Talk:Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What about Hillary Clinton. There is still a chance for her. Anything can happen at the convention. Moreno Valley User (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hillary has announced that she will concede her run for president over the weekend and endorse Senator Barack Obama. Not to mention, even if she won 100% of the uncommited superdelegates, she still would not have enough delegates to clinch the nomination. So she should not be listed. CoolKid1993 (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] This is so stupid
There are so many more Presidential candidates that McCain and Obama. The news has done enough of a job cutting out the other delegates. It is bias to not include the others. This either needs a complete revamp, or it should be taken out. --Olmecs Revenge (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] OTHER CANDIDATES NEEDED
This is ridiculous. Ralph Nader is polling at 8 percent in a McCain-Obama-Nader race; to have him not included is tantamount to ignoring millions of votes. Not to mention the Libertarian Party, Green Party, etc. Uwmad (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I may have spoken too soon - the page was only created three days ago. Have been working on including other candidates, hope others will join. Uwmad (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that other canidates should be added, but to be fair we shoudl make some distinction between the bigger 2 and the rest. Also, lets wait untill those other praties have all had their primaries. - Schrandit (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure why we would wait for primaries, the only candidates who haven't yet been nominated are John McCain, Barack Obama, and Cynthia McKinney. That's why they're labelled as presumptive. Also, if the page is intended to be a comparison of presidential candidates, there should be no reason to seperate them out based on "bigness". Uwmad (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- There ought be a distinction between the 2 realistic candidates and the other thrid party candidates, when people come here they're looking for McCain and Obama. I would support creating a seperate page for third party candidates. - Schrandit (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- A candidate is a candidate. On the ballot, each candidate is given the same weight. Whether or not a candidate is "realistic" is really nonconsequential. People would come to this page to compare the candidates' stances on issues (i.e. McCain and Obama will be there alongside all the other candidates). Uwmad (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know about you guys, but if I want to see a comparison of Presidential candidates, I want to see them all compared, so I know which one is better. McCain and Obama are mostly the "major" candidates because the crappy media doesn't covers people unequally.--Olmecs Revenge (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- A candidate is a candidate. On the ballot, each candidate is given the same weight. Whether or not a candidate is "realistic" is really nonconsequential. People would come to this page to compare the candidates' stances on issues (i.e. McCain and Obama will be there alongside all the other candidates). Uwmad (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- There ought be a distinction between the 2 realistic candidates and the other thrid party candidates, when people come here they're looking for McCain and Obama. I would support creating a seperate page for third party candidates. - Schrandit (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure why we would wait for primaries, the only candidates who haven't yet been nominated are John McCain, Barack Obama, and Cynthia McKinney. That's why they're labelled as presumptive. Also, if the page is intended to be a comparison of presidential candidates, there should be no reason to seperate them out based on "bigness". Uwmad (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ralph Nader does not have ballot access in enough states to actually win the election. As such, it is pointless to include him in a comparison with the candidates that actually will be on the ballots in all 50 states. I think that it would be best to revert the page back to the way I had originally made it--a section for the major candidates that are on the ballot in all 50 states, and sections for those candidates that cannot physically win. I stand by my comment that they will pollute this page. The fact of the matter is that with the two column layout there simply is not enough horizontal space to fit 15 random candidates that are not relevant to the elections. The point of wikipedia is to provide relevant information to users, not to act as a soapbox for people that feel like their candidate is as relevant as the ones that can win the election. Have you ever looked at the comparison pages for OS's or other stuff? They are nearly impossible to read because instead of focusing on the relevant systems that users are interested in, every OS under the sun is included, making the pages almost entirely unreadable. ctachme (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's obvious that your issue is with Ralph Nader. In 2004, Nader was on the ballot in 34 states (despite a concerted effort by the DNC to deny him access in 12 states). Had he won those 34 states, he would have had enough electoral votes to physically win. As of now, the campaign is in the process of collecting signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states.[1] Ralph Nader is a serious candidate who ran in the previous four elections, receiving nearly 3,000,000 votes in 2000. As far as "Comparisons of United States presidential candidates" it would be a disservice and unencyclopedic to not include these candidates. Your distinction between "major candidate" and "minor candidate" props up McCain and Obama as the only choice possible. This is biased (not to mention undemocratic). Uwmad (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem with Ralph Nader, any more than any of the other numerous candidates. I don't think Ralph Nader should be in the same place as Obama and McCain for the same reason I think that Gene Amondson, Brian Moore, Alan Keyes, Frank Moore, Jonathon Sharkey do not deserve to be in the same section. It is true than in the 2004 election that he was on sufficient state ballots to be elected. If he, or anyone else is able to replicate that this year, I think it would be completely fair to include them in a separate section from the candidates that don't have sufficient ballot access. Until then, it's illogical to fill the table with candidates that are not relevant. Mind you, if you had looked at my page instead of immediately reverting it, you will have noticed that I DID include these candidates in the page. I agree that it is relevant information and is encyclopedic to include them, but it is most appropriate to include them in another section. I don't claim to prop them up as the only choice possible, it just so happens that it the moment Nader and every other independent candidate is not a choice because he is not on the ballot. It's not undemocratic to portray the truth :) ctachme (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I had looked at your edit, thank you. You placed McCain and Obama at the top, and included all independents under a header, "Finally, there are numerous candidates that cannot win because they do not have ballot access in a sufficient number of states." I'm not sure about other candidates, but Nader will certainly have enough access to compete. Look... the way ballot access is set up, Democrats and Republicans get an automatic shoo-in. Third-parties, due to ballot access laws created by Democratic and Republican lawmakers, have to jump through innumerable hurdles to even have their name on a ballot. It also varies state-to-state. Ralph Nader, for example, will be collecting signatures right up to the end (likely with dozens of court challenges trying to keep him off). If this year is anything like the past three, he will be on enough ballots. To wait until the end would be ridiculous -- the page would be devoid of a candidate that for all intents and purposes will be on most ballots. Uwmad (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- There has to be some sort of criteria for including candidates in the table. If anyone could get in the table, then it could include 20 candidates, which would make it impossible to read. I believe that the most logical criteria is those candidates that mathematically can win the election should get priority over those that cannot. If you have some other criteria to suggest, I would welcome that. But keep in mind that the 2004 election is not the same as this one, so I don't think it's fair to say just because he got ballot access then he can get it now. Either way, there still needs to be some way of limiting the people in the top table so it does not become too bloated. ctachme (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I had looked at your edit, thank you. You placed McCain and Obama at the top, and included all independents under a header, "Finally, there are numerous candidates that cannot win because they do not have ballot access in a sufficient number of states." I'm not sure about other candidates, but Nader will certainly have enough access to compete. Look... the way ballot access is set up, Democrats and Republicans get an automatic shoo-in. Third-parties, due to ballot access laws created by Democratic and Republican lawmakers, have to jump through innumerable hurdles to even have their name on a ballot. It also varies state-to-state. Ralph Nader, for example, will be collecting signatures right up to the end (likely with dozens of court challenges trying to keep him off). If this year is anything like the past three, he will be on enough ballots. To wait until the end would be ridiculous -- the page would be devoid of a candidate that for all intents and purposes will be on most ballots. Uwmad (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem with Ralph Nader, any more than any of the other numerous candidates. I don't think Ralph Nader should be in the same place as Obama and McCain for the same reason I think that Gene Amondson, Brian Moore, Alan Keyes, Frank Moore, Jonathon Sharkey do not deserve to be in the same section. It is true than in the 2004 election that he was on sufficient state ballots to be elected. If he, or anyone else is able to replicate that this year, I think it would be completely fair to include them in a separate section from the candidates that don't have sufficient ballot access. Until then, it's illogical to fill the table with candidates that are not relevant. Mind you, if you had looked at my page instead of immediately reverting it, you will have noticed that I DID include these candidates in the page. I agree that it is relevant information and is encyclopedic to include them, but it is most appropriate to include them in another section. I don't claim to prop them up as the only choice possible, it just so happens that it the moment Nader and every other independent candidate is not a choice because he is not on the ballot. It's not undemocratic to portray the truth :) ctachme (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's obvious that your issue is with Ralph Nader. In 2004, Nader was on the ballot in 34 states (despite a concerted effort by the DNC to deny him access in 12 states). Had he won those 34 states, he would have had enough electoral votes to physically win. As of now, the campaign is in the process of collecting signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states.[1] Ralph Nader is a serious candidate who ran in the previous four elections, receiving nearly 3,000,000 votes in 2000. As far as "Comparisons of United States presidential candidates" it would be a disservice and unencyclopedic to not include these candidates. Your distinction between "major candidate" and "minor candidate" props up McCain and Obama as the only choice possible. This is biased (not to mention undemocratic). Uwmad (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- All candidates should be included, if only for fairness/encyclopedic reasons -- a "comparison of US presidential candidates" should include said candidates. At a minimum, the Libertarian Party, Green Party, and Ralph Nader (unaffiliated but still supported by the Reform Party and some Green Party members) should be included. They are likely to show up on most ballots in most states. Uwmad (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that other canidates should be added, but to be fair we shoudl make some distinction between the bigger 2 and the rest. Also, lets wait untill those other praties have all had their primaries. - Schrandit (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] This is getting ridiculous
Yes, we must work to provide information on all candidates. No, it must not be on this page. Only 2 candidates will be in the national debates, only 2 candidates will be on every state ballot and even though I probably won’t be voting for either one of them only 2 candidates stand a shot at winning. We cannot put everyone on here – there are already 10 people “running” and it isn’t even July. This page will become to crowded to effectively deliver any information. We must segregate the 2 major candidates from the third party candidates. - Schrandit (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand the harm in including other candidates; the article will be much more informative (and on topic) with all candidates included. Would you mind commenting on the idea to include, at a minimum, the Libertarian Party, Green Party, and Ralph Nader? I feel like this may be a good compromise. Uwmad (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- For starters there are already 10 candidates - it will be impossible to convey information on that many candidates in an orderly manner on one page. Didn't the presidential deabates resolve this issue by allowing anyone breaking 10 percent in oppinion polling to participate? Will McKinney even be on the ballot in all 50 States? - Schrandit (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Citations
On a page like this, in which the page will be mostly relevant for only a couple of months, I think it's very important that everything be well cited right from the start. New information should certainly have a corresponding citation or risk deletion. I've gone through and added citation tags to sections and sentences that were already poorly sourced, hopefully those who added the info can grab the source and put it in. Uwmad (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stay on specifics
I've noticed some instances in which the Obama entries are rather nonspecific. For example, under environment, the entry is: "Obama takes global warming very seriously and he has said that it must be addressed." If he takes it very seriously, people should be able to understand that from his proposals -- unless of course, he actually said "I take global warming very seriously" in which case it should be in quotes and sourced. There is also the line "Obama has spoken out numerous times against the influence of lobbying in the United States" accompanied by two sources. One of the sources talks about how Obama actually pandered to lobbyists. Again, general statements are tricky because they can be debunked by any statement to the contrary. I guess I'm saying that we should keep the entries as specific and succinct as possible. Uwmad (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bob Barr's net worth
It says he is worth 0$...I imagine thats a mistake? BCapp 02:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
