| Revision as of 17:38, 27 December 2003 editSeth Ilys (talk | contribs)46,881 editsNo edit summary← 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 |
| (603 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
== Covering future events == |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(365d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:2004 United States presidential election/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 6 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|
|action1date=09:20, 3 July 2005 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/United States presidential election, 2004/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=not promoted |
|
|
|action1oldid=18048120 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|itndate=3 March 2004 |
|
Why don't we stop talking about the future? Future release album, future election, future etc... -- ] 08:13 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Bush family|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Nov 1 2020 (15th)|Nov 3 2024 (22nd)}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:United States presidential election, 2004/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:United States presidential election, 2004/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{clear}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Demographics section addition == |
|
:This is actually the present. The U.S. "election season" for presidential elections is beginning in earnest now, with several announcements about who is (and isn't) running. Election day is the end of a long public process that has already begun. - ] 08:33 Jan 5, 2003 (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. |
|
-Hehe, getting ready are we. :)--] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All the best. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 06:02, 1 December, 2013 (UTC) |
|
== "Self-centered" pages == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "This is the most recent presidential election in which neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump were on the ballot. " == |
|
There is no room for a waste of time with '''self-centered''' crap like this in an encyclopedia. Things like this are what make Misplaced Pages an unreliable joke by idiots with nothing more to do than create something of no real value.....DW |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
:Self-centered? Has ] announced that he'll be running, then? ;) --] |
|
|
|
|
|
::Yay, me for President! Hmmm...have to add my announcement to the timeline... :) -- ] |
|
|
|
|
|
What ever happened to the fine art of ]? :) --] |
|
|
|
|
|
:whaddya mean...working on Misplaced Pages ''is'' how I procrastinate. :) Seriously though, I'm hoping that by getting an early start and tracking this election early, we'll have a really complete record of what transpired. |
|
|
|
|
|
DW: What do you mean by self-centered? And you really think its things like '''''this''''' that are troubling? Read the nonsense under ] and ]. -- ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gotta go with Zoe on this. rofl.-] |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
== Listing potential election issues == |
|
|
|
|
|
Although it's not possible to list potential issues in say the 2008 election, it is certainly possible to list potential issues cited by the candidates that motivate them to run in the next election. For instance ] will certainly make an issue of the ] and ]. ] will certainly make an issue of the ]. ] will make an issue of the ] and its ] impact. Issues mentioned by lots of potential candidates ought to be in an 'issues' section or separate article on "likely issues in the 2004 U.S. presidential election" just so people can bone up on them in one place. |
|
|
|
|
|
This could get a *lot* of people reading Misplaced Pages, if the articles established a high reputation for quality and impartiality. It's worth doing for that reason if no other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------- |
|
|
== "Considering" vs. "Announced" == |
|
|
|
|
|
Our distinction between "considering" and "announced" is problematic. What exactly do we mean by "announced"? There are two formal actions taken with the ]: statement of organization of an exploratory committee and statement of candidacy. Perhaps we should have "considering," "formed exporatory committee," and "declared"? ] (03 March 2003 14:18 UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No objection, though I'm not volunteering to fix this up :-) -- ] 07:53 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Yes the formal FEC actions are the ones that count, it's the only neutral/objective basis for any such classification. Go for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Great idea == |
|
|
|
|
|
The 2004 election timeline is a terrific idea. I am glad to see people working on it already. As a high school history teacher, I intend to use this as a resource. The more well-informed I can stay on the election, the better I can teach my students. keep up the good work! and i'll probably be helping here too! ] 02:30 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Glad you like it. However, it's six months later, and there are still gaping holes, like no biography of ], former State House candidate from Texas, a stub for ], former Governor of New Mexico, none for ], New Mexico Green, ], Green legal advisor to the party and former candidate for Texas attorney, nor even ], former Congresswoman from Georgia or ], creator of ]. It took some time before even all Democrats were covered, which is kind of surprising. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Perhaps your students can chip in and help by digging up biographies of the above, and filling them in? |
|
|
---- |
|
|
== Parenthetical notes == |
|
|
Is there a reason for parenthetical italicized notes (<i>this note is unnecessary</i>)? Wouldn't it be better to put them in <!--> form? |
|
|
:No, there isn't. I merged the info in one into the article, this is the other: |
|
|
|
|
|
(<i>Didn't Cheney say at some point during the 2000 Election that he would not run for a second term?</i>) |
|
|
|
|
|
... Questions like that go here, an answer, as a statement, goes there. -- ] 08:01, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
== Standard for inclusion == |
|
|
|
|
|
The standard we've been using for inclusion of a party has been that they were on the ballot in enough states to elect a president. I think we should stay with that, though this would be the place to discuss it. Clearly we need some standard, else we would have several dozen parties listed nearly all of which are completely irrelevent to the presidential election. The Democrats, Libertarians, and Republicans are expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states. The Greens are expected to be on the ballot in about 45 or so states. Reform and Constitution have little hope of being on the ballot in more than about 10-15 states. Natural Law has a better chance, though still slim. -- ] 08:32, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Even thought the parties may not be on enough ballots to win the election. This is an encyclopedia we can at least report who from this these parties are running. Are we sure that the Reform party or Constitution party will not be on enough ballots? The election is still a year away and perhaps between now and than one or more of those parties will be on say 40 ballots. |
|
|
|
|
|
A person could make a similar argument that even thougt the Libert and Greens are on enough state ballots neither one has a "real" chance to win the election and should not be treated the same as Dems and Reps. Depending on what states your are on it would only take 12 states to win Of course you have to win all thoses states and thoses are the biggest states, but in "theory" you could do it. I think in the interest of being "inclusive" and giving people more information let's include other parties. We could add call them minor parties or regional parties, but they deserves as much of a platform as the greens and libitarians |
|
|
Just checking the 2000 election and the Reform party got more votes than the Libs, so one could make a case that base on the the last election the reform party should be included on this last as as well as the lib] 22:28, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There is no chance that Natural Law, Constitution, or Reform will be on the ballot in 40 states in 2004. As of the end of September, Libertarians are on the ballot in 27 states (expected 47 to 50), Greens are on in 20 (expected 40 to 47), Natural Law are on in 12 states (expected 20 to 30), Constitution are on in 10 (expected 15 to 18 including CA), and Reform are on in 7 (expected 10 to 12). ] is correct that the Reform candidate ] received more votes in ] than did ] the Libertarian candidate, however, it was only about one twentieth the votes received by ] in ] and the Reform Party has continued to implode since then. If I recall correctly, the Reform Party fielded a total of 7 candidates nationwide in ], compared to several hundrend Greens and about 2000 Libertarians (partisan races only). |
|
|
|
|
|
] has argued that we should have a more inclusive standard that the one we've been using, however, has not proposed a specific standard unless it was the suggestion that we include any party that's on the ballot in even just one state. The problem with that standard is that we would have to include several dozen parties about which information is scarce. I can't think of an objective standard higher than on the ballot in one state but lower than on the ballot in enough states to win that makes any sense. Perhaps someone else will. Until someone suggests a different standard and there is some consensus on it, I'm going to revert to the standard we've been using. -- ] 01:26, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
How about this for a standard we list the partys that are listed on the US political party page? All I am looking for is basic info on the small parties, when and were they held their conventations/ who is their nomine for pres and veep that is all |
|
|
|
|
|
but one quick note about again about ballots if a party was on ballot in the 10 largest states they would have as good of chance to win as a small party on the lower 40 states. Who knows perhaps neither the ref/ cons or nl party will get on 25 or 30 or 40 states but we can at least state for the record the names of their nominees and were they held their conventions lets leave the partys on the page it does not hurt it] 00:40, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
Who and when set the current "standards" ? ] 00:41, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As we have seen before, a small party in only one state with a relatively few number of votes can affect the electoral outcome. Such a small party might not be able to elect a President of their own party, but they can certainly spoil the election of a President from another. Don't know if they belong on this page, but they can be important.] 00:47, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed new standards |
|
|
|
|
|
Parties that are listed ] should be included. |
|
|
|
|
|
The smaller the party the less said ( that fine) but at least acknowledge that there are more than 2 big parties and two small parties ( that even though they may be on 40 state ballots have no more chance to win than the smaller parties). |
|
|
|
|
|
just date/city of convention and nominee name and vice pres name. We don't need to go into any great details about any "party politics" within say the constitution party conventation. Just put the nominee name and vice pres name. Plus I think we should leave the other parties listed until we decided on a new standards.] 00:50, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the minor parties listed ] don't have presidential nominees. Most of them don't even have national conventions. Even the Natural Law Party won't have a nominee for 2004, and it seems that the Reform Party won't either. Most of the minor parties are local or regional and have no relevance at all to presidential elections. I'm surprised that a standard has been proposed that's even lower than having a presidential candidate on the ballot in at least one state. I still think that being on the ballot in enough states to have a theoretical chance of winning is the optimal standard. If someone wants to know about the smallest of parties, they can always click on the link to the ]. ] 21:43, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
----------- |
|
|
|
|
|
== S O S on Electronic Voting Machines == |
|
|
|
|
|
As with banking, the assurance that computerized electronic voting machines (presently |
|
|
being installed throughout the nation) would record and tally votes correctly lies in the |
|
|
ATM-quality receipt, or printout, of a voter’s choices. A printout is needed for the ballot |
|
|
box, for possible future auditing, and the voter, like the ATM user, needs one to confirm |
|
|
and to keep. Without printouts of voters’ choices, it would be virtually impossible to |
|
|
guarantee the integrity of the computerized voting process |
|
|
|
|
|
Rep. Rush Holt has introduced a bill in Congress (HR 2239) to mandate that electronic |
|
|
voting machines provide “paper trail” copies. Ohio’s 18th District Rep. Bob Ney, |
|
|
Chairman of the House Administration Committee, says no and will not release the bill to |
|
|
the House floor for a vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
(References: Put “Electronic voting machines” or “Representative Rush Holt” into the |
|
|
Internet Search button.) |
|
|
|
|
|
A tidal wave of 18th District voices is needed to move Rep. Ney to act on the bill, so that |
|
|
electronic voting machines do not produce a predetermined digital win for the 2004 |
|
|
elections. |
|
|
|
|
|
18th District voters: please call, write, fax or e-mail Rep. Ney at the House of |
|
|
Representatives, Washington, DC: |
|
|
|
|
|
“Immediately release HR 2239, Rep. Holt’s ‘paper trail’ bill, for a vote by |
|
|
the House. Voting is no less important than banking.” |
|
|
|
|
|
Please post or forward this message within the Ohio 18th District. |
|
|
|
|
|
Major cities are Cadiz, Cambridge, Chillicothe, Coshocton, Dover, Jackson, New |
|
|
Philadelphia; Uhrichsville; Wellston and Zanesville. The 18th District is comprised |
|
|
of the sparsely populated counties of Carroll, Coshocton, Guernsey, Harrison, |
|
|
Hocking, Holmes, Jackson, Knox, Morgan, Muskingum, Ross, Tuscarawas, and |
|
|
Vinton. |
|
|
|
|
|
OH-18th Voters: Save the Democracy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----- |
|
|
|
|
|
== Moving Democrats to own page == |
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I don't understand why the Democratic candidates have been moved to their own page. Moreover, I don't know why anyone in the next few months would assume they could find info about candidates at an encyclopedic entry marked "Democratic Primary". I would '''be bold''' and change it, but I haven't been working on this page, and don't want to muck up the works if there's a good reason for how it's being run. My suggestion: couldn't we leave the candidates on this page for the time being...maybe say that more information is available on ]? Then, after the primaries start to thin things out, we move all the candidates to the primary page at that point (say, mid-March) with the assumption that people will know at that point that info on who's in and who's out will be on the primary page? If I'm missing something here, let me know. I just doubt the wisdom of forcing someone looking for the Democratic candidates to follow another link (which may confuse them at this juncture), but leaving independent and Green candidates on this page...I don't know why we're tossing in the roadblock. Please enlighten me: ] 22:12, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
We need to have one timeline for the Democrats. Either we maintain it as part of ], or we maintain it as part of ]. The problem is that there's significant literary license being taken with what gets included and what gets excluded from the main timeline, versus the Dem party timeline. Worse, there's inaccuracies being introduced in ] |
|
|
|
|
|
I've never been thrilled with maintaining a separate page for the Dem party primary. My vote is that we merge these pages back together. -- ] 21:59, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with ] that these should be merged. -- ] 22:06, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== FEC Filings == |
|
|
|
|
|
There's not a lot of clarity about what the various stages of a campaign are. My understanding is that for tax purposes, these are the stages: |
|
|
|
|
|
* Considering |
|
|
* Formed exploratory committee |
|
|
* Official campaign |
|
|
|
|
|
In the spirit of trying to figure things out based on this information, I've started rooting around the FEC site to try to figure out how to come up with the dates. Here's the only useful query I have so far. Feel free to add more. -- ] 09:44, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
FEC filing queries: |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
== Endorsements == |
|
|
Should endorsements be listed in the timeline? ] is expected to endorse ] today. ] 12:54, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I can imagine endorsements quickly getting out of hand. On the other hand, Gore's endorsement is significant. I'm neutral on this one. ] 14:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
For now I'm going to add it. If it gets messy, we can always remove it later. ] 15:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Iraq war referenes == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is it realy necessary to list major events of the Iraq war here? They don't strike me as in line with the rest of the listed events. - ] 17:38, 27 Dec 2003 (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)
