Talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Obama v. McCain charts in battleground states

Using data from Wiki's compilation article summarizing state-by-state polling for the 2008 election and using Excel, I crunched and graphed the numbers in states where the lead in the polls for any one candidate is close or has shown signs of swinging back and forth between Obama and McCain. At this point, I've selected Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Indiana and Missouri for additional analysis using charts and trendlines. I believe that these seven states are, as it happens, a good representative example, because three of the states are currently leaning toward Obama (Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania), three are currently leaning toward McCain (Florida, Indiana and Missouri) and Virginia is virtually tied. Incidentally, between these seven states, there are 120 electoral votes at stake, which represents 44% of the total (270) needed to secure the nomination. In most of the states, there are still at least about 10% of the voters with no opinion yet between the two candidates (or are supporting a third candidate). Your thoughts, suggestions and general input are greatly appreciated. If time is available, I will work to create these charts in the more visually friendly PNG format.--Robapalooza (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just one suggestion. I see that you have only included 7 battleground states. You might also want to include Nevada, Colorado, and possibly New Mexico into this list as they are now being considered battlegrounds. Obama leads slightly in Colorado, McCain slightly in Nevada, and Obama by a larger margin in New Mexico. I also suggest putting them into a more visually friendly format. Other than that, your charts look good. Timmeh! 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Greens delegate table

I made the following changes to the Green delegate table:

1. The entire column for primary delegate totals is unnecessary. We have the actual floor vote, and that is all that is needed.
2. Howie Hawkins received eight votes, and should therefore be listed.
3. I made it a chart on this page rather than a transcluded template.

There is something I couldn't deal with, though. It is no longer relevant who has withdrawn; the list should just continue downward in lighter shades of green, but I don't know how to work with colors. -Rrius (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Line about Oregon Primary in this article

One line in the article states, "In Oregon, Obama defeated Clinton, leading by 40,000 votes." I'm not sure if this was written on election day or what, but it is incorrect. According to Oregon Democratic primary, 2008 he won by 115,560 votes or 18%. I'm going to go ahead an fix this. Davidpdx (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Campaign Conference Calls

Is it possible to have the external links section updated to include a link to the campaigns' press conference calls? An archive of these calls can be found at the following URL: http://2008central.net/category/press-conference-calls/. This is certainly a resource that readers of Wikipedia would like to know about and would find useful.

Electionguru (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden's Picture?

Does Joe Biden's picture get put in the VP slot? We don't really put pictures of VPs in the summary, do we? I think we should just use his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwolf116 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Like the other US presidential election articles; we don't use a photo in the topinfobox for the vice presidential candidates (thus focusing on the presidential candidates). GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Other Significant Dates

Political Movies

An American Carol -A comedy about conservative views of liberalism in culture. -It was directed by David Zucker, and stars several conservative actors such as Jon Voight and James Woods. -will be released in early October 2008

W (2008 film) -A documentary about the life of George W. Bush. -It was directed by Oliver Stone, and stars Josh Brolin. -Will be released on October 17, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapple001 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Public opinion about debates deserves coverage in this article

I am restoring the following segment to the article because it represents the views of the majority of voters on the issue of debate inclusion:

A Zogby poll released on August 15th, 2008 indicated that most Republicans and Democrats want Bob Barr to be included in the presidential debates. Nearly 70% of independent voters would like to see Barr included.

JLMadrigal (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this online poll that Zogby created should be included in information about the scheduled debates. I vote for it to stay removed. If CDC changes the rules or Barr get the 15% support that is needed to participate, then it should be included.Jmerchant29 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Support removal. If if were a regular Zogby poll that would be one matter, however; it's a Zogby Interactive poll, which over-represents Barr supporters and isn't representative of the electorate. JPotter (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's another Zogby poll which isn't an Interactive one, and thus could be used as scientific data: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1538 I agree that the other one isn't accurate, but you can still put this, as a majority of likely voters DO want Barr included in debates. Why is there any dispute over this, anyway?Final Philosopher (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Media criticism

This section hardly seems NPOV. It parrots the siege mentality line Clinton raised in her campaign; it quotes an Elizabeth Edwards article at length and it provides absolutely no rebuttal from media outlets or reporters. Whether the media's coverage is better or worse in 2008 is hard to say; but complaints about it have been and will be with us forever, and at the very least, we should note that no candidate is ever happy with the coverage they receive.--Idols of Mud (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Running-mates

Do we use the term: to be determined or to be announced? The former meaning, Obama & McCain haven't selected vice-presidential running mates; the latter meaning, they've selected but haven't announced them yet. Though we'll know who the veep candidates of the Republican & Democratic parties will be (sometime this month)? I'm infavour of the statement to be determined. Why? 'Cause there's no way to tell if McCain & Obama, have already chosen their candidates. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think TBA would be more appropriate primarily because they could have picked their running mates but not announced them yet. It doesn't assume anything. It just states that the running mates haven't been announced, which they haven't. We have no way of knowing if they've been picked yet, and TBD assumes that they haven't been picked yet, but they may have. Timmeh! 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's assumptious both ways. However, we've no sources of the running-mates having been picked. The TBA has no sources, where's the TBD does (i.e. lack of sources for the TBA). The onus is on providing sources for the 'TBA' version. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with GoodDay. TBA is assumes that a selection has already been made (an assumption for which there is no evidence). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, you've convinced me. TBD is fine with me. Timmeh! 14:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen several ads from the Obama campaign which say they'll email you his choice. Unfortunately I always get an error message. Can someone who's gotten it change the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.133.238 (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It has not been announced that Biden is the running mate. No members of the media have any actual account from the Obama Campaign. TBA/TBD should be restored. 132.162.232.26 (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. CNN, the Associated Press, and the New York Times, to name a few news outlets reporting this story, are all reliable sources. In the face of a consensus among reliable sources and the lack of any counter evidence, WP is under no obligation to wait for official confirmation from the campaign. SS451 (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is putting Biden's picture under the little summary at the top of the page, please stop. We don't include VP pictures, at least accoriding to the 2000 and 2004 elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwolf116 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

International view

Is this relevant in this article? I am not sure. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say not. If it turns out that the Bush administration did provoke the crisis in Georgia in order to strengthen the McCain campaign, that would be relevant, but this accusation from Putin is not enough to establish that. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No dem or rep prez candidate on texas ballot?

is this true? http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/general/2008gensbs.shtml http://ronpaulforum.info/index.php?topic=455.0

also texas is not in the swing states,why?

http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/27/democrats-republicans-miss-texas-deadline-to-certify-presidential-nominees/ Section 192.031 of the Texas election code says that political parties must certify their presidential and vice-presidential candidates for the November ballot no later than 70 days before the general election. It says, “A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president placed on the ballot if before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party’s state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of the name’s of the party’s nominees for president and vice-president.”

This year, that deadline is August 26. UPDATE: At 2:30 pm Texas time, August 27, Kim Kizer of the Texas Secretary of State’s elections division says neither major party’s certification has been received in the Elections Division. The Executive Office of the Secretary of State refers all questions back to the Elections Division.

This year, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party obeyed this law. See this link to the Secretary of State’s web page showing a blank for the Republicans and Democrats for president. It does show Bob Barr on the ballot; scroll down a little bit. If the Republicans have indeed filed, one wonders who they listed for vice-president, and why their filing is missing from the state web page.

if this is true then no candiate would get the reqd 270 votes?.what would happen then and can the rules be bent for registration of dems and repbs?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 08:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Texas is not a swing state. Although the Democrats and Republicans appear to have missed a ballot access filing deadline there, the BAN article you link predicts that they are almost certain to get on the ballot in the end: "no court would order that Obama and McCain be kept off the ballot." -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So you are basically saying that the law can be bent for the 2 parties but if someone was from a third party he would have got no chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.145.72 (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the Democratic and Republican presidential tickets will be on the Texas ballot in November. They are already listed by the Texas Secretary of State: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/general/2008gensbs.shtml -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A note

"...the selection of each party's vice presidential nominee could put a previously uncompetitive state or region into play." Just a note/reminder: should likely be removed soon if individual state polling doesn't change significantly in due course after McCain chooses his VP. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It was borderline crystal ball in the first place. If McCain's pick isn't from a traditionally Democratic state or region that isn't already in play, it should be removed completely. Biden doesn't put anything new in play, and neither would Romney. Even Pawlenty wouldn't put Minnesota in play—it already is. -Rrius (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor:

The below is very minor and I haven't changed it, but it is nevertheless misleading:

"Among the questions Russert had asked Clinton, but not Obama, was to provide the name of the new Russian leader (Dmitry Medvedev)"

Russert asked a question about what they thought of Russia's new leader and was not asking it to either candidate directly. I remember noticing this during the debate and even afterwards Russert mentioned in an interview the toss-up nature of the question. Basically, when Clinton jumped on it, he followed up on her answer by asking her his name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.44.231 (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be changed:

Another anomaly: regardless of who wins the election, America is slated to have either the first black President or the first female Vice President.

This is not correct. We have to remember that a Democrat or Republican might not win the election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.245.90 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I refer you and all other who are always nip ticking to WP:COMMON A meteor might hit the Earth before January and there'd be no president at all. (189.148.29.58 (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

I've removed the sentence from the article. In agreement, we should not be presuming that the winning ticket in November, will be Democratic or Republican. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Way to not address my point. It is common sense to presume that. You're holding back on a very very very unlikely scenario. (189.148.82.154 (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

However this phrasing "Barring an unlikely victory by a third-party ticket, this will be the first time in American history in which one of the two candidates on the winning ticket was not a Caucasian male." seems reasonable. I still disagree with your phrasing though. You and the like are way too rigid when it comes to "What if" scenarios. (189.148.82.154 (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

If you want to have the sentence in the form you've just suggested? then by all means add it. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly defines someone not being Caucasian in this case? Mr. Obama is at least half-Caucasian (from his mother´s side). I know that that was not the original topic of this talk page section, but it is about the same sentence. How about something like ¨Barring an unlikely victory by a third-party ticket, this will be the first time in American history in which one of the two candidates on the winning ticket was not mostly a Caucasian male. [Taking the bold out before placing it in the article]. I am going to do that, but if the consensus here is against it, I will take it out again.--Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 15:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point; Obama is half-caucasion. A fact that's usually overlooked. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe Obama is still considered "African American", as he fits the description on the African American article. So, African American is still accurate and shouldn't be removed. However, it probably should be mentioned that he is half-caucasian, just not in place of African American. Also, adding "mostly" to that specific section makes the sentence sound awkward. Timmeh! 16:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So we're in agreement, Obama's mixed race should be mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be mentioned but he is American on his MOTHERS side. So saying half African-American and half Caucasian isnt correct. He is half African (his father is from Kenya) and half Caucasian American (however you want to say that) half White American because his mother was the U.S. citizen. My point he's African-American, and if you want to break it down by sides, he is African (Kenya) and Caucasian (U.S., Kansas). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.43.38 (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

He was born an American citizen (not half-American, half Kenyan citizen). GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatabout the Green ticket? GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Operation Chaos

The Rush Limbaugh Show for several months ran "Operation Chaos", in which he heavily campaigned for Hillary Clinton, to keep her in the race for as long as possible. The purpose being to get the Clinton camp to dig up dirt on Obama. Rush asked listeners to switch parties and vote for Hillary in the primaries. I am not an expert on it, but it was fascinating to listen to on his show, and on other news outlets. This "Operation Chaos", to my understanding was such a phenomenon (sp?) that some Universities are beginning to study it. This has been an important event in this election and I believe that it belongs in any analysis or discussion. Whoever writes it, please keep it neutral, politics is tricky. 68.177.12.38 (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. While I personally did not partake in Operation Chaos because I am not yet of voting age, it is fascinating to see how a talk radio host attempted (some say succeeded, some say failed) to change the outcome of an election by having people vote in the other side. I may write this section if nobody else does, but it really belongs in the article about the Democratic primary. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 16:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Leading candidates' origins and age

Why is Obama's age only listed in a relatively cryptic form? In the same section McCain's age is stated explicitly. 70.122.69.185 (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

By all means, fix it. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Add More News Site URL's

I suggest adding alternative news sites URL's at the end of the document. Currently news sources that lean to the left (i.e. CNN, N.Y. Times and L.A. Times) are on the page. 66.162.79.116 (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidates picture on left or right ?

Date: 09/05/08 - 15:29:55 EST

How is it decided which side to place the candidate's picture ? For the current election, the assignment seems random.

I've noticed for past elections, the victor's picture is on the left (regardless of political leanings).

Is this a consistent theme ? Since the 2008 election hadn't been decided yet, shouldn't we align the pictures more rationally -- perhaps by political leanings or who's head is bigger (j/k) ?

I'm just in favor of consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.44.162 (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I favour removing the pictures & waiting until the results of the prez election (in November). GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Sammyd487's reversal of the picture order because it didn't emerge from any consensus, and Obama's picture has been on the left for the entirety of the article. That being said, it's awkward until one of the candidates wins the election (and therefore gets the left spot). Were McCain the vice-president (and therefore running as a kind of incumbancy), I would favor putting his picture on the left for now. But since neither candidate has a direct line to the current victor, it's a toss-up whose photo should be on the left.–Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Legally Caucasian?

The article talks about candidates not being "legally caucasian. Does the US have some sort of legal "race" classification?

Te Kuri (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm curious about this, too. I'm tempted to remove the word "legally" from that sentence, but I don't know enough about the subject to do that. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to be illegally caucasian? If so, where does one get a caucasian license? GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But I would also add that Charles Curtis, VP from 1929-1933, was close to 1/2 Kaw (and in fact mostly grew up on a Kaw reservation). --Amcalabrese (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I watered down the claim to "either a woman or an African American." While not as poetically concise or sweeping as "not a Caucasian male", it is more accurate for the reasons Amcalabrese has pointed out. Sarah Palin would not be the first vice president who is not a Caucasian male. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Plus there's Women & African Americans on the third party tickets. In fact, the Green's presidential nominee is a African American female. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Drop "Possible electoral college changes"

I propose that we drop the "Possible electoral college changes" section. When it was added, it seemed possible that one or more of these changes might happen. Now, however, with 2 months until election day, it's extremely unlikely that any proposed changes will take place soon enough to be enforced for the 2008 election. Each of the reforms that this article discusses have their own articles, so we wouldn't lose any content that's not presented elsewhere. The benefit of shortening the article, and thus making it easier to read, seems well worth it to me. --M@rēino 22:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. It's highly unlikely (IMO), that changes to the Electoral College would be adopted during a presidential election year. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no argument, I've dropped the section. --M@rēino 18:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidates Pictures

I have mentioned this before, but these pictures need to be looked into. These are the worst pictures I have seen on a presidental election article. All the past articles, have portraits of the canididates with mainly american flags behind them or some other significant object. This articles pictures are two very ugly close up shots of the candidates heads. I think that better photos (which are easily found at commons) should be used in this article. -Marcusmax (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title read "United States of America presidential election"?

After all, an encyclopedia is supposed to have a more formal setting and format. The title "United Stats" on the other hand is a very informal title, as the country is properly called "United States of America". [-Emperor of Rockingham (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We follow the article United States's style. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

United States is often used in formal contexts. The president's title is "President of the United States", the chief justice is "Chief Justice of the United States", the upper house of Congress is the "United States Senate", the sign in front of the the country's ambassador to the UN says "United States", and the country's code of laws is called the "United States Code". If dropping "of America" is appropriate for these rather formal circumstances, it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article title. -Rrius (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Obama and McCain miss Texas ballot registration deadline"

User:Grundle2600 added this section here. I don't dispute that this is accurate and appropriately sourced, but given that it's a certainty that Obama and McCain will be on the ballot anyway (see my subsequent edit), I question the value of including it in this article, for reasons of relevance. Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing Obama or McCain (should they win the state's electoral votes) will receive those electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is just as relevant as the situation in Florida and Michigan during the 2008 Democratic primary. But if enough other editors want it removed from the article, I won't contest the removal. Let's see what other editors think. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, Michigan & Florida primaries (which went unpunished, eventually). Here's to the DNC rule breakers of 2012. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, McCain as a write-in would beat Barr as an on-ballot candidate. Current Texas polls show roughly McCain 50%, Obama 43%, all others 7%. Maybe some people will meekly pull the Barr lever when they don't really want to, but in general, people get really ticked off when they think their right to vote is being infringed, and most people will take the time to write McCain or Obama's name on a piece of paper rather than vote for some guy that most of them either don't know or don't like. --M@rēino 00:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is very relevant, since there was never much doubt that they would be on the ballot in the end, and were added to the official list of candidates on the ballot almost immediately (within a day or two). At the time this happened, it was discussed here (in a section now archived) as well as at Talk:List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008#Texas. Missing the deadline had no practical effect, and paperwork in and of itself is not especially notable. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The article should not show candidate pictures

Until the campaign is over that is. Otherwise, the article risks being intentionally or accidentally biased on account of the pictures(ie. Obamas image is depicted slightly higher then McCain's). Also the background colour is suggestive to an observer. [-Emperor of Rockingham (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been harpen, all along; wait until November. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In what way does it risk being "biased" simply by showing pictures?PonileExpress (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think showing the pictures is fine. It should, however, be fixed so that the two candidates' heads are the same sizes! — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we have a section dealing with national polls?

Although Wikipedia does have an article devoted to day-by-day polls from various media outlets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008), should there be a subsection in this article for longtime polling changes? For example, if it becomes evident that after their respective conventions, one of the candidate's poll numbers began to change considerably, should this be noted and compared to earlier poll numbers? Though this would seem a bit difficult when considering all the different polls, it could be done by summarizing or averaging most of the polls at thee time. (Noxluc (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

It seems to me, creating an average would violate wp:synth. Just link to the other article where the topic can be thoroughly covered.--Appraiser (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Some poll data in the article with regards to battleground states (Missouri, for example) are months out of date, but are referred to as "current." These really should be removed or updated. Mhitchens (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin

Palin leaves open option of war with Russia (AP)

US Republican vice presidential candidate Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, speaks during a rally in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, September 9, 2008. (Tim Shaffer/Reuters)AP - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin left open the option Thursday of waging war with Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.82.168 (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

She doesn't look anything like Curtis LeMay. Anyways, are you asking this bit of info be placed in the article? GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul as an independent candidate?

news is floating that ron paul would run for the elections as an indpendent but more imp all other third party candidates might drop and endorse him as an alternative to the rep and dems

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/09/ron-paul-to-make-major-announcement.html

• Turned out to be a false rumor. Paul had something else in mind.--JayJasper (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected

On January 31, this article was semi-protected for "edit warring". After a request at Requests for Unprotection, I thought it would be fine to unprotect it. If there is significant vandalism to the page, please request protection again at WP:RFPP. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware it was semi-protected. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We must be fair in Wikipedia

We must treat everyone the same. We can't call some people "Presidential Candidate" and then not others (see the picture captions). We must label Mrs. Palin and Mr. Biden the same way. I've corrected the spacing so they are exactly the same. 903M (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what your second edit has to do with fairness. For my browser, it was no change at all. On yours, it must have rendered "Senator" for Biden before a line break in his image caption, but "Governor" after the line break in Palin's. I frankly can't understand where fairness comes in. The two captions were parallel, but the number of letters was unequal. I think we need to stop being so sensitive about about this stuff. Whether the break is before or after the official's title is not a matter of fairness. Who's picture is on the left is not a matter of fairness. Frankly, the terms "minor" and "major" when used to describe parties is not a matter of fairness. The minor parties have no Representatives in the House, have no Senators, have no governors, and have never even come in second in a presidential elections. To describe the parties as such is not unfair. It is hypersensitive to suggest otherwise. -Rrius (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Charts

Moved old charts to United_States_presidential_election,_2008/sandbox - maybe difficult to keep these as would need to regularly update wp:recentism, Tom B (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Edits to the wiki-article

• To the Dick Cheney's quote "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve", add to the reference that Cheney is echoing what General Sherman said in 1884 when people talked of nominating him for President. C2equalA2plusB2 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Under the heading "Media Criticism" add a contrasting paragraph about Rev. Rick Warren's well-regarded interviews of the candidates on 16 Aug 2008. C2equalA2plusB2 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ughh. Whatever happened to seperation of Church & State. And to think, US Presidents confided in Billy 'make me rich, followers' Graham. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• This statement is incorrect: "as either the first African American will be elected President or the first woman or the first Roman Catholic will be elected Vice President." The "or/or" structure makes it sound like "A or B or C," when in reality it is "(A and C) or (B)." If the first African American is elected President (Obama), then the first Roman Catholic will also be elected Vice President (Biden). If not, then the first woman will be elected Vice President (Palin). Better phrasing: "as either the first African American will be elected President and the first Roman Catholic will be elected Vice President, or the first woman will be elected Vice President." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.241.240.30 (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Live Election Night Editing

I'm not really sure if this is something that is done on Wikipedia, but I thought I'd throw out the idea anyways.

I'd like to keep this article updated live while election results are revealed live on the news. I already have an SVG electoral map made up, so that I could re-upload showing a "live" electoral map on this article as the election results are announced.

Is this article the right place to do this, or is there going to be a separate article for this?

Esahr (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, on the night of November 4? This article will be updated momment by momment, guarenteed. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any precedent for when we call a state? Is it when some number of outlets call it? When someone calls it? I'm more asking for general knowledge than for myself, as I will be watching coverage with my spreadsheets, maps, and coloured pencils. -Rrius (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd go by CNN, despite what happend in 2000. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

How about locking the article to edits on election night, and only allow admins to update it (also having 1 user in charge of updating the electoral map to avoid confusion). Trusted sources to "call states" could be when all major networks (CNN, NBC, FOX etc) call a state - and leave the to "close to call" states till there is a solid winner of the state. Samaster1991 (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox images (again)

I wish ya'll would reconsider & remove the Obama & McCain images. Right now, it appears as though Obama is presumed to be the winner (and when McCain is on the left, he appears the assumed winner). There's an obvious appearance of political bias, having the images in the infobox before the election results. GoodDay (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, even the '04 article didn't do this.PonileExpress (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well right now both candidates seem to be rotating between being on the left or right. How about just switching who's on the left and right each day, so one day it will be Obama, the next Mccain, the next Obama and so on... Or how about just putting them alphabetical order or something with a side note saying "Candidates listed in alphabetical order". Samaster1991 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be less hassle, if we delete them from the infobox ('til November 4). GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How about.....it doesn't really matter. I have a bigger problem with the fact that John McCain's head is smaller than Barack Obama's on the pictures than I do the order of the pictures. I think we are reading way too much into this. Ocexpo (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see myself how left=winner and right=loser. There's nothing wrong with the pictures. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Check the following articles United States presidential election, 2004, United States presidential election, 2000 etc. All previous US prez election articles have the president-elect on the topleft side. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if there is a potential conflict, shouldn't priority go to the party of the current president? I mean, that is how they decide which convention goes first and which one goes second...they let the party of the current president choose. I have always seen priority over small issues (not just on Wiki, but on other sites and in the media/election process) go to the party with the president in office. Ocexpo (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Customarily on Wikipedia, the incumbent party comes first, yes. Or maybe that's just me, but I've seen quite a lot of election articles that use this rule of thumb. But really, aren't there more productive things to do? —kurykh 01:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Easier said then done. The closer we get to November 4? the more likely political PoV pushers will invade this article & push their candidates to the top left-corner. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the frontrunner in the RealClearPolitics.com average of polls gets to be the top-left corner image.Ocexpo (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You're free to try any of your suggestions. I wish you luck (you'll need it). GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How about we alternate the images every six hours beginning at 00:01 UTC, but if a third-party candidate hits 5% in any poll acknowledged as important by any three editors on this talk page, then rotate counter-clockwise every four hours beginning at 00:01 UTC or at the next multiple of four hours after the poll is so acknowledged, with the inclusion to continue until one week has passed since the last poll showing that candidate at 5% that any three editors acknowledge as important. If two third-party candidates meet the 5% threshold, pictures shall be rotated counter-clockwise every three hours beginning at the first multiple of three house after 00:01 UTC after the second candidate is acknowledged on this page. When one third-party candidate ceases to qualify, but another continues, drop the candidate at the multiple of four hours after 00:01 UTC after he or she ceases to qualify. It's all rather simple. -Rrius (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I really dont think people will see it as a bias. Perhaps people will look to MSNBC, Huffington Post, FOX News, The Weekly Standard, or Newsweek to cite bias rather than Wikipedia.98.149.127.13 (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's really quite simple./ Obama's a leftist, McCain's a Right-winger. Use logic?
Blindman shady 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha haaa; that's a kneeslapper. Luv it. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Swing State Electoral Vote Count is added up wrong

It is supposed to be 204, while it is listed as 210. It's simple to see if you do the math.Liftmeup (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry I didn't add this to the previous post) It is listed as Democrats having 165 electoral votes when adding up all of the uncontested states listed in that sentence. The correct calculation is 171. Someone, please fix this. Thanks Liftmeup (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Republican Party

The picture of the presumptive Republic VP is there but no one updated the comment below to say he has picked the VP candiate, Sarah Palin of Alaksa. Needs updated.

This item appears to have been updated. Onos (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Swing states section

I've a better idea folks. Let's delete the entire Swing states section. None of this info will matter after November 4. IMO, we shouldn't be using this article as a Polls update. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

hope you don't mind me starting a new section. hi, i don't think we should delete the whole thing, at the very least a link to what a swing state and brief explanation is informative. I thought someone might suggest deletion as a way of dealing with the problem, i can see why given the wrangling of what's in play and what isn't. i've worked a lot on this section and even from the start it is a relatively unwiki thing to have a section in the nature of a wp:crystal ball. i was going to suggest cutting it down to the really key states such as penn, ohio, colorado and virgina per [1]. or maybe we'll have to cut out all the states and just have explicit links to several polling sites, it would probably be nice however if we could keep some of the states in as some people might come to this article looking for that kind of info Tom B (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the main point of the section is to inform the reader as to which states are "in play". The candidates' travel itineraries make that information pretty apparent. Providing that information avoids the problem of having to define what a "swing state" is without doing original research.--Appraiser (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain attempt to avoid debating Obama sign of a faltering campaign

On Wednesday, September 24, John McCain invoked the current economic crisis as reason for not showing up for the first 2008 presidential debate. Online versions of USA Today and the Boston Globe cite one possible reason being that his campaign had received disastrous poll results on McCain's ability to handle the economy. Is this approprioate to cite, of course with footnotes. A person dressed as a chciken appeard in front of McCain Palin headquarters in Manchester, NH today, this is reported on WCRB. CApitol3 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

USA Today & Boston Globe gave their opinon, but it's just an opinon. Best to wait for the McCain campaign's reasons. As for the person in the chicken suit? he was afraid to show his face. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Subtle POV in order of candidates.

Why is McCain placed above Ralph Nader? Isn't this biased? Ok, you say that McCain is a major candidate. If so, that logic requires that candidates be placed in some logical order. The best logic is to look at the last election and place the candidates in order of the number of votes to that party's candidate.

903M (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Near the end of the article, the order should be (based on Wikipedia's 2004 campaign article)

McCain Obama Ralph Nader Libertarian Constitution Green Peace and Freedom Socialist Socialist Workers then the rest, possibly in alphabetical order of last name 903M (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't the list alphabetical? It seems the least likely to be a POV violation. Start at A, end at Z, don't distinguish between 'major' and 'minor'. ThuranX (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the list carefully. First we have the candidates for the major partities, then the candidates for the other parties. The fact that the Democracts and Republicans are the only two major parties contesting this election is only likely to be disputed by an extreme minority of sources, probably not even most or all the other parties. It's clearly not a NPOV violation when it's supported by the vast majority of sources Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If we are going by notability, I think this would be the most fair way to list the candidates, in three different categories:

1. the 'major party' candidates in alphabetical order by party label.

2. the 'second tier' 'third party/independent candidates' (i.e. Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin)

3. the rest, in alphabetical order by party label. Cmrdm (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Another, and perhaps even more objective method, would be to list the candidates in order of the amount of electoral votes that they could hypothetically win. That would be: Obama/McCain, Barr, Nader, McKinney, Baldwin, La Riva, Moore, Calero, Keyes, etc. Cmrdm (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Either of those methods sounds fine to me. The first is easier, but the second is possible now that we're getting to the end of the ballot access "season". -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We only assume that the Democratic and Republican Parties are major because of their previous votes. So look at the last election and rank the parties in order of votes. If we don't have information on a party or if it did not run in 2004, then put those in alphabetical order in the bottom. 903M (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The top picture of Obama and McCain keep getting switched. Obama on the left may be preferred as a compromise for 2 reasons. Obama is considered leftist and McCain rightist. So McCain on the right, Obama on the left. Since English is read left to right, this also puts Obama first. To balance that, the bottom part of the article (political parties) lists, or should list, the Republican Party first because they received the most votes during the last Presidential election. The last election is important because that gives the order of the smaller parties, distinguishing the larger smaller parties (like Ralph Nader and the Libertarian Party) from the tiny parties.

This is also reason why, at the bottom, McCain should come first, Obama second, Ralph Nader third, etc. 903M (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It would look very odd to me to go against alphabetical order for the major parties. The "other parties" are ordered alphabetically, while the "third parties" are distinguished from them by the number of electoral votes in the states where they're on the ballot in this current election. I find the 2004 election (in which few of these candidates actually ran) to be of little importance, and would support ordering third party candidates fully by ballot access, as proposed above. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the whole list should be alphabetically ordered. Ordering by any sort of popularity makes it more difficult to look through the candidates. I came to this page looking to find a complete list, you know factual information; unfortunately, biased ordering makes it more difficult. This is an article about the candidates, not the Democrat and GOP nominees as the page appears to be (just at seeing the pictures at the top i thought i was on the wrong article, but that is a whole other issue of bias). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.232.236 (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to say that this is an article about the election -- for an article about the candidates, I would recommend List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that only two candidates' images are shown at the top of the page. Compare this to the 40th Canadian federal election. Mebden (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask Ralph Nader about it. He enjoyed his treatment at the 2000 presidential debates. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the order of the list, the Republican Candidate should come outside of any alphabetical listing, as the party is the incumbent in this election. 128.205.228.246 (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Very disturbing removing of "Swing states"

I've noticed that one user has been trying to remove several states from the "Swing states" section, including Florida, Missouri and North Carolina, despite polls showing these states in play and in flux. This person used language like " RealClearPolitics shows Missouri safely in McCain's favor, and recent polls show him up 5%-10% according to RealClearPolitics" [2] and "new poll shows 6 point McCain lead in FL, RealClearPolitics no longer shows it as a toss up" [3]. Not only did this user not remove the states that show Obama polling ahead by similar margins (New Mexico for instance), but is now attempting to remove the reliably sourced North Carolina section with the reasoning "one 'poll' showing it to be a toss up is not reliable." [4], of course completely contradicting their own "new poll" reasoning when attempting to remove Florida.

I'm not saying this user has a McCain bias, but their actions might appear so to the public. We need to be very diligent in ensuring there does not appear to be any bias in what is presented here.--Oakshade (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't even bother with having swing states in this article. John Diefenbaker (PM of my country, 1957-63) had an interesting view, on Polls. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't have issue with removal of the section, but if it remains, we must appear non-biased with its content. --Oakshade (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, all 50 states are potentially swing states. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since people cannot check their political biases at the door, I think states should only be removed once consensus is reached here. -Rrius (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you looked, Oakshade, I reinsterted your awfully formatted and poorly written North Carolina bit, but also added New Jersey as well to keep it balanced. Saying that RCP is not valid is a poor excuse considering they take the average of all the polls....it is not just one poll that determines the outcome. Even when your "oddball" poll was averaged into the RCP average, it STILL didn't declare NC a toss up state. According to them, North Carolina is not a toss up. I added New Jersey previously because RCP had it as a toss up, but then they moved it into the Obama category, so I removed it. You need to calm down. Missouri is NOT shown as an RCP toss up, so that is why I advocated deleting it. Neither is New Mexico. I am just trying to show the same states RCP show's as toss ups as toss up's on Wiki because RCP is an average of all polls. Ocexpo (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oakshade didn't say RCP isn't valid, just that it is not the be-all, end-all. RCP does not cover every valid poll and the output of averaging the most recent of the polls it does include is not the only (or even an especially good) way of figuring out which states are battleground states. -Rrius (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ocexpo, as Rrius indicated, I never said or implied that RCP isn't valid. It's only one source. There are many other sources Wikipedia relies on for its content. With an issue like this election, there are literally thousands of reliable sources that Wikipedia bases its content on and there are many reliable sources that show Florida, Missouri and North Carolina are in contention. Otherwise the candidates wouldn't be campaigning in all three as they are doing now. To say RCP invalidates every other source is ludicrous. And Ocexpo, as you are a new user (unless you are a sock), please read WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Attacking an editor's content as "awfully formatted and poorly writted" (sic) is not worth responding to.--Oakshade (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so New Mexico, Washington state, and New Jersey are also considered "battleground" states by your standard then. That is why they are inserted in the article. Perhaps we should add Iowa to that list too. And I think you need to stop calling the kettle black because you basically told me "dont revert my edit you new user" which is why I responded the way I did. Ocexpo (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the wording was "to new user Ocexpo, stop removing sourced material" [5] which is what you were doing and not a personal attack as your invented wording would be. I have no problem with New Mexico, Washington and New Jersey being included on the list. --Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oakshade, STOP inserting the results of ONE of the polls into the description. In the OVERALL picture, the average of ALL the polls (including your little one) John McCain has a lead in North Carolina. It is dumb to say "In the average of all polls, John McCain has a sizeable lead, but one of the polls shows it to be a tie..." that is not a way to report it. We dont need a report on each individual poll for the state of North Carolina. One of the polls shows McCain to be ahead 17 points, another says 14 points....but thats the beauty of an AVERAGE is that all the polls are AVERAGED together, and that is what determines where they stand. You seem to have a hard time with this concept...we arent here to "find the poll that Obama is doing the best in and report only what that poll says."Ocexpo (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, two of the three most recent polls show a tie. As we are trying to explain to you, RCP is not the only source on polling. It averages the five most recent polls and that's useful but not the end-all. Even that 17 point McCain lead that's currently factored in was in fact the oldest of the five polls - from September 8 to Septebmer 10. The most recent 4 polls show either a tie or a McCain lead by 1 to 3 percent (by the way, none of the current RCP polls factored into its current average shows a 14 point McCain lead [6]). When the next poll comes out (probably soon), that obviously inaccurate 17 point McCain lead will be factored out.--Oakshade (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Either way, since you complained enough, I added a clause describing individual polls and how some show a sizeable lead for McCain while others show it to be a tie. NC is now the ONLY state on that list that cites a specific poll individually...all the others are just averages. I still think we should only list averages like we did on every other state, but since you insist on including "the poll Obama is doing the best" in the description, I need to balance it out.Ocexpo (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That "the poll Obama is doing the best" assumption of bias is inaccurate as we are trying to show the current status of the race. The four most recent polls show in NC that McCain "double digit lead" is not correct and that in fact the race is currently very tight. The original "dead heat" wording is supported by the RCP source. We appreciate your effort to "to balance it out" which is a great improvement over your previous attempts to remove several of the states from this section. --Oakshade (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

To add to this thread, now that the RCP shows the average of recent poll results demonstrating the North Carolina is in "play," even showing Obama with a slight lead, this should put an end to this discussion. --Oakshade (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV - Request modification to Citation 69 (link to Greenpapers)

Request that Citation/Footnote #69 be modified to read Election 2008 Primary, Caucus, and Convention Phase as per the title of the actual page that it links to at The Green Papers - the current footnote reads as "Democratic Convention 2008. The Green Papers. Retrieved on 2008-09-01."

The footnote is first linked to from the Republican section, then twice from within the Democratic section, and once from the Constitution Party section.

The Green Pages link shows results from all the parties fielding presidential/vice-presidential candidates; it may be more consistent to go with the linked site's title (as suggested above) to keep a better NPOV.

--Onos (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

America's Independent Party

For what it's worth, Wiley Drake, not Brian Rohrbough, is listed as the vice presidential candidate for America's Independent Party in California. [7] --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Boston Tea Party

Is this party relevant here? Its candidate for president is on the ballot in only three states. Write-in registrations have been performed in two other states. Including all the states with no pre-election write-in registration, plus the three states, plus the two write-in registration states, they only come up with 121 electoral votes. That might change with more write-in registrations, I guess. Also, the vice president is listed as Tom Knapp only in Tennessee. In Florida the ballot line reads John Wayne Smith. In Colorado it is Dan Kilo. I think their write-in registration in Arizona listed someone else. Some sort of "favorite son" strategy is at work here. Planetaryjim (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

electoral votes in "Charts of polling data in battleground states"

New Hampshire has 4 electoral votes, not 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.31.199 (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain infidelity?

Was John McCain chaste while seeing Cindy before he divorced Carol Swanson? I have seen two timelines of Carol Shepp McCain's involvement with McCain. One shows her still married to Alasdair Swanson when she began seeing McCain (though she sued him for infidelity). Is there a definitive source on this as several liberal political blogs claim a 527 group is about to unleash radio and TV ads accusing McCain of coveting another man's wife, and suggesting that later he committed adultery with Cindy McCain. CApitol3 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it's liberal political blogs? we shouldn't add it. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox: Biden & Palin's home states

Seeing as the major party veep nominees 'home states' aren't listed in the Infoboxes of the previous US presidential election articles; let's not add them at this article. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Texas ballot controversy

I noticed that the Controversy section doesn't mention Bob Barr's attempt to get McCain and Obama off of the Texas ballot. Does somebody closer to the article want to add it? [8][9] -- Intractable (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Charts of polling data in battleground states

This section is duplicated in Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008. In my opinion, it belongs there. Should it be removed from this article? Robin S (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That they appear in both places is not enough reason to delete. They are in this article as a summary. I'm not saying that the graphs should be in, but I don't think that is a good reason to remove them. -Rrius (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please insert Barr, Nader, McKinney, Baldwin on top along with the other two

I find it outrageous, that even on a free Encyclopedia like this, the Democrats and Republicans are depicted as the main parties and their marionettes can have their photo on the top of the page. What is this? Get the other candidates right next to them, now! I am not a Wiki-Editor, but I request this to be done in order to stop degrading the third party candidates, as it is done in virtually all mass media. I demand fair elections, please help me with truthful documentation. Thank you for your support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.101.85 (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, The Truth^TM. In any case, please review all prior discussions regarding this topic. We're not here to be fair; we're here to be realistic. —kurykh 21:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're outraged anon? fear not, you've an election coming up on November 4. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What? No love for Alan Keyes, Gloria La Riva, or Brian Moore? ;-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The American electorate will answer that question on November 4. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My tongue was firmly implanted in my cheek when I wrote the above. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've a funny bone too. Thus my previous response. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is degrading the minor-party candidates? It sounds like some editors here are having some weird fun and not letting me join! -Rrius (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've a new idea. Howabout, we have no candidates in the TopInfobox until after the US prez election. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Anybody intrested in adding

A part that discusses the electoral college. This year we have an increase of one eletorial college making the only possible resolt of both candidates not reaching 270 would be 269/269. In the previous election this was not possible (odd # last election) also can someone discuss how in the future 270 may need to be changed due to the possible increase in electorial college (from population increase and more house of representatives) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly true. The number of electors is the same as it has been since DC got electors in 1961. Thus, there have been 438 since the 1964 election. While the size of the Senate has changed with the increase in the number of states, the House has had 435 since the early 1900s. All the same, it might be helpful to give a quick explanation. At first blush it seems speculative to explain that Obama and Biden are more likely to win in a tie, but it is incontrovertible that essentially all pundits believe the Democrats will make gains in both houses and that they already control an absolute majority of House delegations. I'm not going to add anything because I'd like to see this discussed first. -Rrius (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

286-251 (total 537)(that's from 2004). "Electoral college votes per state for 2008. The winning candidate needs a majority of electoral votes: at least 270 out of a total of 538."So something is wrong. Either there is an increase of 1 electoral college vote or the statement of 538 is wrong ( for 2008) also if you go back to 1996 there was again 538 (379 + 159 = 538. So something is a little strange with the 538/537 switchero. You See what I mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

One elector from Minnesota voted for John Edwards for president and vice-president. Thus, it was 286-251-1. -Rrius (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For 1996 2000 (I thought it was 2000!) and other years, see faithless elector. -Rrius (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Concurr with Rrius. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Should Michigan be taken off the swing states list?

It's been confirmed [10] that John McCain is pulling out of Michigan. So he's basically conceding the state to Obama. Should it still be on the swing state list then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongesquid (talk • contribs) 21:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay for a while. McCain may still try to fight it with ads for a while. We should wait for it to be clear. -Rrius (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont think we should follow "trends" in the polls. It has been a swing state all along, and it is still considered to be one. If McCain is somehow able to swing the national election from its current state to his favor, Michigan will very much be a swing state at that point. The only states on the "safe" list are the ones we can say, pretty much with no doubt, will go one way or the other in spite of large shifts in the polls for one candidate or another. Michigan is not one of those because should the election swing back to being a toss up, it is likely that Michigan will do the same.98.149.127.13 (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the point. As has been widely reported, Michigan has fallen into the "safe" column for Obama. McCain has conceded this point by shutting down his campaign operation in that state and pulling people out. If it's no longer in competition, it cannot be considered a swing state. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether someone is actively campaigning in a state does not determine if a state is a "swing state" or not. Reliable sources do. If we were to go by where the campaigns are, then Maine would be included because the McCain campaign is about to start carpet bombing CD-2 hoping to pick off one of Maine's 4 EV's and Washington would not be included as the McCain campaign has no presence in Washington at all.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. But it's not just the fact that he's pulled his campaign out. The reliable sources are now saying that Michigan is no longer in play. Also "Battleground State" is often used as a synonym for Swing State (even in this article). If no battle is fought can a state be called a battleground? --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The BBC article cited is unfortunately now a dead link. But it specifically described Michigan as a "battleground state", which is why I thought it should still be in the section. I'm going to look for a new reference to use. But, the larger question pertains to the scope of the article. For any particular election, some states are battlegrounds (Tennessee in 2000, Arkansas in 2008 if Clinton were running). This article should ignore those and transcend a few election cycles. I think Michigan's inclusion was a result of it's trend toward competitiveness over the past few cycles. That may or may not justify its inclusion, but McCain's apparent conceding of the state shouldn't define the article.--Appraiser (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example[11] of Michigan still being called a "battleground state".--Appraiser (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, we should probably leave it in there, then (with mention that it's currently considered out of play). The pared-down language that you added strikes a good balance, let's go with that. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The polls over the last few weeks show an Obama blowout, especially last weekend. Maybe last week it was good to leave it, but now it should be removed. KansasCityA's34 (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone remove the bit about Zogby polls in the debates section?

There's a bit in the section about the debates that states a Zogby poll says 70% of independents want Barr included in the debates. Knowing Zogby, this was an online poll (and having checked the actual poll text, it was), and libertarian voters tend to be over-represented in online polls, aside from online polls being almost worthless on their face. I'd remove it, because it's irrelevant first of all, and inaccurate second, but I can't edit the page. -- Anationofmillions (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Jason Potter for adding a disclaimer to the numbers. I'd prefer they be removed entirely but I'm fine with mentioning the numbers and then also explaining why they are worthless. Thanks! -- Anationofmillions (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are rapidly changing polls here?

This is an encyclopedia not a news page. It makes sense to talk about swing states in their historical context but changing this page as polls change is not encyclopedic. We have news channels for that. 203.196.81.139 (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As the warning templates say, this is an article about a current event and content may change. Polling information is noteworthy and warrants inclusion. The only reason the entire history of nationwide and statewide polling for this election is not in the article is that it is too long, not that it changes too much. -Rrius (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And as the other warning template says, "This is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet." Eventually the "Swing states", "Opinion polling", and "Charts of polling data in battleground states" sections will end up looking something like United States presidential election, 2004#Battleground states. Since this article is still too long, and there are already humongous articles dedicated to both Statewide and Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, I see little reason to keep the daily tally sheets here. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Space is a valid issue, the other thing is not. Please note that the template you are quoting is not talking about what you imply it does. It says in full, "This is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet. If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them; rather, refer to them as having ran and lost, dropped out, etc." The text you quoted is making a point about deleting candidates because they drop out. The most recent polls in battleground states are relevant and should be included the blurbs on them, but the older polls are already preserved in the statewide polling article, so can be removed. Frankly, this discussion would be easier if the IP user had specifically stated what instances of polling he or she is talking about. If it is only about the graphs, I agree they should go. They take up way, way too much space. A national graph would make some sense, but that's about it for polling graphs. Plus, the state graphs are hard to use. -Rrius (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Should Georgia be inserted into the swing state category?

In the last few days a few polls have showed the race in Georgia to be tightening. A poll released yesterday by insider advantage showed McCain ahead by 3% and the Senate race there between Chambliss and Martin tied. The state seems up for grabs. KansasCityA's34 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see the swing states section deleted. Theoretically, all 50 states are up for grabs. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, GoodDay, but that is overly simplistic. Most state are not realistically up for grabs. Since we Americans have stuck ourselves with a winner-takes-all electoral system in all but two states, the state-by-state analysis is vital, and ignoring the fact that only a handful of states are in play denies reality. Short of a 1964/1972/1984 sort of landslide, the only effective means of understanding the status of the race is to know which states are battlegrounds and what is going on in them. -Rrius (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

To the original point, I would say hold off until one of our prediction sites moves it or we get another poll or two backing that one up, but I don't know what rule we have used during the election. -Rrius (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

North Dakota a swing state?

According to Real Clear Politics, two early to mid-September polls showed McCain with a sizable lead, but the only poll taken since September 17 shows Obama with a 2 percent lead (poll taken October 6 through October 8). See polls here. It seems North Dakota might be "in play." --Oakshade (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias in opening sentence?

"The Republican Party has chosen John McCain, the senior United States Senator from Arizona as its nominee; Barack Obama, the junior United States Senator from Illinois, has been chosen as the nominee for the Democratic Party."

This sentence is written with "The Republican Party as the subject. Shouldn't it be changed to two sentences? How about this?

"The Republican Party has chosen John McCain, the senior United States Senator from Arizona as its nominee. The nominee for the Democratic Party is Barack Obama, the junior United States Senator from Illinois."

I don't know how to make the changes myself, I hope I'm using this page correctly.

123.254.80.92 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Michael

I've changed the wording from passive to active, as that is grammatically proper, but you would have to read too far into it to find any bias, in my opinion. [12] Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning McCain first, seems like a compromise for having Obama images first. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I honestly can't imagine anyone saying "Oh no, Wikipedia has so much liberal bias because the put Obama's picture before McCain's!" Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would point you two the many times (including at least once in the last 24 hours) when edit skirmishes have taken place over that very issue. In reality, the order of the candidates in the above sentence is almost certainly a result of how much longer the Democratic race lasted. -Rrius (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I still support deleting the images 'til after the US prez election; ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Connection to biggest three states

I just removed a section that said this election was the first since 1976 and fourth since the Civil War in which no presidential candidate had a connection to the three biggest states. It parenthetically noted California, Texas, and New York as the largest states. Of course those states (well, the first two) have not always been on that list. For the 1960 to 1940 censuses, New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania were the three largest states. The 1896 election was the only in that stretch without a candidate elected from those states, but William Jennings Bryan was born in Illinois. There really is no room for debate here either, California pushed Illinois out in the 1950 census, and was probably larger by 1948, but a New Yorker ran in that election. Texas pushed Pennsylvania out in 1980, but a Californian ran that year.

So the information was inaccurate. If this has any meaning beyond trivia, it is not developed enough yet to warrant inclusion. -Rrius (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota and New Hampshire

MN and NH are listed as swing states, then are immediately thereafter listed as former swing states. I don't see where the numbers in those two state are much different from other states that have been delisted, so I am going to remove them and add them and their electoral votes to the last paragraph of the "Swing state" section. -Rrius (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about New Hampshire, but the candidates are still actively campaigning in Minnesota and spending money there (it was a recent rally in Minnesota that McCain said "Obama is a decent person." [13]), so I think Minnesota should remain in. --Oakshade (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that active campaigning should be the benchmark, but that can be debated. The reason I made the edit was that both states were on two contradictory lists and the electoral votes were completely messed up due to those states and other. If people are going to move states onto or off of the swing state list, the two paragraphs below the list need to be updated. The list of formerly competitive races and total electoral votes for swing states should be updated. Also, the relevant candidate's list should be updated. If a state taken from the swing state list, it should be added the list of the candidate who is assumed to have its votes, as should the total of votes immediately before the list of states. If the state is moving to the swing state list, it and its votes should be removed from the candidate's list and added to the swing state list and its vote count. When we don't (and not doing so has been quite common), it makes those two paragraphs useless. -Rrius (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a difficult article to maintain for those reasons. If a state is added or removed from the "Swing states" section, then there must be adjustments to content in other paragraphs. I'm looking forward to this election ending.--Oakshade (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear!

The definition of a "swing state" shouldn't change every time a new poll comes out. I think we should rely on a durable publication that lists states that have "swung" between parties over the last 3 or 4 election cycles. I've made the same suggestion on the Swing state article, but the consensus seems to prefer to change the list every couple of days. Perhaps before the next election cycle we can come to some reasonable solution.--Appraiser (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this article really means "battleground state", but says "swing state". Common practice has merged the terms despite the usefulness of the distinction. In any event, the states that have swung in the last 3, 4, 5, or however many cycles is not especially useful here. What is useful is a list of states that are realistic probabilities of going to either candidate. That has changed over the course of the campaign. Minnesota is one state that changed, but some editors think that what matters is whether a party is campaigning there. The fact that McCain hasn't abandoned it yet is all important to them (even though Obama is up by double digits and the RNC has stopped spending money for McCain there). -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that Minnesota is a swing state? Having a republican governor doesn't make it competitive. The state is, and has been, strongly in the Obama camp. 38.97.106.165 (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the closest I can come to answering my own question, from RealClearPolitics. "Obama has solidified virtually every state John Kerry won in 2004, save Minnesota. But even in the North Star State, he's got a significant lead." [14] And even that site has Obama leading by 8.7 points (they consider a solid lead to be ~9 points). 38.97.106.165 (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ohio Voter Fraud

http://www.journalinquirer.com/articles/2008/10/17/national_and_world/doc48f39b159d037384053376.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.197.117.89 (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden's name missing from intro paragraph

I may be being too pedantic here but as Sarah Palin is mentioned by name in this paragraph then I think Joe Biden's ought to as well. This page needs to be much tighter than other pages in being seen to be totally unbiased. But also his religion is mentioned without mentioning who he is which is slightly confusing. Athosfolk (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. -Rrius (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, is the current text saying that Joe Biden is the first Roman Catholic candidate or the first VP Roman Catholic? Kennedy was a Roman Catholic, I think it should be corrected to either state that he would be the first Roman Catholic VP candidate in history. The text is slightly confusing as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diabulos (talk • contribs) 11:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania still a swing state? Virginia too?

I see that someone removed Minnesota as a swing state, but Pennsylvania with a 13-point advantage for Obama should also be removed by then right? I will removed it by consequent. I've also thought of removing Virginia (8.1 point lead for Obama) as well but I will wait for one more poll giving a solid Obama lead before doing so. That would give Obama 277 safe EVs thus the win.--JForget 17:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've a better idea, delete the entire section. Theoretically, all 50-states are swing states. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This the "swing states" section, not "battleground states" section, so yes, PA should be removed. However, I think we should wait for maybe another week of polling in VA to make sure it's not still in play. Timmeh! 18:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a Virginian and this state has not voted democratic for president in 44 years. Just by that alone, I don't think you could remove it from a swing state. I would not be surprised is McCain win the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Bias against third-party candidates

There are 11 third-party candidates on ballots this year, but the Infobox templates at the top of the election pages don't indicate that, nor did they in the articles for previous election years.

This isn't necessarily Obama vs. McCain, but someone coming to this page would immediately gather that it was based on the first photos you see on the page. --Josmul123 (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

See the past discussions on this article. Particularly, the archives. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh lord, I just read the whole thing. I don't want to open that can of worms. I've added strikeouts to my comment to show it as withdrawn. I hope nobody reads it :-P --Josmul123 (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

'Tis alright. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Electoral map methodology

Where is the discussion of methodology for the electoral map? Is this just a big original research project? -Exucmember (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that stuff be at Electoral College (United States) article? GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that stuff is at Image:McCainObamaMatchupTWINtop.svg, from which I quote:

“ Data is derived from en:Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008. Polls have a half life of 10 days (i.e., $weight={\frac {1}{2^{\frac {days}{10}}}}$). Polls are not used prior to the date on the 10th most recent poll, in order to ensure that the map is quick enough to respond to recent changes in opinion.

The results of the algorithm are listed at en:Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 in the map section.

”

-David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the explanation at Image:McCainObamaMatchupTWINtop.svg of what the methodology is (and posted the same question about WP:NOR there before posting it here), but there's no discussion there or anywhere I can find of why this methodology is being used or where it came from. Who decided these particular rules and why? -Exucmember (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Restructure sentence

Is it just me, or is this sentence just terrible?

With African American candidate Barack Obama, who is of mixed African and Caucasian parentage, as the Democratic Party nominee for President and John McCain's selection of female Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as the Republican Party nominee for Vice-President, the eventual winning ticket is very likely to have a historic context, as either the first African American will be elected President along with the first Roman Catholic, Joe Biden, as Vice President or the oldest first-term President will be elected with the first woman Vice President.

I got terribly lost the first time I read that. I think it needs to be reworked significatntly to be made clearer; it is a large run-on sentence in my opinion. I didn't expect it from such an important article. --Natural R_X 22:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The mentioning of Biden, mixes it up. Hey, Biden would (if he served two terms) be the second oldest Vice President in US history (if elected & re-elected). GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox map needs key

The map in the infobox needs to provide a key for the differing shades of red and blue. See Image:McCainObamaMatchupTWINtop.svg. I guess they're either toss-up or swing states, or it shows how solid the leads are. Can someone provide the key? Thanks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition to Evb-wiki's request, I think the map also should show EV totals (not counting tossups) for each candidate. Timmeh! 14:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Support both proposals. 72.79.198.22 (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Soooooo what happened to the poll percentage map?

Every election there's a poll percentage map under the two candidates indicating their standings in the race. Eager to see how they were doing this election year, just like in 04, I checked the wikipedia page to find this odd and unnecessary map of the electoral values of states replacing the poll percentage map usually present in election pages. Why is this? Has it always just been that picture of.... nothing on this page? And why hasn't anyone said anything about how it takes away from the truth about the election? Whether the present winning candidate is John McCain, Barack Obama, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, or Bob Barr..... I would like to know and be updated as to their status. Wouldn't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.36.250 (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. isn't this what you're talking about?--Appraiser (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain win?

Maybe I am interpreting this current map wrong but it seems like it suggests that McCain would win. Practically every media source tells otherwise. Could the media be surveying wrong? NorthernThunder (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You're definitely interpreting the current map wrong - it gives Obama 349 electoral votes, McCain 166, and 23 tossup electoral votes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It is not wrong. each state (correct me if I am wrong) send different number of representative to elect president. I think it is based on the population of the state. Just like UK General election 2005. If you see the map only, you'll predict conservative would win, but labour wins instead. Seeing the map is not that simple. I used to think the same way as you do. w_tanoto (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The "weight" of each state is based on its population; New Jersey, for example, is worth 15 electoral votes, as Montana, though larger geographically, is only worth 3. For more information, see Electoral College (United States). »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You think we should add a cartogram to fix that? Paragon¹²³²¹ 23:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

SWP nominee

I have the Florida Ballot in front of me and James Harris is the SWP party's nominee - not Caruso.

Harris is listed as that party's nominee as "stand-in" in some states due to Calero's (not Caruso) constitutional ineligibility to serve as president (he is not a natural born U.S. citizen). He is, however, the party's official nominee.--JayJasper (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

European Opinion

I think it should be included in the article that Europe is massively supporting Obama, all the polls that I know show at least 80% of Europeans would vote for Obama. http://www.europevotes.com is one of them. After all, the US elections are not only effecting the Americans lifes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.165.2 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, also no mention is made of the international aspect of the election (international tours of both McCain and Obama, as pointed out above, feel of people abroad). This really is more than an American issue.Hrcolyer (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No-one has asked me ( in GB ); and I should think it highly unlikely many people outside the political classes give a damn. American policy affects the rest of the world; which incumbent rests in the White House has slight meaning. Reagan, Bush One, Clinton, Bush Two, McCain and Obama all have vastly more in common than they do separating them. The world will not change whomever is elected ( apart from whichever countries either candidate selects for invasion ). Elections are more of an entertainment to excite and pleasure rather than a meaningful choice. Claverhouse (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for adding; as non-American citizens can't vote in the election. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

hahaha "apart from whichever countries either candidate selects for invasion". Since we're not talking about more than just a short little chapter somewhere, I think it should be included. After all, it is part of how the 2008 election is percieved by the members of the human race. In 2108 it may be interesting to know: "oh, so the Europeans preferred Obama, now why did they do that? What does that say about McCain and Obama?" On the other hand, Europeans are more left wing than Americans. I live in Denmark and in my entire life I have only met one person ever, who actually preferred a Republican... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.24.213 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 31 October 2008

That's not even a scientific poll. I know there are actual polls out there that show strong support for Obama, but their significance is purely trivial. 70.181.171.159 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for opinion. Take your opinions elsewhere. Guddlebuggy (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Who goes first? Who cares?

Months ago it was decided that we would have the two major party candidates in the infobox. Periodically, people have edit skirmished over who goes on the left. Despite this, for the vast majority of the time, Obama has been to the left and McCain to the right. Now at least two editors have changed it on the basis that it should be alphabetical, and they have been reverted. Obama should stay on the left because that is the way the article has developed. For every argument the players should be alphabetical can be countered with one noting that they should sit on the appropriate side of the political spectrum. Every argument that McCain's is the incumbent part can be countered by one asserting that Obama is ahead in the polls. In the end, there is no good reason for having either candidate on either side of the infobox. As such, the history of having Obama on the left should be left alone until the election is called for one of the candidates.

Unfortunately, this juvenile nonsense of wanting one's candidate listed first is find its way into the sentence saying McCain and Palin and Obama and Biden are their parties nominees. This is idiotic, and I hope that most of the editors of this article, regardless of their political views, will help counter it. -Rrius (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps listing canadidate via party alphabetically Democrat then Republican. Anyways folks, the images should've been deleted weeks. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I just voted early (disclosure: for Obama) and the ballot order was McCain then Obama - alphabetical by last name. It seems to me that the majority of ballots are going to be alphabetical by last name or will be random order. Unless there really are states that have ballot order as alphabetical by party, I think last name should be our order - McCain first. I don't see how the alpha by party rules could be applied to an election with two independents or to a Louisiana primary system. Surely this has been discussed elsewhere on the wikiproject and a consensus has emerged. --Aranae (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nay! I'd say go with no images, until after the US prez election. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you bother with a 'major party' candidate infobox? By having the infobox with only the 'major party' candidates undermines NPOV - and re-enforces the bias that the media also maintains that says that only the 'major party' candidates are worth anything. --Dean Tregenza (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That was the subject of a long discussion. See the archives. -Rrius (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Portraits, one final time

I have adressed this here, at least 2-3 times if not more. These pictures we are using are ugly portraits of the candidates. Please see,2004 Election, 2000 Election, 1996 Election and do on and so forth. These are all nice shots of those running for President. So one final time I propose we change the pictures to these:

Obama Portrait and McCain portrait

Please, consider these or list other portraits you know about. The pictures we are using focus only on the candidates head, never before in the past articles has a major parties candidates pictures look so awful. My Friends (no pun intended) let us put decent pictures of these two great men up in the infobox. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. —kurykh 04:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The McCain one looks to me to be the same photo, but cropped and with the background colour changed. In any event, I agree with Kurykh—be bold. -Rrius (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is the same photo, I would have liked to find one with a flag in the background etc., but last one of those was in the 90's. And you know what I will be bold, and at least try to change the pics. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So much for NPOV. Sigh! --71.240.10.235 (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Charts of polling data in battleground states

I was looking through the article, and I came upon the section linked above, seeing that the charts shown haven't been updated in over two weeks. Do we really need these charts? Three main reasons they should not be listed or shown in this article:

1. They'd have to be updated almost every day from now until the election to be of any use, and I know it's not very simple to update them. 2. They don't contribute anything to the article. They don't even clearly show trends, as the dots are extremely close together, and there are no trendlines. We already have a swing states section that shows the most recent polling results in swing states and adequately covers anything these charts could show. 3.They take up a large amount of article space, and possibly loading time for viewers with slower internet connections.

Battleground state polling charts of any kind just have no place or usefulness in this article. They should be limited to the opinion polling articles, and in fact they are already shown on the statewide opinion polling article. Does anyone object to having these charts removed from the article? Timmeh! 23:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. -Rrius (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody disagreed with my proposition, I removed the charts. Feel free to express your opinion if anybody disagrees with the removal. Timmeh! 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

TIPP

Should we mention the latest TIPP poll (declared most accurate during the 2004 Presidential Campaign)? http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=309635713550536 Soxwon (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We're relying on many polls, generally published in RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight.com which collect all non-partisan (and some partisan) polling data. There are some exceptions, like when one of them averages polling info using polls that might be outdated. Past accurate results from one polling organization does not guarantee accuracy in future elections. I'll never forget Zogby calling the 2000 election correctly but missing the 2004 one.--Oakshade (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Declared by whom to be the most accurate? Wasn't Pew closer? -Rrius (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Colours tag

I removed the colours tag as I didn't think it was quite appropriate, as the only information given by color is the rank of the candidates. This information can be clearly gleaned by a colorblind person by looking at the other information in the box. However, I wonder if it might be a good idea to go ahead and put in an extra column to convey this information explicitly. I leave this to other editors. — trlkly 23:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Montana

As recent polls for Montana are either showing a small Obama lead or a small McCain one [15], I've added the state to the "Swing state" section and adjusted the numbers in subsequent paragraphs. --Oakshade (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If I did the calculations correct than, the map should change to the lightest shade of red for McCain and not the current shade. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

How is Montana not traditionally a conservative state? While both of its Senators are Democrats, they are conservative Democrats. -Rrius (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, Montana is indeed conservative and as proof of this the Liutenent Governor is republican but the governor is a conservative dem. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an overstatement, but the point holds that it is largely conservative and has been for some time. -Rrius (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I self-reverted my "traditionally conservative" statement. While looking over the Montana Politics section, the state's politics appears to be generally mixed. That article doesn't currently have references, but my self-reverted political label on the state didn't have any either. --Oakshade (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, guys, the Senators and governors aren't as conservative as you think. In fact, I'd say they're centrist to center-left. Check out ontheissues.org for a very nice rundown of their positions. -- Frightwolf (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Tester and Baucus are conservative for Democrats. -Rrius (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Todd

What about that crazy McCain campaign volunteer who lied about being attacked by an Obama supporter? http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/mccain.sticker/index.html --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

She made the story up, nobody should make it into an important topic like this by making up a story about themselves for publicity. Especially when doing so was a criminal act —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.245.48 (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

stick it in the timeline page.74.68.128.125 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't support the merger either because it would give WP:UNDUE weight to that event. Neither of the candidates or their running mates have made any comments on Ashley Todd. Only some Fox News blog tried to promote that her claims are a "watershed" (before her story was debunked that is). Most sources reported the Todd affair as newsworthy, but didn't make any significant connections with the official campaigns. VG ☎ 19:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with VG. It's hardly notable. Really undue weight. Also WP:RECENT. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Also [[WP:Coatrack}]] --Kickstart70TC 20:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tag, little support for the idea at this page or the Ashley Todd article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there a particular reason Obama's picture always has to be first? Every time it's switched, it's always switched back, and neither one can provide a good explanation. Is there actual justification for either candidate going first? Or could we just put the incumbent party first, as per usual? 70.181.171.159 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the archives of this talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I've been reading it wrong or not very carefully, but most of that stuff seems to be about the exclusion of Barr and Nader, etc. I'm asking about how we determine which candidate goes in the left slot. Obviously if we had actual results the winner would go there, but before that happens: is it by incumbent party (which seems to be standard), by recent polling data, or just whichever one most wikians prefer? 70.181.171.159 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The page has been stable with Obama on the left, and there is no good reason to change. It is a question of style, not of substance. Moreover, there is no guideline or strong precedent for putting the incumbent party on left in American elections (in part, because we haven't had that many since images were added to the infobox). This would have been a reasonable conversation to have five months ago, but the few people who changed the position over the summer did not offer any explanation here after they were reverted. As such, they were treated as people inappropriately editing for party-political purposes. Perhaps next time around it would reasonable to put the incumbent party on the left. Not including any images, the position GoodDay and I both support, would also be a reasonable course. For this election, less than two weeks out, it does not make sense to upset the applecart. -Rrius (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the who goes on the left complaints would've been avoided, if no images would've been the choice. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I'll second that.--JayJasper (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As a McCain supporter, I see no ill intentions or ulterior motive for Obama being on the left. It makes sense that the "left-wing" candidate (Obama) be on the left, and the "right-wing" candidate (McCain) be on the right. -- 97.113.85.46 (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

subtle article bias

Being an outsider so to speak (I only came to this article to see when the US election actually was..), there seems to be bias in the first sentance. The Republican Party has chosen John McCain, the senior United States Senator from Arizona as its nominee; the Democratic Party has chosen Barack Obama, the junior United States Senator from Illinois.

Also suprised to see this article is not locked against editing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.83.25 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the bias? McCain is the senior senator from Arizon (Jon Kyl is the junior senator), and Obama is the junior senator from Illinois (Dick Durbin is the senior senator). -Rrius (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Back-to-back 2-term Veeps

Along with the fact Clinton & Bush will be the first back-to-back 2-term US Presidents since Jefferson, Madison & Monroe (assuming Bush completes his 2nd term). Gore & Cheney will be the first ever back-to-back 2-term US Vice Presidents (assuming Cheney completes his 2nd term). Perhaps this fact should be mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Infact; Clinton/Gore & Bush/Cheney (assuming the latter complete their respective 2nd terms) will be the first ever back-to-back 2-term President/Vice President teams. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that is particularly relevant to this election. Paragon¹²³²¹ 21:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You tell 'em, GoodDay.

Is there some way of programming the wiki so that teenage-level thoughts are automatically hidden? They could be sent to a parallel thread that you have to click on if you really want to see them. Just kidding, I don't want that, but seriously, why do people have to berate others' good ideas? The relevance of the point to an encyclopedia is obvious. Something very disturbing is happening when mature adults become indistinguishable from ninth-graders. 72.184.7.20 (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Presidents and Vice Presidents are elected separately.

1.3

If Obama is elected, Joe Biden does not necessarily become Vice President unless he is also elected.

Somecanuck (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There would be alot of uproar in mid-December, if the Electors all went faithless. A concern that was quite real in 2000. But anyways, you're correct there's actually a Presidential election & a Vice Presidential election, simultaneously occuring. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Ballots are made up so that a person can't split the ticket. If ya vote for Obama (actually the Elector candidate supporting Obama & Biden), ya also vote for Biden. Same with the other party tickets. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any point in bringing up this distinction without a difference or is this just for fun? -Rrius (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not "without a difference". Electors are free to vote for anyone for VP that they want to. Even if soing so would cause an uproar, that doesn't make the result any less final. In any event, supposing the Democrats won most of the electors, if Obama were to, in effect, "fire" Biden by naming someone else that he'd prefer they elect VP, I bet they'd do it, and I bet there wouldn't be that much uproar. So it absolutely is a distinction WITH a difference. 72.184.7.20 (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Recommended change to introduction.

The current introduction mentions the Republican Party and Democratic Party candidates, then discusses the notability of the 2008 election for having an African-American and a female candidate on the ballot. Finally the candidates of the other Parties are mentioned, almost as an after thought.

It is my opinion that this is a breach of Wiki's NPOV.

If two of the Parties candidates are being named, then that should also be the most appropriate time to name the other three Parties candidates, as well independent Ralph Nader, before mentioning anything of note regarding the election itself.

To do otherwise implies a lack of impartiality. (Kwazimoto69 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

I agree with the change you made to remedy this. The current introduction reads well. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not here to be impartial. We're here to be realistic. NPOV does not mean conferring undue weight. —kurykh 00:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A commitment to a neutral point of view doesn't equate to a requirement for equal coverage; encyclopedias give greater coverage that which is most notable. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I will concede the point on impartiality, but I stand by my observation that the first mention of the Republican and Democratic candidates should be immediately followed by a list of the other parties candidates.(Kwazimoto69 (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

The current form (after your revision) seems fine, so I guess it's a non-issue now. —kurykh 03:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a non-issue. All candidates with enough ballot access to hypothetically gain a majority should get equal representation. It can be changed after the election to focus on candidates who win electoral votes. 142.68.223.93 (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not necessarily; please read WP:UNDUE. They have the possibility of influencing the election towards McCain or Obama, but there is no realistic chance of them actually winning. We are not here to be fair; that is not our job. We are an encyclopedia, not the fairness police. —kurykh 03:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's an encyclopedia. It's supposed to present the facts. Yes, the other candidates most likely won't win; there's a VERY small chance of it, but you can't guarantee it. In the last Canadian election, there was no chance that anyone other than the Liberals or Conservatives would win, but three other parties were listed equally because they had enough ballot access to hypothetically get a majority. 142.68.223.93 (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Obviously some dude on the ballot in one state doesn't deserve the same focus. These are parties though that have ballot access in enough states to hypothetically win, and will receive a significant number of votes. Even if they just have a large influence, that's significant. 142.68.223.93 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The analogy does not hold. In the Canadian election, all five parties were there because they had seats in the House of Commons (including the Green Party). The United States does not have this.

Yes, an encyclopedia presents facts. And it's a fact that anyone can reasonably deduce that no one except Democrat or Republican will win the election. You keep talking about hypothetical situations. Is it realistic that Nader, Barr, or Baldwin will win? Please, let's not delude ourselves. And again, I invite you to read the numerous previous discussions on this topic and WP:UNDUE. You have not brought up any new arguments here. —kurykh 03:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Will they win the election, again, likely not. There is significant chance that they could actually influence the way certain states go, which is pretty significant, and there's a small small chance that some could win a few electoral votes. Again, post election, feel free to edit it to reflect who won electoral votes. You need to stop treating these candidates as if they're on par with some random dude who got ballot access in just South Dakota or something. These are people that could very well have an influence on the outcome of this election. 142.68.223.93 (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You're still not getting the point. I'm not putting them on par with the random guy on the ballot in some state. However, you are putting them on par with McCain and Obama, which makes absolutely no sense. We do not offer equal coverage just because they might influence the election. For the third time, please read previous discussions and WP:UNDUE. —kurykh 03:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Acorn

There is nothing about Acorn in the controversy section, please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no ACORN controversy. -- Fifty7 (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There obviously is a controversy with acorn... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 October 2008

Not so much controversy, perhaps, as attempts by the McCain campaign to make a link between the Obama campaign and Acorn. It probably should be mentioned. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Every controversy in this election is just trying to link someone to it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This one is especially questionable, since Republicans are trying to tie Obama to a victim of the registration fraud and cast Obama and ACORN as bad guys in this. -Rrius (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, they should use better voter registration practices, e.x. the dalllas cowbows and mickey mouse regirstering togeather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama or McCain? Wikipedia says McCain but Major Polling sites say Obama.

[16] it says: Obama: 364, McCain:157 Ties: 17

Wikipedia says under Swing States that it is is very likely for a McCain victory, but it seem this poll says that it will be even harder for McCain to win, I think this article needs updated.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Where, exactly, does it say McCain is likely to win?--Appraiser (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Georgia and West Viginia

Recent polls are indicating that the race in Georgia, which was previously solidly for McCain, is tightening and RealClearPolitics now considers it a "toss up." One poll is even showing the race to be 1 percentage point apart. [17] I've added state to the "Swing State" section and adjusted stats accordingly.--Oakshade (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally I'm considering removing West Virginia from the section as polls have been consistently showing a McCain lead in the high single digits. [18] --Oakshade (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Arizona as a Swing State

I believe with recent polls (McCain leading 46-44, with an MoE of 3%) conducted by the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication and KAET, Arizona is officially a swing state. McCain can't possibly expect to win the state hands down right now. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we can call it a swing state if/when McCain's lead shrinks to below 5.0, therefore making it a "tossup" on RealClearPolitics' electoral map; that seems like the measure we've been going by for states that are listed as swing states. Timmeh! 23:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There could be something to this now. A poll released on 10/29 shows McCain ahead by 2 points with a 3 point margin of error. [19] There are now signs that the Obama campaign will actively pursue Arizona and there's even a possible Obama stop there. [20][21]-- Oakshade (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics is a well-known Republican wing-nut hideout. Check their blogs. Nate Silver and Andrew Sullivan have repeatedly demonstrated their biases in selecting their polls. Forget RCP - any state that is within the margin of error in any poll except Zogby Interactive should be included as a swing-state. Arizona is closer than either Colorado or Nevada right now. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

People are confusing "swing state" with "battleground state". A swing state is one that has vacillated in recent elections between Red and Blue, usually looking only at the presidential races. Arizona has voted for the Republican for 50 years (excepting 1996). It may now be "in play", but that doesn't make it a swing state...yet.--Appraiser (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The loose definitions of the unofficial terms "swing state", "battleground state" and "in play" are blurred. Many of the states that are considered "swing states" in this election can more appropriately called "potential swing states" as those states have not vacillated in recent elections (Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina for examples - Even Florida has only officially once supported a Democrat since 1976). It wouldn't be wise of us to wait for November 5th for confirmation of new "swing states" as polls and campaign activity are showing those states in flux. I would have no problem re-entitling the section "battleground states." Going back to the specific subject of Arizona, Obama's campaign manager announced a campaign push into the state.[22][23]-- Oakshade (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As an update from all previous comments, polls as of October 31st are indicating the average of the last 7 polls to show a McCain lead by less than 5 percentage points [24] and one poll that came out today shows McCain ahead by 1 point with a 4 percent margin of error. [25] Reports are that both candidates are now active in the state with TV ads (Obama) and robocalls (McCain). I've gone ahead and added the state with multiple sources. --Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Image placement

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

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

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

Either way, McCain should be placed on the left.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calling the election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Is It Over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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