imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards |
imported>Caesar Schinas |
| (12 intermediate revisions by 5 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)
| |
| {{TOC-left}}
| |
| == Also Rans == | |
|
| |
|
| "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) | | 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) |
|
| |
|
| == Candidates named == | | == Changes == |
| 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)
| | 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) |
|
| |
|
| 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)
| | 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) |
|
| |
|
| == lede ==
| | :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) |
|
| |
|
| 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}}
| | ::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 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.
| | :::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) |
|
| |
|
| 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)
| | == Numbers == |
|
| |
|
| :good points. I will work on it tonite. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:12, 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) |
| | |
| ::[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" cellpadding="10" style="background-color:#CCCCFF; border: 1px solid #aaa; margin:10px; font-size: 88%; 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" cellpadding="10" style="background-color:#CCFFCC; border: 1px solid #aaa; margin:10px; font-size: 88%;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" cellpadding="10" style="background-color:#FFCCCC; border: 1px solid #aaa; margin:10px; font-size: 88%;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)
| |
| :::::I fixed the formatting so it's uniform and shrunk the font down a little. It should be easy to copy and paste and then fill in the content as you see fit as long as you grab everything. The titles and subtitles can be changed in the code, but you'll see where they are. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:00, 31 January 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::::::personally I'm very hesitant to fool around with code. :( [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:47, 31 January 2008 (CST)
| |
| :::::::'''RICHARD!!!!!''' Ok. Tell me what sections you think should be formatted this way and I'll go in there and do it. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 14:08, 31 January 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ::::::::put Clinton and Obama in blue side by side, and put McCain, Romney and Huckabee (in pink or red) side-by-side. thanks [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:06, 31 January 2008 (CST)
| |
| :::::::::I mean content-wise, what sections in the article text do you want me to put in what boxes where! What would you like to see put in boxes? I can put anything in there. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 15:08, 31 January 2008 (CST)
| |
| :::::::::: just put all the text that is now under the Clinton etc sections (under "contenders") [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:13, 31 January 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == format ==
| |
| | |
| Formatting looks great! I suggest we either delete Giuliani (who has dropped out) or put him last. -- I just tried making that fix but screwed it up... :( [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:38, 31 January 2008 (CST)
| |
| :I temporarily html commented out Giuliani's bio--where do you want it to go instead? Also, last night I thought about putting the different state primaries in their own boxes too, but wasn't sure about it; do you think that would be a good idea also? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 08:59, 1 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| The new layout is quite pleasing on the eye. Well done! But on issues, should healthcare not be added as one? Its quite a big one for the Dems at any rate (As is education, but healthcare is more critical this election) [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 09:08, 1 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::the new layour is great! Yes, we can try the same approach for the primaries. I put Rudy in his own un-highlighted section. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:13, 1 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| :::Let me know what you think about the primary boxes. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 11:39, 1 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::::they look great! good job. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:50, 1 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == issues ==
| |
| | |
| For Democrats the top issues (Rasmussen poll released Feb 1) 45% of New Jersey voters see the economy as the top voting issue. 26% name the War in Iraq and 11% see Health Care as the top priority. Health care just barely makes the cut, but the difference between Obama and Clinton is pretty small. Once the general election starts up, I think it will become a major issue. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:25, 1 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ==This article is A+==
| |
| | |
| Really excellent article and the format adds to it. It'll be exciting come the real election to see how it develops (Though I'm sure at that time you will spin this off into a Primary Article) [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 07:33, 2 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Isn't it called "Super Tuesday"? ==
| |
| | |
| Instead of Tsunami Tuesday? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:36, 4 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::Tsunami Tuesday was popularized by MSNBC, and is widely used by ABC, PBS, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Christian Science Monitor etc. NY Magazine blog does not like it (sounds like death), but compare the old political metaphors were "tidal wave" and "landslide". In previous years there was a "Super Tuesday" and some people use that, even the day after the Super Bowl.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:10, 4 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| :::CNN uses "Super Tuesday". Speaking of Super Tuesday, I've updated the results, using what CNN has reported, but some exit poll links, and possible alternate delegate counts, etc., are in order. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 15:17, 8 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Romney and illegal immigration ==
| |
| | |
| Richard - you state that Romney "then attacked illegal immigrants, an issue that had little traction." I beg to differ. The California exit poll reported by CNN shows that Romney did well among very few groups in California, witha few exceptions. Republicans who thought that illegal immigration was the most important issue (29% of them) voted much more for Romney than for McCain, as did the probably strongly overlapping set of Republicans who think that illegals ought to be deported. (Incidentally, the only other issues where Romney got over 40% were "strongly approve of war in Iraq", and "Economy is good". Identity-wise, Romney only did that well among Protestants who go to church weekly, people making $75,000 to $100,000, the "very conservative" and Republicans who disapprove of Schwarzenegger. Exit poll results are at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#CAREP , with 5 pages of scrolling without URLs.) So it's incorrect to say the issue had little traction. Clearly, it didn't have enough traction to give California to Romney, but it had enough traction to make his showing look respectable - without that issue, Romney would have had less than 30%, and been more than 15% behind McCain, instead of 9%. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 10:29, 6 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::Anthony raises a fascinating point. I agree the immigration issue won him votes, but I think it lost him even more )to "have traction" means it works for him and gives him a net gain. The text is neutral; it doesn't say he lost votes, it conservatively says the issue didn't have traction for him--ie did not make a net gain. Romney did much worse than polls predicted [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_republican_primary-258.html (the polls had him tied with McCain but he lost by 8 points]) AND in the last days he banked heavily on that one nativist issue with $$$$ in TV ads. So a likely interpretation is that he lost votes because of that issue --he lost heavily among the 60% who are not anti-immigrant [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21228167 (McCain won them by 50-28]). That is, Romney worst showing came in the pro-immigrant group. His nativism cost Romney lots of votes among Hispanics and Asians. For example he lost Asians to McCain 66-8% (most are immigrants or children of immigrants). So yes he did win nativist support, but it's hard to otherwise explain his amazingly bad showing among Asians, who comprised 6% of the GOP vote in California. We can safely conclude the issue did not give him any traction in a state where he had been 50-50.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:45, 6 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == "Also rans" ==
| |
| | |
| Richard, can you create a section called something like "Former candidates" or something, and organize them by name and indicate their dropping out? If you will, then I'll put them in their own section boxes as well. Keeping their bio though, and incidicating some kind of reason why they dropped, their drop date, etc etc. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:04, 7 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| :Also, if you want to have two seperate boxes under 'Issues' that run down the Democratic and Republican front issues, then I'll organize those as well. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:11, 7 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::good ideas. I'll get to work on it. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:57, 7 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| :::I added a subheading "Rescinded Candidates", and under there should go everyone who has dropped throughout the campaign. Then I'll format it up and make it purty. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 15:11, 8 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::::I'd suggest calling it "withdrawn candidates" or "former candidates". "Rescinded" seems just the wrong word there. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 15:15, 8 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| :::::the usual term (standard for 80 years) is "Also Rans" [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:16, 8 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::::::Rescinded is a perfectly valid word. It means withdrawn, to pull back. I feel like a jerk calling them "Also rans." --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 15:22, 8 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| :::::I see a semantic difference between an "also-ran" and a "withdrawn candidate" - Gravel and Huckabee are not going to win, but they're still running. They're "also-rans", though I'm not sure that's appropriate until the race is formally over. Edwards and Romney pulled out - they're "withdrawn". After the conventions, one can call all the candidates, except the nominees, "also-rans". [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 15:38, 8 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::::::I hadn't considered that, good work! I think that's a totally valid point. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 15:41, 8 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| :::::::I can't see the distinction. We're talking about what to call the candidates who have taken themselves out of the running. I agree we wait for Gravel and Huckabee to either lose at the convention or to take themselves out sooner. "Rescind" has very negative meaning (a higher court rescinded the lower court order because of errors.) (Webster 3rd: "2a: to take back : ANNUL, CANCEL *refused to rescind his harsh order* b : to abrogate (a contract) by tendering back or restoring to the opposite party what one has received from him (as in cases of fraud, duress, mistake, or minority) 3: to vacate or make void (as an act) by the enacting or a superior authority : REPEAL *rescind a law* *rescind a judgment*) "also ran" has no negative connotation other than losing--see the references cited at top of page[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 16:23, 8 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Issues ==
| |
| | |
| Richard, I set up the tables so when you get around to formatting the issues by democrat/republican, all you have to do is remove the HTML comments in the <code><nowiki><!-- --></nowiki></code> brackets. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:51, 9 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::thanks--I'm in North Dakota for a few days--computer here keeps freezing up (it's -12 degrees with wind chill of -40, and that's only the lobby of the hotel). [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:36, 10 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| :::YOINKS! --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 11:37, 10 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Time covers ==
| |
| | |
| Not only are they improperly placed, but I'm almost absolutely certain we need permission to use them. Do we have it? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 09:23, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::I moved the location--does that do the job? The Time covers are given away free at the Time website, which explicitly allows uses "expressly permitted under copyright law", such as [[Fair use]]. CZ use is fair use because CZ is an educational non-profit & our use does not include the whole product and does detract from the commercial value of the product (Time sells high resolution covers and ours is low resolution).[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:26, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| As Editor-in-Chief, I would like to ask someone please to remove the ''Time'' covers until an editor other than Richard Jensen approves their use. If no one else does, I will. Richard is simply imposing his own views and arguments, which do not necessarily reflect CZ's policy, and (more to the point) which not all of us might agree with. I would like us to take a conservative position on fair use ''until we decide otherwise,'' and, with all due respect, this decision cannot be made by a single individual, even if he is one of our Politics editors. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:39, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Ralph Nader ==
| |
| | |
| Should we mention Nader in the same paragraph as Bloomberg? I propose the following paragraph:
| |
| | |
| [[Ralph Nader]], the [[U.S. Green Party|Green Party]] candidate in 2000, where he received 2.7% of the popular vote<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm|title=2000 Official Presidential General Election Results, General Election Date: 11/7/00|publisher=Federal Elections Commission|date=December 2001|accessdate=2008-02-20}}</ref> and arguably cost Al Gore the election, and an independent candidate in 2004, where he received 0.4% of the popular vote<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/tables.pdf|format=PDF|title=2004 Election Results|publisher=Federal Elections Commission|accessdate=2008-02-20}}</ref>, has formed an exploratory committee, and has said he will run if he can raise enough money to get on the ballot in most states.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4215961|title=Ralph Nader Flirts with Presidential Bid|date=January 30, 2008|author=Rick Klein|publisher=ABC News|accessdate=2008-02-20}}</ref>
| |
| ::The article barely mentions the fall election because it's so early and I think Nader is too minor a person to get attention here; he got a trivial 0.38% last time. There will be multiple minor candidates this year, as always. Bloomberg by contrast gets serious poll numbers in the 20% range; see [http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/06/06/rasmussen-poll-on-bloomberg-for-president/] and could affect the election if he runs, AND he has the money to run. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:47, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Candidates for the nomination ==
| |
| | |
| I put them in another table, and colored them appropriately to the convention we're using for the parties. Let me know if it needs changing and I'll go in there and fix it. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:15, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::Nice job!! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:18, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Comparison to WP version ==
| |
| | |
| What do you think of our version of this article compared to WP's? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:40, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Neutrality and caucuses ==
| |
| | |
| In the "Mechanics" section, one paragraph begins: "The caucuses are a leftover from the 19th century." Does this strike anyone else as a loaded, non-neutral description? This specific article may not be the place to lay out all the arguments in favor of and against caucuses, "closed" primaries, "open" primaries, and other systems of choosing parties' nominees -- perhaps that belongs in a separate article on the history of the U.S. election system, or one specifically on caucuses, for example. But would it be reasonable to consider replacing that anti-caucus-tinged sentence with something more neutral (or simply omitting it and letting the subsequent description of different caucus procedures stand by itself)? [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 13:03, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::it the truth--does that matter? [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:11, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| :::It matters in the sense that someone who is not familiar with the way the Elections work in the United States probably will not understand the process, thus rendering a large amount of the article content pointless. I disagree that it isn't "neutral" though--it's just lacking. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:13, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| :::Re Richard's comment: It's certainly true that something like today's caucuses have been in use since the 19th century in some states. It's the word "leftover" that I'm questioning. The word implies something second-best, something not "fresh," something to which a better alternative exists (and thus it implies that states still using it aren't up-to-date, are backwards, are not progressive, etc.). "Leftover" seems to imply a judgment about caucuses, not just a neutral report of when the practice originated. And re Robert's: I don't see how describing caucuses more neutrally, or describing the pro's and con's of them (and of primaries) more fully, would make readers "not [able to] understand the process" -- I didn't suggest removing the whole "Mechanics" section, but only removing, rewording, or expanding on the one opening sentence. [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 13:35, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :::Is it? When did a majority of delegates end up being selected by primary elections rather than caucuses or other methods? Certainly, the changes which resulted in the primary election started around the turn of the 20th century, but caucuses and state party convention delegate selection processes were still common into the 1960s. The article should also explain the multi-layered nature of the delegate selection process where caucuses are used. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 13:37, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| my understanding of the history goes like this:
| |
| #19th century all states used caucus/ state convention
| |
| # progressive era about a dozen states moved to primaries
| |
| #1970s another 20+ states moved to primaries
| |
| The states that have caucuses (in most cases) are the ones that never changed, so "left-over" seems exactly right. they indeed rejected change, especially of the Progressive Era variety. There is a big debate whether [[American election campaigns, 19th century|the 19th century system was better than the present system]], but this article is not the place to get into that. Nor does it get into the question of whether duperdelegates are undemocratic/undesirable. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:57, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| :The problem is that phrasing it as "the caucuses are a leftover of the 19th Century" sends a strong implication of taking a side in the debate. In particular, "leftover" has a fairly strong negative connotation; something like "the caucuses date back to the 19th Century" would give the same impression of their age, without nearly so strong a connotation of "the bad old days". [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 17:57, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::Or "the caucuses are a heritage of the 19th century, when they were commonly etc. etc." or some such.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:06, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::I rewrote it to explain how the caucuses came about. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:22, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Article organization ==
| |
| | |
| I suggest moving the section on the mechanics of the nominating process to immediately above '''Democrats in 2007''', then adding material about the mechanics of the general election process. Much of the discussion of the races for the nominations will not make sense to someone not familiar with the overall nominating process, and as this article is about the entire election process, a description of the general election process is important, too.
| |
| | |
| I also think that the various candidate sections could be restructured, placing the list in '''Candidiates for the nomination''' above the discussion of the various candidates through 2007 through the present. Other changes to make it flow better may also be useful, but I'm not sure what the best arrangement would be. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 13:07, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| :I'm just largely the formatting monkey on this one. Whatever it should logically be I'll make it happen. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:10, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Rationale for colored boxes ==
| |
| What exactly is the rationale for all the colored boxes? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:12, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| :For one, it reduces the size of the TOC while at the same time dividing up the sections into the clusters they would have otherwise been divided into with subheadings. Two, it makes it more categorical. Three, a better visual appearance other than just a huge flow of text. Four, so it isn't necessary to have multiple pages according to the Democratic and Republican sides of the election. Five, whether we want to believe it or not, some people are interested in just reading that which appeals to them (and what is more selective in the United States than the elections?) and I think this is one of the few articles in which it probably only applies. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:20, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| (1) Boxes aren't needed for that. Did you know that it's possible to set the TOC so that it displays headings only one or two levels down? I'm pretty sure that's possible. (2) "More categorical"? I don't understand. (3) I disagree. It's not a better visual appearance than just a huge flow of text, at least not when overdone as in the present case. (4) I don't see how colored boxes avoids the necessity of multiple pages. (5) I don't see how colored boxes assists in this any better than plain old article headings.
| |
| | |
| I think you've left out two possibly valid reasons to use text boxes: to set off a related but different kind of information that does not fit well with the narrative of the main article (as in "sidebars" of magazine articles); and to set text side-by-side for comparison, to clue the reader in that we do not prefer one (person, theory, etc.) over the other. This works when comparing Clinton and Obama, but not so much with the rest (e.g., why should the also-rans and the issues be side-by-side?).
| |
| | |
| Two general counter-arguments: first, the first four of your arguments above implies that we should be using copious colored boxes in all of our long articles. I don't think we should; and if you think so, you should be making your practice into a proposal about how to use colored text boxes. Let's please not introduce new formatting practices like this "under the radar." Second, this sort of thing makes it harder for people to edit the article and understand that they can edit the article. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:34, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| Robert, I see only now that you had already talked to Richard about this above (it's a very long talk page). I honestly don't wish to criticize. It's just that, for more general practice (i.e., for future reference), we should get broader buy-in for such decisions. I just don't want to disenfranchize everyone else who might want to express an opinion about how CZ articles should be formatted--that's all. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:57, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Lack of linkage ==
| |
| This page could use more links, too. See [[Talk:Mexican-American War]] for an explanation. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:16, 20 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ==What Polls do we use?==
| |
| | |
| Real Clear Politics seems to average out polls from major sources, and it has Obama at +8.5% but the bit at the lede says they are balanced at 45% each. I would edit it but I'd rather defer to an American who's probably getting more info on this day to day than I am. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 17:57, 20 April 2008 (CDT)
| |
| ::we use RealClearPolitics also (most reporters do) but the last edit was a while ago so the numbers are old. please feel free to update! [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:12, 20 April 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| == Non-adherence to rules agreed for candidates' pages and this page ==
| |
| After some questions about observing CZ Neutrality Policy on the Obama page, and my adjustments to that page in order to conform with what Obama actually said about Wright in his speech, I have been obliged to delete the entire Obama section here and replace it with a copy of that on the Obama page. These sections are supposed to be identical, yet the section here had substantially more material, which in my view was unnecessarily critical of Obama. That material is now deleted, as it did not exist on the Obama page. Kindly ensure that these sections are identical for all candidates. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 19:25, 7 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| ::No the policy was that this was the master page and other pages copied it, not vice versa. Martin deleted lots of factual information and gives misleading interpretations of his own that to not conform to the consensus of election experts. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:17, 7 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| You are wrong. The candidate pages state that they are identical with this when they are not, and this was also the agreement made. I have reverted this page, because the content is against CZ Neutrality Policy: note the discussion with Larry on the Obama page. Please keep to the rules, as agreed.
| |
