Talk:2012 United States presidential election in New York

Article name

Please see discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012#Article name, to change ", 2012" to "of 2012". Apteva (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Emphasizing landslides

Why do you people insist on overemphasizing Democratic achievements? I find it really very unnecessary garbage. Is there any good reason why this stuff should be kept? 69.121.17.200 (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And, I should add, that in all probability, that the 2012 election was rigged. But no one here on Wikipedia notes that as even a possibility, now do they? So why should we include any information on how much a candidate won by? 69.121.17.200 (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you admitted you had other issues, as I suspected partisan motivations for your edits. A 28.13% margin of victory is certainly considered a landslide win in American political discourse. Articles for states where Republicans won historically strong victories are also described as 'landslides', like West Virginia. It IS historically significant that Obama outperformed his 2008 numbers, and every other Democrat since the 1964 landslide, since this was nationally a Republican swing year relative to 2008: only six states swung Democratic and it was a closer national race. But I know you believe the whole election was rigged, so whatever... Inqvisitor (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

People need to stop fussing over how much a presidential candidate won by; it deviates from the point of who the winner was, and comes across as embellishment. And why do all the articles have to be the same (uniform)? Also, there is barely any doubt that the 2012 election was rigged, as Obama is a true communist, and the election systems here are pretty close to that of Russia, where they also rig elections. One would have to be a lunatic to regard all that cold-hard evidence that the 2012 elections were rigged as utterly false lies. 69.121.17.200 (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If you believe the election was rigged by "communist" Obama, then perhaps you should start a blog or website to discuss it. That's not what Wikipedia is for. An encyclopedia article should provide as much relevant information as possible, even if you don't personally like the facts. Putting an electoral result into historical context is entirely appropriate for a Wikipedia article on an election. This is an encyclopedia, not just an election results database giving the numbers without any further info. Inqvisitor (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)