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)

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'mnot 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)

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)