nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
13,818
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 173:
Line 173: + +
Talk:United States Presidential Election, 2008 (view source)
Revision as of 22:06, September 10, 2008
, 22:06, September 10, 2008→Citation for Biden Vice Presidency Comment
:::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. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:57, 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. --[[User:Jareddr|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. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)