Talk:Christine O'Donnell

70% + 29% + 4% = ?

I'm looking at the 2006 general election results. How many votes did she get? - Schrandit (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's "right". When you look at the 2006 returns at the Delaware Commissioner of Elections site, you'll see that her write-in votes, though pretty numerous, weren't counted in the official reporting of the election results, which only included candidates whose names were on the ballot. I've added an explanatory footnote to this effect. Life definitely isn't fair to write-in candidates ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit

[copied here from BubbaCrowell's talk page]
Though the NPR cite that was previously posted said that Christine sued ISI for gender discrimination, the lawsuit was officially filed b/c of wrongful termination. BubbaCrowell (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably it was filed for wrongful termination due to gender discrimination (i.e., they aren't mutually exclusive). If she really runs, maybe some more news stories will come out on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how this should be covered. - Schrandit (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BubbaCrowell's original edit summary said "ISI lawsuit removed. It didn't seem like vital information since it was dropped. It seemed like a biased piece of data placed for political reasons to smear her good name". But that made no sense – why would filing a gender discrimination suit smear the name of the filer? Discrimination happens all the time in America, still, and fighting back against it is nothing for her or her supporters to be embarrassed about. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. - Schrandit (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

General Edits/Controversy section?

I just made some general edits to the Biography section of this article. It seems to me that the biography is a little bit too lengthy, especially the last paragraph. Also, there has been a lot of talk of recent controversies surrounding Christine O'Donnell, including several cases of unpaid campaign workers, as well as a story about Christine sneaking into a state party fundraiser without paying for tickets. I think that these are two issues that may be worthwhile to include (given that there are accurate, verifiable sources, of course.) What do you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.20.208 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree the 2010 paragraph smells a bit of recentism (I'm probably the guilty party), but the rest of the biography is too short. I've tried in vain to find out more about her upbringing or her business activities. As for controversies sections, they're a bad idea, but something important enough can be worked into the mainline biographical narrative. Show us the sources and we'll see. My own take: It's clear that she's never had much money in any of her campaigns, so unpaid campaign workers wouldn't be a surprise; as for the second item, if she sneaked into an overpriced, overbaked party fundraising dinner most people would probably salute her ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I like some of your edits you made. Can we maybe try to get rid of some stuff in the 5th paragraph of the biography section? It is the longest paragraph in the entire article and it gives a lengthy description of detailed events that happened right before she announced her candidacy. It's really not that interesting. Also, does anyone know what job title she held at ISI, RNC, etc? I think that may be good information. I am going to combine the 5th and 6th paragraphs into something that is slightly more condensed. I am also going to include sourced information regarding the two major controversies that have been discussed especially since her announcement. I believe that due to the large amount of media attention they have received, they are most likely noteworthy and important for the reader to see. I will do my best to present both sides, please let me know if you think any changes should be made and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.100.123 (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with your condensed version of the 2010 material, although I made a few tweaks and minor restorations to it. But your "controversies" material is more problematic. Please read WP:Reliable sources; some random guy or gal's blog (Jud Bennett/Nancy Willing) is not a reliable source, and nothing in it can be used. Then read WP:PRIMARY regarding interpretations of primary materials. Without the blog, O'Donnell's FEC reports become a primary document, which requires a reliable secondary source to provide interpretation of it. How common are those "notices of failures to file"? Are they just technical warnings or something more serious? You need a mainstream newspaper or radio/TV report that discusses them and their import, then it can be included. The WBOC story is a reliable source, and is used elsewhere in the article, but it doesn't support your claim that "O'Donnell declined to accept any further questions or media interviews after the incident", just that she didn't give a one-on-one interview with the TV station after her campaign announcement. The WDEL story also is a reliable source, but all that it supports is that one (not several) of her campaign workers didn't get paid. I've reworded and kept that in, but moved it to the 2008 paragraph since that's what it pertains to. Everything else I've taken out. Wikipedia is very, very strict about these kinds of things in biographies of living persons, campaign or no campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jud Bennett is a very popular blogger in the state of Delaware that many attentive voters in the state are aware of. I have provided a government source to display these notices issued by the FEC. I think that readers will easily be able to interpret that a problem exists if the FEC has 5 filed "notices of failure to file" in the past 8 quarters. Blogger Jud Bennett confirms that this is a problem for Christine. I also believe that that the unpaid campaign worker story deserves a little bit more attention, especially considering that it is definitely true that there are multiple people that have the same story (I just can't find a reliable source on this yet).

I have to reiterate what Wasted Time R said "Please read WP:Reliable sources; some random guy or gal's blog (Jud Bennett/Nancy Willing) is not a reliable source, and nothing in it can be used. Then read WP:PRIMARY regarding interpretations of primary materials. Without the blog, O'Donnell's FEC reports become a primary document, which requires a reliable secondary source to provide interpretation of it. How common are those "notices of failures to file"? Are they just technical warnings or something more serious? You need a mainstream newspaper or radio/TV report that discusses them and their import, then it can be included." Just because some people in Delaware listen to Mr. Bennett doesn't make him a reliable source & worthy of interpreting the FEC's report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BubbaCrowell (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"failed to filed 5 of the last 8 quarterly reports." That is a valueless statement that the reader can certainly draw just by going to the source. The reader can clearly see what is going on here without the help of an additional source. If you had a police report with no news story, would be police report be unusable? I am reading this line on the Wikipedia page regarding reliable sources: Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. I certainly don't think that BARS primary sources from being used without a secondary source to interpret them. I was very careful to only state facts and not draw conclusions. Also, does anybody know what Christine did at the RNC and at ISI?? I think that would be good information. Also, how often does she appear on news programs and talk shows? THANKS

I'm adding it back. There is a primary source and we have interpretation from a secondary source. Delaware does not have any sort of large media market, so blogs are generally how many people get their political news. Jud Bennett is a popular blogger in Sussex County with several thousand subscribers to his email newsletters. Of course the "news" isn't coming directly from his blog, it is coming from a U.S. government document. Jud Bennett simply provides the analysis that is not required by Wikipedia, but the analysis that you are asking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.100.122 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead of deleting this entry entirely, can we try to make it conform to Wikipedia standards? Either by finding a secondary source or by stating this in a manner that does NOT create any "original research" as wikipedia calls it. Again, wikipedia in NO WAY BARS primary sources from being used. I think stating that 5 of the last 8 quarterly reports have not been filed in a timely manner is not doing any "original research". Can you please tell me which part of the entry is "original research"? There must be a way we can use this important information. 128.175.100.122 (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) User:128.175.100.122, you are obviously unfamiliar with how Wikipedia's sourcing rules work. Even the most popular bloggers in the nation – DailyKos, Powerline, Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, Kevin Drum, name any of them you want – are not allowed as sources here. It doesn't matter how many or few mainstream media sources there are in an area, they are the only ones that can be used. The News Journal is a good newspaper, and many of Wikipedia's articles on Delaware political figures and races use it as a source. So if and when the News Journal, or one of these radio or TV stations that have covered state politics, or some other mainstream media source, writes that O'Donnell has been in meaningful violation of FEC regulations, then we can incorporate that here with the appropriate citation. And if the News Journal and the other mainstream outlets don't ever put out a story on this, it may be because they have decided that the missing or late filings are of no great importance, or on par with the rate of missed filings of other candidates, or just a technicality, or whatever. Their judgment on this matter's important becomes Wikipedia's judgment. That may seem foolish or limiting to you, but that's how WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:RS work. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Since 128.175.100.122/123 has now reinserted the material for a fourth time, I've posted this matter at WP:BLP/N. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly understand. I think that it's a good idea to let others decide. I'm not trying to put up negative information as much as I am just trying to paint a more complete picture of what a Christine O'Donnell biography should look like. The other big problem that I see with this article is that readers may be confused as to what Christine O'Donnell really does as a career. It says that she got her degree, worked for the RNC and ISI (doing what? I might add), then all of a sudden ran for U.S. Senate. Is there any information that we could provide that would discuss how she made the rise from college graduate to U.S. Senator, because right now there aren't too many details in between. 128.175.100.122 (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I've never been able to find much biographical information about her. But it doesn't take much to explain how she could become a senatorial candidate: it's a very small state, and the 2006 and 2008 elections were hopeless races for Republicans against an entrenched and popular incumbents. Any politico with real potential doesn't want to be the sacrificial lamb, so state party officials often have to turn to fairly obscure figures when recruiting. Hence the likes of O'Donnell. Hell, if you look at Electoral history of Joe Biden, you'll see that none of Biden's other re-election opponents even have Wikipedia articles, they're all redlinks. This year in Delaware, of course, is different. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Update — This solid, mainstream newspaper source — Gibson, Ginger (2010-03-20). "Delaware politics: O'Donnell faces campaign debt, back-tax issues". The News Journal. Wilmington. Retrieved 2010-03-25. — now covers the FEC citings, the ISI suit, and much more that's been in question. I've started updating the article to reflect this, will do more tonight. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hit piece and bias

With all due respect, the O'Donnell biography as it was before my amateur edits, reads like hit piece. It said she was "lived for a while" in Hollywood and DC, making her sound like some sort of nomad. She lived for years in DC, working for the RNC. It talks about NBC's early call of the 2008 election. It doesn't mention that O'Donnell got 35,000 more votes than ANY Republican candidate had ever received against Biden in his six previous races (see Barone, Almanac of American Politics). It doesn't mention that she spent $116,000 while Biden spent more than $4.9 million, in addition to Obama-Bisen's $200 million. (see Barone again). It makes a big deal of O'Donnell's piddly $23,000 in campaign debt. Gee, how does that compare with Hillary's nearly $23 MILLION in campaign debt, which Bill has been recently still been trying to pay off by auctioning a "Lunch with Bill" (for $5 a participant)? Hillary's debt gets a one-sentence mention in her bio. O'Donnell's debt, one-thousandth of Hillary's, is used to make her seem like a deadbeat. Compare Joe Biden's bio wtih Christine O'Donnell's. The biggest controversy in Biden's personal life is his claim, made at the University of Iowa and later at the Univ. of Delaware and elsewhere, that his first wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver, someone, as Biden repeatedly said, "drank his lunch." True, the Biden Wiki bio does say that the driver was "exonerated," which itself is not true. He was never charged or accused (except maliciously by Biden) of breaking any laws. Finally, after years of Biden's false statements, delawareonline (of the Wilmington News-Journal) published a story detailing Biden's false statements, made for God-knows-what-reason. Somehow that never made it into Biden's Wiki bio. Hey guys, what's going on at Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkTop65 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your wording change on the "lived for a while" and on removing the early call of the election and with your including the fundraising differential. (On the latter, however, you need to add your source where you got the figures from. Almost every addition you have made is without a source, and I have tagged all of them. Worse, you sometimes made additions in place but kept the old source in, which can be quite misleading.) But your statistic regarding O'Donnell's vote total is just an attempt at spin, because the vote total size is purely due to her running during a presidential election year with high turnout and due to the state having a larger population compared to previous decades. The only consistent metric is vote percentage, and if you look at Electoral history of Joe Biden, you'll see that Biden got his largest percentage of the vote in her race of any in his senatorial career. As for campaign debt, I agree it looks proportionately bigger in this article than Hillary's, but that's because Hillary's is so much longer. I've been frustrated that there isn't more biographical information about O'Donnell available, especially her childhood and her non-political professional career, and would welcome any you could supply. But it's got to have a good source!

As for your complaints about the Biden article, that article says "the truck driver was cleared of any wrongdoing" and then the accompanying footnote says "Biden has on at least two occasions alleged that the truck driver was under the influence of alcohol, but this was not the case." This was the formulation worked out by the editors there, but you are welcome to raise the issue again on Talk:Joe Biden. The thing with Biden is, he blabbers so much that he's likely to say anything twice in his career, so the significance of this isn't quite as big as you believe. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Signs of bias: The previous version said that Christine O'Donnell "tried to make an issue" of Joe Biden's 2008 double candidacy (for Senate and for vice-president). Frankly, she either made it an issue (which presumably it was for at least osme people) or she didn't. What's the purpose of the "tried" part? And what's the business about "NBC called" the 2008 election early? Remember when all the networks (save one) "called" the Florida election for George Bush? In the minds of many, O'Donnell achieved something remarkable in 2008. She got tens of thousands MORE votes than any Republican had previously -- and did it against a candidate who didn't need to spend a nickel to win. In 2010, a recent Rasmussen Poll (July 15) showed her running AHEAD of the Democrat Senate candidate (Chris Coons), who had raised 12 times more money this year than O'Donnell. Of course, that's not as juicy as a mistaken "tax lien" against her on a house she hadn't owned in years. A recent Human Events article by John Gizzi noted that O'Donnell had raised $30,000 in roughly a 30-hour period. Can we expect that information in future edits of O'Donnell's bio? Or does that just drop down Orwell's "memory hole?" Why are the same financial challenges the Obamas outlined in 2008 a plus for them, and a major negative for O'Donnell? In 2000 at the Dem. National Convention, Barack Obama tried to rent a car and his credit card waw rejected. In York, PA, in 2008 Michelle Obama talked about being besieged by bill collectors for student loan charges and other expenses. It was presented as an approving sign of the Obama's "humble beginnings." O'Donnell's upbringing with five siblings in a small house in Moorestown, NJ, and with a father working three jobs, were a lot more "humble" than anything Michelle or Barack ever encountered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkTop65 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your changed wording on "tried to make an issue" and, as stated above, with removing the early election call as irrelevant. But again as above, her raw vote total is a function of population and turnout, not her; percentage is the key. Regarding the Rasmussen poll, you neglect to mention that Castle has a good deal bigger lead over Coons than O'Donnell does, but it can stay in nonetheless. The $30,000 fundraising can stay in as long as you give it a source, but I hope you realize that $30,000 is still peanuts in a modern Senatorial race. Indeed what's remarkable about O'Donnell is how she's had to scrape for every dollar; she's obviously not connected to any funding fatcats. Her humble origins are important to the article, but again, you need to add sources!

At the same time that you add biographical material about her, you cannot just delete or will away well-reported material about her college payments, her financial problems, and so forth. Mainstream news sources such as the Delaware News-Journal have found these important to report in detail and so too this article must summarize them. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally, what this article needs more than anything is a good photo of her that can be used in the infobox at the top. Alas, Wikipedia has unbelievably restrictive rules about using photographs and other images that are copyrighted. If you're connected to the world of Delaware politics, see if you can contact her campaign and get them to give Wikipedia a photo with the necessary image rights; see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for more. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A nobody

same old wikipedia....for now Christine O'Donnell is a NOBODY, so get off her back...all of these stupid skunks on the left, who have nothing better to do all day because they sit in their cubicles surfing the internet while they supposed to be working in their gov't jobs....makes me want to puke....take some similar nobody shlub on the left who is running for some office this year - is their wikipedia page full of bullshit charges?? change is coming for the lefties and they wont like this change70.0.182.170 (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

O'Donnell may be little-known nationally but she isn't a 'nobody'. She's a three-time contender for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator who won the nomination once and is making a serious effort to win it for a second time. If you want an example of a Democratic 'nobody' running for the Senate who has a WP article full of unflattering information, try Alvin Greene. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

horribly biased.

Compare this article to Mike Castle's or Chris Coon's. This one is clearly written with a focus on exaggerations and dirt used to attack her. Therefore it doesn't conform to the NPOV ideal. In a political season this is especially telling about who are the mudslingers of the election.