Talk:United States presidential election, 2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Accuracy Concern

In the third paragraph below the photos the following sentences appear: "In the South Carolina primary, however, Bush soundly defeated McCain. Some credited Bush's win to the fact that it was the first major primary in which only registered Republicans could vote, which negated McCain's strong advantage among independents."

I don't believe, though I am not willing to correct it for concerns of appearing biased, that this statement is factually accurate. South Carolina is an open primary where anyone of any political persuasion can vote in either primary. In fact, South Carolinians regularly cross over to vote in another party's primary. As an example, I am actually a democratic campaign official and have worked for the democratic party for the last 16 years, which includes 4 primary cycles. Sequel to that, I voted in Republican primaries in 2000 and 1996, this is often done in early open primary states to undermine support for the front runners. For example, my votes were for John McCain in 2000 and Steve Forbes in 1996.

I believe to correct the factual accuracy of the article that the entire second sentence that I have cited should simply be removed.

72.254.22.168 (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Please see Wikipedia:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy for standards for all "U.S. presidential election, yyyy" pages.

[edit] Old discussion

Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3


  1. Old talk archived at Talk:United States presidential election, 2000/Archive 1 by Oliver P. 03:58 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC). Summary of old talk:
  2. Old talk archived at Talk:United States presidential election, 2000/Archive 2 by Rbsteffes. Summary of old talk:
    • Wording debate on how to phrase recounts
    • Debate about rulings in Supreme Court
    • A few other points of clarification
  3. Old talk archived on 2/2/2008. Summary of old talk:
    • Just needed to be archived!

[edit] Finances for 2000 Election?

Could someone add the campaign spending for various candidates,as was done for the 2004 election article?67.159.70.74 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current Images of the Canidates?

This is a minor issue but should the image of Al Gore under the headline "The election" be a picture from the election, rather than a relatively recent image of him? The same goes for Bush's image. Does Wikipedia have no other images of these two available to it?--Lordhelpus 00:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

agreed, these should be contemporaneous to the election. there's a multitude of images that should be available. Anastrophe 01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Concur. — BQZip01 — talk 05:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe a sentence (or more) got dropped?

At the beginning of the section "Republican Party nomination" there seems to be either a(t least one) missing sentence or a very poorly written introduction. It *starts* with two parenthetical notes (probably meant to be part of the preceding figure?).

Then we have the awkward first sentence: "Following Bob Dole's loss to Bill Clinton in the 1996 election, George W. Bush became the frontrunner ...". This wouldn't be so bad if it followed a sentence about the '96 election. However, as it is, it suggests a causal relationship, as thought Bob Dole's loss specifically caused George Bush to be the frontrunner rather than McCain or someone else. If you want to say that George Bush became the frontrunner right after the '96 election, something like "Immediately following the 1996 election, George W. Bush became the frontrunner" would be much better.

Worst of all, the first mentions of many of the candidates are by last name only: "These included Alexander, Dole, Kasich, Quayle, and Smith". Only Bob Dole had been mentioned previously in the text at this point.Originalname37 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bush photo switch

Hello all,

I swapped the current photo of George W. Bush to his first official photo from 2001. This is done to show what then Governor Bush looked like in 2000, compared to 2003. For an example of this, compare the photo of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1952 and 1956 election article. 65.184.40.8 (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is neccessary! Reagan also had the same Picture 1980 and 1984. (15 January 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.213.238 (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Bush's Homestate

bush is from conneticut not texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.74.153 (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Might have been born there but from the age of something like 1 he has lived in Texas. I'd hate to believe that I'm actually a New Yorker even though I've lived in California since 6 months of age! CT isn't his "homestate" it's just the one he was born in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.39.125 (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


I agree--if Hillary Clinton is the Senator from New York, then George Bush (who was then governor of Texas) must be said to be from Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.157.105 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] italics not needed

In the far right box, the number of electoral votes for Bush seems to be in italics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.196.51 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Nader

Even though the Nader-LaDuke ticket, didn't get any 'electoral votes' & had a small popular vote? It was considered to have determined the outcome of the election, in the Bush-Cheney ticket's favour. Therefore, should we have Nader's image at the top of the article (as we have Perot, in the 1992 election article)? GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but he did get less than 3 percent of the popular vote. the only reason Perot is on the 1992 one is because he got 18.9 percent of the popular vote, but ironically, he had no impact on the outcome, as exit polls showed the pro-abortion pro-gays-in-military candidate taking equally from both candidates when asking Perot voters their second choices. Nader changed history and should be included, but probably won't due to his anemic popular vote total, unlike George Wallace and Ross Perot.Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Potential candidates who chose not to run"?

What exactly is this section supposed to mean? Shouldn't it include just about every U.S. citizen over the age of 35? It seems kind of silly, so unless anyone objects, I'll get rid of it. --kine (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I already went ahead and deleted it. NuclearWarfare (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Margin of popular vote victory should be in lead paragraph

Although I'm sure Wikipedia's right-wing editors will change this, I added the 543,895 vote figure in the lead paragraph of the story. The fact that Gore got 543,895 more votes than Bush was buried deep in the story; I feel that in an article about an election, that this info should be in the first paragraph. I realize it's painful for Bush supporters to admit Gore got 543,895 more votes than their hero. But in an article about an election, this should be in the first paragraph (after all, the electoral vote numbers are in the first paragraph). I'm sure Wikipedia's right-wing editors will change this, but I figured I'd give it a shot, in order to try to balance out Wikipedia's extreme right-wing bias and adoration of Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone from the Democratic National Committee is upset that the article isn't as liberal as they'd like. Unfortunately for you, the presidential election isn't decided by popular vote - why would it be in the lead? Removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.35.56 (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nader near the top?

Should we keep him in the box? Discuss ;) : NuclearWarfare (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)