Talk:United States Presidential Election, 2008

I think that if Rudy Giuliani ran, then New York would be in play.

He'll carry New York if he burns through a lot of money, but he'll lose the South to Mitt Romney no matter what he does (being a thrice-married gun grabber and all). McCain is sinking like a rock. Teresita 14:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

That looked like a very decent analysis by aschlafly but it wasn't sourced, wasn't verifiable, and was highly opinonated. I replaced it with the considerably more vanilla page with the dates of the election, the primary season, and the names of the declared major party candidates. If someone wanted to add the third party and independent candidates and any other facts regarding the 08 election, that would be great. Myk 08:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I may be wrong, but I think that most of the third party candidates aren't determined until the year of the election. If you know any further information about them, though, by all means add them. You make a very good point about their inclusion in this page. MountainDew 23:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Third party candidate is kind of a misnomer. Prominent third party candidates a la Perot and Nader will decided some time late this year or early next year to declare as they don't have to worry about primaries. Also, of course, any disgruntled Democrats or Republicans might wait until after the primaries. However, there are many parties that have candidates, just no real recognition. Prohibition Party, Greens, Libertarians, Reforms... then there's lesser known independents like David Koch and a few others. I just don't want to put in the work and then be told that it's trivial and that we're trying to remain concise. Myk 23:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

What I meant was that, at least in 2004, the Constitution, Libertarian, and Green Parties hadn't nominated by this point. Once we know them, by all means they should be included. MountainDew 23:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

And what I meant was that there are several declared candidates at this point, for those parties, and that if someone wanted to do the work, they should be listed. I don't want to do the work because it will probably just get deleted. Myk 23:24, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd back you up in any edit wars/disputes. MountainDew 23:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

There is at this point a lot of no-longer-relevant information (e.g., Hillary Clinton electability polls). The whole article could use a top-to-bottom revision. Dadsnagem2 10:35, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I didn't delete improperly. Just because it was your information doesn't mean it was improper. The battle ground states section is an exceptionally simplistic analysis of how elections are waged. There are no sources referencing your analysis. There are places for original research and places for fact. This is the latter. Myk 17:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I think this article and its talk page should be moved to 2008 United States Presidential Election. Presidents get elected in other countries, too! :) Greg 15:58, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I oppose this suggestion at this time, because it would make the title almost twice as long without avoiding any real confusion.--Aschlafly 16:03, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

However, changing it to United States presidential election, 2008 would help maintain consistency throughout the site (see Category:United_States_presidential_elections). Jinkas 16:15, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

• Well if that is a problem, I can always do away with that category name. What would you suggest in its stead? Or would you prefer me to choose it? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 22:10, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Greg, how many other countries' election articles have you written? When we have too many for election to refer to America, we'll consider your suggestion again. This is basically an American encyclopedia, not an international one like Wikipedia. We'll disambiguate, when and if the title becomes ambiguous. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Greg has been permablocked in any event. DanH 15:57, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

I thought that in 1952 there were no incumbants. Neither Republican, Dwight D. Eisenhower, nor Democrat, Adlai Stevenson, was an incumbant. If this is true then it's really the first election since 1956. -Additioner 17:40, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, now I see. Alben Barkley ran, but didn't get the Democratic nomination. Thanks for clearing that up on the page. -Additioner 14:37, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

With Huckabee now a major candidate, and some of the previous front runners no longer in pole position, maybe we should get some updated polls. DanH 15:03, 23 December 2007 (EST)

:Isn't this like aiming at a moving target? I think that the polls are now moving so fast that it would take almost constant revisions. Is this practical? Darkmind1970 20:02, 18 January 2008 (EST)

What do we do now that Mitt Romney has "suspended" his campaign? Do we take him off the list? Do we put him under withdrawn candidates or create a new section? -Additioner 19:50, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Why is the photo of all the Republican Presidential candidates together in the section on the Republican primary taken down? The person who took it down just said that it's not needed. Why? Chippeterson April 25, 2008 10:54PM

Please use the resources of the site to ask the person who did it. By the way, it might be helpful to be not quite so shrill when you do that. Peter Ellis 07:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Can a sysop please move the content of this article to here and then create a redirect on this page to keep article titles consistent? Thanks! --Jareddr 13:12, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't have upload rights, but can someone who does find an updated Battleground States map to replace the current one, which has Bush/Kerry references instead of McCain/Obama? Thanks. --DinsdaleP 08:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I've simplified the polling numbers to the two largest polling firms. The previous information from Real Politics was misleading as it did not weight poll results based upon sample size. In other words if one poll of 3,000 people found the spread to be 3 points and another poll of 1,000 people found the spread to be 9 points, rather than merging them to be 4,000 people and a spread of 4.5 points, they simply treat them as equal and make it 6 points -- poor math and unworthy of our site. The "poll or polls" didn't have any numbers recorded at all, and therefore is not included. Learn together 12:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

To put your mind to rest then, I'd be happy to add a table using RCP's results that show the most recent polls, as well as results, MoE, and polling size. Of course, your numbers for Rasmussen didn't explain that you included "Leaners", whereas most polls when publishing their main results will include those separately. So perhaps you'd like to change the number to not reflect the leaners? --Jareddr 12:04, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

A table sounds fine sorted by sample size, the greatest number on top. Rasmussen also reports without leaners, so use that figure for consistency. It will need frequent update, so I hope you are volunteering for that as well. Learn together 12:12, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Table has been added, but put in order by date, not sample size, as that's the format that is generally used (so that the latest polls appear on top). --Jareddr 12:33, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

You should probably add a meaning for RV and LV below for clarity. Also, feel free to add Rasmussen's data without including leaners if that is the way most polls are conducted. Learn together 13:01, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Good suggestion--those abbreviations have been clarified. --Jareddr 13:08, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Jareddr, I see you are altering state polling data where you have found more recent polls than Rasmussen's. This is fine, but let's also make sure any source that we use is reputable and known for fairness - and accuracy. Apparently Rasmussen does their polling with only 500 people (state level). I believe this should be our low number, I.E. -- we shouldn't include any polling that samples less than this number. Normally I would want to see a higher count, but Rasmussen also has other checks and balances that help to ensure their data, and I was quite impressed that when other polling units were having wild fluctuations - that Rasmussen was showing consistentcy.

I also noticed that some of the sources that you are using have updated polling numbers on other states that you didn't use - numbers that were more favorable to McCain. This could have been coincidence, but please try to be consistent in updating all states where such an update is appropriate. With the trend again heading to Obama, you should be relatively pleased to do so. Learn together 14:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and please use the last date of the polling - not the date it was reported. Thanks Learn together 15:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

As much as possible gentlemen let's try to keep the article focused on the issues and what is occurring in the election. Negatives about either candidate personally should go to other articles as should indepth party platforms that would seem to support one side over the other based on volume of writing if nothing else.

We have one of the best written articles on this issue on the internet. If you go to Wikipedia just try to find a chart showing polling of all 50 states. We should be proud of our achievement, which took many edits from different people, and let us work together to continue to strive to keep it that way.

Thanks.

Learn together 12:19, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

I noticed that a lot of the polling for the Presidential election was taken down. I would like to put it back up. This article should be made on a historical content over how the race changes. It's not enough just to have the latest 2-3 polls. Chippeterson 18 August 2008

I took them down because the numbers had changed and there seems to be a strong agreement among current polling. The 3 polls removed actually started their polling on July 31st, making their information almost 3 weeks old. While we haven't set a rigid timeline for when a poll's relevance 'expires', in a Presidential race that would seem to be pushing the limit.

What would be a good addition, if anyone has that knowledge, is to set up a tracking graph where we could show trends by week. Learn together 14:16, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Every day Gallup comes up with a tracking graph. You can view it here. http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080818DailyUpdateGraph1_ghbnvcs.gif Maybe you could post that? Chippeterson 18 August 2008

Something I also want to point out is that the current "relevance" should have nothing to do with it. Look at it this way, if someone in the year 2010 wants to do research on the 2008 Presidential race, they might want to know what the polls said in July. This shouldn't be like a blog with only the latest information. Chippeterson 18 August 2008

LT, I think the information should be considered separately on who is NOT attending the convention. Edwards and Jackson are not attending, I suppose, due to pressure from the DNC. The Republicans are not attending the convention by their own choosing so as to minimize the links drawn between the GOP and the individual politicians in a tough political environment. So, first off, I don't think it's necessarily a "If you don't do it for them, then you shouldn't for the others" type of situation. Frankly, this site is FAR from an equal treatment of one party and the other. But, if necessary, I think BOTH should be included, as opposed to neither. Obviously the GOP side has already been written, and you've modified it to, IMO, water it down slightly, but in any case, it seems to have been agreed upon. I think the Dem side should be added, perhaps here in the talk page first, modified appropriately, and then inserted into the article as well. I'd rather have more information than less. --Jareddr 11:57, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

What I am looking for as far as noteworthiness is out of the ordinary occurrences. Based upon what would be expected, how is this convention going to be different than that expectation? Jackson has spoken at every convention for more than 2 decades. At the same time, I don't think we should dwell on it, unless you wish to write separate spin-off articles. Learn together 19:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Having 8 or 9 Republican Senators, out of 49, not attend the convention I would definitely consider noteworthy. --Jareddr 19:41, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

This article should be made on a historical content, so we should show what the polls said during the entire Presidential campaign. I would appreciate it if we stopped taking down polling data. Chippeterson 21 August 2008

It becomes more "gangly" when there is a ton of polling data in the section. After the election, if you want to go back and provide all the polls throughout the season, then you're more than welcome to do so. But I believe LT and I both agree that it is more streamlined to present just the recent polls. Again, if you want to add a separate section, or a chart, or wait until the end of the season, by all means. But as it is, it seems like 2 editors are for trimming the data, and 1 against. --Jareddr 15:22, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

OK Jareddr, you win. But I still plan to continue putting up all the latest polls. Chippeterson 21 August 2008

Fantastic! Just remember to keep them in date order, and I'll take down the older ones. As a helpful guide, we've been keeping Rasmussen and Gallup on top because they're updated daily, and therefore you don't have to rewrite them, etc.--Jareddr 15:28, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

I've just found photo's for the stages of the Democrat and Republican conventions.

Democrat: http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/dncc-floor3.jpg

Republican: http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/rncc-podium.jpg

I think one of the administrators should post these for the section, it would be a nice addition. Chippeterson 22 August 2008

I believe this section is best as a general strategy leading into the start of the one on one battle, and not an update of what each side is or could be doing with any daily event. As such it should generally be complete. For broader campaign issues of what is happening (not theory) and how they affect the polling, I would suggest the Obama vs. McCain section. Learn together 16:05, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

I disagree. The strategy of the one on one battle is clearly handled in the Obama v. McCain section. The Dem v. GOP strategy shouldn't just be party v. party strategy, but rather inclusive of what strategy each side will use given the candidates on each ticket. The Democratic strategy is going to be vastly different with Palin as a V.P. as opposed to, say, Mitt Romney, just as the GOP strategy would change if it was Clinton or Kaine instead of Biden. To discuss the strategy of each party, it's necessary to highlight how they are going to "attack" the other side. That's part of strategy! --Jareddr 16:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

New strategies are created and played out daily both from the Democratic and Republican side and they pay people well to come up with them. We could also discuss each ad variant, where it is being played, and what group it is attempting to reach. We can even discuss which people are chosen to place comments for the press to report and why. That is all a part of the strategy. But we will have watered down a strong article in a sea of descriptions of partisan spin instead of describing what is happening and what impact it has. I think we need to keep it on the higher level of what is happening in the election at this point - at least for this article. Learn together 16:38, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Barack's Obama windfall is not part of the Republican strategy. We also report on what occurs. Democratic women say they won't vote for Palin, but what is happening in the recent polling in the race between Obama/McCain? Was there a bounce? That's what we're looking for. If it turns out unaffiliated women went for the ticket instead of Democratic, I'm sure the Republican campaign would be just as happy. Obviously we both know that most Democratic women turned to Obama after Hillary's speech - it could take awhile to unglue them, if it would be successful at all.

I have started a fundraising section that notes Obama's fundraising edge and his recent influx of additional capital after the Palin speech. It is noteworthy in a fundraising section, but really has no other place in the article. BTW is it really a one day record? There were some times during the face off with Hillary where the two camps raised incredible amounts of money. Learn together 14:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

It's a record. The previous record was in mid-August, when he raised $7.8m in a day. But this is the first time a campaign has raised over $10m in 24 hours. --Jareddr 14:17, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Hello, I hope everyone is having a blessed day!

I noticed the mention of the hurricane was truncated a bit (which is fine) but the way it now reads one could mistakenly believe that the Twin Cities were visited by a freakish hurricane. Now, we all know that this isn't the case but in four years when a child is researching "what happened in 2008" it may well jump out at them.

Either leave out all mention of the hurricane or re-add some of the old edit(s) to make a more complete picture.

My vote would go to axing the weather story, (remember the lousy weather of the 2004 RNC? Neither do I). Marge 14:26, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

The weather is notable as it changed the complexion of the convention. The section should be expanded for clarity if that is an issue. Learn together 14:54, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

As written, the quote that the Republican strategy was "not about the issues" was misleading. It is evident that Obama has been winning while talking about issues in only the most general terms. In other words he's been winning under the general idea of 'trust me - and I'll make it right'. It was the Democratic side that made the election about the candidates over the issues, and I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong, but rather it was a strategy that almost certainly would have led to them entering the White House until McCain decided to fight it. McCain did try to make it about issues, such as offshore drilling, and was closing the gap in the polls until Obama then made some general statements that he would consider offshore drilling as part of a larger picture without discussing what he meant - and then McCain lost his poll numbers. They realized that Obama would win without needing to say specifics on any issues unless they could first challenge him as a candidate and make the questions who can really bring about change and who can you trust more? And, at least in the short term, that is the strategy that has brought about results for them and is forcing the Democrats to reconsider their own strategy and how to counter it. Learn together 10:45, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm open to the idea of having a Vice Presidents section as this position seems to have a prominence in the election this year that it usually does not command. It will also allow the discussion of the credentials of Palin and Biden and their respective roles that wasn't fitting easily in the other sections where it was being inserted. Thanks. Learn together 10:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Jareddr, I remember reading a poll on either who people wanted or who they thought would be the VP choice. Biden and Edwards were neck and neck right under Hillary. No one else even cleared single digits. Of course Hillary wasn't considered and Edwards self-destructed, leaving only Biden. The campaign could be coy with their choice and build up suspense, but it wasn't a shock that Obama would choose the applicant that was desired and known. Since you have more knowledge and access to Democratic sites that would have those polls, I would ask you to assist in finding a reference that could be used. Thanks Learn together 04:54, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, LT, but I will absolutely not search for the reference. I added the citation tag because it is a ridiculous statement that shows little knowledge of the process in the weeks preceding the pick of Biden. Regardless of who people say they want or think they want, few (if any) of the pundits were floating Edwards' name. In fact, Chet Edwards (D-TX) was mentioned more often in the preceding weeks than John Edwards. Again, in the preceding weeks, it was clear it would be amongst Kaine, Bayh, or Biden. In fact, CP claimed in a front-page headline that it was Kaine at one point. I stand by the fact that Obama's pick of Biden had NOTHING to do with Edwards, as Edwards had already been a VP candidate, and Obama showed no inclination to choose him. --Jareddr 08:54, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Edwards would not have been considered after he was first found out. It may not have made the 'mainstream' press for awhile, but Obama's team would have been well aware of its veracity and the hidden bomb they would be holding in their hands. But Edwards removal only left Biden with any real name recognition and desire among the the voters. If Biden was just one of a number of candidates with no one knowing who would be chosen, then why did he specifically tell the press it wasn't him? One doesn't have to throw people off the scent unless they are already strongly following your scent. I'll admit it worked with me. It seemed so obvious it was Biden and then when he took himself out, I was wondering who Obama was going to pick. I didn't realize at the time that direct lies to throw people off the track and build up more suspense was an option. Learn together 15:48, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

All very interesting analysis on your part, but not a single piece of it explains where the rationale comes in that Edwards was the pick (i.e. through some sort of mainstream news analysis of the process, as opposed to some random blogger saying his name) and when he dropped out it was Biden. If you want to say that because of x, y, and z, Kaine and Bayh weren't chosen, leading to Biden, so be it. Or even some anaylsis on why it was Biden and not Hillary. But to say "With the implosion of Edwards, Biden was expected to be chosen" you need to show that 1) Expectation of Biden was related to Edwards' implosion, and 2) Edwards was even being seriously considered! And that second point has yet to be done, and therefore the mention of Edwards is merely to further taint the article. If you want to maintain the pretense of impartiality and objectivity, something that has been forgotten in the Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin articles--then we should remove the sentence. --Jareddr 15:57, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I think you misunderstand me. I don't believe that Edwards was 'the pick', but based on his popularity (which was just a bit behind Biden's I believe - with no one else underneath being close) he was one of the possibilities. Obama knows he has the advantages this election and as long as he doesn't make a blunder, McCain will be hard pressed to take the election from him. Indeed, with McCain's current slim lead, he holds it because independents are favoring him rather strongly. If the independent vote was even, the greater number of Democrats vs. Republicans would give Obama an edge that would be next to impossible to overcome. As a candidate who has the advantage, Obama would pick, within reason, the candidate his followers want to help to energize them and, most importantly, keep them. Did anyone apart from the press seriously believe he was going to choose someone with a single digit following among his party? That's only done if the candidate feels they're at a disadvantage and will lose if they don't shake things up. That wasn't Obama's position. Learn together 18:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't know how to properly edit the chart, but i'd like to recommend that someone can please add a column stating how many electoral votes each state has on the chart for a clearer view of current numbers.

This article is horrifically organized.--User:Rcollins 23:58, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Your point might be better recieved if you gave constructive criticism with suggestions for improvement. HelpJazz 22:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)

How about mentioning who won the election?CraigC 22:54, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Well how about putting up a map of election result maps and reducing all the pre election clutter. i know its good to compare mccain and obama but now its pretty needless to have a wall of text about it --User:Rcollins 22:59, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I think that this page should be split up into multiple pages. for instance the conventions could be made into a couple pages ex: 2008 Democratic National Convention and 2008 Republican National Convention. The state by state/region by region breakdown could be removed or analyzed in a post-election day manner. McCain vs Obama strategy could be moved to a new page

Adopt this if you want its just ideas --BVance 22:58, 8 November 2008 (EST)

LearnTogether, Dick Morris is not a Republican, nor does he consult only with Republicans. He writes a syndicated column, which is carried by thousands of publications. --₮K^/Talk 22:53, 20 November 2008 (EST)

This election season my friend, it was the Republicans he was advising. I'm afraid of wording that could mislead and making reference to his stint advising the Clinton administration and then only mentioning him as a pundit would do so. Learn together 23:23, 20 November 2008 (EST)

As conservatives, we are only interested in the truth. I am unaware of any Republican clients Morris had in 2008, and not even Wikipedia makes the claim he is a Republican. --₮K^/Talk 23:49, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Morris was using his insights to conjecture what the Republicans needed to do to win. Many of his articles were kept on the NewsMax website for this reason. In the final days each of his updates talked specifically about McCain and what he needed to do to win and what affect his choices were having on his campaign. I can't remember a single article he wrote advising what Obama needed to do to win. They were written from the Republican perspective. Does that make him a Republican? No. But it does mean in his role as a professional he was taking the perspective of the Republicans in sharing his insights and knowledge -- and that is what is important for this article. Learn together 12:44, 21 November 2008 (EST)