Talk:2008 United States presidential election

Electoral College Map

The current map incorrectly shows Indiana & NC as Obama States. McCain won them bringing the EC count to 338/200 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.55.86 (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude, your link is an interactive map. You can change it to whatever you want. Iglew (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Missouri should be red as Obama would have to win 100% of the Provisional Ballots likely to be counted in order to carry the state. http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/F85F88091CAD44AD862574F900174E9F?OpenDocument Mango2002 01:49, 10th November 2008 (UTC)

The small electoral college map in the sidebar is just plain wrong. It links to a larger map which seems correct.

/media/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/US_Electoral_College_Map_2008.svg/350px-US_Electoral_College_Map_2008.svg.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Electoral_College_Map_2008.svg

Compare and contrast. These maps don't look even remotely similar. Shaunm (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

After refreshing the small map, it seems correct. I must have been seeing an old cached version. Sorry for the noise. Shaunm (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am encountering a disparity as well. The small image shows NC for Obama and MO and NE-02 too close to call (this seems to be correct at this point), when clicked, the large version shows NC too close to call and all 5 of NE's votes for McCain. -66.108.42.83 (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been corrected. Thank You. I made the above comment. Was not signed in for some reason. -Laikalynx (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

African American

Why is it written in print over and over (as if fact) that Obama is the first African American is a presidential nominee????

Obama is not african american. His mother is white. My children are bi racial and my husband and I DO NOT consider them soley white or soley african american. I think it's irresponsible journalism to report the following statement as fact when it's not correct.

"The 2008 election is particularly notable because it is the first time in U.S. history that two sitting senators will run against each other for president, and because it is the first time an African American is a presidential nominee for a major party, as well as the first time both major candidates were born outside the continental United States—Hawaii for Obama and the Panama Canal Zone for McCain"

What do you think???

Sara76.185.73.168 (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to the exact definition of Afican American.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as an American who is part Italian and part Irish can say he be called "Italian-American", so can a half-White, half-Black person (especially one whose father actually was African) be called "African-American". Acknowledging Obama's father's heritage does not deny his mothers. It is frankly your choice, Sara, to read references to Obama as African-America as saying he is solely Black, but that is not the intent. -Rrius (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

From African American: "African Americans or Black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa.[4] In the United States, the term is generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry." Timmeh! 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please! in America you have to be 1/8 of something to be that race. Obama's Father may have been BORN in Kenya, but his only relative that was Black was his Great-Grandma (Senator Obama's Great-Great-Grandma). Making Senator Obama 1/16 African. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.129.138 (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama self-identifies as African-American, so I think this is a non-issue. You are, of course, free to not call him that. For WP purposes though, that doesn't really matter. --Kickstart70TC 20:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama is 50% Caucasian, 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African. The identification of him as the first "African American candidate for president" is just ridiculous. What compounds this issue even further is that he is actually descended from Arab slave traders. You can read about the entire issue at: Kenneth Lamb's Article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorun (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pshaw. This statistic isn't in the article you cited. Stuck way down among the replies to the article is this:

"Posted by journalist Kenneth E. Lamb, February 14, 2008 at:
http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html
(which itself is uncited, verifying itself with the challenge to "go research the Kenyan records yourself". Yeah, right)
“THIS ARTICLE PRESENTS NEW, PREVIOUSLY UNPUBLISHED documentation concerning ethnic identity claims. It is based upon original research that the author openly invites for further inquiry and academic verification”
(NEW! IMPROVED! GETS OUT MORE 10% MORE DIRT! And in the fine print: WP:OR,WP:CITE,WP:V)
“Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African from his father's side.”
“Federal law requires that to claim a minority status, one must be at least 12.5% of the racial component you claim for minority status. Mr. Obama, claiming to be African-American, is half the legal threshold.”"
Anarchangel (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether he is actually African American or not is not for us to decide. To do so is pure original research. We are going by what he identifies as, and what major reputable sources say he is, not by what some people may speculate he is. —kurykh 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The black community regards him as black, he is generally regarded by non-blacks as black, and he himself says he is black. So, he's black. In fact he is literally African-American: his father was from Kenya. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This section is largely pointless. Ethnicity is an entirely social construct which people apply based on a perceived shared genealogy. If it wasn't for the fact that people put so much emphasis on race, it wouldn't be an issue, but because they do, I suggest we stop worrying about which made-up label is most precise or most politically correct so we can focus on more important matters. Meanwhile we can stick with a less exclusive term. Dude's black, no matter where his great-great-grandmother's half-brother's ex-girlfriend's college professor was born. And if anyone disagrees, ask Barack Obama himself - it's already been stated that he identifies as black. Cskelm (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Federal law requires that to claim a minority status, one must be at least 12.5% of the racial component you claim for minority status -- lol, this Lamb character must have lived under a rock for the past half-century. I had a hard time figuring out what he is referring to. It turns out there were "one-eighth laws" of hypodescent in a couple of US states, counting among the so-called Jim Crow laws, all of which were abolished in the 1960s. This chap is talking about federal law defunct for more than 40 years as if it was in effect, with a straight face. That's almost unbelievable, quite apart from the ludicrous claim that Obama is "43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African" based on no other evidence than the etymology of his given names: They have Arabic names because his father's side of the family tree is Arabic. So George Bush is half-Greek because one of his given names is Greek. And Abraham Lincoln must be a Hebrew-American. The crude stupidity of this boggles the mind. --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Also largely ignored is the disctinct difference between race and ethnicity, which even the US government had to recognize when they conducted the 2000 Census. Besides, it is too exclusive to point out that Obama is merely the first black person to be elected. More specifically (and much more notably) he is the first person to be elected president who is not just white. considering that the US population has never been comprised of 100% white people, Obama is the truest representation of the diverse american population ever elected president. shouldn't that be a more significant and more factual item to point out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.69.72 (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One more note. If J. A. Rogers was correct, Obama wasn't the first US President of African descent. Should this be included in the article? Orville Eastland (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the hubbub about? Obama's father is Kenyan. According to wikipedia, from the Luo tribe from Kenya. So, even just taken literally, Barack Obama Junior is "African American". His father was African and his mother was American. I don't see how anyone could claim he isn't African American. --Surgical Stryke (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nebraska Split 4-1 McCain-Obama?

It looks like, according to vote counts posted on Nebraska's Secretary of State's home page, that Obama will win the electoral vote from the 2nd Congressional District:

http://www.sos.ne.gov/elec/2008/ElectNight/electoral.htm

In that District, it looks like Obama beat out McCain by a hair. Cornince (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

They updated it. McCain is now shown as winning by a hair in that District. Cornince (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think they're heading into recount, no? If so, it shouldn't be official yet that McCain's won all the electoral votes there.68.222.92.252 (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the Omaha World-Herald and KPTM news Obama Has won the District 2 vote. http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=9313524&nav=menu606_2 http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10481441

Yes Obama now has the lead in the 2nd Congressional District in Nebraska after mail-in ballots have been counted. He leads McCain by 1,200 votes with 5,000 provisional ballots still to be counted. Omaha's newspaper has called the race for Obama so that means its a 4-1 McCain-Obama split in the electors. The major news organizations like CNN and MSNBC still show 364-163 in their totals giving McCain that 1 elector but I submitted a tip to CNN that their total should reflect 365-162. Wikipedia's total should also reflect this. Article: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10481441 Leahcim506 (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Now they changed it to it being McCain that won the second district, and CNN called it for McCain, so we should at least leave it neutral and take the current image that gives is to Obama. Carthradge (talk 8:39, 14 Novermber 2008 (UTC)

Most votes ever

Barack Obama has received the most votes ever by a U.S. Presidential Candidate. Worth mentioning?

98.117.116.16 (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

how can this be.there is a major inconsistency in the voter turnout.it is far less than 2004 and many news outlets predicted it would be the largest plus with the long lines shown in tv it doesnt make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.105.113 (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe a lot of early votes are not counted yet. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me you're trying to create a controversy where none exists. This is not the Wikipedia way. My data is valid and my question is valid. Barack Obama at a current count of 63,858,759 votes has received the most votes ever by a U.S. Presidential Candidate. I am asking all here whether it's worth mentioning that in the article or not?

That said, regarding your voter turn out matter, you're wrong: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_pr/voter_turnout

Highest ever.

98.117.116.16 (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really merits inclusion, look at the numbers from 1996, 2000, and 2004. Turnout increases by several million each election. Most likely because the US population is increasing. Unless the population doesn't increase much in the next 4 years or a third party candidate gets major support, the winner of the 2012 election will likely have the most votes ever, until they're beaten by the 2016 winner, etc. Mr.Z-man 04:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why was that mentioned, when Bush got his 62 million votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.54.47.214 (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

plagiarism?

From this article:
Some of the questions many viewers said they considered irrelevant when measured against the faltering economy or the Iraq war, such as why Senator Barack Obama did not wear an American flag pin on his lapel, the incendiary comments of Obama’s former pastor, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s assertion that she had to duck sniper fire in Bosnia more than a decade ago.

...and from the cited reference:
If there was a common theme, it was that Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos had front-loaded the debate with questions that many viewers said they considered irrelevant when measured against the faltering economy or the Iraq war, like why Senator Barack Obama did not wear an American flag pin on his lapel. Others rapped the journalists for dwelling on matters that had been picked over for weeks, like the incendiary comments of Mr. Obama’s former pastor, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s assertion that she had to duck sniper fire in Bosnia more than a decade ago.

--159.140.254.10 (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is really plagiarism. This changes the sentence structure, shortens it, changes several words, and properly attributes it. Perhaps it could be a little more different, but pulling 1 sentence, that's not even a direct copy, out of a whole article seems a little nit-picky. Mr.Z-man 04:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What he said. First and foremost it may contain verbatim phrases drawn from the source but ultimately it still can be considered a paraphrase, if an unimaginative one. Plus, as you yourself said, 'cited reference.' Beyond that if you want to make it sound more different, feel free to reword it. 24.155.69.72 (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Separate international section

I don't have the time at the moment to do it right now, but I would suggest a new article on international reaction, which would not only encompass the various official reactions from governments and inter-governmental organizations around the world, but also the plethora of celebrations and unofficial reactions in various countries (Kenya's national holiday, Obama Japan, etc). All this is notable, but there just isn't room in this article. Joshdboz (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I am going to make it. --Tocino 16:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I raised this point a few sections above. We can have a summarised section in this article and create a sub-article, which will include the references reactions of as many countries to this election as possible. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The boring list of diplomatic statements can well go to International reaction to the 2008 United States presidential election, but a few statements of particular importance should be kept here (WP:SS). This regards Kenya (because of Obama's paternal family ties) as well as Iraq and Afghanistan (because of the immediate interest these countries have in who is the US commander in chief, considering that the USA is waging war within their borders). --dab (𒁳) 13:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

so this was blanked again. How about justifying such actions here on talk? WP:SS anyone? --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Star icon on electoral results map

I like the map with the star icon for DC, to make it more visible. Please keep the star icon!

Error in presidency

on the main page it says "becomes the first African American to be elected President of the United States." He is not president, just yet. (probably reason he will be called president-elect for a few weeks)

The US has an electoral college that votes for the president. while this is not going to change, it has, in the past, been involved in controversy. (in 2000 at least 1 elector from DC did not vote, and going back 200 years ago more arises) The EC meets in December, that is when the president is officially elected president. (and then of course it leads to the swearing in in jan) Lihaas (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that sentence is fair. He HAS been elected by the public. No, he's not president yet, but votes have been counted and he won.

I'd also say that the peculiarities of the american system do not warrant a change. In many commonwealth countries, for example, the new prime minister isn't officially the president until at least several days after the election; this does not mean they have not been elected.A. Smith (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing it back to say he has been elected. The current formulation is excessively pedantic, and it is inconsistent with the Barack Obama page. There is no doubt that he has been elected--that wouldn't change even if he were to be hit by a bus tomorrow, and the electors were forced to choose someone else. The only "doubt" is whether he will actually become President--the election to that office is an established fact. SS451 (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

McCain's total EV

The sum of the current electoral votes (with 26 outstanding) is 522 on Wikipedia. McCain's total is 10 too high. Can someone change that? Dcbandicoot (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How's is McCain's total too high? GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

12 too high, actually. Everyone knows you can't raise a pokemon's total EVs above 510... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.69.72 (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Popular vote numbers

As the final result is not fixed yet, what do the "popular vote" numbers in the infobox mean? --KnightMove (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The popular vote numbers are incomplete. Most of the 3rd party canidates are missing votes.

The numbers, presumably, are the results that are currently known and subject to change as more data becomes available.--JayJasper (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, it currently says that Nader was second in Maine.

Additionally, I noticed that on the election Wiki page for each other Presidential election (well, at least 1960-2004 anyway), the summary box in the upper right portion of the page includes popular vote percentages down to the tenth of a point. Shouldn't that be included on this page as well? For example, last I saw, Obama was at 52.5% Samstein (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Samstein (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps switching the spread from 52.4-46.3 to 53-46 in the overview box on the upper right -- please stop. I personally would love to be able to say Obama won 53-46, but that just is not accurate. The spread is currently 6.1%, not 7%. Samstein (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Did Nader's numbers in New Jersey get left out as of now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.50.152 (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In the table, CT figures for McCain and Obama were way off. Probably a transcription error from somewhere. I replaced them with what CNN currently shows (99% precincts reporting). I left figures for Nader, Barr, and Baldwin as they were; don't know if those are accurate. If someone has a better source, go ahead and fix it, but this is better than it was. Iglew (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the popular vote change goes to projections that for some reason calculate only Obama and McCain, leaving out all the third party votes, that would make it somewhere around 53.3 to 46.7 % , and people would copy it off of CNN or Yahoo, as 53-46 (or 47)

David Leip's update shows, that Obama had 66,602,166 (52.6%) and McCain 58,236,089 (46.0%). Source: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&off=0&elect=0&f=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.54.2.51 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

North Carolina and Missouri

We, as wiki editors, cannot be in the business of deciding who won a race. While it seems pretty likely that Obama won NC and McCain won Missouri, that info cannot be reported as fact on this page until the major networks and/or media outlets report that. Thus, I reset the EV counts to 349-163. As for the possibility of Obama sneaking an extra EV out of Nebraska -- I commented on that in the "Figures and statistics" section above. I think that one EV should be left as McCain's unless something actually happens with it. Samstein (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of proving our readers with clarity, I included the most likely final results as "Projected" totals, with an explanation at the bottom. This way, I'm giving the current info to the users, without presenting predictions as fact. I hope this doesn't upset anybody too much. I also corrected McCain's current total to account for the undecided Nebraska district. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I motion to move Missouri over to the red colomn. Most major news networks won't report it, but its not important anymore anyways seeing how there is a clear winner in this contest. The Missouri Secretary of State office's website already listed McCain as the winner of that contest, [1] and all the major news network websites already show him in the lead with 100% of the precepts reporting. RiseRobotRise (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Missouri is too close to call. All the networks agree on this. It cannot be assumed that McCain is going to win Missouri. (Ajs41 (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

That's not good enough -- we can't make that call. We can only take our cue from the state or other reliable sources (big media). Also, the state website does NOT list McCain as the winner. It simply lists him as the leader with all precincts reporting. We do not have any access at all to info on provisional or absentee ballots, for example. So we don't KNOW, even if it seems pretty likely that McCain won the state. Samstein (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC called Missouri for McCain, they did it on November 5th, i dont know what anyone is waiting for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.129.138 (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We cannot decide who won a state based on one network's projection. There is obviously a very good reason that none of the other networks have called the state yet. Obama still has a realistic chance of winning. Until the rest of the networks, or at least two more, call the state for McCain, we cannot show it as won by McCain. Timmeh! 04:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the St. Louis Post-Dispatch already has called the state for McCain so I don't see what the hold up is. They probably have a better idea of what is occuring in Missouri than the major networks anyway. User:Cardozo 03:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.82.53 (talk)

Nebraska's second district electoral vote

Can we leave off declaring this until it's definitively called? No news organisation nor FiveThirtyEight have specifically called it (see Pollster.com). I'm not surprised, because McCain's margin of victory, according to NE's SOS's unofficial results is only 600 votes. I assume any incidence of "163" and "174" are the networks assigning all five to McCain because he won the state. So it should be 349-162, with 364-173 projected and NE-2 labelled as "too close to call" to project for either candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.146.147 (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the page does say 349-162. I doubt anyone will bother to create a new map image, though, unless Nebraska's election folks actually certify that Obama won that one EV. Samstein (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jumpin' Junipers, how long does it usually take to count the votes in that district. It's going on three days. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Absentee ballots, thousands of them, still need to be counted. Then they'll be a recount because it'll probably be too close to call. We'll see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.227.220 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the Omaha World-Herald, Obama will win the electoral vote for the 2nd District, [2]. --Scottmsg (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Obama is ahead in the vote count and that paper called it. Still not official yet, but most of the country isn't either. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if NE-02 should be mentioned in the state total, since that isn't done on pages for elections in the 1800s when states would often split their vote. --Noname2 (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In modern times, states have not split their votes. This is a very rare occurrence. That's what gives it its notability. Timmeh! 05:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't consider 1960 "modern"? Alabama split 6-5 for Byrd-Kennedy. They were unpledged, so they aren't faithless electors. (Just quibbling over details; not disputing your notability argument.) Iglew (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous vote estimates

"the total number of votes stands at only 120 million. Nonetheless, votes are still being tabulated, and estimates for turnout remain high.[83] One estimate, based on projections for uncounted and absentee votes, puts turnout at 136.6 million" -- This is absurd. To think that 2 days after the election that 1 in 6 votes (17 million) has not been counted yet is in the realm of the conspiracy theorists, and has no place on this wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.47.194 (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC) "The source for the total number of votes stands at only 148 million. Nonetheless, votes are still being tabulated, and estimates for turnout remains very high.[87] One estimate, based on projections for uncounted and absentee votes, puts turnout at 122.2 million." Autosigned by Jspalding70 --> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspalding70 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of ballots are not yet counted. That is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. Millions of early voting ballots are not yet counted in Georgia and Alaska, and many provisional ballots in swing-states are to be counted on Friday or later. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As of November 10th (yes, 6 days after the election), California has not yet counted 2.7 million ballots. See http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/c-status08/total_unprocessed_ballots08.pdf - that's 20% of our ballots. --132.239.50.181 (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Turnout source

Turnout is listed in the box at 148 million. This is obviously a projection/estimate, which is fine, but Infoplease's source is unclear. Why not use a clear source (such as Michael McDonald's oft-cited 136.6 million number), or just leave it blank? 24.199.87.231 (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a big problem with the turnout. All the experts agreed it would be somewhere between 130 and 140 million. But current figures show the total is only 123.1 million, which is only 800,000 more votes than 2004. Either there are a lot votes missing somewhere, or the experts made a big mistake. It's a big mystery because one of the biggest points about this election was supposed to be the huge queues of voters, and enormous numbers of early voters. For example, the turnout in Alaska appears to have fallen by 85,000 voters compared to 2004, which doesn't seem to make any sense given Palin's presence on the ballot, and there are similar reported problems in Georgia and Florida as well. I've changed the turnout box which was simply reflecting the pre-election expectations. According to the US Census Bureau, the voting age population in 2008 is 225 million. The real turnout is only 54.7% at the moment, which is actually down 1.5% on 2004, because the total electorate has increased by around 10 million voters (according to the US Census Bureau). More votes are coming in all the time, but they are only very small increases at the moment. This situation needs to monitored carefully over the coming days. (Ajs41 (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

There's a lot of talk about the inconsistencies in Alaska, but very little widespread coverage. At this stage it's mostly opinion pieces with a fair number of seemingly investigation-worthy assumptions. I would imagine (and hope) this will become more publicly discussed further down the road, but for now there aren't enough reputable sources for inclusion here. --Kickstart70TC 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Voter Turnout

In the cited link for the election results, the statistics in the article do not match the link. The link states that there were 148,218,161 votes cast, with 64.1% turnout of the voting-age population.

Cg41386 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Those turnout figures you just mentioned are an estimate from before the election results started coming in. They're not the actual results. I think they should be taken off the page. The real turnout so far is only 123 million votes, which is just 54.7%. That's a drop of 1.5% compared to 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajs41 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cg is (I suspect) referring to the fact that the numbers have been changed on this page, but there is still link the the old source. Anyway, here's a report on voter turnout by American University from Wednesday. It projects turnout at 126.5 to 128.5 million (or 60.7 to 61.7%), and says that overall turnout remained flat because high Dem turnout was offset by low GOP turnout. 24.199.87.231 (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember that many, many votes are still not yet counted. 2.5 million votes were unreported in 2004 until ten days after the election. Given the importance of Prop 8, turnout in CA ought to be much higher than 2004. Yet turnout appeared to have decreased by 20%. That is simply not possible. Turnout in Georgia and Alaska are also much, much lower than expected. Assuming that turnout increases by 5% in CA (the same amount in FL), 4 million votes are yet to be counted just in CA. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Turnout as a percentage of Florida registered voters has not increased. Currently it is at 72.9%. Furthermore, California not being a battleground state, and already having had record turnout in 2004, it should be assumed that turnout would inevitably increase because of a controversial ballot measure. I have no doubt that more votes will be counted across the country. 2.5 million more votes is certainly not out of the realm of possibility; that would put us at the low end of AU's projections. 4 million more in the state of California seems a bit of a reach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.87.231 (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I forgot to factor in population growth and increased registrations in my crude calculations. California has added 1 to 2 million voters in registration since 2004, so the number of votes should have increased by roughly the same margin. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

California still has 2.7 million unprocessed ballots to count, according to the California Secretary of State: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/c-status08/total_unprocessed_ballots08.pdf (79.71.223.227 (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC))

turnout isn't the sum of valid votes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.172.156 (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Leading candidates origins clarification

Perhaps this section could clarify that Lincoln was not born in Illinois (Kentucky) nor was Grant (born in Point Pleasant, Ohio). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biffburley (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Having candidates' electoral home states and birth states discussed in a single paragraph with no explanation of the distinction is bound to confuse readers. (And McCain wasn't born in Arizona, either.) Iglew (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

write-in votes?

Any info on write-in votes? I saw it missing from this table here. Just curious, maybe some Clinton votes in there? Hmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.175.146 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There aren't nearly enough write-in votes for any specific person (or even in total) to be of any notability. Besides, the popular vote isn't even official yet. The numbers are all still changing. Timmeh! 05:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be a .001% write-in for Hillary Clinton, or something near that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.227.43 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The fundamentals of our economy are strong

This is widely seen as a tipping point in the campaign to Obama's favor. Ever since then there was a spike in the polls that showed that voters consistently trusted Obama with the economy. Include this in or I will. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

—kurykh 06:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed? Are you kidding me? Have you not been watching the news ever since September? I hope to god you're joking, if you're absoltuely serious about that then just leave, we don't need mediocres in here. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's that widespread and well-known, then you should have no trouble finding a reliable source to verify it. You might also check out our civility guidelines while you're at it. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In the time you spent insulting me and consequently losing any sort of good faith I had towards you, you could have just easily looked for a source. —kurykh 08:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't need an arrogant wiseass here. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Significant outcomes

Obama would have got the highest absolute number of voters for a presidential candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.54.59.27 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Results by state subsection — Maine/Nebraska

I note that Nebraska's results are broken down by electoral district, as they divide their electoral votes in accordance to the Maine-Nebraska system (and because NE-02 went for Obama). However, Maine's results are given statewide. Even though all four of Maine's congressional districts went for Obama, surely it makes sense to break down Maine's electoral votes by congressional district, just as Nebraska's section did. Or does it somehow not matter, since all five of the Pine Tree State's electoral votes went to Obama? —MicahBrwn (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see a reason for giving separate results for each of Maine's congressional districts. If the electoral votes actually were split, like Nebraska's, there would be a good reason to break down the results by congressional district. However, since Obama won each of the districts, the separate results really aren't notable.

Also, if you take a look at the 2004 election article, the results are not shown for each of Nebraska's or Maine's congressional districts. Instead, only the statewide results are shown because the votes for each state were not split. Timmeh! 19:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I say we still list the vote totals for Maine's districts. Even though Obama won both of them, they're still significant in determining how Maine casts its votes. The same should be done on all earlier election pages. --Noname2 (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Timmeh. Obama's winning both districts, makes the point moot. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Noname2, but if the consensus is to not split Maine's results, then I'm okay with it. —MicahBrwn (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I also side with Noname2: It makes sense to list Maine's district vote totals. Why do we list NE-3? It went with the statewide and it wasn't close. Does it suddenly become notable just because NE-2 went a different way? Or to look at it another way: Suppose McCain did win NE-2, but it was extremely close. Would that render the NE-2 vote total un-notable?

Why do we list vote totals at all? What makes the totals relevant is that at least one electoral vote is dependent on it. Electoral votes do depend on Maine's district totals, therefore they should be included. You don't cancel that out just because the result didn't "matter". If that's your argument, why not omit vote totals for DC? Iglew (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The only reason Nebraska's districts are listed is because one of them went for Obama. Neither of Maine's districts went for McCain, and they probably weren't even close anyway. The rest of Nebraska's districts' totals are listed as a comparison to the one Obama won. Also, yes Maine's congressional districts are worth one electoral vote each. However, they all went the same way, and Maine's listed total includes these electoral and popular votes. The reason DC totals are listed is because DC gets three electoral votes. If you didn't list the totals, you'd be missing those votes. For Maine, however, if you list the state totals, it already includes all the electoral and popular votes for both of the districts. Timmeh! 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

But Obama didn't win all 4 of Maine's votes because he won the statewide popular vote, that only applies to 2 of them. He won the other 2 because he won the popular vote in each of Maine's congressional districts, so their vote totals count and should be included. --Noname2 (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Separating the Maine results by congressional district will not provide the reader with any extra notable information. The previous election articles don't even have the results separated by congressional district because of this. There is no reason to separate the results if all four electoral votes went to Obama. It is just not notable to list the results of the congressional districts. Timmeh! 23:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd appreciate it if other editors could get involved in this discussion, so we can reach a valid consensus. Timmeh! 23:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The district totals for Nebraska and Maine should be shown for all years, not just 2008. It is notable because some of the electoral votes are contingent on the district results, not the statewide results. Suppose it's three years from now and you're studying past voting patterns in order to try to project whether ME might split its votes in 2012. Currently, Wikipedia tells you only that Gore won ME by 5.1 points in 2000. To know also that Gore won ME-1 by 7.9 points and ME-2 by 1.8 points is meaningful information. Why are you so determined to keep that information out?

I too would welcome opinions from other editors, and I do agree that it would be helpful to have something in the chart to make it more clear that the district totals are a subtotal of the statewide for those two states. The chart as currently constructed doesn't really accommodate that very well. Iglew (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not "determined to keep information out". I am not "determined" to do anything. I am just arguing my side of the discussion, just like you. I believe the information is not notable enough to be in that specific chart. If one wished to look up trends, there are articles showing, in-depth, each state's outcome and influence in each presidential election. It would be just as easy to look up those articles for the information. I should also mention that GoodDay agrees with me, so I'm not the sole dissenter here, and there really haven't been that many participants in this discussion yet. We can't really get very far if the main contributors to this article aren't commenting here. Timmeh! 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama trivia

Is there a place for this? As Obama was born after 1959, he's the first elected President born after the admissions of Alaska & Hawaii as states. Ironically, the state Sarah Palin is Governor of & Obama's birth state, respectively. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source for various items of electoral firsts, etc.: "Think you know your election trivia?". CNN. 2008-11-03. Retrieved 2008-11-09. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Missouri

Anybody know when this state's results are due? I'm anxious to see if McCan/Palin can out do Bush/Quayle 1992. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the rest of the provisional ballots will be counted sometime next week. It appears as if Obama cannot realistically catch up with McCain in votes there, but I have no idea why the networks aren't calling the state. Timmeh! 01:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I did some research for United States presidential election in Missouri, 2008; if you follow the cited sources there, you'll see that November 18th is the deadline for the processing of provisional ballots and the certification of the results. 68.167.253.246 (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

Nebraska's second district electoral vote again

Pollster.com seems to think CNN and CBS have called this for McCain and the other networks still haven't called this. --86.155.103.205 (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think CBS and CNN have forgotten about Nebraska's unique electoral system and their electoral vote counts include giving the 2nd District to McCain. But the Omaha World-Herald has now called the 2nd District for Obama giving him its 1 Electoral vote and bringing the total to 365-162 with Missouri still uncalled. Wikipedia's electoral votes reflect these adjustments but CNN and CBS have yet to update theirs. Heres the article: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10481441 Leahcim506 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

They've reversed their choice saying AP has called it for Obama and CNN/CBS/the other networks haven't called it. Probably just an input error. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivial info

I thought these two items currently in the article were trivia, and not worthy of the article:

• Obama was the first Democratic nominee to win the presidency without winning West Virginia since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
• He was the first presidential candidate of either party since 1968 to win the presidency without winning Louisiana and Arkansas, as well as Tennessee and Kentucky since 1960.

Sheesh, I'm sure we can find all sorts of junk info like this, but they are of no interest compared to him being the 3rd person to go straight from the Senate to the White House, for example. I would have just removed them, but thought I'd give others a chance to defend them first. Tempshill (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove them. They're really not that notable. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole list is trivia. Add: He was the first presidential candidate of either party since 2004 to win the presidency with a majority of the electorial votes since George W. Bush. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Obama won't be going straight from the Senate to the Presidency. Unless he's gonna have his resignation from the Senate, take effect at Noon EST, January 20, 2009. Infact, Harding is the only one to go straight from the Senate to the Presidency (his Senate term expired at the moment he became President). Kennedy resigned from the Senate, 'bout a month before he became President. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on there. The sentence about LA, AR, TN, and KY is on the bubble, but the WV sentence is clearly notable. The ability to win WV was seen as a reason to support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Overall, winning something in the rim South and among LA, AR, and MO has been seen as essential for a Democrat. A Democrat winning without them signals that Democrats do not need to fight war the Republicans started with the Southern Strategy. -Rrius (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think all of these items are useful for mapping the changing political scene. It used to be said that it was impossible for a candidate to win without carrying the Appalachian states (LA, AR, TN, KY), that the Democrats couldn't win without a Southerner on the ticket, and so on. One of the most significant things about this election is that certain orthodoxies of the past few decades have been shown to be no longer applicable. 86.166.86.153 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the note on having a Southerner on the ticket should be since FDR-Truman in 1944. Truman's running mate in 1948 was from Kentucky. 86.166.86.153 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with where this is going. I don't see how you can call it notable that Obama is the first Democratic nominee since 1916 to win the presidency without winning WV when it's just as true that he's the first Democratic nominee since 1916 to win the presidency without winning AR or MO. In fact, he's the first Democratic nominee since 1832 to win without AR and the first since 1824 to win without MO. Sorry, but though this bit of trivia is factual, to single out WV is just silly. That some Clinton supporters put it forth as a reason to vote for her in the primary is no argument. Dukakis won the WV primary but failed to carry the state in the general. Carter on the other hand, lost the WV primary and did carry the state. If we were to find notability in every silly argument promoted by any candidate in the primary, it would be a long trivia section indeed. Iglew (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, mentioning WV in the same breath with AR makes sense. It is not trivial. As I said, the ability of Democrats to win without some of these states signals a shift that will be studied by political scientists for years. This is not the place to go into that in depth (at least not until a good deal of that research is published), but it is notable enough to be mentioned here. -Rrius (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If the importance of a fact isn't apparent and requires an explanation "in depth", then chances are it's not really that notable. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

First since 1940??

Someone keeps trying to claim that 2008 is the first election since 1940 where a Dem ticket without a Southerner won. However this claim is untenable. In 1948 Truman and Barkley won, being from MO and KY respectively. Neither MO or KY was in the Confederacy. While it is true that they were both considered "Border States", so was DE, according to the article Border states (American Civil War). If we consider Border States, then the 2008 ticket also contains a Border Stater (Biden, being from DE). Grover cleveland (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

See Southern United States. According US census definition, both MO and KY are in Southern US. According to the modern definition of southern states, KY is "usually included", while MO is "occasionally considered Southern". The civil war or slavery/no slavery today isn't very important determining whether a state is southern. Guy0307 (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. Demographics have changed. The claim is meant to be notable demographically rather than historically. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

baldwin?

why was constitution party candidate chuck baldwin removed from the list of candidates with totals? the dem, rep, green, lib and nader where listed with their results, baldwin was-but he was removed! why/ why where this vote totals removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.53.44 (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an actual source for his vote totals? The source currently supporting that table doesn't go past Green (McKinney), presumably because the other candidates won too few votes to be considered worth posting at the AP site. If he actually garnered fewer than 150,000 votes in the entire country, I'm not sure his candidacy is really notable enough to end up listed in the final results table. SS451 (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source that shows Baldwin with a higher vote total than that of McKinney. So he should be included on the list. --JayJasper (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Results by state: order of candidates

In the 2004 article, results by state are given with the candidates arranged in columns from left to right in order of descending vote totals. Per that precedent, shouldn't the results in this article be given in an order of Obama, McCain, Nader, Barr, and so on, rather than its current order of McCain, Obama, Nader, Barr, and so on? Qqqqqq (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify on "descending vote totals"? Bush won some states, while Kerry won others. It wouldn't be descending if you look at the states Kerry won. This also isn't in descending order if you look at the states Obama won, but it is if you look at the ones McCain won. Timmeh! 02:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He meant the total number of votes received in the election. That should be pretty obvious. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I thought that was clear. Bush received the greatest number of votes in 2004; he is listed in the left-most column in the table of results. In 2008, Obama received the greatest number of votes, and yet McCain is listed in the left-most column. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you guys don't have to get all up in my face because I didn't understand exactly what Q was trying to say. He didn't specify state vote totals or national totals. Anyway, I agree. The totals should be listed by the same method as the 2004 results: Obama, McCain, Nader, Barr, etc. Timmeh! 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody came out and objected to Q's proposal, and it seemed noncontroversial, I went ahead and switched the columns of the state results table to show Obama's numbers first. If anyone objects, please speak out. Timmeh! 01:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

McKinney

McKinney currently resides and is registered to vote in California, not Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.66 (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an outside source confirming that she used California as her state of residency? Such a thing should be relatively easy to find. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Projections

Does anybody know when the votes will be finalized and we can get rid of the (projected) addition?--Montaced (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone added the official vote totals for Wyoming and I added the official vote totals for South Carolina. Anyone else want to add some? Orville Eastland (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)