Jump to content

Talk:2000 United States presidential election/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Old discussions

  1. Old talk archived at Talk:United States presidential election, 2000/Archive 1 by Oliver P. 03:58 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC). Summary of old talk:
  2. Old talk archived at Talk:United States presidential election, 2000/Archive 2 by Rbsteffes. Summary of old talk:
    • Wording debate on how to phrase recounts
    • Debate about rulings in Supreme Court
    • A few other points of clarification
  3. Old talk archived on 2/2/2008. Summary of old talk:
    • Just needed to be archived!

Finances for 2000 Election?

Could someone add the campaign spending for various candidates,as was done for the 2004 election article?67.159.70.74 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Current Images of the Candidates?

This is a minor issue but should the image of Al Gore under the headline "The election" be a picture from the election, rather than a relatively recent image of him? The same goes for Bush's image. Does Wikipedia have no other images of these two available to it?--Lordhelpus 00:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

agreed, these should be contemporaneous to the election. there's a multitude of images that should be available. Anastrophe 01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Concur. — BQZip01 — talk 05:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a sentence (or more) got dropped?

At the beginning of the section "Republican Party nomination" there seems to be either a(t least one) missing sentence or a very poorly written introduction. It *starts* with two parenthetical notes (probably meant to be part of the preceding figure?).

Then we have the awkward first sentence: "Following Bob Dole's loss to Bill Clinton in the 1996 election, George W. Bush became the frontrunner ...". This wouldn't be so bad if it followed a sentence about the '96 election. However, as it is, it suggests a causal relationship, as thought Bob Dole's loss specifically caused George Bush to be the frontrunner rather than McCain or someone else. If you want to say that George Bush became the frontrunner right after the '96 election, something like "Immediately following the 1996 election, George W. Bush became the frontrunner" would be much better.

Worst of all, the first mentions of many of the candidates are by last name only: "These included Alexander, Dole, Kasich, Quayle, and Smith". Only Bob Dole had been mentioned previously in the text at this point.Originalname37 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bush photo switch

Hello all,

I swapped the current photo of George W. Bush to his first official photo from 2001. This is done to show what then Governor Bush looked like in 2000, compared to 2003. For an example of this, compare the photo of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1952 and 1956 election article. 65.184.40.8 (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is neccessary! Reagan also had the same Picture 1980 and 1984. (15 January 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.213.238 (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very misleading set of photos - Gore's from circa 1994 and Bush's from circa 2003. It gives the completely wrong impression of the similarity in age at the time of the election. Zephjclark (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


Bush's Homestate

bush is from conneticut not texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.74.153 (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Might have been born there but from the age of something like 1 he has lived in Texas. I'd hate to believe that I'm actually a New Yorker even though I've lived in California since 6 months of age! CT isn't his "homestate" it's just the one he was born in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.39.125 (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


I agree--if Hillary Clinton is the Senator from New York, then George Bush (who was then governor of Texas) must be said to be from Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.157.105 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

italics not needed

In the far right box, the number of electoral votes for Bush seems to be in italics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.196.51 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

Even though the Nader-LaDuke ticket, didn't get any 'electoral votes' & had a small popular vote? It was considered to have determined the outcome of the election, in the Bush-Cheney ticket's favour. Therefore, should we have Nader's image at the top of the article (as we have Perot, in the 1992 election article)? GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but he did get less than 3 percent of the popular vote. the only reason Perot is on the 1992 one is because he got 18.9 percent of the popular vote, but ironically, he had no impact on the outcome, as exit polls showed the pro-abortion pro-gays-in-military candidate taking equally from both candidates when asking Perot voters their second choices. Nader changed history and should be included, but probably won't due to his anemic popular vote total, unlike George Wallace and Ross Perot.Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
In light of Nader's inclusion at the top of the 2004 election page, in which election Nader achieved a much lower percentage of the popular vote than in the 2000 election, and in which Nader had much less of an effect on the election overall than in 2000, does anyone else agree that Nader's image should be included at the top of this article (or, conversely, that his image should be removed from the '04 election page)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.178.39 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There's not much real evidence, only partisan frustration, to suggest Nader had a lot of impact on the election. Running down the numbers, in 2004 in many states Nader achieved a much, much lower percentage of the votes and Bush still won those battleground states (like Florida, Ohio, and others). In fact, in several contested states Bush won the same margin in 2004 as in 2000, even with many Nader voters seemingly switching to the Democrat. In Florida 2004, with Nader getting only .43% of the vote, Bush carried the state by almost 400,000 votes. So, even with many of the Nader voters switching to John Kerry in 2004, Bush won the state in a larger margin. So yes, Nader being in the race might have had severe impact on the election in Florida, but not nationwide. And, many of those Florida Nader voters might have voted for another third-party candidate or simply not voted. Voting patterns of micro-subsets like independent/third-party voters are notoriously difficult to analyze and predict. To say that Nader merely threw the election to Bush is a simplistic analysis at best. It is my general feeling that the third-largest vote-getter should always be listed. I think that's the most logical, NPOV approach to take, rather than debating whether a candidate had "impact" on the race or not. By that standard, Pat Buchanan should be listed right up there with Nader - he had a fairly large impact in Florida, as I seem to recall. XINOPH | TALK 03:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nader had a big impact on the outcome of the election. So should be in the info box. Ben1111au (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


I too agree that Nader should be in there, Strom Thurmond had a lower percent in the 48 election and he is in the image box. 24.188.40.36 (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thurmond got 39 electoral votes. Nader got none. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree let add nader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.220.113 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Potential candidates who chose not to run"?

What exactly is this section supposed to mean? Shouldn't it include just about every U.S. citizen over the age of 35? It seems kind of silly, so unless anyone objects, I'll get rid of it. --kine (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I already went ahead and deleted it. NuclearWarfare (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm sure Wikipedia's right-wing editors will change this, I added the 543,895 vote figure in the lead paragraph of the story. The fact that Gore got 543,895 more votes than Bush was buried deep in the story; I feel that in an article about an election, that this info should be in the first paragraph. I realize it's painful for Bush supporters to admit Gore got 543,895 more votes than their hero. But in an article about an election, this should be in the first paragraph (after all, the electoral vote numbers are in the first paragraph). I'm sure Wikipedia's right-wing editors will change this, but I figured I'd give it a shot, in order to try to balance out Wikipedia's extreme right-wing bias and adoration of Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone from the Democratic National Committee is upset that the article isn't as liberal as they'd like. Unfortunately for you, the presidential election isn't decided by popular vote - why would it be in the lead? Removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.35.56 (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd say this should be included in the first paragraph. When most people see "election" they think of "democratic", where the person who gets the most vote whens. I'd say the fact that this election was not democratic is one of the most important aspects of the article. The numbers should be there to reflect it.Paxuniv (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree the popular vote figures should be in the opening paragraph I also think you are a total fucking idiot for thinking the US elections are anything other than Democratic. 202.67.84.37 (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A reading of WP:CIVIL is most highly recommended... 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
When you win more votes than your opponent and lose the election, that's not democratic. This comprises four elections in the history of the United States. I didn't say that none were democratic. Paxuniv (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nader near the top?

Should we keep him in the box? Discuss ;) : NuclearWarfare (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer listing only the candidates who get electoral votes. But, I do understand why people would want Nader (image) & LaDuke in the Top Infobox (and Perot-Stockdale in the 1992 related article). GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I realise this is a bit late, but I disagree with GoodDay to an extent. In the 1992 election, Perot received a significant share of the vote without a single electoral vote. That said, I'm not sure about Nader in the infobox. He played a critical role in the election, but less for the number of votes than for role as a "spoiler". Obviously no one felt strongly enough to protest his removal, so it's probably fine as-is. Recognizance (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nader had a big impact on the outcome of the election. So should be in the info box. I have try add him to box may but was told NO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben1111au (talk • contribs) 04:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Electoral Votes

I've reverted the 266 + 1 faithless elector; it's too messy looking in the Infobox. The faithless elector is dealt with in the article content. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There are 538 electoral Votes: 435 Seats in Congress + 100 seats in the Senate = 535 + the 23rd Amendment (giving DC at least 3 EV) = 538 total EVs.

Someone needs to fix the map so DC reads 3 EVs not only 2 EVs see the 23rd Amendment, Section 1 "...A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State..."

If it were a State it would have 2 Senators and at least 1 Representative making the total at least 3. Only 3 b/c WY and DE only have 3 so DC can't have more then them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGrupp10799 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "SCprimary" :
    • [http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=34610 South Carolina US President - Republican Primary Race - Feb 19, 2000]
    • [http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=34610 SC US President - Republican Primary Race - Feb 19, 2000]

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennessee

Was Gore's HOME state. That and the fact that its electoral votes were much more than needed for a Gore win is highly relevant. None of the "close" states could have given Gore the Presidency, Tennessee would have. It's also a fact that no one even KNOWS this because it's never talked about. It's an important detail of history long overlooked or dismissed, that if Gore could simply have won his HOME state, the Florida vote would have had no meaning whatsoever. Had Bush lost Texas, that would be included without any resistance, no doubt.MerrimacVI (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

While losing his home state is relevant, in this context it is somewhat miselading. Your statement that "None of the 'close' states could have given Gore the Presidency" is factually incorrect. Again, I'm not against including that he lost his home state, but in an accurate context. --71.178.193.134 (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

GRAFITTI

SOMEONE HAS ADDED 'I LIKE MEN' IN THE TOP PARAGRAPH, HOW AMUSING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.127.210 (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone changed "Governor George W. Bush of Texas" to "Governor|a big fat lieing idiot George W. Bush of Texas". "Lying" was misspelled, and Mr. Bush currently appears to be of average height/weight ratio. No other disputes, but for the sake of consistency with the other entries I have changed his title to just "Governor George W. Bush of Texas" Wikopath (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Map error

The map shows DC as having 2 electoral votes. It actually has three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.243.122 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Four Times

The intro of the article says: "This was the third time in American history that a candidate won the presidency without receiving at least a plurality of the popular vote; it also happened in the elections of 1876 and 1888." This was actually the fourth time, as John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson in 1824, but became President anyway (Jackson came back and beat him in 1828). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.10.172 (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The first reference?

The first reference isn't a reference at all, its just a statement with no external link! This is very shady that this was even allowed to happen. I'm going to remove and please feel free to add when there is a valid external link to reference. Inseeisyou (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you managed to remove all references. (User:Mateat) 5:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

References section is missing from article

I keep clicking on the links with little numbers in square backets above the line, and nothing happens. Also, a section entitled References is missing from the article. All the other Wikipedia articles seem to work correctly. Can someone please look into this. (User: Mateat) 8:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The previous version (dated 08:14, 12 October 2008) still has the references; the last one (dated 08:15, 12 October 2008) does not. (User Mateat) 9:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateat (talk • contribs)

Yeah, sorry about that. Not sure what I did but somehow I killed all references. Anyways for now I deleted the portion that didn't have a reference other than a mere statement in the reference section with no external link. Anyone feel free to add again when you can provide a verifiable source. Sorry for the confusion there and the bad edit Inseeisyou (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Two Tidbits

Noticed two little bits: 1. Under Notable Endorsements, Steve Forbes is listed as being endorsed by “Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin”. While the matter is properly sourced, I question whether or not the endorsement is “notable”. It may well be “notable” now, but it could hardly be considered “notable at the time”. I could see the issue going either way, but wonder whether we are defining notable as being relevant in some meaningful to the election at the time, or being notable now.

2. Under Post Recount, Bush is dubbed “President-elect” initially “after Florida was decided” but in the next paragraph it states “Bush subsequently became the President-elect after the electoral votes from all 50 states and the District of Columbia were certified by the joint session of Congress. Bush took the oath of office on January 20, 2001”. The latter seems correct in the techinical use of the term “President-elect”, so perhaps in the first line “presumed” should preface “President-elect”.204.152.239.216 (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Participation

I was looking for info on participation, and got surprised there is none (at least didn't find it). I don't know exactly how the American election system works, but I'd say that from all the people able to vote, just a fraction actually did so, and those figures should be easily available, just they're not here. Does somebody have more info on this? - Keta (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Voter Demographics

Why isn't there a list for voter demographics for this election? 1992, 1996 and 2004 have them? I'm hoping someone can come up with a source for this and put it on the page. Edgar (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_4&oldid=1142394921"