Jump to content

Talk:2004 United States presidential election: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
top: updated Top 25 Report
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 25: Line 25:
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=low}}
}}
}}
{{Top 25 Report|Nov 1 2020 (15th)}}
{{Top 25 Report|Nov 1 2020 (15th)|Nov 3 2024 (22nd)}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:United States presidential election, 2004/Archive index
|target=Talk:United States presidential election, 2004/Archive index
Line 37: Line 37:


All the best. -- [[User:7partparadigm|7partparadigm]] <sup>[[User talk:7partparadigm|talk]]</sup> 06:02, 1 December, 2013 (UTC)
All the best. -- [[User:7partparadigm|7partparadigm]] <sup>[[User talk:7partparadigm|talk]]</sup> 06:02, 1 December, 2013 (UTC)

== "First 21st century president to win re-election" worth including? ==

I don't know if it's worth noting that this election made Bush the first 21st century president to win re-election, as he also was the first 21st century president in general, unless you count the year in which Clinton was president, in which case this statement becomes false. Either way, I'm of the view that it should be removed. [[User:Builder018|Builder018]] ([[User talk:Builder018|talk]]) 02:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the sentence. [[User:Marbehraglaim|marbeh raglaim]] ([[User talk:Marbehraglaim|talk]]) 05:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


== "This is the most recent presidential election in which neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump were on the ballot. " ==
== "This is the most recent presidential election in which neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump were on the ballot. " ==


Is this sentence really necessary? It seems really Tedious, if a president gets elected for 2 terms and then his/her vice president takes over, chance's are it's going be a 12 year + period in which "Neither X nor Y are not on the ballot" You could make the same statement regarding the 1996 election, dating from 1980 to 1992, "This is the first election in which neither Reagan nor a Bush is on the Ballot." You could also make the same statement about various other elections, like the election after FDR, or the election after Nixon, and so forth. I know this was statement made by a Pundit implying that Joe Biden is old, but it's a very poor observation, (Making it seem like Biden's been a dynastic force in American politics). Trump got elected, lost the presidency, then won the nomination again. Not super uncommon in America politics, for someone to be nominated twice, or lose an election, then proceed to win an election (See Nixon, Stevenson, Cleveland, Dewey although different patterns). If Harris wins the election (Likely) and then proceeds to get reelected, are we going state, in 2032, "This is the first election sense 2016 in which Harris has not been on the ballot?", And so forth. It adds virtually no value and it suggests Trump and Biden have been "ruling" American politics which is hardly true. (Trump is not very well liked by his own party but has enough loyal supporters to win the nomination, Biden was largely seen as a compromise candidate and was selected for VP because it was thought he wouldn't run, and when Biden didn't run he passed the torch instead of running for reelection). [[Special:Contributions/68.189.2.14|68.189.2.14]] ([[User talk:68.189.2.14|talk]]) 17:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Is this sentence really necessary? It seems really Tedious, if a president gets elected for 2 terms and then his/her vice president takes over, chances are it's going be a 12 year + period in which "Neither X nor Y are not on the ballot" You could make the same statement regarding the 1996 election, dating from 1980 to 1992, "This is the first election in which neither Reagan nor a Bush is on the Ballot." You could also make the same statement about various other elections, like the election after FDR, or the election after Nixon, and so forth. I know this was statement made by a Pundit implying that Joe Biden is old, but it's a very poor observation, (Making it seem like Biden's been a dynastic force in American politics). Trump got elected, lost the presidency, then won the nomination again. Not super uncommon in America politics, for someone to be nominated twice, or lose an election, then proceed to win an election (See Nixon, Stevenson, Cleveland, Dewey although different patterns). If Harris wins the election (Likely) and then proceeds to get reelected, are we going state, in 2032, "This is the first election sense 2016 in which Harris has not been on the ballot?", And so forth. It adds virtually no value and it suggests Trump and Biden have been "ruling" American politics which is hardly true. (Trump is not very well liked by his own party but has enough loyal supporters to win the nomination, Biden was largely seen as a compromise candidate and was selected for VP because it was thought he wouldn't run, and when Biden didn't run he passed the torch instead of running for reelection). [[Special:Contributions/68.189.2.14|68.189.2.14]] ([[User talk:68.189.2.14|talk]]) 17:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:22, 12 November 2024

Former featured article candidate2004 United States presidential election is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 3, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 3, 2004.

Demographics section addition

[edit]

Hello, all. I'm interested in adding demographics information to this election page. To specify, demographics on voter turnout regarding things like gender, age, income, race, etc. I have found a credible source, and was thinking of making fancy pie-charts to add somewhere in the results section. Please let me know if there is any feedback.

All the best. -- 7partparadigm talk 06:02, 1 December, 2013 (UTC)

"This is the most recent presidential election in which neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump were on the ballot. "

[edit]

Is this sentence really necessary? It seems really Tedious, if a president gets elected for 2 terms and then his/her vice president takes over, chances are it's going be a 12 year + period in which "Neither X nor Y are not on the ballot" You could make the same statement regarding the 1996 election, dating from 1980 to 1992, "This is the first election in which neither Reagan nor a Bush is on the Ballot." You could also make the same statement about various other elections, like the election after FDR, or the election after Nixon, and so forth. I know this was statement made by a Pundit implying that Joe Biden is old, but it's a very poor observation, (Making it seem like Biden's been a dynastic force in American politics). Trump got elected, lost the presidency, then won the nomination again. Not super uncommon in America politics, for someone to be nominated twice, or lose an election, then proceed to win an election (See Nixon, Stevenson, Cleveland, Dewey although different patterns). If Harris wins the election (Likely) and then proceeds to get reelected, are we going state, in 2032, "This is the first election sense 2016 in which Harris has not been on the ballot?", And so forth. It adds virtually no value and it suggests Trump and Biden have been "ruling" American politics which is hardly true. (Trump is not very well liked by his own party but has enough loyal supporters to win the nomination, Biden was largely seen as a compromise candidate and was selected for VP because it was thought he wouldn't run, and when Biden didn't run he passed the torch instead of running for reelection). 68.189.2.14 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]