| Revision as of 16:28, 17 July 2024 editQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,103 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2]← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:22, 12 November 2024 edit undoDukeOfDelTaco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,662 edits →top: updated Top 25 Report |
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 25: |
Line 25: |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Top 25 Report|Nov 1 2020 (15th)}} |
|
{{Top 25 Report|Nov 1 2020 (15th)|Nov 3 2024 (22nd)}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=Talk:United States presidential election, 2004/Archive index |
|
|target=Talk:United States presidential election, 2004/Archive index |
| Line 38: |
Line 38: |
|
All the best. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 06:02, 1 December, 2013 (UTC) |
|
All the best. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 06:02, 1 December, 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "This is the most recent presidential election in which neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump were on the ballot. " == |
|
== "First 21st century president to win re-election" worth including? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this sentence really necessary? It seems really Tedious, if a president gets elected for 2 terms and then his/her vice president takes over, chances are it's going be a 12 year + period in which "Neither X nor Y are not on the ballot" You could make the same statement regarding the 1996 election, dating from 1980 to 1992, "This is the first election in which neither Reagan nor a Bush is on the Ballot." You could also make the same statement about various other elections, like the election after FDR, or the election after Nixon, and so forth. I know this was statement made by a Pundit implying that Joe Biden is old, but it's a very poor observation, (Making it seem like Biden's been a dynastic force in American politics). Trump got elected, lost the presidency, then won the nomination again. Not super uncommon in America politics, for someone to be nominated twice, or lose an election, then proceed to win an election (See Nixon, Stevenson, Cleveland, Dewey although different patterns). If Harris wins the election (Likely) and then proceeds to get reelected, are we going state, in 2032, "This is the first election sense 2016 in which Harris has not been on the ballot?", And so forth. It adds virtually no value and it suggests Trump and Biden have been "ruling" American politics which is hardly true. (Trump is not very well liked by his own party but has enough loyal supporters to win the nomination, Biden was largely seen as a compromise candidate and was selected for VP because it was thought he wouldn't run, and when Biden didn't run he passed the torch instead of running for reelection). ] (]) 17:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
I don't know if it's worth noting that this election made Bush the first 21st century president to win re-election, as he also was the first 21st century president in general, unless you count the year in which Clinton was president, in which case this statement becomes false. Either way, I'm of the view that it should be removed. ] (]) 02:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I've removed the sentence. ] (]) 05:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
Hello, all. I'm interested in adding demographics information to this election page. To specify, demographics on voter turnout regarding things like gender, age, income, race, etc. I have found a credible source, and was thinking of making fancy pie-charts to add somewhere in the results section. Please let me know if there is any feedback.
Is this sentence really necessary? It seems really Tedious, if a president gets elected for 2 terms and then his/her vice president takes over, chances are it's going be a 12 year + period in which "Neither X nor Y are not on the ballot" You could make the same statement regarding the 1996 election, dating from 1980 to 1992, "This is the first election in which neither Reagan nor a Bush is on the Ballot." You could also make the same statement about various other elections, like the election after FDR, or the election after Nixon, and so forth. I know this was statement made by a Pundit implying that Joe Biden is old, but it's a very poor observation, (Making it seem like Biden's been a dynastic force in American politics). Trump got elected, lost the presidency, then won the nomination again. Not super uncommon in America politics, for someone to be nominated twice, or lose an election, then proceed to win an election (See Nixon, Stevenson, Cleveland, Dewey although different patterns). If Harris wins the election (Likely) and then proceeds to get reelected, are we going state, in 2032, "This is the first election sense 2016 in which Harris has not been on the ballot?", And so forth. It adds virtually no value and it suggests Trump and Biden have been "ruling" American politics which is hardly true. (Trump is not very well liked by his own party but has enough loyal supporters to win the nomination, Biden was largely seen as a compromise candidate and was selected for VP because it was thought he wouldn't run, and when Biden didn't run he passed the torch instead of running for reelection). 68.189.2.14 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
