Difference between revisions of "Talk:United States Presidential Election, 2008"

Revision as of 18:59, August 6, 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)

Overhaul

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)

Unsourced information

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)

Move

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)

"First Election without incumbants since 1928?"

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)

Updated electability polls?

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)

Uh-Oh! Suspended campaign

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)

What's wrong with the photo?

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)

Rename and Redirect

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)

Battleground States Map

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)

Polling

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)

More Polling

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)