's ex-girlfriend's college professor was born. And if anyone disagrees, ask Barack Obama himself - it's already been stated that he identifies as black. Cskelm (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

When Is It Over

Now don't misunderstand me, this is not the dumbest question in the history of the human race. I KNOW the date of the election - I really do - but looking through the article, I was unable to find it written anywhere WHEN it's over - that is: at what time do we (unless something interferes) know the name of the new president? I apologize sincerely IF this is written somewhere and I've failed to notice it. Being a European, I'd like to know, since I'm gonna have to stay up all night to watch this thing and I want to know if I can go to bed at 7 or 10 in the morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.24.213 (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Usually the news organizations, such as Reuters, CNN, and AP, accurately predict a winner by midnight ET on election day (or 5:00 GMT). In 2000, the winner was not known for several weeks, after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Florida's vote for Bush (by 500-some votes). But the probability of such a re-occurrence is small.--Appraiser (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In truth, we won't know the name of the next President & Vice President until January 20, 2009. Although, we'll have a darn good idea who they'll be, after November 4, 2008. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. The electoral college will vote on December 15, and their votes will be counted January 8. Thus, we will "know" on November 4/5 (depending on time zone), December 15, or January 8, depending on how pedantic we want to be. -Rrius (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it's at the section "Election day through to Inauguration"? 143.89.188.6 (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. -Rrius (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It says that it'll be in 49 states and D.C.--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I would edit but its protected so I cant. I think there are 50 states and D.C.--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC) That's incorrect, it's 49 + DC --99.250.177.248 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Swing state vs. most likely to affect outcome

The swing state definition is a bit blurred here, but I think we can define it as a state in which no candidate has a big lead. That, however, is not same as "certain swing states where close votes might prove crucial to the outcome of the election", as is written in the article. We can be pretty sure that if Obama wins Arizona, he'd have won the election by a landslide; even if McCain wins all of the "swing states" currently listed, he'd likely lose. The second definition, in which a state may likely tip the election, is often referred to as a "tipping point state", as in the chart at fivethirtyeight.com. Pennsylvania, for example, is an important tipping point state but not a swing state. That is, McCain has no chance winning it now - but if he somehow manages to catch back to Obama nationally, then the current swing states might lean McCain, and Pennsylvania might become a toss-up, and so McCain has a chance of winning the election due to Pennsylvania. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is that thing on the electoral map in the eastern section of Nebraska?

It's Nebraska's 3 congressional districts that can individually elect an elector regardless of the overall state outcome. Maine has two of those.--Oakshade (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need Delegate Counts?

Do we really need to include Delegate counts when each individual convention article is able to address that sufficiently? Bigvinu (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that after the election, this article will gradually shrink to the size & content of the preceding US presidential election articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Compress the primary section

The election is 3 days away and the article is getting pretty clogged. A fair amount of section will be needed to discuss the election results, so I say we just compress the primary section and allow readers to use the links to navigate to the primary pages. Bigvinu (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The article will likely shrink in size & content after the election. Assuming the form of the United States presidential election, 2004 article (for example). GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Socialist Party Candidate

I think it would be nice to add Brian Moore the Socialist Party Candidate on the main paragraph, particularly because of the fact that Obama keeps being considered the the "socialist" candidate.

Bassman462 (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever rows your boat; go for it. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should propose this -- I just now learned that if you consider write-in qualification in addition to bona fide ballot access, the Socialist Party campaign also passes the 270 electoral vote threshold. It is the only additional campaign to do so, although apparently independent candidate Frank Moore (who is not on any state's ballot) would also pass the threshold if you include as well states with no official write-in qualification procedure (which often fail to count or report any write-in votes at all). I think this may be a reasonable argument for mentioning Brian Moore with the other six who pass the threshold -- a better argument than countering the "Obama is a socialist" nonsense, at least. But I would like to hear what others think, since I may have a little CoI on this subject. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Baldwin and other 3rd Party Candidates

Why is it just Mccain and Obama who have their pictures on the page, and not Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, and the other 3rd party candidates?--216.105.70.83 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No one has added pictures good enough to stay.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bob Barr might make a difference by taking away McCain votes in states like Georgia.--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidates' infobox pictures

Why is McCain's picture wider than Obama's? Shouldn't they be the same size? Also, shouldn't the candidates' pictures that appear on their respective articles be shown, instead of these, which have completely different backgrounds, and Obama in even a different posture. Timmeh! 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've a better idea. Let's delete both pictures & wait until after the US prez election, to decide what to do with images in the Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The election's only two days away. It'd be pointless to remove them now. Anyway, if nobody objects, I will replace the images there now with the ones shown on each candidate's Wiki article. Timmeh! 23:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it's just 2 days away; but removing the images, would've felt sooo good. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I changed the last set of pictures to those portaits currently shown. Looking at prior elections like 2004 election, United States presidential election, 2000 and so on and so forth, the images used are portraits of the candidates, not close up shots of their head. It's important to note that the picture of John Kerry used in the last election is not the same as the one on his wikipedia article. Sadly John McCain, has no good portraits available past the year 2000. Also taking note at 2004 election, the portraits used in that infobox are also of different sizes, Bush is wider and Kerry is taller and slim. In terms of posture take a look at the 1996 election, Bob Dole is in a different pose then Bill Clinton, they also use different backgrounds. Even better ilistrating this point is the 1984 election where Walter Mondale is in a completly different position and diff background. In the end this is commonplace on most election articles, as it is hard to find portraits that are equally similar. However at the same time replacing these images with ones of head shots of the canidates is completly throwing off the rythem of the election articles. Once one of these men is elected we should get better portraits that can be updated later. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

  That's good enough for me. I just thought they looked odd at different sizes and with different backgrounds, but I see what you mean with the images from previous elections. Timmeh! 00:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Mondale image in the '84 version is embarrassing & inaccurate. Mondale was not that old in 1984 (it sorta kills Reagan's age as a campaign issue line). GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Where are all six candidates?

There are six candidates that on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win this election. Why are only two shown in the infobox? This is extreme bias. Andy120290 (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

look in the archives you'll find your answers there198.138.209.22 (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the stuff in the archives is BS. Either be un-biased and NPOV by putting all six cadidates in the infobox or remove the two that are there right now and fix it after the election. Andy120290 (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to accept it. I had to. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That does nothing to answer the arguments raised in those discussions. I can equally consider your argument BS using that logic. —kurykh 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As Buddy Holly so famously said: "I guess it doesn't matter any more" the bottom four won't get more than a million votes between them, so who cares?Ericl (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In Agreement with those saying lack of all candidates = lack of NPOV. They may not be getting a lot of votes this election, but Mckinney and Barr are on the ballot in a significant number of states. --24.117.42.24 (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and make an edit as a proposed solution. -Exucmember (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break! No 3rd party candidate has ever gotten any electoral votes, since 1968. IF a 3rd party wins a state, then we'll add them, otherwise it is very unneeded. CTJF83Talk 20:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The assumptions inherent in the layout of the infobox template make it impossible to give minor candidates a secondary status which would have been suggested by some of size and placement ideas that I had in mind, so I won't be adding them after all. Those in favor of having them there: keep in mind that [1] finding a cutoff is always somewhat problematic and arbitrary, [2] that the 6 top candidates do appear in the intro, and [3] that these and other (even more minor) candidates appear in the "Candidates" section. -Exucmember (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, the image placement will be finalized, one way or the other, tonight. At this point, why bother. -Rrius (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Present Tense

Can this be in present tense now? Polls have officially opened in some towns in New Hampshire (see: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/dixville.notch/index.html ). This means the election has officially begun (not to mention the early voting). 150.108.232.38 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Swing states section

Is it really necessary to have the state nicknames in there for some of the swing states (i.e. "Show Me State" for Missouri)? Either include all nicknames or delete the few that are there. —MicahBrwn (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

They're there so the section doesn't sound monotonous. —kurykh 07:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but of the 12 swing states mentioned, nine don't have the state nickname (i.e. Indiana isn't referred to as the Hoosier State; North Carolina isn't the Tar Heel State; and Ohio isn't called the Buckeye State; just to give three examples). I still think it'd look better if that section was all or nothing … that is, have all 12 swing states mention its respective nickname, or remove the state nicknames of the six states in which they're mentioned. —MicahBrwn (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should go for all or nothing. Embellishing it too much makes it unencyclopedic; taking it all out makes it look overly bland. While random and seemingly unfair, the current mix strikes a good balance. —kurykh 09:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As of tomorrow, get rid of the swing state section, get ready to make this the same as all the previous election articles.Ericl (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How about after the election is called? -Rrius (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Result section

I think the result section should be added now. I know the result won't come until several hours later, but why not preparing it now? So, later, we could just "fill in the blank" Something like this maybe?

w_tanoto (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as this election has bascially lasted 2-yrs; by all means, create the new section. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I added this section in, along with a map I've made for live electoral results as they come in. However, I'm not very happy with the wording in the section, but I can't figure out how to word it differently. Also, the map goes over the margins, and I have no idea how to rectify this. Lastly, the formatting on the map (for the text) is off from when you view the full-size image, any ideas as to why this might be happening? Esahr (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a forced size parameter that seems to have the map fully on one screen. Risker (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for fixing that up. I'll clean up the text once there is actually some information to report. Esahr (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool section, folks. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A map already exists in the infobox that is prepared for results. Should we be updating two maps at a time for both the infobox and the results section, or should we use one map for both places? —Kal ^(talk) 20:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I added the bottom map, was because the other one was a copyright violation. I'd say we can just use the top map, and change the colors for that map. The colors on the top map need to change to white though. Places like Minnesota and Washington already have a redish color, and could confuse some people. CTJF83Talk 21:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same map: Image:US Electoral College Map 2008.svg? —Kal ^(talk) 21:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see how Minnesota, Washington, etc are colored? While it isn't the darker red that will be used for McCain, it could confuse some. CTJF83Talk 21:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're talking about. You must be seeing the older version of the image, because the current version (this one) is completely gray. —Kal ^(talk) 21:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, yes, got it now! A cache clear helps! CTJF83Talk 21:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you guys will agree with my proporsal. I don't quite know which one is listed first normally (democrats or republican candidate), but wouldn't it be better if McCain is listed first on the map (with the link above) to alphabetise it? Don't get me wrong. I support obama, but alphabetising it might look better. w_tanoto (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just leave it! I support putting the winner first, after tonight, and most likely (by polls) it will be Obama. CTJF83Talk 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we move the results table to a template page? I've seen this on many national election pages, and I don't see why not here. —kurykh 23:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with 1928

"The 2008 election marks the first time since the 1928 election in which neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President ran for their party's nomination in the presidential election..." (Quote from the section "No incumbents")

In United States presidential election, 1928, incumbent vice president Charles Dawes is listed both on the presidential ballot and the vice presidential ballot. This has also been discussed previously here. Vints (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

From Archive 4: <cited by Vints> (prepare to enter the Twilight Zone. Happy Opposite Day.)

I think this is a bit confusing: "The 2008 election therefore marks the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent president nor an incumbent vice president running for their party's nomination in the presidential election.[2] The 1952 election was the last time neither the incumbent president nor incumbent vice president ran in the general election, after President Harry S. Truman bowed out following his loss in the New Hampshire primary and Vice President Alben Barkley then sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination.[3] (Truman's name was on the New Hampshire primary ballot but he did not campaign. He lost to Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver and formally withdrew his name from consideration.) Also, Cheney's decision marks the first time since 1920 that neither an incumbent president nor vice president has even sought his party's nomination; the last vice president to decline to run was Thomas Riley Marshall, vice president in the administration of Woodrow Wilson." (confusing? how?)

"So the incumbent vice president in 1928, Charles Dawes, "sought" the nomination but he didn't "run" for the nomination? What's the difference? In United States presidential election, 1928 both the president Calvin Coolidge and his vice president Charles Dawes are listed under "candidates." Vints (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)" (But the article clearly states that although he had withdrawn his name from consideration, Truman's name was still on the NH ballot. What's so strange about Coolidge and Dawes being listed as candidates and also not running?)

"I removed that inaccurate line from the article. President Coolidge sought (and won) a full presidential term in 1924. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)" (Perhaps, but we were discussing 1928? Removed? Hold on a second...)

"Coolidge and Dawes should be 'removed' from the 1928 article. Afterall, we don't have Al Gore listed on this article. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)" (Removed from another article? Al Gore? Because he's...he...What? What the H. Flipping Coatomundi does Al Gore have to do with Coolidge and Dawes? And turn off that bulldozer, NOW. You do NOT have consensus.)

"The system before 1972 is really completely different from the system as it stands now. Back then, the nominee was decided at the convention. Alben Barkley didn't run in the primaries. But he was interested in being president, and had some state delegations that wanted to promote him as a candidate. I'm not sure how serious it ever was - I don't think there was ever much sense he was going to win. Up until 1972, it doesn't really make sense to talk about people running for president in the primaries, because this wasn't really how it worked. Oftentimes the candidates running in primaries were not even serious candidates for the nomination, but favorite sons who wanted to hold their state's delegation at the convention in order to increase their state's power. Thus Pat Brown in 1960, for instance. Other times, they would be stalking horses for incumbents - in 1964, for instance, various favorite sons ran in Democratic primaries against George Wallace, as LBJ considered himself to be above campaigning in primaries (note also that LBJ won New Hampshire as a write-in candidate in 1968. Again, sitting presidents were not supposed to run in primaries. Humphrey did the same thing that year, as sitting VP)."
(So then, not only is Cheney unique for the post - 1972 era, but back then, candidates were picked by the Convention even though they hadn't declared themselves, and only Barkley wasn't. So that makes Cheney even more unique then, as the norm now, is to declare, and be picked both, and the norm then was to not declare and be picked anyway. Good point.)
(same guy, john k, continued):"So, really, this is the first election in the modern primary system in which neither the sitting vice president nor the sitting president was involved."
(Right, you said that before. Wait a minute, do you mean we should compare only the like elections? But doesn't the fact that they were always picked before, pretty much compare with the fact that they have, except for Cheney, been picked since?)
(still john)"Note, though, that there have only been two previous elections in the modern system where there was not a sitting president - 1988 and 2000."
(ok, so there were only two times post-72 when there wasn't an incumbent to be both declared and was picked by the Convention. So that gives us a better sample)
(john)Comparing post-1972 elections with 1968 and 1952 is dubious.
(Dubious? Wasn't planning on comparing them based on use of hair gel or anything. Well, now I'm dubious. Of your argument. Still looks like always being picked by the Convention to me) (john)Comparing it with earlier elections like 1928 and 1920, where primaries were even less prominent than they were in the 50s and 60s, is just absurd. john k (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC) (Prominence? Does that have some type of something to do with something you've previously said, in some way?)

And there the matter rested, until you resurrected it. Unless someone can come up with a more convincing argument than this Hall of Mirrors, I am putting the Barkley comparison back in. It is true to the convention of the Convention, which has been, in every case since 1932, nominate the incumbents, for whatever reason. Remember that we are here to report facts, not our interpretation of facts, and the fact is that the convention has nominated since '32. It has been said that they nominated before, and they declare and are nominated now. Pretty much goes to the fact that they were all, except for Cheney, nominated, doesn't it? Anarchangel (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Election Results Image

Just quickly, I noticed that at the top of the article, the results are in an svg format, but at the bottom of the article, it's in a png format. Shouldn't they both be the same? I prefer the svg myself, but what does everyone else think? 222.153.35.32 (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Templete to use from the 2004 election

I made this as blank as much as I could and changed to 2008. With Indiana/Kentucky in only in hour, we can get this up and running.

Grand total

Electoral results

Presidential candidate	Party	Home state	Popular vote		Electoral vote	Running mate
			Count	Percentage		Vice-presidential candidate	Home state	Electoral vote
John McCain	Republican	Arizona				Sarah Palin	Alaska
Barack Obama	Democratic	Illinois				Joe Biden	Delaware
[[ ]](a)	[[ ]]	[[ ]]	—	—	0	—	North Carolina	0
Ralph Nader	—	Connecticut			0	Matt Gonzalez	California	0
[[ ]]	[[ ]]	[[ ]]			0	[[ ]]	[[ ]]	0
Chuck Baldwin	Constitution	Florida			0	Darrell Castle	Tennessee	0
Cynthia McKinney	Green	Georgia			0	Rosa Clemente	New York	0
[[ ]]	Peace and Freedom	[[ ]]			0	[[ ]]	California	0
Brian Moore	Socialist	Florida			0	Stewart Alexander	California	0
[[ ]](b)	Socialist Workers	[[ ]]			0	[[ ]](b)	[[ ]]	0
Total				100%	538			538
Needed to win					270			270

Source (Electoral and Popular Vote): Federal Elections Commission Electoral and Popular Vote Summary

The grand total chart labels the electoral votes as "Running Mate Electoral Votes" should probably drop the "Running Mate"Lancemoody (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The column on the right (no pun) in this table in the article should just be removed. It is meaningless and possibly confusing. - Hordaland (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Results by state

State	McCain	Obama	Nader	Barr	McKinney	Baldwin	Others
Alabama						-	write-in
Alaska							write-in
Arizona					-		write-in
Arkansas							write-in
California							write-in
Colorado							write-in
Connecticut							write-in
Delaware							write-in
D.C.							write-in
Florida							write-in
Georgia							write-in
Hawaii							write-in
Idaho							-
Illinois							write-in
Indiana							write-in
Iowa							write-in
Kansas							write-in
Kentucky							write-in
Louisiana							write-in
Maine							write-in
Maryland							write-in
Massachusetts							write-in
Michigan							write-in
Minnesota							write-in
Mississippi							write-in
Missouri							write-in
Montana							write-in
Nebraska							write-in
Nevada							write-in
New Hampshire						-	write-in
New Jersey							write-in
New Mexico
New York							write-in
North Carolina					-		write-in
North Dakota							write-in
Ohio							write-in
Oklahoma
Oregon							write-in
Pennsylvania							write-in
Rhode Island							write-in
South Carolina							write-in
South Dakota							write-in
Tennessee							write-in
Texas							write-in
Utah							write-in
Vermont							write-in
Virginia							write-in
Washington							write-in
West Virginia							write-in
Wisconsin							write-in
Wyoming							write-in

Finance

• (money spent/total votes=average spent per vote)

Source: FEC

Close states

States where margin of victory was under 5%

States where margin of victory was between 5% and 10%

Members of the 2004 United States Electoral College

Main article: United States presidential electors, 2008

Ballot access

Presidential Ticket	Party	Ballot Access
McCain / Palin	Republican
Obama / Biden	Democrat
Barr / Root	Libertarian
Baldwin / Castle	Constitution
Nader / Gonzalez	Independent
McKinney / Clemente	Green

Presidential results by congressional district

Caveats: only a handful of states report the results by district. These numbers are estimates based upon results collected from the 400 counties that contain a portion of more than one district. They may include an allocation of absentee/early votes which were not tabulated by district.

Voter demographics

The following data is based on exit polls.

SOCIAL GROUPS AND THE PRESIDENTIAL VOTE, 2004
	Size	McCain	Obama	Nader
Party
Democratic
Independent
Republican
Ideology
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
Race
Black
Hispanic
White
Asian
Other
Sex
Female
Male
Religion
Protestant
Catholic
Jewish
Other
Family Income
Less than $15,000
$15,000–$29,999
$30,000-$49,999
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000-$149,999
$150,000-$199,999
Greater than $200,000
Education
No High School
H.S. Graduate
Some College
College Graduate
Postgraduate Study
Union Membership
Union Member
Non-Union Member
Age
18–29 years old
30-44 years old
45–59 years old
60 years or older
Region
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual
Gun Ownership
Gun Owner in Household
No Gun Owner in Household
Views on Iraq War
Approve
Disapprove

An asterisk (*) indicates a statistically insignificant number of responses.

Source: 2004 CNN Election Exit Poll

Electoral College changes from 2004

--Levineps (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I have made an article called Timeline of 2008 U.S. Election Day to keep a track of events on results day. I have put update and expand tags on it so please can users add details on todays events. Thanks. 03md (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Which news source should we use for official results as they are constantly updated?

I am currently using CNN as a reference as to use as a reference for Image:US 2008 Prez Election-popvote.png that I am editing. Which news source should we use? Consensus needs to be reached quickly.

Possibility: NY Times —Kal ^(talk) 23:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is the old standby CNN.[1] I suggest that at least two major news sources be used for each one, though; and not to add data to the map if there are disparate results. Risker (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well there's CNN, CBS, FOX, NBC or ABC. Any two should be OK, so long as there's no controversy. If there's controversy, the map will just have to be re-changed! Physchim62 (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Im using BBC. Kentucky just took McCainLinuxguymarshall (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

BBC have just stated they are getting their results from their affiliate, ABC. May as well stay close to the source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.164.122 (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the BBC is one step back from the process, basically doing exactly the same as we are (but with access to the raw data from AP). Two out of five U.S. networks should do (that's roughly the criterion of the BBC as well). Indiana too close to call for the moment. Physchim62 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Im using ABC, Al-Jazeera, and BBC Linuxguymarshall (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

For an example of the problem, CBS is projecting West Virginia for McCain but nobody else is yet. Physchim62 (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Using Fox for results and CNN TV coverage for most projections. However, I am refraining from coloring media projections on exit polls unless real numbers verify (i.e. WV right now). CrazyC83 (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use FOX, just quietly.. Phildev (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

NBC is being more aggressive than some of the others; they called Pennsylvania for Obama right as polls closed. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say let's take the closest (to call) predictions unless several major outlets are confirming basically the same. And as already established, let's stay with including the source(s). This way we won't give anyone reason to complain, (partisan hardliner of both "sides" excluded since they'll always find a way to complain unfairness. Besides, if CNN predicts a winner (in a state) it should be either clear by common sense and without doubt or/and confirmed by a "rival" source such as FOX. Fair enough?

Side note: WP is overloaded and slowing down a lot. Wonder why? :)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Popular vote map/image

I cannot see the difference between the two shades of red or the two shades of blue, and I have a high quality monitor. Suggest whoever wrote this up make a change here. Risker (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Um...this is confusing, the map shows Virginia red, Florida red, and Georgia blank? I thought Virginia has a mostly democrat senate lead, and Florida polls close at 8pm! What's going on here? ~AH1^(TCU) 00:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah add me in too. If I have not color blind recently, I can see three colors in that map, none of them being the primary colors. Can someone correct it please?? Precambrian84 (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

US Electoral College Map 2008.svg caption

Please add to the caption in the infobox (for now) whatever news source people are using for updating Image:US Electoral College Map 2008.svg. As the night progresses, I'd imagine that some sources will call states earlier than others, and readers should be informed which sources this map is based on. 140.247.131.119 (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

CNN is callung styates before we even get any votes--Jakezing (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is quite common in any election and done by any news channel. They work with exit polls taken at polling locations which are quite reliable as long as the margin of error is as small that there is basically no change to expect.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image refresh

Is there a button that can be added to the results map caption for users to purge their cache and get the latest version of the image? - Gobeirne (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In Firefox, Control-F5 (Linux and Windows) and Command-F5 (Mac) forces a complete refresh of the page including the cache. --Ephilei (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Results by state could benefit from a column for the percentage of votes counted

The green entries (Polls closed, no projection) in the "Results by state" table would be easier to follow if there were an extra column for "% votes counted". Even if these were just rough estimates, e.g. "approx 5%", "approx 50%", this would be enough to give people an idea of how seriously to take the numbers. If the order of getting together votes from local voting places is random enough, then this is not really needed, since Poisson error is enough, but in practice, it's probably not so random - e.g. big city areas get things checked and sent to the central office quickly, rural areas more slowly, and city/rural areas typically can have different voting tendencies. Or it can be for rich places vs poor places, etc. i expect people are editing the article very frequently, and i've done nothing on it (AFAIR) before, so i'll let others take up or ignore this suggestion. Boud (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

An example could be Texas: the entry right now says McCain 834,377, Obama 1,000,217, while http://election-projection.net/08PresGE-TX.html puts pre-poll indications as about 45% support for Obama and only a 0.5% chance of Obama wining Texas. Since Texas has about 24 million people, chances are these initial numbers are due to e.g. city/rural speed of getting their vote counts into whoever is doing the central tallying. If 50% of inhabitants are voters (no idea what this percentage should be...), then that's only about 15% or so votes "counted" in terms of these numbers so far. Boud (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point, I was in the process of making the same suggestion when I refreshed the talk page and saw this. It could made even be simpler by just taking the percentages given by a source like CNN, seeing as how all news sites do track that number as well. However, it might be too much to add and then accurately track given the limited coordination between people editing this entry as opposed to a corporate news outlet, and ultimately it will just be removed after the election anyway. Not that that last point should matter much. Cskelm (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

From 1980 through 2004

Under the headline "Swing states", in the section on Georgia: From 1980 through 2004, it supported the Republican candidate with only two exceptions, 1980 and 1992. Ehh, what? Plrk (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to clarify. What's confusing about this? Kairos (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I can clarify. If 1980 isn't actually included in the Republican-supporting years, why not say From 1984 through 2004...? Beckerbuns (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It's like saying "From 9-19, all numbers begin with '1' except '9'" Plrk (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So this needs to be clarified and changed. I nominate you, Plrk.  ;)Beckerbuns (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Third Party results

Where are we getting our numbers for the third parties such as the Greens and the Libertarians. I've looked and looked and can't seem to find any results for other candidates besides Obama and McCain.

If anyone could give me a link to where I could find this information, it'd be greatly appreciated.

74.15.25.179 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too, if I may put my curiousity out there.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Google Maps has been tracking all parties with significant vote totals, including Barr and Nader, and has them on its site. 142.68.223.93 (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with Google Maps is that it doesn't list more than 4 candidates for any state, so if there are three or more 3rd party candidates, it won't show them all. Do we have any other sources?142.68.223.93 (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Repubs Stripped half of their delegates?

Somewhere in the article it talks about how the Repubs stripped half of Florida and Michigan's delegates. I was dead sure it was Democrats. Can anyone else confirm it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/25/AR2007082500275.html?hpid=topnews

Angel14995 (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your way behind. This is/was about the Democrats primaries and they where given a full vote at the end even after violating the rules. I suggest, you scrap this section in good faith.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Missouri swings McCain. For the last 104 years, Missouri has given it's electoral votes to the victor save 1 exception. It seems we'll have another exception. Digital^Ninja 03:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahm, right. I was focusing to much about the Dems since it was a big issue but not for the GOP since it didn't change anything (given them a full vote or cut it in half). Still, this is sooooo outdated and I just don't see any point to start a new discussion about this today, the day of the election. And Obama is just announced to be the next President of the United States of America.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A) None the less, this page needs to be as accurrate as possible.

B) Not president elect yet, most likely (99.9999.........%) sure that he is. Who know what the mail-ins could hold.

Either way, this will be an interesting 2 months 'till Inauguration Day. I'm waiting for the crazies to start trying to assassinate him.Angel14995 (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't pay much attention to the numbers, did you, And if 99,999 % isn't good enough for you, you might have a different problem and my guess is that doesn't belong here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

NBC have called it for Obama. Can we do the same? PatGallacher (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

CNN have called it too. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• After several edit-conflicts: : I was writing this: *Guess that now WP is overrun with edits and has to shut down, if not by their own will then by technical crash of servers. *lol* --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've already experienced some crashes. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite

Well seeing as this page is now irrelevant, at least to the subject of the new President, is it going to be overhauled? 74.220.66.75 (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant? how so? Sure, there will be some changes to make as usual but what makes you think, it needs a whole rewrite? Would you mind to clarify?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama Won

Obama has won.

Electoral votes:

Obama - 338

McCain - 139

For sources see: Google News here.

Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 05:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He sure did, plus, N Carolina, maybe Indiana, and maybe Montana are going to go his way too. 142.68.223.93 (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

NBC has called Indiana for Obama: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27531033/

County Election Results Map

I do not have the technical knowledge (nor the will to learn it right now) to post this map, but I have finished a good portion of it. As every state reached 90% of precincts reporting, I mapped the results of that state's election results by county, using the CNN Election Center site.

This current map is accurate as of 12:06 AM Central Time.

hosted on imageshack

It has been saved in .png form and should be very easy to edit. I hope this helps! 173.5.36.180 (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Lyly

Four votes went to McCain and one to Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.14.98 (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So lets get this map together and up on the site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.37.3 (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, final map is ready!

hosted on imageshack

Again, I do not have the technical knowledge to add this to the page myself, but I will see if I can figure it out. Anyone, please feel free to add this to wikimedia and to this page.

173.5.36.180 (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Lyly

So what is the turnout of eligible voters?

I can't find anything about turnout in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.36.2 (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Added under "Election results"; perhaps needs a new section. --GregU (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nebraska Split 4-1 McCain-Obama?

It looks like, according to vote counts posted on Nebraska's Secretary of State's home page, that Obama will win the electoral vote from the 2nd Congressional District:

http://www.sos.ne.gov/elec/2008/ElectNight/electoral.htm

In that District, it looks like Obama beat out McCain by a hair. Cornince (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

They updated it. McCain is now shown as winning by a hair in that District. Cornince (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think they're heading into recount, no? If so, it shouldn't be official yet that McCain's won all the electoral votes there.68.222.92.252 (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Has Obama definitely won?

This is probably a silly question, but aren't the results based on "projections," so however unlikely it may be that the tide could change, Obama is not quite president-elect yet? I still remember 2000 when we were sure Bush had won, only for weeks of wrangling to ensue. SteveRwanda (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

McCain conceded, that's a pretty good sign it's over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.221.213 (talk) 08:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We run into this question in every election in every country. Unlike 2000 there is no reason to believe that the final results are not reliable. In 2000 one state remained undecided and that state was enough to swing the result either way. In 2008 some states could still go either way (eg Missouri where CNN say the current difference is only 3000 votes), but the big picture is fully stabilised.

FWIW, technically Obama is not the president-elect until the members of the electoral college submit their votes to (I believe) the Speaker of the House, (or whatever is the official body/person, can't remember what it is). That formality could be weeks away. The practical reality is that everyone (news networks, opponent, current president, et) agrees Obama is President-elect. Manning (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Is there really no mention of the Acorn voting fraud (whether or not Acorn itself is responsible, fraud was committed), the electoral overseers getting thrown out, Hillary stumping 5' from the booths, and those two Black Panthers with billy clubs right outside of the booths in Philly? I saw reports of those on several sites, such as drudge, and the latter few even had pictures and videos.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

that's because the Acorn voter fraud was about registrations. Mickey Mouse can't vote - he'd need some identification and he left it in his other pair of pants. Obama won Philadelphia 83/16 and won the state by over 10%. Any kind of problems with the voters were irrelevant. For more information, look up Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

ACORN "fraud" is the biggest non-sense Republicans have come up with for a while, and they've come up with a lot of bullshit. Fictional characters cant vote. It's that simple. Stop reading Drudge. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

International reaction

We should add an "International reaction" to this article in due course just like many other elections articles have. I imagine that the section will expand rapidly, and so it could eventually have its own article too. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Agreed. International reaction was significant and a section on it wold be informative. Savre (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Also Pope Benedict XVI congratules Obama see http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20081105-170458/Pope-congratulates-Obama

and Italy PM Silvio Berlusconi see http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=3.0.2669556087

--PaoVac (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Consistency on results reporting

The election map was showing Montana as going to McCain. This was reverted, even though it has been called by both CNN and FoxNews, the sources the map file claims to use.

On the other hand, the results table shows all 50 states counted, including Missouri for McCain and North Carolina for Obama.

Shouldn't there be consistency in these results? 189.79.82.137 (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Most votes ever

Barack Obama has received the most votes ever by a U.S. Presidential Candidate. Worth mentioning?

98.117.116.16 (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

how can this be.there is a major inconsistency in the voter turnout.it is far less than 2004 and many news outlets predicted it would be the largest plus with the long lines shown in tv it doesnt make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.105.113 (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe a lot of early votes are not counted yet. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me you're trying to create a controversy where none exists. This is not the Wikipedia way. My data is valid and my question is valid. Barack Obama at a current count of 63,858,759 votes has received the most votes ever by a U.S. Presidential Candidate. I am asking all here whether it's worth mentioning that in the article or not?

That said, regarding your voter turn out matter, you're wrong: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_pr/voter_turnout

Highest ever.

98.117.116.16 (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really merits inclusion, look at the numbers from 1996, 2000, and 2004. Turnout increases by several million each election. Most likely because the US population is increasing. Unless the population doesn't increase much in the next 4 years or a third party candidate gets major support, the winner of the 2012 election will likely have the most votes ever, until they're beaten by the 2016 winner, etc. Mr.Z-man 04:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Indiana?

Since when is Indiana blue? I thought it was too close to call.

CNN still has it as undecided, along with Missouri and NC. Manning (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

BBC's given Indiana to Obama. —Raven42 (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The first...

...President born after all 50 states joined the union and after WWII. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Re the first post WWII president - I believe you'll find that Bill Clinton and GW Bush were both born in 1946. But you are correct on the 50 states point.Manning (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Popular vote

Looking at the popular vote table some results seem way off. |Vermont has 4,384 for McCain and 7,572 for Obama, these seem to be off by a few orders of magnitude. Quite a few other states seem very wrong as well. --Salix (talk): 12:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not off, just not updated. This is kinda like filling in the scores of sporting events while the game is still in progress - it just wastes time because you have to look over everything to make sure that it doesn't get left in a "partially done" state. --B (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama is him "Afro-american" ?

The introduction state:

"The 2008 election was the first time in U.S. history that an African American was elected president."

That's a partially false statement, under estimeting thant Obama is a métis, half of his blood is Irish. We talk so few of this. It should be write that he is of partial African ancestry. Yug (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the blacks in the United States have a certain amount of white blood, so half-black is still generally regarded as African-American in the U.S. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. [I'm foreigner, as you seems had already guess]. This usage confuse me. It look like if Obama was 100% Kenyan. If there is a way to make the situation more clear [at least for foreigners] : he is métis and raise in an white family group, that would be better. Yug (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

See #African_American above. Kaizeler^T_C 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally contend that Yug is a faux foreigner. estimeting? thant? Writers use the grammar of their home language in constructing sentences in a foreign language; when these rules conflict, error results. No one would write 'is him' and then later, 'half of his' and repeatedly, 'he is'. Busted. Anarchangel (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yug appear to be French and to have studied Chinese extensively and has worked on the French wikipedia, English wikipedia and commons for a long while, including a lot of stuff on Chinese (or CJK) characters, and unless you have strong evidence to the contrary, not half-baked theories (have you ever even interacted with a French person who also speaks Chinese? Heck have you ever even interacted extensively with someone who genuinely speaks English as a second language?) I suggest you WP:AGF. Even in the unlikely event he purposely writes in an odd fashion for whatever reason, that doesn't disprove him a 'foreigner'. Note that just because his style his odd (presuming it is odd, which we have not established), it doesn't mean he is doing it on purpose. There are a bunch of things which people who speak one or more foreign languages better then English commonly do, but people can develop odd habits of their own which are not strictly correct, but which they may not bother to correct (or may not even realise is wrong) for whatever reason. We should not ridicule other editors simply because we find the way they write 'odd'. Nil Einne (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a Chinese exchange student in France? He doesn't "sound" very French to me, and I know a few. Frank 84.57.190.200 (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Local press not calling Georgia

Georgian press and AP are refusing to call Georgia for the presidential race. Indeed, there seems to be hundreds of thousands of early votes in urban areas, which heavily favor Obama, that are not counted and will be counted only after the live result. Given that McCain's victory margin is only 7%, there's a real chance Obama might win its 15 electoral votes. Dailykos has an article on it. I'd suggest we decolorize it for the moment. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If the major networks like CNN and NBC have called it, I say leave it the way it is. If it changes, then let them retract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.227.51 (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Electoral college current totals

The current totals listed are 349 and 162 respectively (in the table: 349 respectively 173), but the votes of the number of states currently colored red actually add up to 163 for McCain. 81.132.227.254 (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the current totals are 349 and 163. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

plagiarism?

From this article:
Some of the questions many viewers said they considered irrelevant when measured against the faltering economy or the Iraq war, such as why Senator Barack Obama did not wear an American flag pin on his lapel, the incendiary comments of Obama’s former pastor, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s assertion that she had to duck sniper fire in Bosnia more than a decade ago.

...and from the cited reference:
If there was a common theme, it was that Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos had front-loaded the debate with questions that many viewers said they considered irrelevant when measured against the faltering economy or the Iraq war, like why Senator Barack Obama did not wear an American flag pin on his lapel. Others rapped the journalists for dwelling on matters that had been picked over for weeks, like the incendiary comments of Mr. Obama’s former pastor, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s assertion that she had to duck sniper fire in Bosnia more than a decade ago.

--159.140.254.10 (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is really plagiarism. This changes the sentence structure, shortens it, changes several words, and properly attributes it. Perhaps it could be a little more different, but pulling 1 sentence, that's not even a direct copy, out of a whole article seems a little nit-picky. Mr.Z-man 04:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Separate international section

I don't have the time at the moment to do it right now, but I would suggest a new article on international reaction, which would not only encompass the various official reactions from governments and inter-governmental organizations around the world, but also the plethora of celebrations and unofficial reactions in various countries (Kenya's national holiday, Obama Japan, etc). All this is notable, but there just isn't room in this article. Joshdboz (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I am going to make it. --Tocino 16:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I raised this point a few sections above. We can have a summarised section in this article and create a sub-article, which will include the references reactions of as many countries to this election as possible. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Electoral count

Somebody had updated the totals to 364/174. I've reversed those updates, as Missouri & North Carolina haven't been declared yet. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it had for Missouri check MSNBC. — ■~∀SÐFﾑｻ~■ =] ^{Babashi? antenna?} 15:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Missouri give McCain a total of 174? GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Missouri has not been called by any networks except MSNBC. Why is it considered won by McCain? Shouldn't we keep it gray like North Carolina until the rest of the networks, including AP, have called it? Timmeh! 21:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Star icon on electoral results map

I like the map with the star icon for DC, to make it more visible. Please keep the star icon!

there are 50 states and not 49

in the election day article it is written 49 states and DC.Dc is not a state.its 50 states and district of columbia

What exactly are you talking about? CTJF83Talk 15:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

One state had yet to report results when that part was written, I believe. Rhialto (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

They have not called North Carolina, a state Obama is probably going to win. We'll see --~~

Even so, there are 49 states that have been assigned + DC. There is an obvious miscount in the assigned states section. By my count it should be: 21 for McCain and 27+DC for Obama which ads to 48 states +DC, and then NC and MO can be fixed once results for them are finalized. In other words, 48 states' votes have been called, but right now the sates allotted are 49+DC --Kbobk (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Error in presidency

on the main page it says "becomes the first African American to be elected President of the United States." He is not president, just yet. (probably reason he will be called president-elect for a few weeks)

The US has an electoral college that votes for the president. while this is not going to change, it has, in the past, been involved in controversy. (in 2000 at least 1 elector from DC did not vote, and going back 200 years ago more arises) The EC meets in December, that is when the president is officially elected president. (and then of course it leads to the swearing in in jan) Lihaas (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

McCain's total EV

The sum of the current electoral votes (with 26 outstanding) is 522 on Wikipedia. McCain's total is 10 too high. Can someone change that? Dcbandicoot (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How's is McCain's total too high? GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool free images

Check out these maps, they're CC licensed! He says he'll update them when final results are in, so might want to wait a bit (or re-add them) if we decide to use them. He also asked to be emailed if they're used, I'm going to go ahead and email him either way though. delldot ∇. 16:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Popular vote numbers

As the final result is not fixed yet, what do the "popular vote" numbers in the infobox mean? --KnightMove (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The popular vote numbers are incomplete. Most of the 3rd party canidates are missing votes.

The numbers, presumably, are the results that are currently known and subject to change as more data becomes available.--JayJasper (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, it currently says that Nader was second in Maine.

Additionally, I noticed that on the election Wiki page for each other Presidential election (well, at least 1960-2004 anyway), the summary box in the upper right portion of the page includes popular vote percentages down to the tenth of a point. Shouldn't that be included on this page as well? For example, last I saw, Obama was at 52.5% Samstein (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Samstein (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps switching the spread from 52.4-46.3 to 53-46 in the overview box on the upper right -- please stop. I personally would love to be able to say Obama won 53-46, but that just is not accurate. The spread is currently 6.1%, not 7%. Samstein (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

TopInfobox

OK folks, now I agree with having Obama & McCain only in the TopInfobox. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

reactions section

Hi, the section regarding the reaction of the nations abroad has become very large. Maybe too large. It is, however, important and interesting information. What about moving it into a seperate article? --Maxl (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

100 percent

Two things:

1. There's a problem with hardcoding "100%" in Template:End U.S. presidential ticket box, in the "Grand total" results table. I don't think Obama and McCain actually got 99.5% or more of the total popular vote. Obviously, this will be fixed eventually when we get around to including the other candidates' totals, but for now, should we forgo listing 100% as the total?
2. Should we perhaps remove the poll closing times map now that the election is over?

- dcljr (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

McCain's electoral vote count?

Can we get this consistent? The top of the article says 163 and the bottom says 174, while MSNBC gives 173 (presumably NE-2 is up in the air).

What's with the missing electoral vote, folks? GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nebraska and Maine split their electoral votes: 2 go to the statewide winner, and one goes to the winner in each congressional district. Nebraska as a whole, and its first and third districts have been won by McCain comfortably, but the second district is much closer (600-vote margin close). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.13.51 (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Figures and statistics

Is there any point in having the projection estimate tables now that the results have been declared (unofficially)? The table here, for example, suggest that only around sixty thousand people in South Carolina voted, when in fact more than one million people voted according to the BBC and USA Today.

Also, the article suggests that the 'Electoral vote' was 349 vs 174, whereas both USA Today and the BBC suggest the results were 349 vs 162. There are also differences in the 'Popular vote' between this article, USA Today and the BBC.

The US government website states that the results are unofficial: "Results for federal, state and county races are unofficial until canvass board meetings have been concluded on November 18, 2008." Shouldn't the article therefore make it clear to the readers that the figures included within the article are unofficial, and also suggest what these best guesses are based on? --Setanta747 (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Most major media outlets have called all states except Missouri and NC -- thus the current 349-163 tally. Anyone that has reported 364 for Obama or 174 for McCain would be including NC or Missouri (states they are leading in) in their totals. "162" is a bit stickier. Some sites are reporting 162 instead of 163 for McCain because there is some question about whether McCain might actually lose one of Nebraska's five delegates. Until this actually happens, though, it is probably easier to simply stick with 163 and the major networks' full Nebraska call in favor of McCain than to weigh down the page explaining this possible nuance. Samstein (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)|

I would like to call attention to this "Obama 52% 63,893,037 McCain 46% 56,404,917 Nader 1% 658,393"

Yet now his percentage points drop to .5%?

There were something like 120 million votes cast, so 0.5% sounds about right for Nader. I'm not sure what the problem is. Samstein (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Democrats to control 3 branches of government??

According to CNN, this will be the case. I didn't know the Democrats have (or will have) control of the Judiciary branch. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not the case, firstly since the judiciary is non-partisan (in theory) and since Bush was able to nominate several conservative judges to the Supreme Court during his tenure. 81.96.248.32 (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; so what's CNN yaping about. The House of Representatives & the Senate are not seperate branches of government. They make up the Legislative Branch. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Incumbent section

Who ever keeps changing the 1928 election to 1952 election, please stop. Vice President Dawes did not run for president or vice president in that year's general election. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

But in the 1952 election no candidates were incumbents Presidents/VPs?? So first time since 1952 is correct, because that was the last time it happened, so it doesn't matter that there were no incumbents in 1928 either. Please excuse me if my logic is wrong, I'm a bit confused. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're correct. I've had a long day. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

North Carolina

I believe 100% of the precints are reporting for the state, and Obama won. Why not update it? 75.131.193.54 (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Since it's so close, I think everyone wants to wait until the provisional ballots and any remaining absentee ballots are counted before calling it. Also, after that, there's the possibility of a mandatory recount (don't know NC's laws on that, though). 75.82.129.74 (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, no-one's called it yet; I've checked CNN, MSNBC, Fox. We'll need a WP:RS to call it before we can. Lampman (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's likely Obama will expand his lead, and The News Observer has declared him the winner there: http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1283680.html. Tenchi2 (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2008 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.162.118 (talk)

Bolded Sections in infobox?

As is customary in past elections, Bolding who one each part of the vote is done. By now we know obama one won all the sections, Should they be bolded? -Marcusmax(speak) 22:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't ya men won (instead of one)? GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops -Marcusmax(speak) 00:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Close States

why hasn't it been included yet?

It should be as it was included in the 2004 section. However, 100% of the results aren't in in many states quite yet.--Levineps (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

North Carolina and Missouri

We, as wiki editors, cannot be in the business of deciding who won a race. While it seems pretty likely that Obama won NC and McCain won Missouri, that info cannot be reported as fact on this page until the major networks and/or media outlets report that. Thus, I reset the EV counts to 349-163. As for the possibility of Obama sneaking an extra EV out of Nebraska -- I commented on that in the "Figures and statistics" section above. I think that one EV should be left as McCain's unless something actually happens with it. Samstein (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of proving our readers with clarity, I included the most likely final results as "Projected" totals, with an explanation at the bottom. This way, I'm giving the current info to the users, without presenting predictions as fact. I hope this doesn't upset anybody too much. I also corrected McCain's current total to account for the undecided Nebraska district. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nebraska

Omaha's electoral vote is not yet decided. The article says that McCain won, but the media is reporting that the voting is not yet finished, and it is too close to call.[2][3] I think it is a mistake based on that source used as a reference for McCain's having won the vote: clearly those unofficial SoS returns are just the results in progress, not the final results. The race should still be considered too close to call in the map and text, like Missouri and North Carolina. 134.10.127.247 (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

True, but unlike NC and MO, the national media is at least currently reporting all five EVs in McCain's column. It also may present more technical challenge than its worth to redesign (and explain) the small map in the upper right section of this wiki... unless the state actually confirms that Obama has won that EV. 71.163.75.115 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I also meant to add -- unlike the fate of an entire state's EVs such as NC or MO, the possibility of a single EV being added to Obama's column does not really affect the perception of the magnitude of the victory in terms of the whole inevitable "mandate" discussion that will be going on in the coming days. Perhaps this is not really a Wiki standards consideration, just more of a is-it-worth-tinkering-with-the-format-of-the-page consideration. Obviously, if Obama is awarded that vote, then we would have to fix it. I just don't see much harm in leaving the map as is, at least in comparison to the NC/MO situations. 71.163.75.115 (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed in that there's no need to mess with the map yet, but it can still be left off the count.75.82.129.74 (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Tool

Pollster.com[4] has a good tool to show when the electoral votes have been called by the various media outlets. So far no-one has called NC or NE-02, while only NBC has called MO. Everyone but ABC has called IN. Lampman (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Close States template from 2004

Let's use this once, the results are 100% in...

Close states

These maps show the amount of attention given by the campaigns to the close states. At left, each waving hand represents a visit from a presidential or vice-presidential candidate during the final five weeks. At right, each dollar sign represents one million dollars spent on TV advertising by the campaigns during the same time period.

States where margin of victory was under 5%

1. Wisconsin, Kerry, 0.38%
2. Iowa, Bush, 0.67%
3. New Mexico, Bush, 0.79%
4. New Hampshire, Kerry, 1.37%
5. Ohio, Bush, 2.11%
6. Pennsylvania, Kerry, 2.50%
7. Nevada, Bush, 2.59%
8. Michigan, Kerry, 3.42%
9. Minnesota, Kerry, 3.48%
10. Oregon, Kerry, 4.16%
11. Colorado, Bush, 4.67%

States where margin of victory was between 5% and 10%

1. Florida, Bush, 5.01%
2. New Jersey, Kerry, 6.68%
3. Washington, Kerry, 7.18%
4. Missouri, Bush, 7.20%
5. Delaware, Kerry, 7.60%
6. Virginia, Bush, 8.20%
7. Hawaii, Kerry, 8.75%
8. Maine, Kerry, 8.99%
9. Arkansas, Bush, 9.76%

--Levineps (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

significant outcomes

i didn't see this on any topics but i thought that adding the fact that Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina flipped from red to blue would be something significant and should be listed first in that section. Anyone agree or disagree that it should not be included or is it already included someplace else and i just missed it? i didn't want to add it without opening debate for it. thanks everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stryker1026 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

remove "Electoral College" subsection of Election Results section?

I believe this section adds nothing to the page and simply creates way too much space to scroll through. The information is entirely redundant since the map at the top right of the first section already includes everything. And there really is no need to include information on who has called the specific races (like NBC/CBS/etc) on this wiki page since it basically becomes irrelevant once election night is over. Delete? Samstein (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader References

Near the beginning it says that Ralph Nader chose to not seek the Green Party's Nomination but run as an independent. This is, in fact, false. Ralph Nader sought the Green Party nomination and lost to Cynthia McKinney. Only after this loss did he choose to run as an independent.SMAC (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nebraska's second district electoral vote

Can we leave off declaring this until it's definitively called? No news organisation nor FiveThirtyEight have specifically called it (see Pollster.com). I'm not surprised, because McCain's margin of victory, according to NE's SOS's unofficial results is only 600 votes. I assume any incidence of "163" and "174" are the networks assigning all five to McCain because he won the state. So it should be 349-162, with 364-173 projected and NE-2 labelled as "too close to call" to project for either candidate.