Talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

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)

A note about Washington's primary on Feb 19th - the results did not count for Democrats (Clinton won) and only the Feb 9th caucus results counted (Obama won). For the Republicans, the results of the primary were counted 50/50 with the results of the caucus (McCain won). Chassin (talk) 15:03, 6 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. Tim meh ! 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. Tim meh ! 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. Tim meh ! 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. —kur ykh 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. —kur ykh 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. —kur ykh 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. —kur ykh 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?)

If you don't think so, go ahead and restore the sentence, "Cheney's decision marks the first time since 1920 that neither an incumbent president nor vice president has even sought his party's nomination".

"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.)

Yes, Truman's name was in the NH ballot, I never said anything else.

(What's so strange about Coolidge and Dawes being listed as candidates and also not running?)

Well, the article now says "the first time since the 1928 election that neither one was a candidate for his party's nomination". Both Dawes and Coolidge were in the ballot 1928.[1] Does that not make them "candidates" in the same way as Truman was a candidate in 1952, although they did not actively seek or run for the positions. By the way, the article that is used as source for the section says "...1928, the last time there was no incumbent president or vice-president on the ballot", which obviously is not true.[2]

"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...)

(S)he removed the sentece about 1920. We were also discussing 1920. Vints (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"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)

Wowsers; I hope this settles things. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 6 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
Presidential candidate	Party	Home state	Count	Percentage	Electoral vote	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	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

Notes on results

Finance

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

Source: FEC^[1] ^{[dead link]}

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

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.^[2]

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^[3]

Analysis

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.[3] 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? ~A H 1^(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!

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

I made this but didnt know if it was ok to put on Wiki. It an animation from the 2004 election county map to the 2008 map that uses the blue to purple to red or red to purple to blue (however you want to look at it). I thought it was neat since states like Indiana and Virginia havent gone democratic since the 60s or whateverUser talk:Einlanzer

http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/4089/electoratechangekc4.gif

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)

Significant Outcomes

Please add the following: Obama is the first Democrat to be elected president without carrying the state of Missouri. He is also the first Democrat since 1916 to win election without carrying the state of West Virginia. Mango2002 (talk) 17:10,6 November 2008(UTC)

Missouri hasn't been called yet, so we don't know if that first statement is true. Tim meh ! 02:10, 9 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)

According to the Omaha World-Herald and KPTM news Obama Has won the District 2 vote. http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=9313524&nav=menu606_2 http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10481441

Yes Obama now has the lead in the 2nd Congressional District in Nebraska after mail-in ballots have been counted. He leads McCain by 1,200 votes with 5,000 provisional ballots still to be counted. Omaha's newspaper has called the race for Obama so that means its a 4-1 McCain-Obama split in the electors. The major news organizations like CNN and MSNBC still show 364-163 in their totals giving McCain that 1 elector but I submitted a tip to CNN that their total should reflect 365-162. Wikipedia's total should also reflect this. Article: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10481441 Leahcim506 (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Now they changed it to it being McCain that won the second district, and CNN called it for McCain, so we should at least leave it neutral and take the current image that gives is to Obama. Carthradge (talk 8:39, 14 Novermber 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)

Then why was that mentioned, when Bush got his 62 million votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.54.47.214 (talk) 20:49, 10 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)

Good grief. It is -because- I -have- spoken with non-English speakers extensively, in their language and mine (so I have been on both sides of this) that I considered his speaking odd because I thought it -wasn't- like a non-native speaker. I don't consider the speech of non-native speakers odd. I have only your contention that he is French; what say you of my contention that his grammar changes from one type to another throughout his writing? It is not ridicule, it is fact checking.

This is a serious accusation, but for a serious reason. Impersonating an ethnicity or nationality has exactly the same consequences and more, as the ridicule you accuse me of. I am attempting to prevent defamation, not promote it.

Have a care with your double quotation marks. I don't call people foreigners, knowing that our positions on the planet Earth are relative.

A mere skim of the Talk: page contributions of User: Yug [[4]] reveals that you have been snowed. For whatever reason, he impersonates a user not fluent in English when he chooses, and writes perfect English the rest of the time. Or he is two people on one account. Or I am wrong. I cease to care. No apology. Anarchangel (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be making a lot of presumptions here. Firstly, you said he was a "faux foreigner" which implied he is lying when he says he is a foreigner. I actually agree that the term foreigner is inprecise (everyone is a foreigner) but it is the word he used, and you accused him of lying. In the context of his statement, he made sense. He was talking about a US campaign issue and he was a foreigner for that as am I (and like him I do actually find the way that Obama is often treated solely as being African-American even though he is biracial (particularly since I am biracial and multi-ethnic), but unlike him I've been aware of that for a while and somewhat understand the reasons for it). And I can say there are a lot of people, particularly Americans, who think of anyone who isn't from what country they are from as a foreigner, the fact that this isn't you is good (although I do not you simply said he was lying when he said he was a "foreigner", rather then saying something like 'we are all foreigners and it seems to me you're less of a 'foreinger' then you claim). Next, proving that he purposely writes in an odd fashion DOES NOT prove that he is lying when he says he is French and Chinese or non-American, which appeared to me to be what you were saying when you accused him of being a faux foreigner. In other words, even if he is putting it on, I see no reason to doubt that he really speaks French and Chinese and is not an American, which IMHO is basically what you were saying when you said he was a "faux-foreigner", even if you had not intended that. (If you had simply wanted to imply that he was putting on the poor spelling and other issues, you should have said so, rather then implied he was an American pretending to be a "foreigner".) Thirdly, the fact that he writes well sometimes, but not so well othertimes doesn't really prove anything. (I'm presuming your claim is accurate, I see no reason to look at his contribs since from what you've said so far, I don't see any reason they matter). If you were to look at my contribs, although I'm a native English speaker, the quality of how well I write varies a lot. Especially if you check my first post on a subject (since I rarely proof-read but do often fix mistakes if I notice them after I've clicked post), you'd find this even more obvious. This is hardly unusual. A lot of people don't spend extensive amounts if time proofreading what they write on wiki and for a variety of reasons (e.g. how tired they are, what sort of mood they are in), they may revert to old habits, they may not correct mistakes, etc. Even more so if you're a non-native speaker, you may be able to write well if you take the time to proof-read and think carefully when writing, which you will probably do if you're writing a thesis for example, but not so much if you're writing a comment on wiki. It's good that you have extensive interaction with non-native speakers. This doesn't explain how many Chinese & French speakers you've interacted with however. Again, if you haven't interacted extensively with people who speak BOTH Chinese & French, or otherwise studied their habits, it's grossly unfair for you to accuse them of lying based on your own uninformed preconceptions of what they should talk like. And for my experience with non-native speakers, primarily of Asian descent, they do often have a lot of habits (of phrasing, grammar, punctuation, spelling and although not relevant to this discussion accent and word pronounciation) that many native, particularly American and British native speaker will find odd. They habits vary from speaker to speaker, and some have habits of their own that may not be common amongst other people like the, but it would be unfair to accuse them of putting on these habits. Whether or not you find these habits odd is somewhat immaterial, they are there and if you really have extensive experience with people who speak English as a second (or third, or fourth or whatever) language you must have experienced them. The simple fact is, that there are a lot of non-native English speakers in this world (very likely well over a billion). It's rather likely that some of them, for a variety of reasons, appear to change grammar from sentence to sentence (at least according to you). The vast majority of them don't do it on purpose, so they appear foreign, and to accuse someone of doing it on purpose requires good evidence, of which you are sorely lacking. All you have is your experience, which doesn't even appear to be that relevant to this case (since you didn't mention it, I'm going to assume you haven't interacted with many people are highly fluent in both French and Chinese). On the other hand, we have Yug who has contributed to the French wikipedia (so we know he speaks French, if a French speaker were to look at his French contribs, we wouuld even get a guage of how well he speaks French), to CKJ character articles and graphics (so we know he understands them quite well) and who claims to be studying Chinese at a Taiwanese university (so it's likely wherever he grew up, he has picked up some habits from there, and it's also rather likely he has a resonable command of Chinese). He also claims to have visited wikimania, and have an interaction he did not like with, I believe, Jimbo Wales. It's likely then that he is a real person at least and some details could be confirmed from looking into his wikimania attendence, so he's probably not an 80 year old professional English writer who has been speaking English all his life but likes to impersonate a non-native speaker. Given these details, it seems to me we should accept him for his word, i.e. WP:AGF. If you continue to refuse to, I strongly urge you to provide more evidence. P.S. I would have to concur with 202 here that I don't find Yug's writing in any way unusual for someone who speaks Chinese or for that matter Malay or Tamil natively. But I admit though, I'm not the kind of person who extensively studies how non-native speakers write so I can accuse others of putting it on, so I wouldn't know that well. I usually just read what they write, and if I understand them I accept them at face-value. For me, provided I can understand them, even in the unlikely event that are putting it on, that's none of my concern. I don't see any reason to ridicule people for not being able to write English perfectly, especially when they know 2 or 3 other languages besides English (sadly I only know 1 other language), so if someone really wants to 'put on' a poor command of English that just reflects poorly on them then other people. The fact is as I've already said, that there are many people with a poor level of English, and that usually shouldn't reflect poorly on them. P.P.S. I nearly made several errors in writing this. E.g. I nearly substituted write when I had intended right. Since when I'd intended sense. If I were more tired or some such, I may never have noticed. Indeed I had to resist leaving them in there just to show how silly your accusation was but realised how dumb that would be so didn't. And as I've said, I'm a native speaker however all these mistakes, are real, I don't make them up to make a fool of non-native speakers (as I've said I find that dumb). P.P.P.S. There are actually other reasons why someone might choose to purposely write poorly on purpose. For example I have done so to make it less clear where I come from and also to make it more difficult for people to recognise me by my writing style in some cases. The first obviously IMHO doesn't apply to Yug, but the second one could. None of this is about making fun of people with a poor command of English, it's just that it's a way to cloud people's minds about who you are. If people want to do so, that's up to them, and if you want to try and recognise those people, that's up to you, but it's still another thing entirely to accuse people of writing poorly to make fun of non-native speakers, or even to doubt that they are who they say they are on wikipedia, particularly when they've given a lot of info that implies at least some of what they say is true. Even more so since this is wikipedia where we're supposed to WP:AGF not some forum where you can track down the "faux-foreigners" to name and shame them Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 7 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)

He definitely appears to speak both Chinese and French which is a key point. If he speaks both well and learnt both before he learnt English, it's likely that the way he speaks English will be influenced by both languages so you'd need to know other people like him, not just people who speak French or Chinese. Note also it's beyond simply what languages he speaks. For example, there are certain habits/mannerisms that are quite common amongst Malaysias, some of them I still show. These are common regardless of whether you speak Malay, Cantonese, Hokkien, Mandarin, Tamil or whatever natively, and often even if you don't speak Malay (which most Malaysians do at least to some extent). Yet I wouldn't expect to find them in India, China or Indonesia (Singapore perhaps). So there is also a geographical component. Then there would also likely be a class component. In other words, there are a whole bunch of issues you'd need to know which we don't, before you can really say this person doesn't sound like an average person of who they claim they are (and even then of course, there are a lot of people who are not average). We don't actually know if he has ever lived in France or a French speaking place (like Quebec). I presumed he was French native because he has worked on the French wikipedia and another French website but hasn't worked on any Chinese sites, but I could easily be wrong and it's not of great importance IMHO except that without knowing this detail, it's even harder for anyone to make the accusation that the person is putting it on. Nil Einne (talk)

I'm a Chinese myself and I wouldn't be surprised if Yug is one, based on his grammar. Anyway, I don't think there's a reason to suspect him, as he has a lot of positive contribution to back himself up. WP:AGF. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 7 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)

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)

The boring list of diplomatic statements can well go to International reaction to the 2008 United States presidential election, but a few statements of particular importance should be kept here (WP:SS). This regards Kenya (because of Obama's paternal family ties) as well as Iraq and Afghanistan (because of the immediate interest these countries have in who is the US commander in chief, considering that the USA is waging war within their borders). --dab (𒁳) 13:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

so this was blanked again. How about justifying such actions here on talk? WP:SS anyone? --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 9 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? Tim meh ! 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! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jez9999 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.120.231 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

NBC, AP and Fox News have now called North Carolina for Obama. Can someone please make North Carolina blue on the electoral map please?

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:

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?
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)

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)

I motion to move Missouri over to the red colomn. Most major news networks won't report it, but its not important anymore anyways seeing how there is a clear winner in this contest. The Missouri Secretary of State office's website already listed McCain as the winner of that contest, [5] and all the major news network websites already show him in the lead with 100% of the precepts reporting. RiseRobotRise (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Missouri is too close to call. All the networks agree on this. It cannot be assumed that McCain is going to win Missouri. (Ajs41 (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

That's not good enough -- we can't make that call. We can only take our cue from the state or other reliable sources (big media). Also, the state website does NOT list McCain as the winner. It simply lists him as the leader with all precincts reporting. We do not have any access at all to info on provisional or absentee ballots, for example. So we don't KNOW, even if it seems pretty likely that McCain won the state. Samstein (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC called Missouri for McCain, they did it on November 5th, i dont know what anyone is waiting for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.129.138 (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We cannot decide who won a state based on one network's projection. There is obviously a very good reason that none of the other networks have called the state yet. Obama still has a realistic chance of winning. Until the rest of the networks, or at least two more, call the state for McCain, we cannot show it as won by McCain. Tim meh ! 04:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the St. Louis Post-Dispatch already has called the state for McCain so I don't see what the hold up is. They probably have a better idea of what is occuring in Missouri than the major networks anyway. User:Cardozo 03:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.82.53 (talk)

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.[6][7] 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[8] 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

States where margin of victory was under 5%

Wisconsin, Kerry, 0.38%
Iowa, Bush, 0.67%
New Mexico, Bush, 0.79%
New Hampshire, Kerry, 1.37%
Ohio, Bush, 2.11%
Pennsylvania, Kerry, 2.50%
Nevada, Bush, 2.59%
Michigan, Kerry, 3.42%
Minnesota, Kerry, 3.48%
Oregon, Kerry, 4.16%
Colorado, Bush, 4.67%

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

Florida, Bush, 5.01%
New Jersey, Kerry, 6.68%
Washington, Kerry, 7.18%
Missouri, Bush, 7.20%
Delaware, Kerry, 7.60%
Virginia, Bush, 8.20%
Hawaii, Kerry, 8.75%
Maine, Kerry, 8.99%
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)

It's the electoral college NOT the popular vote that matters, remember 2000?--Levineps (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

agreed - but my point is that all the electoral vote info is already present higher up on the page - the section I'm talking about down below is duplicative. its the same info repeated... just taking up a whole bunch of extra space that doesn't need to be there Samstein (talk) 23:07, 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.146.147 (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the page does say 349-162. I doubt anyone will bother to create a new map image, though, unless Nebraska's election folks actually certify that Obama won that one EV. Samstein (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jumpin' Junipers, how long does it usually take to count the votes in that district. It's going on three days. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Absentee ballots, thousands of them, still need to be counted. Then they'll be a recount because it'll probably be too close to call. We'll see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.227.220 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the Omaha World-Herald, Obama will win the electoral vote for the 2nd District, [9]. --Scottmsg (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Obama is ahead in the vote count and that paper called it. Still not official yet, but most of the country isn't either. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if NE-02 should be mentioned in the state total, since that isn't done on pages for elections in the 1800s when states would often split their vote. --Noname2 (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In modern times, states have not split their votes. This is a very rare occurrence. That's what gives it its notability. Tim meh ! 05:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't consider 1960 "modern"? Alabama split 6-5 for Byrd-Kennedy. They were unpledged, so they aren't faithless electors. (Just quibbling over details; not disputing your notability argument.) Iglew (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous vote estimates

"the total number of votes stands at only 120 million. Nonetheless, votes are still being tabulated, and estimates for turnout remain high.[83] One estimate, based on projections for uncounted and absentee votes, puts turnout at 136.6 million" -- This is absurd. To think that 2 days after the election that 1 in 6 votes (17 million) has not been counted yet is in the realm of the conspiracy theorists, and has no place on this wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.47.194 (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC) "The source for the total number of votes stands at only 148 million. Nonetheless, votes are still being tabulated, and estimates for turnout remains very high.[87] One estimate, based on projections for uncounted and absentee votes, puts turnout at 122.2 million." Autosigned by Jspalding70 --> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspalding70 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of ballots are not yet counted. That is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. Millions of early voting ballots are not yet counted in Georgia and Alaska, and many provisional ballots in swing-states are to be counted on Friday or later. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As of November 10th (yes, 6 days after the election), California has not yet counted 2.7 million ballots. See http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/c-status08/total_unprocessed_ballots08.pdf - that's 20% of our ballots. --132.239.50.181 (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Turnout source

Turnout is listed in the box at 148 million. This is obviously a projection/estimate, which is fine, but Infoplease's source is unclear. Why not use a clear source (such as Michael McDonald's oft-cited 136.6 million number), or just leave it blank? 24.199.87.231 (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a big problem with the turnout. All the experts agreed it would be somewhere between 130 and 140 million. But current figures show the total is only 123.1 million, which is only 800,000 more votes than 2004. Either there are a lot votes missing somewhere, or the experts made a big mistake. It's a big mystery because one of the biggest points about this election was supposed to be the huge queues of voters, and enormous numbers of early voters. For example, the turnout in Alaska appears to have fallen by 85,000 voters compared to 2004, which doesn't seem to make any sense given Palin's presence on the ballot, and there are similar reported problems in Georgia and Florida as well. I've changed the turnout box which was simply reflecting the pre-election expectations. According to the US Census Bureau, the voting age population in 2008 is 225 million. The real turnout is only 54.7% at the moment, which is actually down 1.5% on 2004, because the total electorate has increased by around 10 million voters (according to the US Census Bureau). More votes are coming in all the time, but they are only very small increases at the moment. This situation needs to monitored carefully over the coming days. (Ajs41 (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

There's a lot of talk about the inconsistencies in Alaska, but very little widespread coverage. At this stage it's mostly opinion pieces with a fair number of seemingly investigation-worthy assumptions. I would imagine (and hope) this will become more publicly discussed further down the road, but for now there aren't enough reputable sources for inclusion here. --Kickstart70TC 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

All candidates?

Hello. I'm not American as understood in United States, but I'm American, Chilean, to be precise. There are a few things that I did not find in the article, and that I would like to know:

How many candidates were in total? (and their names, political affiliation and final result)
The votes (I mean the paper or the computer screenshoot whith the names of the candidates) are alike in the whole country, or vary from state to state?
If an elector changes his/hers vote, ¿is this act punishable?

thanks in advance. comu_nacho, from spanish wiki. (excuse my high school-english.) 200.90.231.73 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

comu_nacho,

All the candidates are listed, as well as their political parties. Aside from Obama and McCain, the percentages of the votes received are negligible.

The ballots with the candidates names vary significantly from state to state

In some states an elector can be punished if they change their vote, but not in all. This issue is best fit for the page on Presidential Elections in general instead of just this election in particular.

24.63.201.98 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What you need to understand is that the electors are VERY loyal to their side. They have never changed the election results, ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.224.103 (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/18/electoral.feature/index.html

"Gore elector leaves ballot blank

...

No federal law compels electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their states, but they usually do.

...

"In the 20th century, I think only about six people have ever dared vote against the slate that they were chosen to represent"

It could be hard to get a source for all people who were on the ballot in all states. There are different names on the ballot in different states; All 51 had Obama and McCain, but even the larger of other parties don't necessarily make the ballot everywhere. The actual paper ballots are not the same everywhere; in fact, some ballots are on touch screen.-Rrius (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Q1) There were several candidates though most media focuses on the two main parties—Democrat and Republican. Q2) The people on the ballots vary from state to state, as these candidates must meet the state qualifications to have their name appear. Also, states held other elections as well. Q3) An elector can change their vote, though it's very unlikely. The act is not punishable, as some states electors cast their ballots anonymously—see: faithless elector. Latics (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Campaign

When are we going to start writing a synopsis of the campaign? Every other presidential campaign has a summary, but I'm not familiar with how long we usually wait until we type one out. Should we wait until a lot of stories of behind-the-scenes stuff come out from the news? =P -- Frightwolf (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

North Carolina goes for Obama

President-elect Obama is the apparent winner in North Carolina, a symbolic triumph in a state that hadn't voted for a Democrat in more than a generation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27575817/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.224.103 (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also confirmed by Fox News and AP, should be good enough. Lampman (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone please edit the map in the infobox to reflect this. Esn (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned here is the AP link. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Media coverage" section valid?

The section "Criticism of media coverage" is vague and subjective. This is a standard complaint during every political campaign; media coverage of politics is an entire field of study (and article) unto itself. Leaving this section up invites the usual commentary from anyone who feels their candidate was treated wrongly; posted studies are useless (since every political and media watchdog group from the left to the right does its own studies). It's not up to me, but I'd axe this.3Tigers (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Perception of bias may very well be a bias itself. Whining about the media had always been a Republican tactic, and much of the media chose to endorse the tactic and accuse other newspapers and networks of bias as a result of prisoner's dilemma. While the media is obviously an issue, it is probably the most difficult issue to write about from a neutral point of view. Putting the debate in an article is not practical. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheney's Shermanesque statement

A web search quickly found the version I found more memorable, in Cheney's answer to whether he'd run for president: "not only no, but 'hell no'".[10] Maybe someone could add this to the article. 207.241.238.217 (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Primary sections need fixing

I don't find it portrays the facts very well. Super Tuesday needs to have a subsection- the current version gives very little space to that pivotal day. Also the Indiana/NC primaries are barely mentioned even though commentators started calling the race after that point. It just seems to not explain what happened that well, its mostly a jumble of facts. So I will try and make some edits when I login and after I see what people think here. But the Primaries section does need some added readibility...

Also I dont know if this is intentional or not, but the Primary race section of the page seems to have the word Clinton in it a fair bit more than the word Obama. I'm sure this is touchy but I think that separate issue could use some tweaking. Not just for the partisans hacks but also for those poor kids trying to write a report on the race, and they can't even figure out how the future president got nominated... I would be interested to hear what others think about this 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Significant outcomes wording

Hello, maybe I am misreading this but it says in the "Significant outcomes" section:

Virginia and Indiana were both carried by the Democratic nominee for the first time since 1964.

Does this mean that 1964 was the last year that Virginia and Indiana as a pair of states were won by the Democrat, and that each state individually might have been won by a Democrat since then? I suggest changing "both" to "each" if 1964 was the last date of a Democratic victory in either state. LovesMacs (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, either state voted Democratic for the first time since 1964. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Omaha was called for Obama.

The total for Obama should now be 365. Can someone update the maps too? source

It's not really Omaha, just the second congressional district. Guy0307 (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Listed in significant outcomes is this: "Barack Obama was the first Democratic nominee to win an absolute majority (>50%) of the popular vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976." That's not really significant - it's really just a number, since popular vote doesn't decide the outcome practically. Some might say it meant something symbolically - but again, its significance is minimal. Perhaps we could say Barack Obama won the highest percentage of popular vote for a Democrat since 1964. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of media coverage section

An October 29 study was cited about bias in the media coverage, but I'm pretty sure there was a previous study, a few weeks after Obama won the primaries. It showed that Obama's coverage then was much more negative than McCain's. For some reason, that report was almost never cited in the mainstream media, probably because it ran contrary to the media's favourite story - that the media is biased. Does anyone here have a link to it? 143.89.188.6 (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama won Virginia by more than 5%

The map next to "close states" should be updated accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.168.17 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I have fixed it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Leading candidates origins clarification

Perhaps this section could clarify that Lincoln was not born in Illinois (Kentucky) nor was Grant (born in Point Pleasant, Ohio). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biffburley (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Having candidates' electoral home states and birth states discussed in a single paragraph with no explanation of the distinction is bound to confuse readers. (And McCain wasn't born in Arizona, either.) Iglew (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

campaign fund raising numbers, sources

hi I would like to see expansion of section 4.6, financing, as I think funding is an important but little discussed aspect of the race. Does anyone know where more completecandidate fund raising numbers can be found? What about including numbers from party and PAC groups, etc? Mentes (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC) - - - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.48.27 (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC) - Hi, unsigned rookie adding on to the above : I think it is crucial to state the amounts raised by the DNC and RNC, not just the amounts raised by the candidates. With just candidates, it misleads about the amounts and proportional relativity of money spent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.48.27 (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

write-in votes?

Any info on write-in votes? I saw it missing from this table here. Just curious, maybe some Clinton votes in there? Hmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.175.146 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There aren't nearly enough write-in votes for any specific person (or even in total) to be of any notability. Besides, the popular vote isn't even official yet. The numbers are all still changing. Tim meh ! 05:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be a .001% write-in for Hillary Clinton, or something near that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.227.43 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The fundamentals of our economy are strong

This is widely seen as a tipping point in the campaign to Obama's favor. Ever since then there was a spike in the polls that showed that voters consistently trusted Obama with the economy. Include this in or I will. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} —kur ykh 06:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed? Are you kidding me? Have you not been watching the news ever since September? I hope to god you're joking, if you're absoltuely serious about that then just leave, we don't need mediocres in here. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's that widespread and well-known, then you should have no trouble finding a reliable source to verify it. You might also check out our civility guidelines while you're at it. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In the time you spent insulting me and consequently losing any sort of good faith I had towards you, you could have just easily looked for a source. —kur ykh 08:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't need an arrogant wiseass here. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Significant outcomes

Obama would have got the highest absolute number of voters for a presidential candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.54.59.27 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama trivia

Is there a place for this? As Obama was born after 1959, he's the first elected President born after the admissions of Alaska & Hawaii as states. Ironically, the state Sarah Palin is Governor of & Obama's birth state, respectively. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source for various items of electoral firsts, etc.: "Think you know your election trivia?". CNN. 2008-11-03. Retrieved 2008-11-09. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Missouri

Anybody know when this state's results are due? I'm anxious to see if McCan/Palin can out do Bush/Quayle 1992. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the rest of the provisional ballots will be counted sometime next week. It appears as if Obama cannot realistically catch up with McCain in votes there, but I have no idea why the networks aren't calling the state. Tim meh ! 01:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I did some research for United States presidential election in Missouri, 2008; if you follow the cited sources there, you'll see that November 18th is the deadline for the processing of provisional ballots and the certification of the results. 68.167.253.246 (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

Nebraska's second district electoral vote again

Pollster.com seems to think CNN and CBS have called this for McCain and the other networks still haven't called this. --86.155.103.205 (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think CBS and CNN have forgotten about Nebraska's unique electoral system and their electoral vote counts include giving the 2nd District to McCain. But the Omaha World-Herald has now called the 2nd District for Obama giving him its 1 Electoral vote and bringing the total to 365-162 with Missouri still uncalled. Wikipedia's electoral votes reflect these adjustments but CNN and CBS have yet to update theirs. Heres the article: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10481441 Leahcim506 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

They've reversed their choice saying AP has called it for Obama and CNN/CBS/the other networks haven't called it. Probably just an input error. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:06, 10 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)

I think that sentence is fair. He HAS been elected by the public. No, he's not president yet, but votes have been counted and he won.

I'd also say that the peculiarities of the american system do not warrant a change. In many commonwealth countries, for example, the new prime minister isn't officially the president until at least several days after the election; this does not mean they have not been elected.A. Smith (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing it back to say he has been elected. The current formulation is excessively pedantic, and it is inconsistent with the Barack Obama page. There is no doubt that he has been elected--that wouldn't change even if he were to be hit by a bus tomorrow, and the electors were forced to choose someone else. The only "doubt" is whether he will actually become President--the election to that office is an established fact. SS451 (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Voter Turnout

In the cited link for the election results, the statistics in the article do not match the link. The link states that there were 148,218,161 votes cast, with 64.1% turnout of the voting-age population.

Cg41386 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Those turnout figures you just mentioned are an estimate from before the election results started coming in. They're not the actual results. I think they should be taken off the page. The real turnout so far is only 123 million votes, which is just 54.7%. That's a drop of 1.5% compared to 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajs41 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cg is (I suspect) referring to the fact that the numbers have been changed on this page, but there is still link the the old source. Anyway, here's a report on voter turnout by American University from Wednesday. It projects turnout at 126.5 to 128.5 million (or 60.7 to 61.7%), and says that overall turnout remained flat because high Dem turnout was offset by low GOP turnout. 24.199.87.231 (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember that many, many votes are still not yet counted. 2.5 million votes were unreported in 2004 until ten days after the election. Given the importance of Prop 8, turnout in CA ought to be much higher than 2004. Yet turnout appeared to have decreased by 20%. That is simply not possible. Turnout in Georgia and Alaska are also much, much lower than expected. Assuming that turnout increases by 5% in CA (the same amount in FL), 4 million votes are yet to be counted just in CA. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Turnout as a percentage of Florida registered voters has not increased. Currently it is at 72.9%. Furthermore, California not being a battleground state, and already having had record turnout in 2004, it should be assumed that turnout would inevitably increase because of a controversial ballot measure. I have no doubt that more votes will be counted across the country. 2.5 million more votes is certainly not out of the realm of possibility; that would put us at the low end of AU's projections. 4 million more in the state of California seems a bit of a reach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.87.231 (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I forgot to factor in population growth and increased registrations in my crude calculations. California has added 1 to 2 million voters in registration since 2004, so the number of votes should have increased by roughly the same margin. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

California still has 2.7 million unprocessed ballots to count, according to the California Secretary of State: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/c-status08/total_unprocessed_ballots08.pdf (79.71.223.227 (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC))

turnout isn't the sum of valid votes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.172.156 (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Electoral College Map

The current map incorrectly shows Indiana & NC as Obama States. McCain won them bringing the EC count to 338/200 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.55.86 (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude, your link is an interactive map. You can change it to whatever you want. Iglew (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Missouri should be red as Obama would have to win 100% of the Provisional Ballots likely to be counted in order to carry the state. http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/F85F88091CAD44AD862574F900174E9F?OpenDocument Mango2002 01:49, 10th November 2008 (UTC)

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)

I am encountering a disparity as well. The small image shows NC for Obama and MO and NE-02 too close to call (this seems to be correct at this point), when clicked, the large version shows NC too close to call and all 5 of NE's votes for McCain. -66.108.42.83 (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been corrected. Thank You. I made the above comment. Was not signed in for some reason. -Laikalynx (talk) 20:27, 9 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)

What he said. First and foremost it may contain verbatim phrases drawn from the source but ultimately it still can be considered a paraphrase, if an unimaginative one. Plus, as you yourself said, 'cited reference.' Beyond that if you want to make it sound more different, feel free to reword it. 24.155.69.72 (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

^ "Search Campaign Finance Summary Data". Fec.gov. Retrieved 2008-11-03.
^ Polidata, 2005
^ "Election 2004 U.S. PRESIDENT / NATIONAL / EXIT POLL". CNN.com. Retrieved 2008-09-30.

[1] "Search Campaign Finance Summary Data". Fec.gov. Retrieved 2008-11-03.

[2] Polidata, 2005

[3] "Election 2004 U.S. PRESIDENT / NATIONAL / EXIT POLL". CNN.com. Retrieved 2008-09-30.

[1]

[2]

[3]