Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:34, 5 September 2010

	2004 United States presidential election is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 3, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted

United States: Presidential elections Unassessed Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

Template:U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link

Polls

Wasn't Kerry up 5% in the polls just before the election? I'd like to see a section on polls in this article.

65.101.231.48 (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Clark County

Is there any reason why there is no mention of the half baked idea of the UK Guardian newspaper to intervene in Clark County? See USA today article Resources here (Bush won Clark county BTW--Stroika (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

the reasoning in the section on votesplitting went: -- people were concerned about the effect of 3rd party candidates --> because of the electoral college one person's vote can effect the voting of an entire state's electoral college delegation's vote --> because the effect of votes for 3rd party candidates didn't swing the popular vote, the election, governed not by the popular vote, but by the easily swayed electoral college, vote splitting didn't effect the election... which is problematic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.144.73 (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Close State vs. Battleground States

Shouldn't these two sections be merged, they are pretty much the same thing. Also shouldn't this be completely under "results" not a seperate section. --Levineps (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Debates

There's no mention of presidential primary debates in this entry.

Vandalism

The panel to the right of this article currently shows Kerry to have won the 2004 election. The body text of the article remains correct, as far as I can tell. An editor needs to flag this article as inaccurate until someone puts up the right information. 137.165.240.191 (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

it's been fixed, thanks.. --Versageek 20:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Kerry and Dean in the intro

I've restored the following sentence in the intro:

Both Kerry and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean 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.

In late January, User:Timmeh removed it, writing: "the source doesn't support the claim that Kerry admitted votes werent counted correctly." From the article:

Kerry conceded, however, that the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the outcome reflected the will of the voters.

Kerry clearly opines here 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." Dean concurred, saying:

"I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided."

Because both quotes are clearly reflected in the intro sentence, and because such claims are rare and notable in presidential elections, I'm putting the sentence back in. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's all fine, but the sentence doesn't belong in the lead part of the article. It should be in the election controversy section. I'd also be grateful if you could get sources for some of the other info in that section. Timmeh! 23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but it does belong. When was the last time that a presidential nominee and the chairman of his national committee directly called an election's result into question? I don't think Nixon or his RNC even did so in 1960. Nobody remotely as prominent has called into question Obama's win, but that page has an election controversies section also.

Kerry and Dean's statements are not normal; they are exceptional, and notable enough to be mentioned in the intro. That's why it's been there since September '07. Per your suggestion, however, I've added two quotes from the article in the main "Controversies" section. Anyone else have any thoughts on this debate? Best, Mdiamante (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any concrete evidence, showing had there been no irregularities, the Kerry-Edwards ticket would've won? Those are very highly political biased assumptions by Kerry & Dean. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that neither Kerry nor Dean actually make the assumption, they only say that the matter is unknowable. But that's a moot point, as the intro never presented their suspicions as fact; it only noted that they'd expressed them, and that in itself is a very rare, and thus notable, occurrence in presidential politics. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The objective fact that's more notable than the Kerry/Dean statements is the Congressional challenge to Ohio's electoral votes. There was no such challenge perfected (i.e. supported by at least one Representative and at least one Senator) even after the scandalous 2000 election. I don't know when the last time any such challenge occurred -- probably the nineteenth century. Its rarity makes the controversy worth mentioning in the introductory section, and the Dean/Kerry opinions throw light on why the challenge was brought. JamesMLane t c 23:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll try to address that before long.Mdiamante (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Minnesoda

It's funny that Kerry was elected in Minnesota's congressional district in the electoral map of 2004 although Bush had been winning all of these states —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.150.214 (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Could you clarify please? Timmeh! 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Undefined Acronym

The acronym "ES&S" is used without definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.22.238 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why John Kerry's photograph should be changed

I think that John Kerry's current picture in the 2004 election is not good enough. I think it should be changed to Kerry's congressional photo with columns in the background, because I think that photo looks more recent and it looks better. I will change it. Thank you for your understanding.

Darren Monaghan, 22 July, 2009, 21:24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.113.24 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo's in election articles should not necessarily be recent (reflecting current appearance) but rather should reflect the appearance of the candidate in the election year (in this case 2004). Highground79 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Gramatical Touch-ups

I changed a few sentences in the opening paragraph because they were worded awkwardly. Is the information up there, like which states switched sides from democrat to republican and such, relevant though? M.jefferton (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Alaska counties/boroughs

This article currently says "Six states saw every county vote for one candidate: Bush won every county in Utah, Alaska, and Oklahoma while Kerry won every county in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Hawaii."

According to Misplaced Pages, "Alaska is not divided into counties, as most of the other U.S. states, but it is divided into boroughs. Many of the more densely populated parts of the state are part of Alaska's sixteen boroughs, which function somewhat similarly to counties in other states. However, unlike county-equivalents in the other 49 states, the boroughs do not cover the entire land area of the state. The area not part of any borough is referred to as the Unorganized Borough."

Further, the Alaska Secretary of State's office does not give election results by borough, but instead presents it broken down into 40 House Districts. Bush did not win all 40 House Districts. See http://www.elections.alaska.gov/ei_return_2004_GENR.php

Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections presents the election results by 4 Regions with Bush winning all 4 regions, but it is not clear to me how the regions are defined. http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/datagraph.php?year=2004&fips=2&f=0&off=0&elect=0.

I don't see how anyone can say George Bush won every county in Alaska, when Alaska does not have counties; Official Alaska election results are not provided by borough; Bush did not carry every house district; A private map shows him winning 4 regions without explaining what how the regions are defined.

Nightkey (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1. ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.Posted Jun 01, 2006 5:02 PM (Posted June 01, 2006 5:02 PM). "Was the 2004 Election Stolen? : Rolling Stone". Rollingstone.com. Retrieved 2008-11-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles