Talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Analysis section

This section has really been bothering me for quite some time. It looks horribly cluttered, and it barely cites any sources. Basically, it is Wikipedia editors' own analysis of the results of the election, which seems to violate the no original research policy. Also, much of this information is trivial and unencyclopedic anyway. Does anybody have any objections to the section's complete removal, or at least the trimming down of about 90% of it and the referencing of the remaining notable information? Would anyone prefer one of those two options over the other? Timmeh!_{(review me)} 04:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Timmeh, you've made great work on this article so far, and I'd encourage you to keep up the good work. So, basically, I trust your judgment on any course you choose. As far as this section goes, a lot of the claims as to significant aspects of the outcome of this election strike me as insignificant or otherwise obvious. However, some—the chart that shows states' popular vote swings from 2004 to 2008 and some of the sourced exit poll-type figures, for example—strike me as historically significant. I'd lean on the side of paring this section down to sourced, notable aspects of the election rather than the complete removal of the section, but since you'll likely be doing the heavy lifting here, I defer to you. Qqqqqq (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Like Qqqqqq, I'd like to congratulate you on your work here. I agree that there is an element of OR in some of the analysis section and it needs work. In the short term, that may involve tossing some of hte material. However, as I think I flagged during the GA review I did, what this really needs is a bigger analysis seciton, that draws on books and articles about the election. It should be addressing questions like:

• What demographic trends have analysts identified in the results?
• How did Obama's race, which featured in a lot of pre-election discussion, or other features such as policy stance or age, affect voter choices?
• There was much talk before the election, and on the day, about high turnouts in some areas at least, which were set to reverse past trends. Did these eventuate and how do analysts believe they affected the results?

Part of the problem facing this article, medium-term, is its under-reliance on books and serious articles (whether by journalists or academics). I would like to see more analysis using those sorts of sources, and closer integration of the (prolific) figures and tables to inform that discussion. But its an easy game from the grandstands... Thanks for everything you're doing. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What ever you think must be fixed? fix away. Complete removal, 90% reduction, no prob with me. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, guys. Over the next few days, I'll remove any insignificant and obvious information from the section, and I'll rearrange what's left and add sources, some from books if I'm able to find them. I'll also try to have all of hamiltonstone's questions answered there. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 14:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Timmeh. To echo Qqqqqq, you've done a lot of outstanding on this article and there's no reason to doubt that you'll do fine job in cleaning up the Analysis section. The questions put forth by hamiltonstone are very good ones, IMO, the article would benefit by addressing them. I'll be keeping an eye on your changes and offering feedback if and when I think it's needed.--JayJasper (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Colbert?

Please don't add this trivial fluff to this article. He was never a serious candidate, doing it for a few weeks as a joke in his in-show persona. Tarc (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we've been there, done that.--JayJasper (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro

Can I change the intro to: ... President George W. Bush's policies and actions *especially during his second term, made him unpopular with the American people and the public's* desire for change were key issues throughout the campaign, and during the general election campaign, both major party candidates ran on a platform of change and reform in Washington

I've studied a few individual wins for Dems. (Kay Hagan in NC, Jeff Merkley in OR, and Obama) and they all mention in campaign ads how often the Senators they ran against voted with Bush, so i don't think it would not be neutral to change it? Let me know, thanks Rs09985 (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand that change. His policies and actions were key issues more than were the relative unpopularity of those policies and actions. Plus the sentence structure you propose is at least confusing if not incorrect. Qqqqqq (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lost controversies

The February archives discussion on GA status note that there was no controversy section; just a link to a controversies page. That was because it was deleted in its entirety without discussion 12 Feb by Levineps, 6:19 edit. There is a whole section on Guam that I wrote at the time of the elections that hasn't made it back into the article, which is what alerted me to this. Generally a good job of filling the gap, editors, but it isn't restored yet. Anarchangel (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the Guam section. Seems to be well sourced, and I couldn't find an objection to its inclusion in the ariticle. I would guess that the failure to restore it was merely an oversight. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure there will be a discussion about it soon enough, and we'll take it from there.--JayJasper (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring it and ack, can't believe that I said I wrote it. I did something to it, cite(s) or something, and restored it a previous time during the election, but I wasn't the original or main author by a long shot. Anarchangel (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead section again

So we currently mention in the third paragraph that this was "the first time a Roman Catholic was elected Vice President" and "the first time the Republican Party nominated a woman for Vice President", yet nowhere in the lead section do we identify either one by name... right... I thought, as per WP:LEAD, that "the lead section the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." But I guess I was wrong here. And the infobox does not really count. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have added the popular vote margin of victory to the controversial adjective 'narrowly' describing the context of the 2004 election. If 'Narrowly' is significant enough to be included, then the SIZE of the supposedly 'narrow' victory is as well. It takes nothing away from the article, adds information to the article, and does not substantially add to the length or complexity. Please do NOT remove this reference. If you have a problem with it, please post it in the correct section (here). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.160.198 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! I'm terribly sorry I assumed you did not begin discussing this here. I recommend moving your comment to a new section where it is more relevant. This issue really has nothing to do with the one Zzyzx11 brought up. Timmeh 16:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Interpretive maps

I've been working on the article off and on the past few weeks, attempting to bring it up to GA quality so we can nominate it and get it passed. There are a few big issues left, but one that is very important and that I feel ill-equipped to handle: the interpretive maps section. Right now, just having a gallery of the election results maps doesn't really provide any substantial insight for the reader. Here's what hamiltonstone recommended doing in his GA review a few months ago:

"These should be broken up and have substantive text using them to illustrate important points about the results. What did commentators say about urban / rural, north east / midwest / whatever splits etc etc. I think the cartogram and voter shift maps could be attached to some particularly interesting analysis."

I don't remember who uploaded and added the maps to the article, but I'm sure you know a bit more about them than I do and could find some sources where commentators talk about the aspects of the election results in relation to what the maps are displaying. If you could add some text relating to some of the maps (with sources of course) and fit it into the analysis section with the maps next to it, I'd really appreciate it. It might not be a good idea to try to cover every single interpretive map, as that would make for a long, drawn-out section (even more so than it already is). Just take what you think are the most important or talked about maps and see if you can find out what the election pundits said about them. Also, if anyone else wants or is able to do the above, don't hesitate! I can use all the help I can get. Thanks in advance for any help you guys can provide. Timmeh 03:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Narrowly"

First off:

"Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action." is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus.

Please note that SPECIFICALLY the part that 'violates consensus' is NOT a valid rationale for reverting an edit. So please stop reverting my edits, or you will be reported to starting an edit war.

Secondly, if the adjective 'narrow' adds something to the article, then the SIZE of the 'narrow' victory is equally important. If the size isn't important, then 'narrow' has no value. If it IS important, then the absolute size is at least equally valid.

Thirdly, 'narrowly' certainly implies a point of view (attempting to cast the election in terms of not necessarily reflecting the true will of a large number of people). A number, supported and empirical definitionally CANNOT be anything but NPOV, so wiki guidelines would suggest that it is 'better evidence' and should be included.

If you disagree, please respond here, but do NOT continue to unilaterally remove these edits.

138.210.160.198 (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you Chris? If so, please log in.

As stated in the previous discussion, Bush didn't even win by 3,000,000 votes. He won the popular vote by 3,000,000 votes, but the actual election by much less. Your use of the absolute popular vote margin not only inserts a factual error (presidential elections aren't decided by popular vote), but it also misleads the reader by showing the absolute number instead of the percentage (Cleveland won in 1892 with a large percentage of the popular vote but an absolute popular vote margin of only one-eighth Bush's).

Disregarding consensus completely, the reliable sources all claim Bush narrowly won the election. I asked Chris in the past discussion to provide sources claiming the election was not narrow, and he was unable to do so. The idea that the election was not narrow does not represent a significant viewpoint. Therefore, it should not be included as to avoid giving it undue weight. Consensus reached a few months ago simply confirmed the aforementioned points. Timmeh 17:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not Chris (nor any of the other posters who agreed with him). I am NOT claiming that the election was not 'narrow'. I did NOT delete that reference. I DID add a sourced, empirical number telling the reader what the size of the popular vote was. If the importanance of including 'narrow' was so that the reader might think that the vote represented a divided electorate, then the reader deserves to know what the actual electorate DID, in terms of their votes. It does NOT give undue weight to anything...it is simply a factual. verified and sourced number that is certainly less POV-specific than a debateable adjective. Perhaps this will stimulate some discussion here, but one more time, please ddo NOT revert a legitimate edit simply because you disagree with the assertion. I am adding the reference back in. Again, I ask that you respect wikipedia guidelines and do NOT remove it, until other editors have had a chance to at least express their position.

138.210.160.195 (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything since this discussion began. You, on the other hand, have violated the three revert rule. As for my arguments, you haven't refuted my points. Timmeh 02:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• What is the problem with including the actual number? (I'm new to this dicussion, so I really don't know the answer to that.) It would seem that including a word like "narrowly" -- which is necessarily POV, even if supported by the reliable sources -- is more problematic than simply putting the number of votes separating the two men, and then perhaps also mentioning that the electoral college was a fair bit closer than the popular vote. Unitanode 13:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest you take a look at the points I highlighted in my original post. Also, there really isn't any reason to include any additional numbers, as we already mention in the same section that "Bush was reelected with a larger Electoral College margin than in 2000 and an absolute majority (50.7%) of the popular vote", which is an infinitely clearer, more accurate, and more relevant counterbalance to "narrowly" than "by a margin of approximately 3,000,000 popular votes". Timmeh 13:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  I did look at those points, and still fail to see the necessity of using the descriptor in question. However, as I'm not particularly versed on the discussion where it appears consensus formed around using that word -- which seems obviously POV, even if used in the reliable sources -- and I don't wish to reopen a can of worms, I'll leave you to it. Regards, Unitanode 14:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've just taken a look through the page history, back to December when "narrowly" was first disputed, and I noticed that this whole debate began as a result of this edit which changed my original wording of "decisive, albeit narrow" to just "narrow". I wouldn't object to wording that included the fact that the election victory was decisive, but also narrow. The decisive part alludes to the 2000 election, which was of course not decisive. I think it might also eliminate any POV concerns that have been brought up and possibly finally end this debate. We could then clean out any extraneous and irrelevant statistics about the 2004 election. What do you think? Timmeh 14:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  That seems more than fair to me. My main concern was with the fact that the word "narrowly" gave the impression of non-neutraility, so the rewording certainly works for me. Unitanode 15:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There are significant concerns about voter suppression and irregularities in the "decisive" states. Using the term "decisive" without addressing the problems voters had going to the polls in the "decisive" states creates additional problems of accuracy of language usage. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well then maybe decisive isn't a good word to describe the election victory. Had ~56,000 people (0.05% of those who voted) in three states voted the other way, Kerry would have won. Narrow seems to win out here as the superior descriptor. Really, it is neutral though, as just about every reputable source agrees that the victory was narrow. Decisive, on the other hand, is disputed by a large enough number of sources to prevent us claiming it as fact. Maybe we could put a footnote next to "narrowly" explaining that there is a clear consensus among reliable sources that the 2004 election victory was "narrow", although I really don't think it's needed. Timmeh 22:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the original discussion, there is no point in including the popular vote totals as 3,000,000 votes did not separate the two men in regards to who won. Electoral votes determine the winner. 59,000 votes in Ohio or 57,000 in the combined Iowa/New Mexico/Colorado would have easily, easily swayed the election. And the use of 3,000,000 votes is misleading to begin with -- 3,000,000 would have been a lot in the 1800s. Nowadays, it's a very small percentage of the electorate. But it's completely irrelevant; the winner can lose the popular vote, so to even suggest that 3,000,000 votes negates 'narrowly' is a moot point which already was debated to death. -- Frightwolf (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then, since the overall popular votes doesn't matter, then Bush did NOT win narrowly'...he won by over 53.16% to 46.84% (of electoral votes). That is hardly 'narrow'. And if you want, I can find a few million vote swing in various states that would have given McCain the election in 2008. So I will change my addition to reflect your concerns. Since you suggest that the electoral vote is the significant element, I will add that notation. 138.210.160.195 (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. We're trying to portray the political situation with regard to the sharp divide in the public's opinion that existed during and after the 2004 election. Bush actually won by less than 60,000 popular votes, or 0.05% of the total number of votes. It seems you're also not getting the idea of consensus. The original version of a page should be left intact until consensus is explicitly in favor of inserting disputed material. Your unilateral additions and edit warring are completely inappropriate and premature. Timmeh 01:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention just 59,000 votes in one state (Ohio) would have changed the entire election (and 2000 less votes in Iowa/Colorado/New Mexico); that's pretty insignificant. Obama almost won in a landslide (I believe 370 is considered one). -- Frightwolf (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that IS the point. You EXPLICITLY state that you are trying to portray a specific POV that you embrace. You consider the election 'close'? Great. IncludE THAT. But *I* consider the election decisive, not close. You are selectively choosing facts to support your POV, and exclusing other facts that contradict your POV. You don't want an *objective, empirical, verifiable and relevant* FACT (the 3,000,000 margin of popular votes), because it acts against your POV. Timmeh, it is YOUR edit warring that is inappropriate. My original EDIT should be left in place until a consensus emerges (which it has not, since you removed the edit prematurely). As Unitatode mentioned above, the adjective 'narrow' is quite clearly expressing a POV. A number is DEFINITIONALLY NPOV. It simply 'is'. So please leave it alone until a reasonable number of editors have gad a chance to consider the arguments. 138.210.160.195 (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

the 3,000,000 margin of popular votes That's not a margin of victory, making it irrelevant. And please don't accuse him of edit warring -- I checked the history of the article just to be sure, and it's you vs. the world. -- Frightwolf (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• The election was decisive yet narrowly or was it [sic]?---The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

<me, ducking out of this, wondering why I got involved in the first place>Unitanode 01:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just be thankful you weren't pulled into this one. :) Timmeh 01:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What does "narrowly" mean?

I've looked through all four sources used to support the word "narrowly". One doesn't use the word at all and the other three only use the word without explaining how narrowness is determined. In this edit I offered a compromise to show the margin in terms of both electoral and popular votes, which was summarily reverted. I guess we have three choices, to leave "narrowly" as the only explanation, to combine "narrowly" with the numerical details of electoral and popular vote, or to list only the electoral / popular vote margins. I fail to see why providing no detail beyond the word "narrowly" provides adequate context to anyone reading this article. While I cannot possibly condone User:138.210.160.195's edit warring, his efforts at providing some context can hardly be called vandalism, and continued edit warring to avoid providing any context hardly seems much better than User:138.210.160.195's actions. Alansohn (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Like, Unitanode I'm probably going to regret this, but anyway... First: User:138.210.160.195's editing has been counterproductive, and points made by Timmeh and others regarding the fallacy of making reference to the popular vote in this context are sound. Second: Alansohn is right that the anon IP's edits are not vandalism in the normal sense, except to the extent that they wilfully ignore a consensus of editors. And I do think the use of the adjective "narrowly" is bound to attract exactly the sort of debate that is happening here. Third: well... this is an article about the 2008 campaign. Is it necessary to have any adjective in this article, when describing the election four years previously? It hardly seems important in this context. The preferable text, even in the absence of an editorial disagreement, would be for this to read simply "In 2004, President George W. Bush won reelection, defeating the Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry." If anyone actually wants to know about that election, they can go to the main articles about it. So: that is my preferred outcome. A fallback would be to be more comprehensive. I don't think we as WP editors should get in the business of defining "narrowly". So if a straight, adjectiveless solution is not acceptable then go the other way, to a fuller description. This would go something like: "In 2004, President George W. Bush won reelection, defeating the Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry. Bush obtained x per cent of the electoral college vote, however because fewer than x votes in key states had determined the college outcome in Bush's favour, analysts considered it a narrow victory."[cite all relevant reliable sources for that particular interpretation here] hamiltonstone (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, instead of trying to explain what narrow is in the first paragraph, we could do it where it's a bit more relevant. Here's an example: "Although Bush was reelected with a larger Electoral College margin than in 2000 and an absolute majority (50.7%) of the popular vote, Kerry would have been victorious if less than 60,000 Bush voters, 0.05% of all voters, voted the other way, and a majority of analysts considered the victory narrow." Timmeh 15:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll (try to) make this my last contribution here. I think Hamilton's idea is most sound. Why do we need any descriptor of the margin of the 2004 election? It's not as if it were razor-thin, as the 2000 election was, where not noting the margin would seem an obvious oversight. It was a standard election, where there was one candidate who clearly won, even if many (or even most) analysts have called it "narrowly." The narrowness (or lack thereof) of the 2004 election bears little importance to this article's content, so why note it at all? Unitanode 15:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If we do remove it completely, we'll have to also remove "Bush was reelected with a larger Electoral College margin than in 2000 and an absolute majority (50.7%) of the popular vote", as that doesn't seem relevant either. Timmeh 15:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess my further question would be, why does the "Background" section need to be there at all? Does it truly add actual context to the article, because I'm not really seeing it? Unitanode 16:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it does. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/teixeira-says-culture-war-ending-gop.html I would check that out for further information, but basically, Bush was an incumbent war-time president. Incumbents, especially during war-time, have an easier time being re-elected because of name recognition, fund-raising, etc. His re-election win was very small compared with previous incumbents in the last century (Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, FDR). You could see the emerging Democratic majority from years ago when everyone had said the Democrats needed to throw in the towel. His very small and, yes, narrow win was an indicator of things to come, as were the 2006 elections and Bush's continuing unpopularity (Democrats trumpeted the 'change' mantra as an opposition to Bush, Republicans for the most part distanced themselves from the Bush administration).

To Alansohn: nobody accused 138 (or probably CaptainChris from months ago) of vandalism. Please Ctrl+F the word, and you are the first person to mention it on this page. We accused him of unconstructive edit warring. All but I think one person maintained the 3-Revert rule, and if they broke it, it was for one more edit until the mods came. When you endlessly edit an article after being warned by numerous people on your talk page, troll, and insult other users on their talk page, you deserve a block. No two ways about it. -- Frightwolf (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be kept in. My 2 cents.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Sometimes doing something 'against the rules' is the only way to get something accmplished. This silly debate raged for months, with page after page of discussion, with editors (appearing to display extreme bias) reverting every attempt to introduced balanced language. If it took an 'unconstructive edit war' and being banned for 31 hours to finally draw enough attention to the naked attempt to broadcast one POV without balance? Seems worth it to me. 66.192.176.30 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading the "Background" section, I would tend to agree that we could remove the section entirely without significant loss of content. For comparison, the 1984 and 1988 election articles do not contain this section. If we wish to include a Background section for this article, similar sections should be generated for all other articles. Otherwise, lets remove all of these sections for consistency. Jjc16 (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus emerging here to modify the current arrangement. However to Jjc16 and some others can I say that, particularly as a non-American, a bit of background is useful, and I'd like to see a background para or two added to all such articles. That isn't to say the current material here is the right stuff, though I think it is mostly fine. From my point of view the background should include something like:

• Who had won the preceding election and from which party they came;
• Which party had control of each house of Congress in the lead-up to the election; and
• What (briefly) were the key features of the incumbent presidency that might be thought to have a bearing on voters and candidates in the current election (eg. was the incumbent notably popular or otherwise, as this might affect voters' views regarding a candidate of the same party). However this should be very brief here, as these issues are likely to be discussed in more detail as campaign and candidate platform issues later in the article.

I might have a shot at editing to reflect this, and some of the above discussion, and see what people think. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your version looks good to me. Timmeh 02:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a citation for Bush's slipping popularity since it said a citation was needed. -- Frightwolf (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. The adjective 'narrowly' was clearly POV. Adding a counterbalancing adjective was acceptable, as was removing any qualification. The current version is satisfactory. By the way, if anyone cares, I am not captainchris (although I agree with almost everything he and certain other editors said). I have just stopped using a signed handle because of all the partisan reverts people make to my (legitimate) edits (like in this case) because they disagree with my politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.160.197 (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Gloria LaRiva

I live in Illinois and Gloria LaRiva was on our ballot(Slipoutside (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

Published source citing this? If so, lets talk :) If not, sorry :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjc16 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Acorn Controversy and Black Panthers

Why is the massive amounts of ACORN voter fraud not brought up under the controversies section, seems like the section might be lacking without this. Also, what about those two black panthers in front of polling booths... they deserve to be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.33.58 (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have heard nothing about the two black panthers, so it probably isn't notable. About ACORN, if you find legitimate concerns brought up about it and reported in reliable sources, you can add neutral information about it. Timmeh (review me) 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are some articles on the black panther voter intimidation issue from notable media sources: Washington Times,

ABA Journal, and FoxNews. It might merit inclusion in the article.--JayJasper (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And here's some articles about the ACORN controversy from FOX News, CBS News, Washington Post, MSNBC. Perhaps it deserves a mention as well.--JayJasper (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Total popular vote

The table says 131,257,328 but if I add up six parties and Other I get 131,254,058. Who explains me the difference (of 3270 votes)? Otto (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I just fixed it. The number for "other" was too low for some reason. Timmeh (review me) 15:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nationwide results

Could somebody please explain why the nationwide results table (located at #Nationwide Results, pasted below) includes a column for "Electoral vote", and also a column for "Running mate's electoral vote"? Would it be possible for a running mate to receive a different electoral vote than the presidential candidate? Note that the source given has no such running mate mention.

Electoral results

Presidential candidate	Party	Home state	Popular vote		Electoral vote	Running mate
			Count	Percentage		Vice-presidential candidate	Home state	Electoral vote
Barack Obama	Democratic	Illinois	69,456,897	52.92%	365	Joe Biden	Delaware	365
John McCain	Republican	Arizona	59,934,814	45.66%	173	Sarah Palin	Alaska	173
Ralph Nader	Independent	Connecticut	738,475	0.56%	0	Matt Gonzalez	California	0
Bob Barr	Libertarian	Georgia	523,686	0.40%	0	Wayne Allyn Root	Nevada	0
Chuck Baldwin	Constitution	Florida	199,314	0.15%	0	Darrell Castle	Tennessee	0
Cynthia McKinney	Green	California	161,603	0.12%	0	Rosa Clemente	North Carolina	0
Other			242,539	0.18%	—	Other		—
Total			131,257,328	100%	538			538
Needed to win					270			270

-M.Nelson (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is possible for an elector to make a separate choice for VP, but I'm not sure if it's happened before. I wouldn't suggest removing the running mates from the table, though, because they are elected, too. Timmeh (review me) 11:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This is known as the faithless elector, where an elector votes for someone different than the result of their state's popular vote. 70.111.211.90 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And yes, it has happened (both in the days of the Founding Fathers and in your lifetime). In fact, in one recent election, the elector voted for the Presidential nominee for VP and the VP nominee for President: all perfectly constitutional. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are these numbers different than the one on the gov't site? Shouldn't that obviously that preference? www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/election-results.html <tommy> (talk)

Race in the 2008 Presidential Election

What does everyone think about including the following section:

Race in the 2008 Presidential Election

An October 17-20, 2008 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that race made 2% of registered voters more likely to vote for Barack Obama, 4% of registered voters less likely to vote for Barack Obama, 2% not sure how it swayed them, and was not a major factor in 92% of registered voters with a margin of error of ± 2.9

A July 18-21, 2008 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 20% of African-American registered voters and 8% of White registered voters considered race the single most important factor when voting with a margin of error of ± 3.1 This percentage increased in both groups from previous polls.

A June 6-9, 2008 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 17% were enthusiastic about Obama being the first African-American, 70% were comfortable or indifferent, and 13% had reservations or were uncomfortable with a margin of error of ± 3.1.

References

--Jorfer (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Your addition looks good. However, I think we should also include what the pundits said about race and how it affected the outcome. The polls should only be there as supportive evidence. Timmeh (review me) 22:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good goal, but this is a good start I think. Hopefully, it will encourage more cited additions. Including pundits while maintaining WP:NPOV would be pretty hard though.--Jorfer (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama is NOT black! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.125.16 (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Q2 on the Barack Obama FAQ.--JayJasper (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Needs link to Alaska Wiki article

In the "Nationwide Results" section the Pres & VP candidates home states are noted with a link to the state's Wikipedia page.

A link to Alaska's Wiki article (for Sarah Palin as the VP candidate's home state) is needed. Currently "Alaska" is just in plain text.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.198.146 (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, but the page isn't protected, so you could have just been bold and done it yourself. Timmeh 20:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map was removed by Loonymonkey for not being a reliable verifiable source.

Since verifiability is largely dependent upon reliability, I'll refer to the the entry on reliable sources, which makes it clear that self-published sources are OK "When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Two of the authors of this map are geography professors with peer-reviewed publications on Google Maps in top academic journals. This project is an extension of that research and a version of this map is to be published in an edited atlas of the 2008 Elections.

Despite being self-published, this most certainly lives up to the standards for verifiable, reliable self-published sources listed in the previously mentioned guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtshelton (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You've made a valid case for inclusion of the map, IMO. While I have no doubt that Looneymonkey's revert was made in good faith, I agree that your cited source meets the criteria for reliable self-published sources.--JayJasper (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but where is the reliable third-party source for this map? The links you provided have to do with the general concept of plugging data into google maps but provide no verification for this specific map (which comes from something called floatingsheep.org)--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound flippant, but have I not made the case for the reliable third-party source? The topic of the research I cited is about how the internet (specifically Google Maps) helps to construct the way the real world is experienced. The data was taken directly from Google Maps user-generated content, and shows how the political identities of certain places were constructed through online participation - much as someone's view of the election will be constructed in-part by the information they learn from this very Wikipedia article. Floatingsheep is run by the authors of the two academic articles I cited. So while self-published, and thus rightfully somewhat dubious, the map and its third-party self-publisher certainly meet the criteria of being an expert in the topic discussed, as outlined by the pages I've already cited.--Jtshelton (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point of WP:RS entirely. For starters, user-generated content is never considered to be a reliable source for factual material. The source you cite have nothing to do with verifying or demonstrating reliability, they simply show that two academics who (according to you) are involved in this, have published academic papers. But that says nothing about the reliability of this particular map or the website. We would need some sort of verification from a reliable third-party source to include it. Also, as an aside to all that, even if it came from a reliable source, how would this add any useful information to the article anyway? It's a representation of user-generated placemarks on google maps. How is that even relevant to electoral politics? Should we also produce a tally of "facebook mentions" of the two candidates and create a graphic for it? (my hope would be no) --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're entirely hung up on the fact that this is self-published when it clearly passes the test of being self-published by established experts in the relevant field. If it stands up to that, why must it live up to every other standard? Being a self-published, but reliable, source is the only thing applicable in this situation. As for relevancy, it shows that user-generated constructions of the election are, for the most part, mirrors of what actually happened in the election at one time or another. --Jtshelton (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC) {{

Firsts

In the opening it lists several novel aspects of this election; I noticed that neither candidate was born in the continental 48, which is not mentioned but I am not aware of another election in which this was the case. 76.14.37.71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

Source for Maine and Nebraska results

The results for Maine and Nebraska included in the state results section aren't in the Federal Elections Commission PDF and, as far as I can tell, there's no other reference listed for either state. Could someone try to find an appropriate one, or else clarify this for me? I ask because a user raised a concern at United States presidential election in Nebraska, 2008 over a fairly substantial conflict between this article and that one. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 16:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)