Talk:Ralph Nader 2008 presidential campaign

Article Assessment

I have rated this article Start class because it show some useful facts and a lot of promise, but it needs much more information and a better structure for B class or higher. Thanks.--Mifter (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008

Other editors here may be interested in helping with Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008. Uwmad (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan

Sorry to burst you guys' bubbles, but Cindy Sheehan didn't endorse Nader; she actually endorsed Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. See: http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2008/08/27/cindy-sheehan-formally-endorses-cynthia-mcckinney-and-green-party/

Stonemason89 (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sean Penn

Sean Penn is supporting Obama, not Nader. See this article: "Party Time '08: Sean Penn To 'Reluctantly' Vote For Obama." 71.139.34.78 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Penn may, or may not, ultimately cast a vote for Sen. Obama, but fulfills criteria for political endorsement, e.g., public declaration of support, e.g., financial, verbal, etc. 76.171.171.194 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sean Penn in no way fulfills those criteria. He has expressed support for opening the debates to Nader, but has expressly said that this isn't an endorsement of Nader. He is quoted as saying "I'm not supporting Nader for president" in this article: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/08/party_time_08_sean_penn_to_rel.html —As he clearly is not endorsing Nader, I am removing him from the list. Dreadloco (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Polls

This section needs work, NPOV. 76.171.171.194 (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack Hunter

Dunno if this counts as full endorsement, but it's PROBABLY where whoever said that got the idea: http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A48067 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.212.56 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncle Tom quote, sources

I've done a few edits for sourcing, and now I'm working on other sources. This article's a bit of a mess, though, with lots of broken/nonexistent links. Help appreciated! :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 19:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks FangedFaerie, doing some work on this, esp. maintaining NPOV. EagleScout18 (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm trying! Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, FangedFaerie, me too! We have an emerging problem, unfortunately. There are users who want to add there own research, i.e., percent of total vote, which violates Wikipedia: No Original Research. Also, a Ron Paul source is a great addition. Perhaps we could get consensus on the accepted version here, instead of edit wars. What do you think? EagleScout18 (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 18:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the repeated mentions of "Uncle Tom." I am trying to clean up this paragraph. For example, why take the subject of the paragraph -- Nader's use of the perjorative -- out of the introductory sentence? What was controversial was not Smith's grilling of Nader, but Nader's use of the term. Why the "Mr. Nader"s and "Mr. Smith"s? Nowhere else in this article is Nader's name preceded by "Mr." I propose the following paragraph, which I think satisfies all editors. It establishes the time-line for the events, puts Nader's "politically bigoted" stuff in parentheses (it is parenthetical to the main subject of the paragraph), and clarifies what the "spoiler" thing is about. I think it gives Nader a chance to defend himself and describes what happened. What do you think. Warmest regards. 71.139.23.95 (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

On election day, Nader used the term "Uncle Tom" with respect to Barak Obama. In a radio interview, Nader stated, "To put it very simply, (Barack Obama) is our first African-American president, or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he is going to be Uncle Sam for this country or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations." In an interview later in the evening, Fox News correspondent Shepherd Smith asked Nader to comment on his statement. Smith called Nader "irrelevant" and a "spoiler." (Nader has referred to the notion that the spoiled the 2000 presidential election for Al Gore s "politically bigoted.") The candidate called Smith a "bully," asserting that the suffering of the "African-American, Latino and White" poor are "a reality, not show business" or "celebrity politics." Smith inquired if Mr. Nader "wished he'd used a phrase other than 'Uncle Tom.'" Nader responded, "Not at all.".

Disagree Current version reads better, WP:NPOV. IP user 71.139.23.95 has made it [1] known that he holds a particular POV with regards to Ralph Nader, Fox News and the interview. That said, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Best to stick with the facts and state them objectively. Should you find difficulty in doing so, I suggest editing alternative subjects. EagleScout18 (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. On n historic day in American history when the U.S. electd its first minority president, Nader made this comment bordering on racism. Certainly it was insensitive. He could have been more gracious and aknowledged that me made an error, and the interviewer gave him opportunities to do that. The paragraph should reflect what happened. The paragraph could maybe stand without Nader's "bigotry" statement, which doesn't really fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.237.245.15 (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV for guidelines. EagleScout18 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Percentage of National Vote

Citation to CBS has 120,235,241 votes between Obama and McCain alone, not even counting third party candidates. 658,868/120,235,241 equals 0.0055, or 0.55%. That percentage is slightly lower when you count third-party votes. You can undo it and say that I had "no original research" but I used the citation provided and did some basic math. Saying he won 1% doubles his actual support in the election and is wrong.

Per source, it important to adhere to policy, Wikipedia: No Original Research. Thank you, if you can locate a source that confirms your figures, that might be a start. EagleScout18 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the tallies have not entirely been finalized yet, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. For example, Missouri and North Carolina have not officially been called, as of this posting, and this source (albeit a blog) says 646,933 for Nader, whereas this one and this one both say 658,393.

Let's wait and see what the final numbers are, okay? Or, if you don't want to wait, find a news article or other reliable source that explicitly uses the numbers you want, please. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Added second source with consensus numbers, changed wording to reflect that it's not entirely over yet. Was he on Missouri's ballot? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 02:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with FangedFaerie.

The figures are not so much the issue, and are clearly subject to change. A sourced percentage, however, is, and must be stated in accordance with that source(s). This is not a reflection or commentary on the accuracy of anyone's personal research. Wikipedia: No Original Research is not permitted, Maintaining sourced information is important.

Please, let's keep on it, remain WP:CIVIL, remember WP:AGF, user the article talk page instead of edit wars or false vandalism accusations (please!), and work together. EagleScout18 (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on MO ballot. EagleScout18 (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw the 0.54% figure on Fox's site, but there are still a few million mail-in and misc. votes to be tallied. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 02:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I spotted that too, whereas other sites, like Zogby Poll, has him at 1%. But to update the figure is the course of action, IMHO. I can't see haggling over the percentage at this point. EagleScout18 (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

When the election count is official, however, let's put the true percentage in. It's probably going to be closer to .5 than 1.0, which is a significant difference. 71.139.23.95 (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's use a solid source. EagleScout18 (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Since we're quibbling over numbers, allow me to argue that, in statistics, 0.5 percent is not usually a significant difference, and it would be just as accurate to put him at 0%, sadly for Mr. Nader. At any rate, the votes aren't all counted yet. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 17:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is significant. The number 0.5 is half the number 1. By stating he had 1 percent of the vote, you're stating he had twice as many votes as he really had. Sadly for Nader. 71.139.23.95 (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I'm not stating he had 1% of the vote, or 0.5%, or any other number. I'd just as soon not mention the percentage, because when you're dealing with less than 1% it's hard to maintain accuracy. At least until all the votes are counted, I have repeatedly said, let's stick to the official count only. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 17:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not so sad. In comparison with the 2004 election numbers, Nader climbed in popularity and obtained more ballot access in 2008. EagleScout18 (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, in part. It's not wrong, but it is clearly misleading in comparisons with Nader having 0.53% and Barr having 0.47%. I think 0.5% is likely to be the best value. (It should also be pointed out that many states do not determine which write-in candidate is voted for, except in races in which those votes could possibly affect the outcome, so Nader's counts may be low. But that is impossible to determine.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. EagleScout18 (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In light of recent revisions, I've left the 0.54 figure, which is sourced, next to the current count. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 18:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I added the 1% as well, since each source names a different percentage, also per Arthur Rubin. EagleScout18 (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

In the interest of accuracy and WP:NPOV, I've included the data as presented per source. I think if we simply stick to the facts and data as presented by objective sources, and maintain NPOV wording, we're okay. EagleScout18 (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Letter to Obama

In order to attempt to maintain NPOV, I've added a quote from the letter to Obama. Regardless of his very poor word choice, Mr. Nader was trying to make a point about finances. I see no reason to remove Mr. Nader's words. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 17:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, EagleScout18 (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081019233123/http://www.nationaljournal.com:80/njonline/mp_20080710_1658.php to http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20080710_1658.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110622084351/http://www.newsmeat.com/political to http://www.newsmeat.com/political

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yuVcg43Q4dMJ:www.petitiononline.com/granad08/petition.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317030333/http://www.dailylocal.com:80/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Daily;!-1410432021?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FDLN%2FHome&r21.content=%2FDLN%2FHome%2FTopStoryList_Story_1711496 to http://www.dailylocal.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Daily;!-1410432021?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FDLN%2FHome&r21.content=%2FDLN%2FHome%2FTopStoryList_Story_1711496

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ralph Nader at UC San Diego, September 27, 2008.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)