Talk:Reagan coalition

message: According to whom?RJFJR 05:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously according to my editorial opinion.  But, look at the history and see for yourself.  It WAS poorly written. Demaratus83 00:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is pretty bad.  The idea of having a section of the reagan article discussing this is great, but it shouldn't be this text.  It is almost entirely unsourced speculation and POV.  I'mg going to be bold and delete this text, in the hopes of encouraging a better start.  Perhaps I'll write it, but for now it's better to have this text down, it merely tarnashes Wikipedia's reputation. Demaratus83 18:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly Written and Biased at this point. 

message: I'm not sure how useful that table is.  It's interesting, to be sure, but the fact that it doesn't count the percentage of democrats and republicans for each election leads me to wonder how useful it actually is.  It's not bad as a placefiller for now, but I think it should be either taken down, or improved with better data, in future revisions.  I think part of the "Reagan Coallition" was the fact that he brought over former Democrats into the Republican fold--it's why he won in such landslides to a certain extent.  That data table doesn't even consider that, since it has one percentage for democrats and republicans for a four years period.  That just seems fishy. Demaratus83 00:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the best data there is--please add more data if you can find it.  The Table DOES show the change to Reagan from previous elections Rjensen 00:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data Table 

message: This article doesn't hold any valueble info, that's not in Ronald Reagan. The earlier rant was inherently POV, and now it's just a table of unexplained data. Maybe we should put it out of its misery? Eivindt@c 02:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No -- this is solid historical information. It tells who voted for Reagan in  precise detail. That is it contains the in formation people want.  It's like a map--it does not need an explanatory text. Rjensen 02:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but it's not very encyclopedic is it. Maybe rewrite it to a proper text using the data as a source. At least explain the name of the article, we're not all Americans from the seventies, you know. And by the way I don't think we have maps without explaination lying around in Wikipedia :)  Eivindt@c 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think anyone in the world can understand the information presented here. It says who voted for and against Carter & Reagan (and how that changed from 1976).  The level of math is 7th grade arithmetic.   There is no need to say that "22% of Democrats voted for Ford in 1976 but Reagan received 26% of their vote; meanwhile Carter's vote among Democrats dropped from 77 to 66 in part because of the 6% that voted for Anderson....." That's just line 1! Rjensen 03:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it still isn't an article just an "indiscriminate collection of information" as the WP:NOT puts it. And the Reagan Coalition needs explaining history, why was it called that. I'm not trying to come up with reasons for deletion, nor saying we should get rid of the table,  just pointing out what I think it needs for it to be as informative as possible. And I think it needs perspective. Thanks. Eivindt@c 03:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's an auxiliary to a whole series of articles on recent politics. It is NOT indiscriminate. It contains core information used by all political analysts. I'll add some perspective. Rjensen 04:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD?