Talk:2008 United States presidential election: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen
(helps comparisons)
imported>Caesar Schinas
m (Robot: Automated text replacement (-{{TOC-left}} +{{TOC|left}}))
 
(82 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
{{TOC|left}}


Should we mention rumours about Ron Paul possibly running as an Independent Candidate?
== separate article? ==
::no need. Paul did run in 1988 and got under .5% of the vote.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:30, 3 January 2008 (CST)


== Also Rans ==
Should (most of) the contents of this article not go to a separate page like "2008 United States presidential primaries" or something along those lines? The article (needs cleaning up by the way with statements like "stunning victory" and the like)is huge now and with the "real" campaign only now beginning it will get beyond manageable soon I fear.--[[User:Michael Geldorp|Michael Geldorp]] 09:03, 5 June 2008 (CDT)
::Michael has a good point. The preliminaries, however, will continue until the conventions produce genuine candidates. So we can't start another article till september. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 09:07, 5 June 2008 (CDT)
:::September sound like a good point to do so. --[[User:Michael Geldorp|Michael Geldorp]] 09:14, 5 June 2008 (CDT)


"Also rans" is standard language in American politics for 80 years. It is not disrespectful, as shown by [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-362X(193804)2%3A2%3C276%3AMUOEAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K] and books like ''Presidential Also-Rans and Running Mates, 1788 Through 1996'' (1998); '' Also Rans: Great Men Who Missed the Presidential Goal'' (1928); and in ancient history: ''Candidates Defeated in Roman Elections: Some Ancient Roman "Also-Rans"'' (1991) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:37, 4 January 2008 (CST)
== Changes ==
This article needs significant cleanup if it is to be useful at the current time. I've done a little bit of cleanup, and I'm jolly unhappy about these giant colored boxes - they look a bit like someone has spilled a box of pre-school poster paint across the article. There's also too much in the article about the primaries (which should be spun off into a separate article), and nothing about the campaign since the primaries. The whole thing also looks like a giant advert for RealClearPolitics. I've made a few preliminary edits, but in a second I'm going to print the whole thing out and work out how to restructure it. I'll declare my biases up front: I hope [[Barack Obama]] wins, I think [[Sarah Palin]] is a nutjob, and I'm not voting because I'm not an American. Feel free to judge my editing on that basis. —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 13:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


== Candidates named ==
I've pulled out the colored boxes and replaced them with a proper article structure. It's not perfect, but it's a bit better. [[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 14:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of neutrality, of course, some Republican candidates should be named in the first paragraph, if some Democratic candidates are. (I should have thought this was obvious enough not to need anyone to point it out.) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:14, 8 January 2008 (CST)


Also, if Al Gore never announced his candidacy, then why is he included in a list of "withdrawn candidates"? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:16, 8 January 2008 (CST)
:Part of the problem here is that this article is effectively acting as NEWS.  To work it would need regular updating.  I'm not sure we should be attempting to run a NEWS agency. Wikipedia suffers from this problem too, in that many there love to break news rather than document information.  Possibly that is a good role for wikipedia but i think it is a terrible idea for citizendium to try and compete in that sphere. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 15:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


== lede ==
::Well, we should do it if we can. I think having up-to-date, timely articles is fine. I don't consider Wikipedia having up-to-date information a failing. But, the article as it was standing was unmaintainable (all the silly box-outs tends to make the page unchangeable - another problem I have with DIY page design like that on [[Theoretical biology]]!). We should be able to rapidly refactor articles as new information becomes available. Not every twist and turn of every subject, but we should be able to cope with, say, the nomination of the candidates for the top job in the most powerful candidates in the world. --[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 15:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


The lede should to contain the status of the main contenders.  Bloomberg is making some preparations but the experts do not say he is expected to be a major contender for winning in the fall, {{unsigned2| 03:59, 17 January 2008|Richard Jensen}}
:::I was not thinking of it as a failing but more mission creep. I guess my main idea is that there is a massive amount of NEWS available on the internet so we need to present something a little different. But what, possibly go for concise rather than full coverage? I was drawn to a comment from Nick Gardner when he said "I write for busy people", he used that as an explanation for brevity. Similarly I often go to the BBC web site for coverage since there is far less to wade through. Actually, I think we are in agreement here. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 16:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


The lede currently contains the sentence ''McCain is currently leading by 10 points over Huckabee.''. Aside from being clumsily-written in comparison to the rest of the article, it's also unclear, and possibly inaccurate. Leading by 10 points how? In percentage of popular votes already cast? Of standing in nationwide preference polls? As of January 22, Romney is leading in the delegate-count, with 66 (+6 "superdelegates") to McCain's 38 delegates. 
== Numbers ==


Should we say anything at all in the lede, before the February 5th results are in? If so, what should we say about who is leading in the Republican race, and what should that be based on? [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 20:06, 22 January 2008 (CST)
Those given in the intro don't seem to add up to the electoral college total. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 12:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 
:good points. I will work on it tonite. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:12, 22 January 2008 (CST)
 
::[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/15/BAGUCO5CPL10.DTL Ralph Nader may run again]. Every four years, he gets the runs. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 20:44, 22 January 2008 (CST)
 
==compliments==
This page is doing quite well, I think.  It exhibits a sensitivity to some of the issues we've been dialoging about in Politics, and I very much appreciate that.  Keep up the good work![[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 10:33, 20 January 2008 (CST)
::thanks from all of us at election desk central. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:05, 20 January 2008 (CST)
 
 
==Referee statement==
For the moment I'm planting my flag here, as available to help resolve any issues that arise. I've noted a couple of general "article policy issues that probably will arise.
 
1) What happens to text that becomes outdated, do we just ditch it and the links with it? There will be an understandable reluctance to delete someone's hard forged prose and the research behind it, but we need to keep the article topical and fairly concise. I think that it would be a shame to lose such text, so we might consider a "News timeline" page as an archive for the links that are lost. In other words, if and when a news story is edited out by the passage of events, any links and a brief summary should perhaps be preserved in the timeline archive?
 
2)quotes. Topical quotes can make an article lively, at the same time they can be inflammatory and selection is a problem.
 
I think we should reflect that probably this article will not have a decisive effect on the outcome of the election, however good it is. We shouldn't get ''too'' obsessed with balance at the expense of readability; judging balance is not going to be a perfect art. What we can't reasonably do is, every time a lively and pithy quote emerges, wonder desperately how to balance it. But if such quotes never live on the main page for long, perhaps that will be less of a problem, as we can think that the article will be balanced over time if not at every instant. Perhaps again we should have a "gallery" of quotes, so that a quote is used for a while and then archived in the gallery. Just a thought???? [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 12:09, 21 January 2008 (CST)
::Gareth's point #1 is interesting. It depends whether the primary race ends on Feb 5 (hence closure for the battle for the nomination), or continues on for weeks and months (requiring much more text). Let's decide in a couple weeks. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:46, 21 January 2008 (CST)
 
== Kucinich ==
 
Didn't he just drop? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:39, 25 January 2008 (CST)
:yes, he's out. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:29, 25 January 2008 (CST)
 
== Who's leading? ==
 
Who's leading the races? By national polling, Clinton and McCain. By delegate counts, Obama and Romney. In 8 days, this will likely be all sorted out, but perhaps we should include delegate counts, and not just polls, when discussing the status of the horserace? [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 13:19, 28 January 2008 (CST)
::good point. The delegate counts will start to matter on Feb 6. Clinton has more than Obama because of superdelegates.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:02, 28 January 2008 (CST)
 
== Article Formatting ==
 
Is there anything that can be done about the formatting of the article?  I have a few suggestions (and gripes):
 
* The TOC is now way too long.  It should be moved either to the right, or some other solution should be found.
* As the primaries continue, the article growth is going to be regular and will expand, rearing the unfortunate consequences of long articles.  My recommendation is to use the templates for sidenotes, or textboxes to divide up coverages per state or by candidate, or by date or SOMETHING.  One paragraph after another after another just won't cut it for an article of this magnitude.
* More photographs!
--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:08, 31 January 2008 (CST)
::we do need photos.  I'm guessing the primary season will pretty much end on Feb. 5, when half the country votes. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 10:31, 31 January 2008 (CST)
:::Well even then, the article scope goes beyond the primaries, right? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:33, 31 January 2008 (CST)
::::Yes it's the most complicated and longest election in American history, with election day in November. But I expect rather little "enyclopedic" news between March and August.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 10:35, 31 January 2008 (CST)
 
{|
|
{|valign="top" align="right" cellpadding="10" style="background-color:#CCCCFF; border: 1px solid #aaa; margin:10px; font-size: 92%; valign=top;"
|<center><B><big>Democratic Candidate:</big><BR><U><big>Obama Barack</big></U></b></center><BR>
I propose something like this for each candidate.  I propose something like this for each candidate. I propose something like this for each candidate. I propose something like this for each candidate. I propose something like this for each candidate.
|}
|
{|valign="top" align="middle" cellpadding="10" style="background-color:#CCFFCC; border: 1px solid #aaa; margin:10px; font-size: 92%;valign=top;"
|<center><B><big>Republican Candidate:</big><BR><U><big>John McCain</big></U></b></center><BR>
I propose something like this for each candidate. I propose something like this for each candidate. I propose something like this for each candidate. I propose something like this for each candidate.I propose something like this for each candidate. I propose something like this for each candidate.
|}
|
{|valign="top"  align="left" cellpadding="10" style="background-color:#FFCCCC; border: 1px solid #aaa; margin:10px; font-size: 92%;valign=top;"
|<center><B><big>Democratic Candidate:</big><BR><U><big>Hillary Clinton</big></U></b></center><BR>
I propose something like this for each candidate. I propose something like this for each candidate. I propose something like this for each candidate. I propose something like this for each candidate. I propose something like this for each candidate.
|}
|}
 
Richard, tell me what you think of the formatting here.  --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:08, 31 January 2008 (CST)
::well it looks handsome! (only the "live" candidates (Obama-Clinton, McCain-Romney-Huckabee) need this treatment I think. The dead ones can be buried in black and white. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:38, 31 January 2008 (CST)
:::I'm suggesting the format because I think it will decrease the length of the page, and compact relevant information into groups together (I think I mean "categorize"). --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:44, 31 January 2008 (CST)
::::it will slightly lengthen the page (by adding a gutter between columns), but make it easier to read. The comparison is also highlighted (ie 2-Dems across and 3-Reps across) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:55, 31 January 2008 (CST)

Latest revision as of 02:26, 24 May 2009

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Gallery [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition The 55th quadrennial United States presidential election held on November 4, 2008. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Politics [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup category:  American politics since 1945
 Talk Archive 1  English language variant British English

separate article?

Should (most of) the contents of this article not go to a separate page like "2008 United States presidential primaries" or something along those lines? The article (needs cleaning up by the way with statements like "stunning victory" and the like)is huge now and with the "real" campaign only now beginning it will get beyond manageable soon I fear.--Michael Geldorp 09:03, 5 June 2008 (CDT)

Michael has a good point. The preliminaries, however, will continue until the conventions produce genuine candidates. So we can't start another article till september. Richard Jensen 09:07, 5 June 2008 (CDT)
September sound like a good point to do so. --Michael Geldorp 09:14, 5 June 2008 (CDT)

Changes

This article needs significant cleanup if it is to be useful at the current time. I've done a little bit of cleanup, and I'm jolly unhappy about these giant colored boxes - they look a bit like someone has spilled a box of pre-school poster paint across the article. There's also too much in the article about the primaries (which should be spun off into a separate article), and nothing about the campaign since the primaries. The whole thing also looks like a giant advert for RealClearPolitics. I've made a few preliminary edits, but in a second I'm going to print the whole thing out and work out how to restructure it. I'll declare my biases up front: I hope Barack Obama wins, I think Sarah Palin is a nutjob, and I'm not voting because I'm not an American. Feel free to judge my editing on that basis. —Tom Morris 13:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've pulled out the colored boxes and replaced them with a proper article structure. It's not perfect, but it's a bit better. —Tom Morris 14:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that this article is effectively acting as NEWS. To work it would need regular updating. I'm not sure we should be attempting to run a NEWS agency. Wikipedia suffers from this problem too, in that many there love to break news rather than document information. Possibly that is a good role for wikipedia but i think it is a terrible idea for citizendium to try and compete in that sphere. Chris Day 15:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, we should do it if we can. I think having up-to-date, timely articles is fine. I don't consider Wikipedia having up-to-date information a failing. But, the article as it was standing was unmaintainable (all the silly box-outs tends to make the page unchangeable - another problem I have with DIY page design like that on Theoretical biology!). We should be able to rapidly refactor articles as new information becomes available. Not every twist and turn of every subject, but we should be able to cope with, say, the nomination of the candidates for the top job in the most powerful candidates in the world. --Tom Morris 15:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I was not thinking of it as a failing but more mission creep. I guess my main idea is that there is a massive amount of NEWS available on the internet so we need to present something a little different. But what, possibly go for concise rather than full coverage? I was drawn to a comment from Nick Gardner when he said "I write for busy people", he used that as an explanation for brevity. Similarly I often go to the BBC web site for coverage since there is far less to wade through. Actually, I think we are in agreement here. Chris Day 16:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

Those given in the intro don't seem to add up to the electoral college total. Peter Jackson 12:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)