Talk:2004 United States presidential election/Archive 1

message: Is there a reason for parenthetical italicized notes (this note is unnecessary)? 
:No, there isn't. I merged the info in one into the article, this is the other:
(Didn't Cheney say at some point during the 2000 Election that he would not run for a second term?) 
... Questions like that go here, an answer, as a statement, goes there. -- Jake 08:01, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parenthetical notes 

message: I guess I don't understand why the Democratic candidates have been moved to their own page.  Moreover, I don't know why anyone in the next few months would assume they could find info about candidates at an encyclopedic entry marked "Democratic Primary".  I would be bold and change it, but I haven't been working on this page, and don't want to muck up the works if there's a good reason for how it's being run.  My suggestion: couldn't we leave the candidates on this page for the time being...maybe say that more information is available on whatever party's primary page?  Then, after the primaries start to thin things out, we move all the candidates to the primary page at that point (say, mid-March) with the assumption that people will know at that point that info on who's in and who's out will be on the primary page?  If I'm missing something here, let me know.  I just doubt the wisdom of forcing someone looking for the Democratic candidates to follow another link (which may confuse them at this juncture), but leaving independent and Green candidates on this page...I don't know why we're tossing in the roadblock.  Please enlighten me: Jwrosenzweig 22:12, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Democrats to own page 

message: There's not a lot of clarity about what the various stages of a campaign are.  My understanding is that for tax purposes, these are the stages:
* Considering
* Formed exploratory committee
* Official campaign
In the spirit of trying to figure things out based on this information, I've started rooting around the FEC site to try to figure out how to come up with the dates.  Here's the only useful query I have so far. Feel free to add more. -- RobLa 09:44, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  FEC Filings 

message: Should endorsements be listed in the timeline? Al Gore is expected to endorse Howard Dean today. UtherSRG 12:54, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsements 

message: Is it realy necessary to list major events of the Iraq war here? They don't strike me as in line with the rest of the listed events. - Seth Ilys 17:38, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq war references 

message: Here's the entry in the timeline in question:
* November 1 - In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Howard Dean is quoted as saying "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.  We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."   This comment stirs strong controversy among Democratic contenders. 
Here's the play-by-play:
* User:ChrisDJackson: Revert, we don't have time or space to list all stupid quotes from Dean, Bush, Kerry, ect. Listed one inparticular would be NPOV. Revert
* User:Salsa Shark: We _do_ have the space, and if you think the time is important, _you_ take it.
* User:ChrisDJackson: How many other quotes are up there? None, therefore posting one in particular is irrevant and biased against Dean
* User:RobLa: Adding Dean Confederate flag quote back in....this has proven to be a noteworthy quote in the campaign. Other quotes of equal gravitas to the overall contest should also be added.
* User:ChrisDJackson: Good, add all the other candidates quotes that are noteworthy, until then it is being reverted.
* User:Salsa Shark: It's accurate. It's apposite. It stays.
I'm hoping this is the end of the debate....it seems to have died down.  However, I'm not planning on monitoring this 24x7, so I'm documenting this here for future reference.  I feel pretty strongly that this is an important entry in the timeline -- RobLa 09:28, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible edit war over Howard Dean's Confederate flag comment 

message: Personally, I think the timeline should stick to events that directly affect the election process (announcements, fundraising totals, etc.).  "Mission Accomplished", the capture of Saddam Hussein, etc., will only indirectly affect the election.  They will be important campaign topics, no doubt, but deciding which of these indirect events to list is troublesome.  Already some Bush quotes about Iraq have been added.  We could endlessly add quotes from other Bush speeches, the State of the Union, and so on.   Is there some way we could list important events that may affect the election in a separate timeline or list? --Minesweeper 10:00, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
:In working on this article, I've always tried to put myself in the shoes of a 20-year old reading this 20 years from now.  I think there's a minimal amount of current events coverage necessary in order to have enough context to understand this campaign as a story.  The war, "mission accomplished", the post-war looting, the ongoing violence, and the capture of Saddam Hussein have all really had a profound impact on the election.  In particular, in explaining Howard Dean's rise, one can't ignore the role of the troubled peacekeeping operations in Iraq.
:However, in looking at the timeline now, I realize it has many of the facts, but doesn't tell the story.  That may be the best we can do until the election is over...it may be that we're too close to tell the story.  Nonetheless, I feel that now is the time to gather the facts, so that when this is all over, it's much easier to tell the story. -- RobLa 02:54, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: This is silly -- why not list important dates in the process. To remove one by one each as they occur is like wiping the record. -戴眩sv 23:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Important Future dates

message: Should Bush and Cheney be listed in the top table without vote figures since it's a near certainity that they will be reselected by the GOP? -- iHoshie 00:36, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to add all of the announced and filed candidates that were listed further down on the page, and make the "Presidential Candidate" heading black, but leave the other headings grey.  How 'bout that? —Mulad 04:20, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd oppose putting any entries into the table until the party conventions. Factual accuracy. - Seth Ilys 05:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I also oppose putting entries in the table at this moment. It's already repeated towards the bottom of the article. The table is supposed to be a summary of results, not a listing of declared candidates. --Jiang 05:23, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I also oppose putting entries in the table at least until the conventions.  Even after the conventions, the candidates could change.  It's probably best to leave the table empty until the election. Mcarling 06:10, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Leaving the table empty is an immediate indication to any visitors that the election has not taken place yet, and I think it should stay that way until we have some results to report. --Minesweeper 08:45, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the top table 

message: It was stated that "Dozens of people say they're running for president. Only those who do the work to get on the ballot should be included here."  I think this qualification should be relaxed slightly to include registered write-in candidates. Anthony DiPierro 21:53, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone is on the ballot or a registered write-in in states with enough electoral votes to have a theoretical chance of winning, then I would agree that they should be included. - Mcarling 22:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: On the ballot?

message: Nothing on the Reform party on the page, but I noticed they endorsed Nader, although he's still an independent. --Tomruen 04:49, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reform party endorses Nader