Talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

baldwin?

why was constitution party candidate chuck baldwin removed from the list of candidates with totals? the dem, rep, green, lib and nader where listed with their results, baldwin was-but he was removed! why/ why where this vote totals removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.53.44 (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an actual source for his vote totals? The source currently supporting that table doesn't go past Green (McKinney), presumably because the other candidates won too few votes to be considered worth posting at the AP site. If he actually garnered fewer than 150,000 votes in the entire country, I'm not sure his candidacy is really notable enough to end up listed in the final results table. SS451 (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source that shows Baldwin with a higher vote total than that of McKinney. So he should be included on the list. --JayJasper (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Popular vote numbers

As the final result is not fixed yet, what do the "popular vote" numbers in the infobox mean? --KnightMove (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The popular vote numbers are incomplete. Most of the 3rd party canidates are missing votes.

The numbers, presumably, are the results that are currently known and subject to change as more data becomes available.--JayJasper (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, it currently says that Nader was second in Maine.

Additionally, I noticed that on the election Wiki page for each other Presidential election (well, at least 1960-2004 anyway), the summary box in the upper right portion of the page includes popular vote percentages down to the tenth of a point. Shouldn't that be included on this page as well? For example, last I saw, Obama was at 52.5% Samstein (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Samstein (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps switching the spread from 52.4-46.3 to 53-46 in the overview box on the upper right -- please stop. I personally would love to be able to say Obama won 53-46, but that just is not accurate. The spread is currently 6.1%, not 7%. Samstein (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Did Nader's numbers in New Jersey get left out as of now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.50.152 (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In the table, CT figures for McCain and Obama were way off. Probably a transcription error from somewhere. I replaced them with what CNN currently shows (99% precincts reporting). I left figures for Nader, Barr, and Baldwin as they were; don't know if those are accurate. If someone has a better source, go ahead and fix it, but this is better than it was. Iglew (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the popular vote change goes to projections that for some reason calculate only Obama and McCain, leaving out all the third party votes, that would make it somewhere around 53.3 to 46.7 % , and people would copy it off of CNN or Yahoo, as 53-46 (or 47)

David Leip's update shows, that Obama had 66,602,166 (52.6%) and McCain 58,236,089 (46.0%). Source: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&off=0&elect=0&f=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.54.2.51 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It bothered me that the "Grand Total" listed under Election Results differed so widely from the sum of the "Results by State" totals. So, I spent about 4 hours looking up every state-wide provisional result I could find on the web pages of the 51 election boards of the states plus DC. (Note: several states do not report provisional or unofficial results; for those states, we'll have to use the media estimates until the final results are confirmed, which may be several weeks from now.) Based on the figures that I pulled from these sites, I completely updated the "Results by State," and took the liberty of adding a line for "U.S. Total." The totals that I found add up (as of today, 14 November 2008) to 67,197,338 for Obama, 58,637,677 for McCain, 698,228 for Nader, etc. The grand total of popular votes -- so far -- is 127,556,013. Based on what we saw four years ago, when the grand total continued to rise until late December as absentee and provisional votes were slowly counted, I expect the final total popular vote to be around 128 million to 129 million. By the way, I haven't updated the summary of votes in the light blue box at the head of this article. If anyone wants to do that, please do. --Potosino (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader References

Near the beginning it says that Ralph Nader chose to not seek the Green Party's Nomination but run as an independent. This is, in fact, false. Ralph Nader sought the Green Party nomination and lost to Cynthia McKinney. Only after this loss did he choose to run as an independent.SMAC (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. He never sought the Green nomination. A number of Greens independently put him forth as a draft candidate in the Green primaries, of which he won the popular vote overwhelmingly. He didn't announce his candidacy until February 28, at which point he announced as an independent. He didn't lose to McKinney in a primary, he never actively competed against her for the nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.217.134 (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

African American

Why is it written in print over and over (as if fact) that Obama is the first African American is a presidential nominee????

Obama is not african american. His mother is white. My children are bi racial and my husband and I DO NOT consider them soley white or soley african american. I think it's irresponsible journalism to report the following statement as fact when it's not correct.

"The 2008 election is particularly notable because it is the first time in U.S. history that two sitting senators will run against each other for president, and because it is the first time an African American is a presidential nominee for a major party, as well as the first time both major candidates were born outside the continental United States—Hawaii for Obama and the Panama Canal Zone for McCain"

What do you think???

Sara76.185.73.168 (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to the exact definition of Afican American.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Many African Americans are of more than one ethnic heritage. The term means having some African ancestry, which Obama obviously does.--Parkwells (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as an American who is part Italian and part Irish can say he be called "Italian-American", so can a half-White, half-Black person (especially one whose father actually was African) be called "African-American". Acknowledging Obama's father's heritage does not deny his mothers. It is frankly your choice, Sara, to read references to Obama as African-America as saying he is solely Black, but that is not the intent. -Rrius (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

From African American: "African Americans or Black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa.[4] In the United States, the term is generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry." Timmeh! 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please! in America you have to be 1/8 of something to be that race. Obama's Father may have been BORN in Kenya, but his only relative that was Black was his Great-Grandma (Senator Obama's Great-Great-Grandma). Making Senator Obama 1/16 African. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.129.138 (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama self-identifies as African-American, so I think this is a non-issue. You are, of course, free to not call him that. For WP purposes though, that doesn't really matter. --Kickstart70TC 20:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama is 50% Caucasian, 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African. The identification of him as the first "African American candidate for president" is just ridiculous. What compounds this issue even further is that he is actually descended from Arab slave traders. You can read about the entire issue at: Kenneth Lamb's Article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorun (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pshaw. This statistic isn't in the article you cited. Stuck way down among the replies to the article is this:

"Posted by journalist Kenneth E. Lamb, February 14, 2008 at:
http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html
(which itself is uncited, verifying itself with the challenge to "go research the Kenyan records yourself". Yeah, right)
“THIS ARTICLE PRESENTS NEW, PREVIOUSLY UNPUBLISHED documentation concerning ethnic identity claims. It is based upon original research that the author openly invites for further inquiry and academic verification”
(NEW! IMPROVED! GETS OUT MORE 10% MORE DIRT! And in the fine print: WP:OR,WP:CITE,WP:V)
“Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African from his father's side.”
“Federal law requires that to claim a minority status, one must be at least 12.5% of the racial component you claim for minority status. Mr. Obama, claiming to be African-American, is half the legal threshold.”"
Anarchangel (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether he is actually African American or not is not for us to decide. To do so is pure original research. We are going by what he identifies as, and what major reputable sources say he is, not by what some people may speculate he is. —kurykh 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The black community regards him as black, he is generally regarded by non-blacks as black, and he himself says he is black. So, he's black. In fact he is literally African-American: his father was from Kenya. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This section is largely pointless. Ethnicity is an entirely social construct which people apply based on a perceived shared genealogy. If it wasn't for the fact that people put so much emphasis on race, it wouldn't be an issue, but because they do, I suggest we stop worrying about which made-up label is most precise or most politically correct so we can focus on more important matters. Meanwhile we can stick with a less exclusive term. Dude's black, no matter where his great-great-grandmother's half-brother's ex-girlfriend's college professor was born. And if anyone disagrees, ask Barack Obama himself - it's already been stated that he identifies as black. Cskelm (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Federal law requires that to claim a minority status, one must be at least 12.5% of the racial component you claim for minority status -- lol, this Lamb character must have lived under a rock for the past half-century. I had a hard time figuring out what he is referring to. It turns out there were "one-eighth laws" of hypodescent in a couple of US states, counting among the so-called Jim Crow laws, all of which were abolished in the 1960s. This chap is talking about federal law defunct for more than 40 years as if it was in effect, with a straight face. That's almost unbelievable, quite apart from the ludicrous claim that Obama is "43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African" based on no other evidence than the etymology of his given names: They have Arabic names because his father's side of the family tree is Arabic. So George Bush is half-Greek because one of his given names is Greek. And Abraham Lincoln must be a Hebrew-American. The crude stupidity of this boggles the mind. --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Also largely ignored is the disctinct difference between race and ethnicity, which even the US government had to recognize when they conducted the 2000 Census. Besides, it is too exclusive to point out that Obama is merely the first black person to be elected. More specifically (and much more notably) he is the first person to be elected president who is not just white. considering that the US population has never been comprised of 100% white people, Obama is the truest representation of the diverse american population ever elected president. shouldn't that be a more significant and more factual item to point out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.69.72 (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One more note. If J. A. Rogers was correct, Obama wasn't the first US President of African descent. Should this be included in the article? Orville Eastland (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the hubbub about? Obama's father is Kenyan. According to wikipedia, from the Luo tribe from Kenya. So, even just taken literally, Barack Obama Junior is "African American". His father was African and his mother was American. I don't see how anyone could claim he isn't African American. --Surgical Stryke (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

McCain's total EV

The sum of the current electoral votes (with 26 outstanding) is 522 on Wikipedia. McCain's total is 10 too high. Can someone change that? Dcbandicoot (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How's is McCain's total too high? GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

12 too high, actually. Everyone knows you can't raise a pokemon's total EVs above 510... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.69.72 (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to change the number of states McCain is said to have won to 21+NE-01+NE-03, given Missouri is now red on the map and is certain to go to McCain. Mango2002 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I just changed it, sorry for not updating that part. I would not bother with NE-01 and NE-03; really seems understood. And it should be 22 including Nebraska. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Have changed it to 22-NE-02 which is more correct that what I originally suggested. Mango2002 02:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to say McCain won 22 states minus NE-02, as he did win the popular vote in Nebraska. Just 21 is sufficient. Timmeh! 02:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well but with Missouri certain to go to McCain (NBC has projected this) surely McCain's projected EVs should be 173? I will put 173 in now. Mango2002 08:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Results by state: order of candidates

In the 2004 article, results by state are given with the candidates arranged in columns from left to right in order of descending vote totals. Per that precedent, shouldn't the results in this article be given in an order of Obama, McCain, Nader, Barr, and so on, rather than its current order of McCain, Obama, Nader, Barr, and so on? Qqqqqq (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify on "descending vote totals"? Bush won some states, while Kerry won others. It wouldn't be descending if you look at the states Kerry won. This also isn't in descending order if you look at the states Obama won, but it is if you look at the ones McCain won. Timmeh! 02:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He meant the total number of votes received in the election. That should be pretty obvious. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I thought that was clear. Bush received the greatest number of votes in 2004; he is listed in the left-most column in the table of results. In 2008, Obama received the greatest number of votes, and yet McCain is listed in the left-most column. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you guys don't have to get all up in my face because I didn't understand exactly what Q was trying to say. He didn't specify state vote totals or national totals. Anyway, I agree. The totals should be listed by the same method as the 2004 results: Obama, McCain, Nader, Barr, etc. Timmeh! 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody came out and objected to Q's proposal, and it seemed noncontroversial, I went ahead and switched the columns of the state results table to show Obama's numbers first. If anyone objects, please speak out. Timmeh! 01:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry! But brilliant move. I would have done it, but I thought there might have some reason, such as that the incumbent's party was listed in the first column. Well done. Qqqqqq (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Domicile of McKinney and Clemente

McKinney currently resides and is registered to vote in California, not Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.66 (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an outside source confirming that she used California as her state of residency? Such a thing should be relatively easy to find. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Both the Iowa (http://www.sos.state.ia.us/pdfs/Gencandlist2008.pdf) and Illinois (http://www.elections.state.il.us/ElectionInformation/CandFiling.aspx) election offices specify that Cynthia McKinney is from California and Rosa Clemente is from North Carolina. The Green Party's candidate database (http://www.gp.org/elections/candidates/index.php), which lists presidential candidates by their states of domicile, also lists McKinney and Clemente as being from California and North Carolina, respectively. I am not a registered user, so I cannot make these changes.

Projections

Does anybody know when the votes will be finalized and we can get rid of the (projected) addition?--Montaced (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone added the official vote totals for Wyoming and I added the official vote totals for South Carolina. Anyone else want to add some? Orville Eastland (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Best leave it there until December 15. 75.82.129.74 (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

McCain winner in Missouri

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008/elections/mo/president/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.44.18 (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he isn't. There would be a little checkmark next to his name if it was called for him. McCain is leading slightly, but it's still too close to call. Timmeh! 14:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Now projected by nbc: [1]. See explanation here: [2]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

NBC first projected Missouri for McCain over a week ago. None of the other networks have called it. So, we cannot show it as "called" until at least two more networks make a projection. Timmeh! 02:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we "cannot" do so, especially provided the second link given above. And I believe fivethirtyeight is an extremely reliable source; Nate was used as a source on the major television networks on a regular basis. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source. Also, until the majority of news networks calls it, we cannot just assume it is projected for McCain. That'd be the same as changing North Carolina red if one single news network projected it for McCain. Timmeh! 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I should mention that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Timmeh! 02:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to respond to my comment about fivethirtyeight being considered a reliable source by major news networks or just sit here and repeat your own arguments? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stay civil. You edited your comment after posting it and after I read it. From WP:Reliable sources: "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. Keep in mind that if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so." Even if you can consider fivethirtyeight a reliable source, you cannot change the state's projection to McCain, as only one news network has called it. You especially should not make controversial changes, like you did, without getting input from other editors. You just made your view known on the talk page and then went ahead and changed the article to your liking. Jumping ahead of yourself like that will cause edit wars and is never good. Timmeh! 02:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do work in a bank call center, and as such I know a thing or two about civility and personal attacks. I ask that you respond again tomorrow. And, for that matter, remove the word "you" from the statements, lest it be an accusation. I will do the same. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

How can I respond if you didn't even respond about the Missouri issue? Timmeh! 21:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the state of Missouri hasn't certified their results yet. Instead of focusing on which media outlet is calling what, let's focus on what the officials say. Once they certify that the results are official, then you can color in the map however you want (and I'm sure that all the media outlets at that point will "project" victory too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.226.123 (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivial info

I thought these two items currently in the article were trivia, and not worthy of the article:

• Obama was the first Democratic nominee to win the presidency without winning West Virginia since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
• He was the first presidential candidate of either party since 1968 to win the presidency without winning Louisiana and Arkansas, as well as Tennessee and Kentucky since 1960.

Sheesh, I'm sure we can find all sorts of junk info like this, but they are of no interest compared to him being the 3rd person to go straight from the Senate to the White House, for example. I would have just removed them, but thought I'd give others a chance to defend them first. Tempshill (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove them. They're really not that notable. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole list is trivia. Add: He was the first presidential candidate of either party since 2004 to win the presidency with a majority of the electorial votes since George W. Bush. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Obama won't be going straight from the Senate to the Presidency. Unless he's gonna have his resignation from the Senate, take effect at Noon EST, January 20, 2009. Infact, Harding is the only one to go straight from the Senate to the Presidency (his Senate term expired at the moment he became President). Kennedy resigned from the Senate, 'bout a month before he became President. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on there. The sentence about LA, AR, TN, and KY is on the bubble, but the WV sentence is clearly notable. The ability to win WV was seen as a reason to support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Overall, winning something in the rim South and among LA, AR, and MO has been seen as essential for a Democrat. A Democrat winning without them signals that Democrats do not need to fight war the Republicans started with the Southern Strategy. -Rrius (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think all of these items are useful for mapping the changing political scene. It used to be said that it was impossible for a candidate to win without carrying the Appalachian states (LA, AR, TN, KY), that the Democrats couldn't win without a Southerner on the ticket, and so on. One of the most significant things about this election is that certain orthodoxies of the past few decades have been shown to be no longer applicable. 86.166.86.153 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the note on having a Southerner on the ticket should be since FDR-Truman in 1944. Truman's running mate in 1948 was from Kentucky. 86.166.86.153 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with where this is going. I don't see how you can call it notable that Obama is the first Democratic nominee since 1916 to win the presidency without winning WV when it's just as true that he's the first Democratic nominee since 1916 to win the presidency without winning AR or MO. In fact, he's the first Democratic nominee since 1832 to win without AR and the first since 1824 to win without MO. Sorry, but though this bit of trivia is factual, to single out WV is just silly. That some Clinton supporters put it forth as a reason to vote for her in the primary is no argument. Dukakis won the WV primary but failed to carry the state in the general. Carter on the other hand, lost the WV primary and did carry the state. If we were to find notability in every silly argument promoted by any candidate in the primary, it would be a long trivia section indeed. Iglew (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, mentioning WV in the same breath with AR makes sense. It is not trivial. As I said, the ability of Democrats to win without some of these states signals a shift that will be studied by political scientists for years. This is not the place to go into that in depth (at least not until a good deal of that research is published), but it is notable enough to be mentioned here. -Rrius (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If the importance of a fact isn't apparent and requires an explanation "in depth", then chances are it's not really that notable. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I also deleted this trivial sentences: "In the three previous two-term Presidential administrations — those of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton — the incumbent vice president had immediately thereafter run for president. Richard Nixon lost the 1960 election, George H. W. Bush won the 1988 election, and Al Gore lost the 2000 election. " Vints (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First since 1940??

Someone keeps trying to claim that 2008 is the first election since 1940 where a Dem ticket without a Southerner won. However this claim is untenable. In 1948 Truman and Barkley won, being from MO and KY respectively. Neither MO or KY was in the Confederacy. While it is true that they were both considered "Border States", so was DE, according to the article Border states (American Civil War). If we consider Border States, then the 2008 ticket also contains a Border Stater (Biden, being from DE). Grover cleveland (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

See Southern United States. According US census definition, both MO and KY are in Southern US. According to the modern definition of southern states, KY is "usually included", while MO is "occasionally considered Southern". The civil war or slavery/no slavery today isn't very important determining whether a state is southern. Guy0307 (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. Demographics have changed. The claim is meant to be notable demographically rather than historically. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I checked the Southern United States article, which says "As defined by the United States Census Bureau,[4] the Southern region of the United States includes 16 states and the District of Columbia", and proceeds to give a list of sixteen states which includes Delaware. So my objection still stands.Grover cleveland (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's not notable to you on its face does not mean it is not notable to other readers. -Rrius (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Post-election revison

This still reads too much like the election hasn't happened yet. Anyone editing the early part, please aim to refocus it. 219.73.114.181 (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I asked earlier how long we were going to wait to type out the details of the campaign. In the previous elections, they have up a synopsis on all the attacks the campaigns used in previous elections and the platforms they ran on and everything, but I'm not sure if we're supposed to wait for additional information or not before writing it. -- 70.171.7.107 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Florida official results

{{editsemiprotected}}Can someone please update the Florida vote tally in the results by states section? Florida has certified its election results and they are different totals than what is currently listed. You can view the official results here. [3] Culebron (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Eddy 11/17/08

I have updated the results. Thanks for the info! --DA Skunk - (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor party candidates in Lede?

Anyone find it odd that minor party candidates are in the first paragraph of the lede while the vice-presidential candidates and other extremely significant moments in the campaign (the long democratic primary; Bush's drag on the Republican ticket; Joe the Plumber) that any historian would want to emphasize are nowhere to be found? I know it's too soon to pass judgment on what will be seen as important in this campaign, but I would bet that Chuck Baldwin and Cynthia McKinney will not be it. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture Deletion

I restored the twice deleted picture for the sake of discussion. It is a good picture and obviously relevant, however I would agree that it would be more at home in some other articles, such as Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. The fact that no other election articles have a similar picture does not seem like a good reason to exclude it, I see no reason to limit this article to what was featured in anything previously. The article in my opinion is very well balanced, and this picture is not going to change that, especially considering the outcome. That said I really don't care, I just thought it should be discussed and not deleted. Beach drifter (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a free image of a political poster congratulating Obama on his electoral victory next to the electoral vote tally of his victory. It seems appropriate to me. I don't see a good place for inclusion in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 or Public image of Barack Obama. It is included in Early life and career of Barack Obama#Settling down in Chicago, where Michelle being an aide to Daley once is briefly mentioned. I don't mind it being there, but I think it's more relevant here. MeekSaffron (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Results by state subsection — Maine/Nebraska

I note that Nebraska's results are broken down by electoral district, as they divide their electoral votes in accordance to the Maine-Nebraska system (and because NE-02 went for Obama). However, Maine's results are given statewide. Even though all four of Maine's congressional districts went for Obama, surely it makes sense to break down Maine's electoral votes by congressional district, just as Nebraska's section did. Or does it somehow not matter, since all five of the Pine Tree State's electoral votes went to Obama? —MicahBrwn (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see a reason for giving separate results for each of Maine's congressional districts. If the electoral votes actually were split, like Nebraska's, there would be a good reason to break down the results by congressional district. However, since Obama won each of the districts, the separate results really aren't notable.

Also, if you take a look at the 2004 election article, the results are not shown for each of Nebraska's or Maine's congressional districts. Instead, only the statewide results are shown because the votes for each state were not split. Timmeh! 19:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I say we still list the vote totals for Maine's districts. Even though Obama won both of them, they're still significant in determining how Maine casts its votes. The same should be done on all earlier election pages. --Noname2 (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Timmeh. Obama's winning both districts, makes the point moot. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Noname2, but if the consensus is to not split Maine's results, then I'm okay with it. —MicahBrwn (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I also side with Noname2: It makes sense to list Maine's district vote totals. Why do we list NE-3? It went with the statewide and it wasn't close. Does it suddenly become notable just because NE-2 went a different way? Or to look at it another way: Suppose McCain did win NE-2, but it was extremely close. Would that render the NE-2 vote total un-notable?

Why do we list vote totals at all? What makes the totals relevant is that at least one electoral vote is dependent on it. Electoral votes do depend on Maine's district totals, therefore they should be included. You don't cancel that out just because the result didn't "matter". If that's your argument, why not omit vote totals for DC? Iglew (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The only reason Nebraska's districts are listed is because one of them went for Obama. Neither of Maine's districts went for McCain, and they probably weren't even close anyway. The rest of Nebraska's districts' totals are listed as a comparison to the one Obama won. Also, yes Maine's congressional districts are worth one electoral vote each. However, they all went the same way, and Maine's listed total includes these electoral and popular votes. The reason DC totals are listed is because DC gets three electoral votes. If you didn't list the totals, you'd be missing those votes. For Maine, however, if you list the state totals, it already includes all the electoral and popular votes for both of the districts. Timmeh! 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

But Obama didn't win all 4 of Maine's votes because he won the statewide popular vote, that only applies to 2 of them. He won the other 2 because he won the popular vote in each of Maine's congressional districts, so their vote totals count and should be included. --Noname2 (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Separating the Maine results by congressional district will not provide the reader with any extra notable information. The previous election articles don't even have the results separated by congressional district because of this. There is no reason to separate the results if all four electoral votes went to Obama. It is just not notable to list the results of the congressional districts. Timmeh! 23:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd appreciate it if other editors could get involved in this discussion, so we can reach a valid consensus. Timmeh! 23:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The district totals for Nebraska and Maine should be shown for all years, not just 2008. It is notable because some of the electoral votes are contingent on the district results, not the statewide results. Suppose it's three years from now and you're studying past voting patterns in order to try to project whether ME might split its votes in 2012. Currently, Wikipedia tells you only that Gore won ME by 5.1 points in 2000. To know also that Gore won ME-1 by 7.9 points and ME-2 by 1.8 points is meaningful information. Why are you so determined to keep that information out?

I too would welcome opinions from other editors, and I do agree that it would be helpful to have something in the chart to make it more clear that the district totals are a subtotal of the statewide for those two states. The chart as currently constructed doesn't really accommodate that very well. Iglew (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not "determined to keep information out". I am not "determined" to do anything. I am just arguing my side of the discussion, just like you. I believe the information is not notable enough to be in that specific chart. If one wished to look up trends, there are articles showing, in-depth, each state's outcome and influence in each presidential election. It would be just as easy to look up those articles for the information. I should also mention that GoodDay agrees with me, so I'm not the sole dissenter here, and there really haven't been that many participants in this discussion yet. We can't really get very far if the main contributors to this article aren't commenting here. Timmeh! 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would add the district totals of Maine, especially since there is no separate article on Maine's election results yet. It's only two more lines, and then every single electoral vote of the US can be verified from the chart. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, all states should generally be treated the same. I don't see the districts of any other state listed out with the exception of NE, because NE has a district with electoral votes that actually went to the other candidate. If we want to start listing individual districts, then ALL of the individual districts of the US should be listed, not just the state who's districts can potentially go to either candidate. As a reader, I should be able to read a summary of the election and see a state's general state's decision w/o having to sort through all of the districts. If I want to see the results of a state's individual district, then I should be able to look that up as well (and as it is now I can).Bridger.anderson (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't list districts from all states because not all states award electoral votes based on districts. It makes sense to only list district totals for states that do. --Noname2 (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Noname2 once again. Maine and Nebraska (although, NE's method may change given the electoral vote split in that state; and given that the Nebraska Legislature is dominated by the GOP) are the only two states so far that allow for electoral votes to be awarded by congressional district. Had all three of Nebraska's congressional districts gone for McCain, this whole discussion would be moot. However, given that we're showing the election tallies of Nebraska (which allocates electoral votes by congressional district), surely we should do the same for Maine – for consistency's sake as per Roentgenium111. IMHO, that is.

Should we put it to a vote? How can a consensus be reached amicably, rather than discussing it until this particular section of the Talk page is archived and forgotten? --MicahBrwn (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Timmeh. I am not sure that showing any district but NE-2 is useful, since it is the only contrarian one. I can see the other side of that one, though. Seeing the margin of McCain's victory in the other districts could have some meaning. Comparing Obama's margin in ME-1 to ME-2, however, adds nothing to the mix. Adding extra numbers just to so respect to the way Maine chooses its electors is wrongheaded. What is important is what the information does for the reader, not technical purity. The main virtue asserted for putting in the district numbers seems to be that it shows that Maine uses its peculiar method. That same information can be provided in a note or footnote, and that is the more appropriate way to convey it. -Rrius (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Timmeh and Rrius.Bridger.anderson (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

various

update alaska date with unofficial but 100% precints http://www.elect.alaska.net/data/results.htm

this affermation "The current total number of votes tallied is just more than 126 million.[94]" is false the 13th november votes counted was 126 million.--87.7.239.99 (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The "(projected)" next to the Electoral votes column should be removed. Those are no longer projected numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.232.121 (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The electoral vote totals are still projected and will only be set in stone after the electors gather in their respective state capitals cast their votes. -Rrius (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Maryland included in South

Maryland is included in the South as the region is currently defined by the US Census Bureau, a designation adopted for this article. It was a slave state prior to the Civil War and part of the Chesapeake Bay Colony, sharing culture and economy with Virginia and other southern colonies. Yes, its economy and demographics have been changing, but it is still designated as the South.--Parkwells (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should rethink this. In the context presented, the issue is really whether a state is part of what was called the Solid South. Noting that Obama won Delaware and Maryland in the same breath as Virginia and North Carolina muddles the significance of discussing the latter two in the first place. -Rrius (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Popular vote total for Obama

It might not be too important, but perhaps it should be noted that Obama's popular vote is the highest number of votes ever cast for a president in history.--Ingo Rau (no login), 21 November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.254.115 (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I also think it should be noted, although it happens regularly because of the population growth.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm...I don't think it's that notable, as it does happen probably almost every election. I guess we could mention it though, if it's not already mentioned somewhere in this huge article. Timmeh! 00:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable, but I remember it was mentioned in other presidential elections articles, for example in 2000 and 2004. We ought to remove them all. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It does not happen "almost every election". Reagan's 1984 result stood as a record for 20 years until 2004. Therefore I think it should be mentioned.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it probably should be mentioned; I wasn't sure how many times this vote total record has happened. However, it does seem notable now. Timmeh! 21:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Does everyone agree that this should be mentioned? If nobody objects by tomorrow, I'll put it in the outcomes section. Timmeh! 17:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, with the growth of the country, obviously the total votes, and votes per candidate will grow. Perhaps only list it if it is a high win percentage? CTJF83Talk 18:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That's true. However, Gore didn't get a record vote number. Neither did Clinton or the first Bush. None of Reagan in his first term, Carter, or Kennedy got record vote numbers. It really all depends on turnout. I believe we should mention Obama's popular vote record but also mention the turnout along with it because this election had very high turnout which was the main reason Obama had a record vote total. Had voter turnout been only slightly lower than it was in 2000, Obama would not have reached Bush's 2004 vote total. Timmeh! 19:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose listing the higher turnout as a reason for his record votes would help. Again though, I think it is only notable if he has a high percent of votes. CTJF83Talk 19:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he does have the highest percentage since Bush in 1988, but that's already noted in the article. Timmeh! 19:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama not African-American

Obama is half-white, and half-Kenyan. This does not qualify as African-American.

Forgive me folks, I'm sobbing at the momment. See FAQ at Barack Obama. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

While he is more a Kenyan-American than an African American, he is arguable BOTH. So, the term AA is used loosely to mean black man... so much so that I have heard educated journalists, writers and acedemics use AA to discuss British blacks... I guess if we could simulatenously accept that Baby Boomers are born as late as 1964 and accept the Globe and Mail opinion page referring to Obama born in 1961 a Generation X person, then we realize that as long as it is accurate enough, we can let the user do more fresearch and use wikipedia as a starring point. I wouldn;t substitute the article on Bankruptcy in the US for a good lawyer.... LaidOff (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. So we should stop using the term Asian-American for first generation people of Asian ancestry? That said, he is more African-American (literally) than the common term used here in the United States for black people of African-Descent from the 19th century slave trade to this country. Barack Obama, who was just elected to be the 44th President of the United States, is an African-American black man, both literally and socilogically. From the "African-American" article:

"African Americans or Black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa. In the United States, the term is generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry. Most African Americans are the descendants of captive Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States, although some are—or are descended from—voluntary immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America or elsewhere. African Americans make up the single largest racial minority in the United States."

As GoodDay intimated please don't continue this same stupid argument here. Lestatdelc (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Turnout

I notice that the section talking about the fact that the expected high turnout didn't materialize has been taken out. I personally don't agree with this. It is still the case that turnout has only risen by around 1% from the last election, which is hugely at odds with all the predictions about a big increase in turnout. I would have though that was worth a small mention in the text. (Ajs41 (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

Nay! It wasn't worth mentioning. McCain predicted he was gonna win, look how that turned out. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

All the votes haven't been counted yet. Once they are counted and certified, we can update that section and expand it. I personally think it shouldn't have been put there at all until after all the votes were counted. Timmeh! 00:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and remember also that 2004 had a huge turnout, so an increase over that is still a big deal compared to previous elections. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not really true in my view. When people talk about a potential increase in turnout, the usual meaning of that is an increase from the previous election, not the one before that. Turnout in 2004 was 122.3 million votes, and it needed to be around 127 million in 2008 just to keep pace with the growing electorate. So far turnout has only increased by 2 million votes (assuming the 127 million figure I just gave) out of an electorate of around 210 million, which is obviously around 1%. But I agree that we should wait until all the votes have been verified. (Ajs41 (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

Electoral College

What is the point of this section, and the huge space-filling table comprising it? It's not in the 2004 election article. Also, I think it is really just redundant information, as the map in the infobox adequately shows who won each state/district and how many electoral votes they got in each. I think this section should be removed, save for the cartogram, which should be moved to a separate section along with other red/blue maps similar to the ones at the 2004 election article. Timmeh! 00:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The election is over, let's have this article's content conforming with the other US prez-election articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is a simpler way to convey the information, and we are using it. -Rrius (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section. Timmeh! 16:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Domicile of McKinney and Clemente

Cynthia McKinney is domiciled in California. Rosa Clemente is domiciled in North Carolina. (http://www.sos.state.ia.us/pdfs/Gencandlist2008.pdf, http://www.elections.state.il.us/ElectionInformation/CandFiling.aspx, http://www.gp.org/elections/candidates/index.php, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311518,00.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.85 (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What does Domicile mean? GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it means where your main residence is. It can mean any number of things in different legal contexts, but in this instance it is the state the person was attempting to be elected from. Although McKinney was a representative from Georgia, since she listed a California address on her candidacy papers, that is the state we should say she ran from. I have therefore changed both McKinney and Clemente in the electoral table. -Rrius (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Campaign financing and Internet campaign

Both of these topics deserve more treatment, as Obama's campaign was significantly more sophisticated than McCain's in building and using Internet resources. There is little sense from the article about how different his campaign was, and about the enormous grassroots organization that he developed across the country.--Parkwells (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right, most the difference in fundraising, was a major factor for Obama's victory.PonileExpress (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

.

Question about the "Finance" section:

As currently written (December 14, 2008), this section consists of a list of the candidates followed by figures that are said to indicate "money spent / total votes = average spent per vote."

The problem is that the source for the "money spent" gives strikingly different figures, especially for Obama. The "money spent" figures are taken from the "net receipts" column in the source (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+00+PR), that is, these figures actually show "money raised" not "money spent." "Money spent" figures should come from the next column in the source, "net disb[ursed]". On top of this, the figure of $670,775,019 for Obama is found nowhere in the source.

Anyone mind if I fix this? Thoughts? --Potosino (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. That number for Obama was at the source not too long ago. I have no idea why it was changed. Timmeh! 02:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what I did. Also moved the subsection formerly known as "Finance" from the "Election Results" section (where it really didn't belong) to the "Campaign Costs" section, and renamed it "General Election Funding Summary," a bit long-winded but more descriptive. At the same time, I moved "Criticism of media coverage" to the "Election controversies" section, where it seems to fit better. For what that's worth. --Potosino (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

President-elect?

I see (and hear) Obama being called the president-elect by just about everyone when he technically hasn't been elected president yet. On November 4, we actually did not vote for our presidential preference, but for the elector who will cast his electoral vote for one of the candidates. The electors meet in their respective state capitals on December 15 to vote for and elect the president and vice president. From then until January 20, the winner is the president-elect. Technically, until December 15, Obama is not the president-elect. Shouldn't this be corrected in the article and replaced with an appropriate title (president-designate?)? Timmeh! 21:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That argument has been ongoing at Barack Obama & (to less a degree) Joe Biden. But you're correct. The people chose only the Electors. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If every news organization and every politician calls him president-elect, then that's what we'll call him. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically (s)he is right, but the electors are chosen by the campaigns. In the history of US politics there has never been a candidate that has lost after winning the college on electoral votes. It's a technicality - he's more or less the President-elect

Where did Timmeh get the term President-designate? This is something the founders did not foresee, popular election of the President before the actual electors met. So I doubt it is mentioned anywhere.PonileExpress (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

18 U.S.C. 1751(f): "The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2."

Request

May I ask you dear colleagues to put in the section Vote totals (the table) into czech version wiki?... it means into cs:Volby prezidenta USA 2008. Thank you --83.208.117.159 (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Source of vote counts

What is the source of the vote counts cited?

The link at the top of the "results" section is to CBS news, but the numbers they have there (which are the same as the numbers at CNN - 66.9 million Obama, 58.3 million McCain) are significantly lower than the numbers cited in the article (68.4, 59.4).

--Drono (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The vote totals listed are reached by adding up the popular vote numbers for all the states and D.C. Timmeh! 19:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary section

The entire table in the United States presidential election, 2008#Electoral College section is unnecessary. The information included in it is already shown in the many images, and it could easily be merged into the table in the popular vote section. It's pretty pointless to have a table where half of all the boxes say Zero, and by now all networks have the same projections. Reywas92^Talk 21:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. I'll wait until tomorrow and if nobody objects, I'll remove the section. Timmeh! 23:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry for not paying enought attention to previous discussion! Go ahead and remove it when you will. Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove it, not necessary. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Timmeh! 16:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

split election results into seperate article

Since this article is too long, it would allievate space.--Levineps (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is primarily about the results, with a little information about the candidates and the election timeline here and there. This proposed split hasn't been done for previous election articles, and I see no need to do it for this one. The article will become a great deal shorter once the electoral college section is removed and the non-notable info is removed or condensed. Timmeh! 16:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Article setup

Shouldn't the setup and flow of the article be similar to that of previous election articles? Currently, it is drastically different than the 2004 election article. That one actually follows the election timeline. This one does not. Shouldn't the election controversies section be put into the campaign section (there is no controversies section in the 2004 article)? There are many other changes that I think need to be done, and I'd like to know from the editors here which sections need to be moved and to where. I can do some of the non-controversial moves now, but the rest I need input on. Timmeh! 16:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone also needs to rewrite the whole campaign section and split it into the nominations for Dem and GOP (and others), so that it conforms with the standard in previous election articles. Timmeh! 17:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the same thing -- this article reads like the election hasn't even happened yet. -- Frightwolf (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Mississippi Vote Totals

For whatever reason, Mississippi doesn't provide a statewide summary. Thus, although their election results are "final" and "official", I needed to dive into 82 country reports to come up with the totals I just added. In the course of transcribing 574 individual numbers, I may have made one or more small errors. However, the total vote came up just 4 votes shy of GMU's total turnout of 1,289,856, based on the same county reports. So I figured the sums I calculated were accurate enough for this page until Mississippi publishes their total (which they should do before the Electoral College meets). Spiderboy12 (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What to do with the "Characteristics" section

This article, unlike previous election articles, has a "characteristics" section, describing peculiarities about the outcome and would-be outcome if McCain had won, of the election. I cannot decide for sure whether to remove this section and merge it with the Analysis section, or to leave it where it is. I am leaning toward merging it, as it is out of the logical time flow of the article, and it includes a lot of outcome analysis in it and non-notable tidbits of information. In addition, it's nonexistent in previous election articles. On the other hand, I don't want to make a potentially controversial big move/deletion without some input from other editors, so let your opinions be known here, and hopefully I'll get a consensus. Timmeh! 00:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I say remove. The information contained is not very representative of the characteristics of the election. Moreover, it is far less notable than the content included in the rest of the article, and should be mentioned in just a few lines, not a few paragraphs. It is not encyclopedic. Naur (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with merging it with the analysis section, but I think some important information has been removed. I think Obama's victories in normally red states (Virginia, Indiana) as well as his losses in bellwether states (Missouri, Tennessee) and recent Democratic strongholds (West Virginia), do show the uniqueness of this electoral map and are deserving of mention. --Mr Beale (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, about the removed information, neither Kerry nor Gore won West Virginia, and Obama also won two bellwethers, Ohio and (more importantly) Nevada. However, Obama's wins in Indiana and Virginia definitely should be mentioned in the analysis section because of the fact that they haven't been won by a Democrat in any of the previous ten elections; Indiana is especially notable as it had a 22% swing toward the Democrat from 2004, the largest of any state (other than Hawaii). Timmeh! 18:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that other Democrats have lost West Virginia, Obama is the first Democrat since 1916 to win without it. Similarly, Missouri's reputation as a bellwether has been such a fundamental element of American politics for so long that its failure to vote for the winner, too, is deserving of mention.--Mr Beale (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Popular Vote Table

In the state-by-state "Popular Vote" table, someone removed the vote totals for on-ballot candidates (such as Alan Keyes' 30,000+ votes in California) in the "others" column, next to states where there had been a notable result. OK, I had no objection to this, as it did clean up the table. However, I think there should at least be a summary of the national totals, and perhaps also some notes about significant showings (such as Ron Paul's 2.2% in Montana). I suggest these be added underneath the table.

I'm willing to help compile results and add text (or a table?), but I don't want to waste time and then see these removed again. Is this (talk page) the right place to discuss this matter? Please advise. (I'm still a wiki-newbie, so I'm not really sure how to proceed.) bam (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to do this if you have the time! Given the small number of votes involved, I personally would just as soon wait until the definitive study of the election and voter turnout comes out. The Census does this, and they list every candidate who gets an officially-recorded vote. (The only problem is, they typically take 2 years or so to finish it -- we most likely won't see the report until summer 2010!) --Potosino (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above, I'd also suggest that the table indicate the number of states on which the six candidates were listed on the ballot. Yes, I know that's also given in another table, below, but I think it would be helpful here, too. (Otherwise, you have to check for blank boxes to see that Obama and McCain were on all ballot, then count the six blanks for Barr and subtract, etc., etc. An extra row (at the bottom, perhaps) would be helpful and informative.

In addition, I'd suggest adding something to the "others" column to at least indicate how many others were listed (or tallied for write-ins). bam (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I previously corrected vote totals for WV and Iowa, however these were reveresed. I provided a second link for the WV write in totals. The additional Iowa votes come from two additional write-in candidates, found further in the canvass document because there was not enough column space. Gavino (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and my apologies for "correcting" these totals by mistake! --Potosino (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Should "(projected)" be removed from the infobox?

The electoral college has met and has voted. Of course, the numbers have yet to be confirmed by Congress, but the electoral votes have been submitted and physically exist. So, should "(projected)" be removed? 75.61.142.100 (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, there still exists the possibility of faithless electors that could alter the EV count slightly. 72.12.136.12 (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Faithless electors

I noticed that the line "The electors met on December 15 and cast their official electoral votes for President, officially confirming the 365-173 totals with no faithless electors" was added with no source given. I haven't seen or heard anything about this and was infact waiting to hear if there had been any faithless electors as I have a bet on it.Paulyt (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We won't know if there are faithless electors until the electoral votes are counted on January 8. I don't know why the article says what you quoted above, as it is false. I'll remove it. Timmeh! 23:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I like to point out Paulyt; that the electoral votes for Vice President, were also cast. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

This article needs at least a mention of the Vice-Presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. Palin especially had a huge impact on the 2008 campaign, both good and bad for Republicans, and her candidacy needs to be discussed in this article.Rixnixon (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Campaign

At what point do you guys think we should edit the history of the campaign? All the other election pages have an overview of the campaigns both candidates were trying to run, the gaffes they made, the ads that came out... the whole nine yards. This one doesn't yet. With Newsweek's article which came out shortly after the election that detailed everything behind the scenes, we have a lot of information to work with. -- Frightwolf (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Great CC Map Image Source

Turns out some of the recent map arguments might be irrelevant... There's a great map resource offered by Mark Newman, Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan. All the map images are under CC and available to WP. Anyone with time on there hands want to put together a map gallery? Electiontechnology (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Timmeh gave me a link to upload the pictures, so I may be able to do it. -- Frightwolf (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I did the map gallery similar to what we did in 2004 -- I put up the regular electoral map. Then I broke it down into counties. Then I broke it down into the percentage of the vote that went either way. And then I ended it with the cartogram. We used to have a map that displayed each electoral vote as a square just like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartogram-2004_Electoral_Vote.PNG. I'll try to find it so I can add it on. -- Frightwolf (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been added. Is the Popular Vote section a good place to put it? If not, we can discuss where to move the gallery. -- Frightwolf (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, but I have a few suggestions. I don't think the electoral vote maps really belong, as the gallery is showing (or meant to show) all popular vote information. I would also suggest the addition of a "vote swing" map such as the one on the New York Times website that shows the voting swings (more Rep or Dem) from the last election. One last thing-I'm not sure if it would work for some screen resolutions, but you could put three maps in each row to save vertical space. There is a lot of empty space to the right of the images that could be utilized. Timmeh! 04:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too sure how to expand the space horizontally, but if you tell me how, I could do it pretty easily. In regards to the electoral map, I'm just basing it off the 2004 election wiki, though I see why you might not want it there. However, with the 1 square per vote map, I think that might be good in showing the importance of the coastal and larger states in comparison to places like Kansas and the Dakotas. Perhaps it may be better used in another part of the Wiki?

In regards to the NYT map, I would love to just print screen it and copy it onto the election wiki, but I'm not sure if we're allowed to do that. -- Frightwolf (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to upload it using this link. If it's not allowed, the image will likely be deleted after a week or two. Timmeh! 05:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)