| Revision as of 00:25, 11 February 2014 editFrietjes (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors1,000,827 edits →Over use of color← 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 |
| (46 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1date=09:20, 3 July 2005 |
|
|action1date=09:20, 3 July 2005 |
| Line 7: |
Line 16: |
|
|action1oldid=18048120 |
|
|action1oldid=18048120 |
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|itndate=3 March 2004 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=Low|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Bush family|importance=High}} |
|
{{U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link}} |
|
|
|
{{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 |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=Talk:United States presidential election, 2004/Archive index |
|
|target=Talk:United States presidential election, 2004/Archive index |
|
|mask=Talk:United States presidential election, 2004/Archive <#> |
|
|mask=Talk:United States presidential election, 2004/Archive <#> |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
{{archives|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{clear}} |
|
{{clear}} |
|
|
|
|
== Dick Gephardt == |
|
|
|
|
|
I changed the description of ] in the caption under his picture from former minority leader to former majority leader because even though he was more recently a minority leader, majority leader is a higher position. ] (]) 04:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ohio court disclosures == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is this a credible source? If so, it seems the article needs to be updated to cite this source: |
|
|
. ] (]) 16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bad data in table of popular vote counts by state == |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that the data in the by-state tally is incorrect. |
|
|
|
|
|
The button for the link: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf states: "Note also: Official Federal Election Commission Report, with the latest, most final, and complete vote totals available." |
|
|
|
|
|
For Arkansas, the table lists 573,182 votes for Bush, but the FEC report (p.27) at the link I mention lists |
|
|
572,898 votes for Bush. There are discrepancies for Illinois also. |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there an explanation for these apparent errors? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks.] (]) 02:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
==File:Al Sharpton by David Shankbone.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion== |
|
|
{| |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for speedy deletion at ] for the following reason: ''Other speedy deletions'' |
|
|
;What should I do? |
|
|
''Don't panic''; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Misplaced Pages. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. |
|
|
* If the image is ] then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) |
|
|
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no ] then it cannot be uploaded or used. |
|
|
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try ] |
|
|
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant ] |
|
|
|
|
|
''This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image'' --] (]) 01:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| ⚫ |
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Issue of Kerry's decision to dispute the win being in the lead == |
|
|
|
|
|
Should this text be in the second paragraph: {{quote|The winner was not determined until the following day, when Kerry decided not to dispute Bush's win in the state of ]. The state held enough electoral votes to determine the winner of the presidency. Both Kerry and ] Chairman ] have stated their opinion that voting in Ohio did not proceed fairly and that, had it done so, the Democratic ticket might have won that state and therefore the election.<nowiki><ref name=RS>{{cite news|url= http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm |title=Was the 2004 Election Stolen? : Rolling Stone |publisher=Rollingstone.com |author=Kennedy, Robert F.|accessdate=November 3, 2008}}</ref></nowiki> }} |
|
|
It would seem to be rather notable as it may have determined the outcome of the election. ] (]) 08:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Anyone else that should be included in the discussion? ] (]) 08:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Seems reasonable to me. ] (]) 08:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The source is an opinion piece, written by a partisan author, housed on the website of a partisan organization, and originally published in a magazine whose specialty is music and pop culture, not political news or NPOV analysis. I have a lot of trouble considering this a reliable source, especially for assertions with probable BLP implications. Actual news reports of statements by Dean or Kerry, on the other hand, are probably appropriate in the main text of the article (I haven't checked recently, but I believe similar comments about Nixon not disputing his loss based on alleged improprieties in Illinois were either in his article or the 1960 election article at one point). ] (]) 20:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You are making the uncertainty over the election's outcome a lot more significant and widely discussed than it actually is by giving it its own paragraph in the lead. I cannot find any mainstream news source disputing the outcome of the election, or assigning a different outcome a high probability. If you have one, show it. And there are many, many factors that affected the election's outcome, such as the Swift Boat attacks or allegations of Kerry's flip-flopping, that are not in the lead. |
|
|
::::My proposed change would be: "As in the 2000 presidential election, voting controversies and concerns of irregularities emerged during and after the vote, particularly in the state of Ohio. However, there was far less controversy about this election than in 2000." That seems entirely fair, considering that dispute over this election is mostly expressed in far-flung conspiracies, and that Kerry himself declined to seek a recount and has barely talked about the election ever since. --] (]) 22:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Article from a source politically similar to Rolling Stone completely debunking the cited article in the lead: http://www.salon.com/2006/06/03/kennedy_39/. I don't think conspiratorial, distorted views and isolated statements made by the election's losers deserve a place in the lead. --] (]) 00:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Presidential elections in 2004 == |
|
|
|
|
|
] presently redirects here, but ] redirects to a dab page at ]. I think that all three capitalization should lead to the same place, so I have nominated both redirects at ]. Your comments in that discussion would be welcome. ] (]) 12:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Somewhat related, a page that links here uses the term, "presidential election 2004", and a candidate from that election's page ] uses the term, "presidential"-(w/o capitalizing the "P" which in the Misplaced Pages MOS appears to recommend using "P" in these cases)]. Due to this problem I am hesitating on changing anything there] (]) 23:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== bin Laden tapes' effect on polling mis-represented == |
|
|
Having taken a new interest in the subject, I reviewed Real Clear Politic's aggregation of 2004 US Presidential Election polling, specifically the dates 10/28 - 11/2. In the current Wiki page, it says Bush opened up a larger lead on Kerry following the bin Laden tape release on 10/29, when in fact the opposite is true. According to RCP's aggregate, the margin closed slightly. There is a similar mention of this on the bin Laden tape's page. It specifically mentions a 6 point lead, but doesn't address what poll they are referencing, nor does it address the (more accurate) aggregation of polls showing no significant influence of the tapes. Should this be edited? |
|
|
] (]) 00:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Demographics section addition == |
|
== Demographics section addition == |
| Line 79: |
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. " == |
|
== Over use of color == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
unfortunately, a significant portion of the information is conveyed exclusively using color, which is inaccessible to the blind and color blind. In particular, using red/blue to indicate states won by republicans and democrats. any ideas of how to fix this problem? ] (]) 14:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm afraid there's really no easy solution for that without making the whole article very messy and cumbersome. It's just such a universal standard to use red for Republicans and blue for Democrats, the colors are used on the main electoral college map, on the congressional district maps, on the county-level maps, the shading of the states by party on the state-by-state result table, and in indicating the state victory margins in the Close States section...and this color-based format is used in every single article in any way related to an American election. It's pretty much impossible to replicate all the data communicated by that color without really making a mess of the article, having to write out "Democratic" and "Republican" in every spot where blue or red is used. In some cases it would be pretty much impossible, because going through say a county map and putting a D or an R in each of 3000+ counties would be very tedious to make and not very useful since you'd have to zoom in very close to actually see the result. |
|
|
:I agree it's very unfortunate for colorblind users, I wonder if Misplaced Pages would consider possibly adding a Colorblind version of Misplaced Pages where all that information could be conveyed using exclusively non-color based methods, because it would be too messy and very difficult (in some cases impossible) to try to provide a colorblind solution on top of the color scheme system used in the main articles. If we can get a Colorblind version of Wiki, I would be happy to help contribute in making at least state-level maps and tables and communicate party data without relying on color. ] (]) |
|
|
:: it's really not that hard to fix. so long as the information is not conveyed exclusively using color (see ]) there is no problem. ] (]) 00:25, 11 February 2014 (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)
