Talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 11

2004 re-election inappropriately described as "narrow" (or "close")
Rather than engaging in an edit-war (especially when I now expect to be off-line during the next week!), I'm moving this issue to the talk page. What issue? Well, I objected to the word "narrow in this sentence (at the beginning of the "Background" section):
 * After President Bush's narrow reelection victory over John Kerry and Republican pickups in the House and Senate in the 2004 elections, Republicans held their control on both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.

Aside from being marginally "POV" (IMO), the word "narrow" (or "close") also seems somewhat contradictory to the point of the sentence. (The point of the sentence is that Republicans retained control. Narrowness of the winner-take-all margin has no relevance to that point.)

In 2004, Bush won an absolute majority of the popular vote (50.74%), his popular vote margin was over three million votes or 2.47%, and he obtained 35 more electoral votes than Kerry. These results hardly seem to justify the adjective "narrow" but the person who undid my deletion did point out that, as a percentage of the total electoral college vote, Bush's 2004 margin (35/538) was the seventh-smallest, citing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_Electoral_College_margin as a reference. However, that same reference shows that Bush had a 3.16% margin in the electoral college, in 2004.

In terms of popular vote, Bush's 2004 margin [percentage] is near the median, and higher than that of 20 others (including Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and Kennedy). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

Adjectives like "narrow" or "close" hardly seem justified. BAM (&quot;tripodics&quot;) (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, firstly, Bush's margin of victory was the smallest ever for a successful incumbent president. Secondly, his margin is not near the median, and it's definitely not higher than Clinton's or Reagan's. Clinton won by 5.6% in 1992 and Reagan by 9.7% in 1980. Bush's 2004 margin is the eleventh smallest popular vote margin and the seventh smallest Electoral College margin. Tim  meh  !  05:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the problem here is that you are judging by Bush's absolute margin of victory in 2004 (i.e. how many more votes he actually received). This is a flawed way to judge, because the population of the US has continued to grow, so a margin of 3 million that would have seemed large before now seems small. Judging by percentage margin, as Timmeh has done above, is much more telling.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I made no comparison of the absolute margin of victory -- except to mention Bush's three million vote lead as the cause of his 2.47% popular vote margin (which was greater than that of Carter, Kennedy, or Nixon-68).
 * I erred, above, by using the word "margin" instead of "percentage" of popular vote, when stating Bush's 2004 result is "near the median". Bush's 2004 popular vote percentage of 50.7% is, indeed, in the middle quintile, beating that of 19 others (including Carter, and Kennedy, Clinton, and Reagan).   To confirm this fact, just sort on "Pct. of Pop. Vote" in List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin.
 * I've corrected my error, above, by replacing the word "margin" with "percentage". I continue to assert that the adjective "narrow" (or "close") is inappropriate.  If a 3.7% electoral vote margin is used here to justify such a description, then the same standard should be applied elsewhere. BAM (&quot;tripodics&quot;) (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Carter and Kennedy weren't elected to a second term, and Nixon in '68 was only his first time elected. I should repeat that Bush's popular vote margin of victory was the smallest ever for an incumbent president. In the vote that actually matters, the Electoral College, his margin was the second smallest for an incumbent, after Wilson's reelection in 1916, and the margin was the seventh smallest overall. Furthermore, the election is not won by popular vote (2000, 1888), and it is definitely not won by percentage of the popular vote (1912, 1992). Tim  meh  !  16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify, my point was that Bush's victorious percentage of the electoral vote was the fourth (not seventh) smallest percentage since 1804, when the US began electing presidents under the Twelfth Amendment--an "apples-to-apples" comparison. That includes only presidents elected by the Electoral College (not the House of Representatives). The criterion excludes the four elections before 1804, as well as 1824. Even if you include the first four elections, 2004 is still only fifth, since Jefferson (in 1800) and J. Q. Adams (in 1824) were elected in the House. His EV margin was similarly narrow, ranking fifth narrowest since 1804 (including 1824), and seventh since 1789. While Bush's PV margin is not especially narrow historically, except in the relevant context of incumbent (or even former) presidents, his EV margin falls into the narrowest 10% of all US elections since 1804, making it "narrow" in a historical sense. So I believe, since we actually elect presidents in the Electoral College, the word "narrow" applies. And certainly even in the popular vote, the phrase narrow reelection victory describes 2004 (or 1916, for that matter) to a tee. Spiderboy12 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Narrow seems the proper discription for 2004. Kerry didn't concede defeat until the day after the election. Had Ohio gone Kerry's way, he'd have won 272-266. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So, your justification for inserting this adjective is that the margin was "narrow" among <U>those elected to a second consecutive term</U>? OK, then the insertion should make reference that criterion, rather than simply using "narrow" as a general term.  (I could just as well insert "overwhelming" and/or "decisive" - along with a note that my criteria was total popular-vote and/or a majority of the popular vote.)
 * Instead of hunting for some measure (such as electoral-vote percentage within a subset) to justify the insertion of a descriptive adjective, I think it would be much better, clearer, fairer (and more-neutral) to avoid any such characterization of the fact that Bush </B><U>was</U></B> re-elected <I>(regardless of how strongly a minority of the electorate objected)</I>. The superfluous adjective "narrow" is irrelevant and distracts from the point made by the sentence, which asserts that "After ... the 2004 elections, Republicans held ... control".  Characterizing one part of the conditional adds nothing to this sentence -- other than spin!
 * If you want to add text that characterizes the 2004 election as "narrow" (or "indisputable" or "lamentable" or whatever), go ahead and add it elsewhere; it is just not appropriate in this particular sentence, whose purpose is to state which political party actually held control of both branches from 2005-2007.
 * BAM (&quot;tripodics&quot;) (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, his electoral vote victory was narrow in historical terms, period. That's what I've been saying again, and again, and again. Among incumbent presidents, or even former presidents, his EV victory (margin or percent of total) is the second narrowest, and his popular vote margin is the narrowest. But that isn't the only argument or even the main argument. The fact that you can find only three other elections with narrower electoral margins of victory since 1804 (i.e., under the current system of electing presidents) suggests that the word "narrow" describes his victory accurately. Spiderboy12 (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Like Spiderboy expressed above, narrow accurately describes Bush's victory. Also, there is no other section in the article that describes the previous election, so there would be no other place to put "Bush won a narrow reelection" other than later in the same section. It would just be redundant if placed there, as the fact that he won reelection is already noted in the disputed sentence. Tim  meh  !  20:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Then start a new sub-section, to examine (and characterize) the 2004 election in detail.  [Is there any consensus for covering this?]
 * Meanwhile, this section should BEGIN by simply stating that the Republicans retained control of both branches (rather than grumbling about the facts, or trying to find statistics that make them somehow less significant).
 * The "Background" section should BEGIN with the political situation that actually existed as a RESULT of the 2004 elections. Detailed analysis of that election belongs elsewhere, not HERE.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripodics (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The political situation that existed was a result of the election and the closeness of it. The country still remained very divided because the election was so close. It definitely is relevant to describe Bush's 2004 win as narrow. Tim meh  !  20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The current format seems appropriate. Either we have NO mention of the 'size' of the electoral victory (Come on...noting it was the 7th lowest???) or you counterbalance that with a recognition of the absolute size of the victory. if it is worth noting that President Bush won with the 'seventh-slimmest' margin of electoral votes, then it is equally relevant that he won by a margin of over 3 million popular votes. The only say to avoid a NPOV edit war is to include with BOTH aspects, or neither (with an appropriate referral to the wiki article on the topic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.30.118 (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain exactly how the popular vote margin is relevant if you can't compare it to this election or any other election? The percentage margin would have relevance, but I don't see how the absolute margin would have any relevance to this election. Tim  meh  !  15:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly. The notation of it being a 'narrow' victory serves only to assert that the nation was 'closely' divided on the election of President Bush. While that may be a legitimate perspective, it is also equally true that President Bush won by over 3,000,000 popular votes. The fat that he won by MILLIONS of votes gives an equally valid counterpoint that the victory was NOT that 'narrow', but that in fact President Bush was re-elected not just with an absolute majority, but a fairly sizeable one as well. The simples way to avoid such an edit war is to simply note that he won re-election, and allow the reader who wants to find more to visit the appropriate wiki article for the exact details (including the narrowness of the victory and the size of the majority). CaptainChrisD (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 3 million popular votes is absolutely not a big margin of victory, as it only equals 2.5% of the entire electorate. You seem to be missing the point that the number of people who vote usually increases every election, and it is much larger than it was decades ago. A 3 million popular vote victory 100 years ago would have equaled a 15% victory. That's why percentages are much more relevant, and they show that Bush's victory was in fact narrow compared to all past elections and even more so when compared to recent past elections. Tim  meh  !  16:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What does it say at United States presidential election, 2004 article? GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It says that Bush ultimately won the election with about a 500 vote margin. The 1968 article also has a background section and it says that "in the election of 1964, after serving the 14 remaining months after President John F. Kennedy's assassination, Democrat Lyndon Johnson had won the largest popular vote landslide in US Presidential election history over Republican Barry Goldwater." Tim  meh  !  16:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is tricky stuff. It's undeniable, that the 2000 election was narrow (or for that matter 1800 & 1824). As for 2004, if Ohio fell into the Kerry column? Obama would likely still be a (today) US Senator from Illinois. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Compared to 2000, the 2004 election was not very close. But when compared to 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2008 it was very close. Tim  meh  !  16:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What value is added by noting that he won 'narrowly' but NOT noting that the margin of victory was, in fact, over 3,000,000 popular votes? The most reasonable approach (that would seem most likely to avoid selectively emphasizing certain facts to project a biased POV) would be to simply note that President Bush won reelection, with links to the detail information contained in the 2004 article. This would allow any reader who cares to determine for him/herself whether the victory was 'large', 'small' or indeed that is relevant to the issue at hand. Sound reasonable? CaptainChrisD (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's true, Bush won the election narrowly. Had Kerry won the popular vote in Ohio, he'd won the whole election 272-266. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not biased to state the raw facts (Bush's win can't be both large and small), and compared to past elections, Bush's 2004 win was narrow. Kerry didn't concede until the next day, and had Bush lost Ohio, he would have lost the election. The narrow win also showed the political situation at the time that set the stage for the 2006 and 2008 elections. Tim  meh  !  16:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have to concur with Timmeh. The 2004 election, did hang on Ohio's results & Kerry didn't conceded until the following morning. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is not biased to show raw facts (as you state), then I assume you have no problem stating the 'raw fact' that President Bush won reelection by over 3,000,000 popular votes, correct? I will be happy to source that. Narrowness in this context is NOT a matter of 'raw facts'...it is a matter of interpreting them, which goes directly to the the issue of NPOV. I don't consider it a 'narrow victory' You do.....that is equally valid, but since neiter perspective is a provable fact, then it becomes an edit war with us each trying to prove our positions by citing facts that happen to agree with our POV. if we are going to do that, then it is only equitable that BOTH sides are presented (i.e. the size of the electoral victory AND ste size of the popular victory) OR that we simply try to follow the NPOV goal of wiki, and not cite EITHER set of facts, since they seem to really add little to the article itself. Why not simply let the reader look at the raw data (as contained in the wiki article) and decide whether he agrees with YOUR position, with MY position, or with a different one entirely? CaptainChrisD (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But one does not win a US prez election, via who's got the most popular votes nationally. PS: can we outdent please, before the discussion get to far over to the right of the page? GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I am not saying your position is incorrect. What I am saying is that it is indeed a matter of opinion regarding whether a win was 'narrow' or not. It depends on the lens with which you choose to view the data. As such, it seems inappropriate to selectively include only facts that support one side or the other. If the fact that President Bush won by a small percentage is important enough to include, then the fact that he won by 3 million votes is as well. The question is really whether the probative value of these facts outweighs their prejudicial effects. I don't think it does. But if we DO decide that they are that important that they need to be included, then we need to include both facts, and let the reader look at them and decide their value as he/she sees fit. That is why I said at the beginning of this thread that we should include either BOTH facts or NEITHER fact. CaptainChrisD (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bush's win in the Electoral College (the vote that actually matters) was the 7th smallest of all time. If you want to go by your measure, excluding elections in which the winner did not win the popular vote, Bush's popular vote margin was also the 7th smallest of all time. Do you really believe that margin is not "narrow"? If so, what are you comparing Bush's 2004 win to that makes it "not narrow"? Tim  meh  !  17:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tim, I am not trying to tell you that you are 'wrong'. You have a valid interpretation of the data. However it is not the ONLY valid interpretation of the data. My interpretation of it being 'not narrow' is equally valid, given the empirical evidence. But since Wiki is NOT about expressing our opinions, but about presenting facts, does it not seem appropriate to present either BOTH sides of the discussion (the small electoral victory AND the 3 million margin of victory) or NEITHER side? Either way, we are not trying to 'guide' the reader into sharing our interpretation of election. The selective inclusion of one side or the other seems to be simply a method to try to implicitly sneak a conclusion into the evidence that should be used to FORM the conclusion. CaptainChrisD (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you do agree that the Electoral College victory was "small"? Then, I don't see why you are opposing the inclusion of "narrow" to describe the election, which is decided by the Electoral College. Tim  meh  !  17:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Howabout this, we leave narrow out of these 'US prez election articles', unless the election-in-question was decided in the House of Representatives or the election wasn't won by the popular vote winner. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. As long as NONE or BOTH sets of data that seem to be tending to be prejudicial, that seems like the most appropriate resolution. CaptainChrisD (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So, the 2000 election, which was decided by 500 votes, should not be described as narrow? Tim  meh  !  17:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Under my compromise, the 2000 election would be considered narrow. Gore won the national popoluar vote. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I have no problem with calling the 2000 election 'narrow' for the reasons GoodDay states. His compromise seems appropriate and reasonable. However, somebody seems to disagree, as an IP-address user keeps reverting the changes to selectively including POV/Prejudicial information in the paragraph (including the last time at 17:27). I will adhere to the Wiki "3-edit" rule and not remove the prejudicial data until tomorrow. I hope others choose to as well. CaptainChrisD (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth. It uses reliable sources to get its facts. I can provide several reliable sources specifically describing Bush's 2004 win as "narrow." I doubt Chris would be able to find reliable sources describing the win as large or substantial. If the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe it as narrow, then it is definitely appropriate to do so in this article. Tim  meh  !  17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Then since the 3,000,000+ victory is ALSO a provable fact, supported by numerous sources, I assume you have no problem with including the statement "President Bush reveived over 3,000,000 more popular votes than Senator Kerry." Correct? This too is an indisputable fact. The debate is centered on whether the facts are more probative than prejudicial. Can you explain why you seem to feel it is OK to post the facts that happen to agree with your position, but NOT the equally-empirical facts that support a position you disagree with? CaptainChrisD (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with including the 3,000,000 vote victory is that it has no effect on the outcome of the election. The electoral victory does. If you included the popular vote victory, you'd also have to include the Electoral Votes of each candidate, and you'd be getting into too much detail for this article. All that needs to be said in this article is that Bush's win was narrow. A 3,000,000 vote victory does support this statement as well, as that is a narrow margin percentage-wise. Tim  meh  !  17:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And the size of the electoral victory has no bearing on the outcome either. You win by one electoral vote, you become president. You win by 200, you become president. So you agree now that it is appropriate to mention that "President Bush was reelected by a margin of over three million popular votes."? If you agree, I will reinsert the information tomorrow. CaptainChrisD (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But what point will showing the popular vote margin serve? Firstly, as I've said, it has no bearing on the winner. Second, it gives no indication of how large their win was. I'm sorry, but I really don't see what purpose it serves. Tim  meh  !  18:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tim, this is the point: I do NOT agree that the win was 'narrow'. This is a matter of OPINION, not a matter of FACT. If you say the win was 'narrow', then you are expressing an opinion. A valid one, certainly, but then that OPINION goes against MY opinion. Why should your opinion have more weight? In fact, why does it belong here at all? It certainly gives a perspective on the size of the victory. It was over 3 million votes. In the interest of fairness, why not simply do EITHER of the following:

1. Include references to BOTH the fact that it was a relatively small electoral victory AND the fact that the vistory was by over 3 million more votes. OR 2. Not say anything about the relative 'size' of the victory, and simply let the reader decide for him/herself based on the reference to the 2004 election empirical data already extant in the article?

If it is important for a reader to know (for whatever reason) that many sources consider the win 'narrow' as you believe, don't you think that the reader should ALSO see the evidence upon which those who do NOT think it was 'narrow' base their interpretation? CaptainChrisD (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want the 3 million vote margin added, by all means start a separate discussion on that. But Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to support its information. If you cannot provide any sources contradicting the ones I provided, I will reinsert the word "narrow" tomorrow. Tim  meh  !  18:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. I will not delete your assertion about the narrowness of victory as long as you do not delete my statement that Bush won by over 3 million popular votes. Sound good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.254.97 (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you start a discussion on whether the pop vote margin merits inclusion before adding it, but it's just a suggestion. Also, I suggest you use one account or identify yourself as the same person when using different IP addresses so you do not make the impression that you are using multiple accounts to attempt to gain consensus. Tim  meh  !  18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we seem to have BEEN having that discussion. So I will not delete your addition of 'narrow' as long as you don't delete my addition about the 3,000,000 vote margin of victory. Seems like a good solution. Sorry about the IP address change...I do understand how it could make one jump to unfounded conclusions, just like having the article changed anonymously (in such a fashion) at the exact same time somebody is posting could be misconstrued as sock-puppeting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.254.97 (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a deal, although I think your addition is more likely to be removed by another editor than mine is. As for the IPs, why did you log out of your account and stop signing your posts? Tim  meh  !  19:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also suggest that you don't accuse me of using multiple accounts to get a point across, when you have absolutely no evidence. Tim  meh  !  17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the inference. I just mentioned the time posting coincidence. CaptainChrisD (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(Cintinuing from the 19:04 posting). CaptainChris, I recommend you log in. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I encouraged anyone to believe there was some nasty sock puppetry going on. I certainly should have come to talk first. It seems like there is some agreement here. Personally I don't think the word narrow is necessary if the context for the election is given. Can I ask what the objection to this version is? It includes the stats from both sides without breaking up the flow of the content.71.178.193.134 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Went to lunch...the laptop picked up a different wifi network, hence the changed IP. The only change I would make to the version you cited is that it does not mention the 3 million vote margin in the same context it discusses the 'narrow' victory. I'd add something like "President Bush was reelected in a narrow victory, but by a margin of over 3 million popular votes. Seems to get both perspectives in, without breaking up the flow. Seem reasonable? CaptainChrisD (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The version does reference both the 3 million votes and the absolute majority. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're going to mention the popular vote margin, it would be less misleading to use the percentage margin, as that way the election can be accurately compared to this one and previous ones. Using the raw popular vote numbers makes the win seem large, when it was really only 2.5%. This is contrary to 1944, when FDR won by roughly the same number of popular votes, but in fact his percent margin was much larger than Bush's. Tim  meh  !  20:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that the percentage is a much better comparison tool, but I think there is some value in listing the actual number of votes. I think this version displays both without breaking up the flow of the article. Timmeh, do you disagree? Also, another solution could be to use the word "narrow" and put all the stats in a ref. Thoughts?71.178.193.134 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Again, this would appear to be a matter of perspective. You say using the raw numbers 'makes' the win appear large. It is just the raw data though - it would seem to speak for itself. I see a 3 million vote differential and consider it significant. You see a relatively small percentage difference and see it as rather small. Perhaps a good way to put it would be something like: "President Bush was reelected by a margin of over 3,000,000 popular votes, or x% of all votes cast." CaptainChrisD (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The percent margin incorporates the popular vote margin by dividing it by the total number of votes cast. This is the more accurate measure of the size of an election win because it accounts for increasing size of the electorate. That's a fact, and it cannot be disputed. Tim  meh  !  21:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems we're getting a little stuck in this conversation, maybe unecessarily. There are two proposals that I can see. I've put them both on a sub discussion page. Can we try commenting on specific language\suggestions? I think it's got a chance of preventing sidetracked debates. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, actually assertions deriving from that perspective CAN be disputed. For one thing the size of the election win was over 3 million INDIVIDUAL votes...if the question goes to whether or not a large number of individuals preferred one thing or another, then the absolute number matters. It is also a simple, objective fact. A fact from which any observer can deduce other things. Res ipsa loquitor...the thing speaks for itself. That FACT that President Bush won by over 3,000,000 more votes than Senator Kerry is a fact that doesn't need to be spun one way or the other. It simply is. I have no trouble adding that it was 'X%' of the vote. That is relevant too. I can saw that "X received twice the number of votes that Y did"....but if I neglect to point out that it was 2 votes to 1, it could certainly be misleading. Nothing wrong with putting the raw, unadulterated information out there for people to use as they see fit. It is an objective, undeniable, empirical fact. Just what wikipedia says it values. 75.218.142.230 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with that 3 million number is that it has nothing to do with the size of the election victory. If a candidate won by 3 million votes out of 3 billion, the win would certainly be narrow. However, if the candidate won by 3 million of 12 million votes, the win would be extremely large as presidential elections go. It has no place in that section and is irrelevant except in the 2004 article. Tim  meh  !  21:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Timmeh, you're own comment shows why it's relevant in context. There weren't only 12 million votes cast. I don't see any objection other than yours to that stastic being included with the others. Please let's not get bogged down with the merits of one stat out of context.71.178.193.134 (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. My comment shows why adding the absolute popular vote margin is pointless and doesn't add anything to the paragraph. Just by seeing the margin, you don't know how many votes were cast, so you can't know the size of the victory. Tim  meh  !  22:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it does. Also, facts do not exist in a vacuum. These facts must be taken in context. The fact that he won by 3,000,000 votes is significant. As is the fact that that was only 3% of the votes cast. So we include both. Wiki isn't about only including facts that we think are helpful. It isn't about us...it is about readers gaining a better understanding. If a fact contributes in a meaningful way to that understanding, then it should be included. Imagine if you were a reader from Nepal, trying to understand recent American history. President Bush is obviously controversial. So, it would be helpful to know that when he was re-elected, 3,000,000 MORE Americans thought him to be the better choice than Kerry. It is also important to know the percentage...which, again, is why we include both. You may not think it valuable, but many others (myself included) likely would. So it seems reasonable to include it. If it IS an error? It seems prudent to err on the side of too MUCH information rather than too little. CaptainChrisD (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mentioning the vote margin would be misleading as that reader from Nepal would be misled into thinking it was a big win margin compared to other elections unless he is provided with the total number of votes as well (ex: 3,000,000 out of 122,000,000). When that is done, it's getting into too much detail, which should be kept in the 2004 election article, not this one. Tim  meh  !  01:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tim, any possibility of a reader being mislead is cleared up by also listing the percentage. This argument doesn't hold water. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)You make my point for me. Listing the percentage accounts for both the popular vote margin and the total number of votes cast. Therefore, there is no reason to show the popular vote margin as you are getting too specific for an article about a different election. However, showing the percentage margin for no real purpose is also getting a bit too specific; that's why version 3 on the talk subpage includes, "Although Bush was reelected with a larger Electoral College margin than in 2000 and an absolute majority (50.7%) of the popular vote...". That is not a biased way to go about it and it includes neither the percentage margin nor the popular vote margin as neither are necessary or relevant to the point of the section. Tim meh  !  01:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tim, I'm working hard to assume good faith here, but I'm not sure how many editors need to explain to you in very clear terms that you're incorrect. Showing both the percentage and vote margin provides context. Only showing one or the the other could be misleading. The issue is that if you exclude those statistics, you lose support for "narrow." Your refs in v3 only support that others called it narrow. It's still a characterization without facts.71.178.193.134 (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What editors? You and Chris? Or are you Chris? Please, log in if you have an account, so it doesn't look like you are using multiple accounts to attempt to POV push. You mention the "characterization without facts." How many times do I have to explain to you that Wikipedia does not rely on facts, but verifiability and reliable third party sources for its information? Also, simply comparing the 2004 election with previous elections will give you your "context." We'll wait and see what other editors have to say about the different versions of the section presented on the subpage and go from there. As for this particular discussion, it's getting much too long, and I can see it is going nowhere as we don't seem to be understanding each other. Tim  meh  !  02:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed this has gotten way too long. And I am NOT 71.178.193.134. We just seem to share a sense that this is a large argument over a small piece of data. What is the harm in including it? It is one sentence in a 150k article. It is a legitimate, empirical, and relevant fact. Your argument seems to be that the presentation of this objective and provable fact might lead a reader into coming to a conclusion that you disagree with. I also am trying to assume good faith here, but given the size of the article and the trivial size of the proposed addition, I am starting to come to the conclusion that the objections to the inclusion of the 3,000,000 vote margin is simply because you do not LIKE the fact that millions more people voted for President Bush than for Senator Kerry. The reader has a right to view the relevant facts and conclude for him/herself. I have no problem stating the percentage victory, or even with a (highly debatable) assertion of narrowness. But to include ONLY those facts that serve to bring the reader to the conclusion you WANT him to draw goes against what wikipedia is about. As I noted at the VERY beginning of this discussion, either include NEITHER piece of information, or present the BOTH. Each alone is more prejudicial than probative. Together they are more balanced and more probative than prejudicial. CaptainChrisD (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

All, please comment on the two proposed edits on this sub discussion page.71.178.193.134 (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comments under version 3 on the subpage.--Danaman5 (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd like to point out that the title of this <S>ridiculously-long</S> section was "2004 re-election inappropriately described as 'narrow' ".

I'd also like to point out that my statement, above, contains one fact (the title) AND one opinion ("ridiculously long"). Since opinions such as this one are unsuitable for encyclopedic content, I have therefore edited my statement to delete the opinionated characterization, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions from the facts (such as the fact that the page is 44 kilobytes long).

I suggest we do the same with the article in question. Opinionated characterizations, such as "narrow" or "decisive" (which could equally-well be inserted), do not belong in the first paragraph of the "Background" section. The purpose of the paragraph is to state that Republicans retained control. The various statistics about the vote, itself, are hardly relevant to the result (i.e. that they retained control), so there is little point in adding these distracting details, either.

If there is need to analyze the details of the 2004 vote itself, from various perspectives, then that is an entirely different matter, and another subsection should be added for this purpose. BAM (&quot;tripodics&quot;) (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)What possible value does asserting a clearly subjective assessment of the election ("narrow")? If we decide not to give the absolute margin of victory (3 million+) because it would tend to 'lead' the reader, how does asserting that the win was 'narrow' (which as mentioned above by multiple editors) is purely subjective. If you DO NOT think it is subjective, then please tell me the number necessary for it NOT to be 'narrow'? 4 million? 5 million? Whatever number you select, it is arbitrary. I can also cite sources that point to the 'large size' of the Bush victory. How is it 'misleading' to cite a sourced, empirical piece of probative evidence (i.e. the 3 million vote victory) when it is NOT misleading to cite a subjective assertion that the victory was 'narrow'? The only purpose of citing it as 'narrow' is to convey some information to the reader about the degree to which Bush was preferred, correct? So you wish to convey that the victory was a 'close' one...or a 'small' one. That is a valid *interpretation*, based on one's evaluation of the evidence. But an equally valid one is that it was NOT a 'narrow' victory (based on the 3 million vote margin and the absolute majority of voters). So it seems logical that we either cite BOTH pieces of evidence or NEITHER; to do otherwise is to emphasize a perspective that SOME wish to make at the exclusion of an equally valid (and equally well-supportable) position that OTHERS wish to make.

Why is this such a major issue? Why not simply avoid the highly subjective "narrow" and give the evidence in the article, and let the reader determine for himself? What is the added value in spoon-feeding a reader a perspective that some happen to agree with when, if that perspective is indeed so clear, the reader can determine it for himself from the empirical data presented in the article? If this was not a political article, I doubt anyone would care...but since it IS a political article, about a highly contentious person/event, then we should be extra careful in bending over backward to remain objective. To do that we need to either include BOTH sides of the evidence used to determine 'narrowness' or simply leave out both the word 'narrow' and the '3 million vote margin of victory'. CaptainChrisD (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried to stay clear of this one, but I'd like to point something out. Three million votes isn't the margin of victory. The election isn't decided by a popular vote. Electiontechnology (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the key tenets of wikipedia is that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."

According to http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={5A7EE23A-466C-42FC-B350-AE60D32FB7BC} (clearly a reliable source) it states "The president's clear-cut victory in both the Electoral College and in the popular vote gives him free rein to promote an aggressive conservative domestic agenda, as well as continue the war in Iraq and the war on terror." . If your source asserts it as a 'narrow victory', then I can assume that you would have no objection to my use of an equally reliable source that asserts that it was a 'clear-cut victory', which would seem to be a significant view (which, according to the above-quoted official policy of Wikipedia) MUST be represented.

Other sources are available: "President Bush will sit down with his Cabinet at 10 a.m. today to begin his second term with a clearer and more commanding mandate than he held for the first" is from http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-03-mandate-cover_x.htm. If it is reasonable to talk about the interpretation of his victory as narrow, is it not equally reasonable to talk about the 'clearer and more commanding mandate' that the election win generated for him?

This is not about whether you agree with or disagree with their (my) position. This is about doing what Wiki says it values: "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I just cited two significant views, published by reliable sources. CaptainChrisD (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to comment on whether or not "narrow" should be included. I am going to repeat that 3 million is not the margin of victory. Electiontechnology (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it ironic that Captain's accusing us of making this a big issue, but it's he and he alone who is pushing this to such a big issue. We've reached consensus, and 3 million votes it NOT the victory margin -- 59,000 votes was.  The only reason people say he has a mandate is because he actually won the popular vote the second time and got a majority of the vote rather than a plurality. -- 128.227.167.146 (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This certainly does not NEED to be a big issue. Simply leave my edits along (where I cite a reputable source that views the win as "clear-cut" OR remove the adjective 'narrow'. Either one will work. But if it is important enough to discuss the 'narrowness' in the section on 'background', then why isn't it equally important to note another equally valid and sourced opposition view?

After all, a tenet of wiki is that all articles should be "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."

This is 1) a significant view and is 2) published by a reliable source. So why remove the citation? You may disagree with it all you want, but I disagree with 'narrow' and and am (after discussion) happy to let it be IF it is balanced by the equally valid counter-position. CaptainChrisD (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Since we can find multiple sources to support both characterizations, we should use neither. We should simply state the facts and drop all this nonsense about using a positive or negative adjective. I say we leave both "narrow" and "clear-cut" out of the article and let the edit-warring end. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, ain't it kinda unusual that this discussion didn't take place at United States presidential election, 2004? GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with removing any characterization of the victory as narrow or broad, as long as the bit about the "3 million popular vote margin" is not in the article.--Danaman5 (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We know the victory was not in dispute. Also, the 'clear-cut' thing is already applied in the phrase that says 'although Bush was reelected with a larger Electoral College margin than in 2000 and an absolute majority (50.7%) of the popular vote...'. That is not in dispute and is already shown. If we remove narrow, wouldn't we have to remove the aforementioned phrase as well, as it implies that Bush won a 'clear-cut victory'? Consensus was reached, with no new evidence to exclude narrow presented since, and it is still certainly correct to describe the 2004 election as 'narrow'. Chris, could you really believe a 59,000 vote margin is not narrow? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the narrowest win ever, after 2000. Tim meh  !  21:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I do NOT believe the victory was 'narrow'. That is ONE reasonable interpretation, but there are others, as demonstrated by the references I cited. The issue here is NPOV. If we include the subjective assertion of 'narrowness', then the NPOV requirements of Wiki require us ALSO to recognize the equally valid, and equally well-sourced perspective that it was a "clear-cut" victory that gave Bush a "clearer mandate". The BEST solution, IMO, is simply to eliminate BOTH adjectives, and simply point out that Bush won, and let the inquisitive reader explore further for himself. The NPOV dictum would seem to dictate that we either include BOTH or NEITHER, as I suggested in the beginning. CaptainChrisD (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could characterize it as a "clear but narrow" victory? Chris' sources seem to be saying that the victory was clearer and larger than in 2000, which is true, but they don't really characterize it as large in any absolute sense ("clear-cut" is not a synonym for large), while we have sources that do characterize it as narrow.--Danaman5 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The only way it wouldn't be a "clear" victory is if it went to the House of Representatives or if there was a recount (ex: 1800, 2000 respectively). Tim  meh  !  21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What value is added at all by noting the highly subjective and disputed assertion about the narrowness of the election? If a reader cares, they can do the math. The numbers are in the 2004 election article. It seems to add little, and seems to be more prejudicial than probative. Eliminating any description adheres to the NPOV guidelines. But if we add in a purely subjective analysis of the election as 'narrow' and there exists other equally valid references that claim adjectives that paint a *different picture*, then fairness would dictate we include them as well. Which is what started this whole silly debate. So why not leave all unnecessary modifiers out, and simply allow the reader to evaluate the data and decide for him/herself? CaptainChrisD (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Before, you were for adding more unnecessary descriptions of the 2004 election. Now you are against it. Which one is it? Also, your sources do not paint a "different picture"; as noted by Danaman, "clear-cut" is not synonymous to large. Tim  meh  !  22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As noted at the VERY START of this issue, I was in favor of EITHER eliminating both adjectives OR keeping both. Either way is fine, because both meet the NPOV requirements of Wiki. CaptainChrisD (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but as I said before, your sources do not contradict the statement that the election victory was narrow. Tim  meh  !  23:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not encourage this discussion to continue in this format, as it doesn't appear much progress is being made. However, maybe I can raise some issues that could help with clarity. First, "clearer and more commanding" than the closest presidential election in US history isn't saying much. The 3 million vote figure does have value, but it doesn't seem to add anything to describing the background to the 2008 election. The "narrow" adjective does have a purpose. The narrow victory represents the political climate which served as the background for the 2006 and 2008 elections. Is there a way this could be rephrased to keep the same sentiment, but maybe use more agreeable language?Electiontechnology (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, the argument boils down to A) It has been effectively sourced and argued that the victory was narrow, which has not been refuted and B) It has been clearly stated that Bush did not win by 3,000,000 votes, meaning the national popular vote has nothing to do with how close it was. There is no big war going on -- it's one person making a huge deal out of 'narrow' and then ironically pointing finger back at just about every other editor here and projecting their own shortcomings onto everyone else.  Captain always conveniently ignores the fact that Bush didn't win by 3,000,000 votes and insists of a "counter-point" that doesn't exist on a victory that could have been swayed by 1% of Bush's popular vote margin.
 * Remind me to complain incessantly against the entire community next time I want something left out of an article since I'm convinced now that I'll get my way no matter what. If the community agrees, then I say Captain needs to make a far better case than a renegade edit war with the entire planet. -- Frightwolf (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like you're doing a fine job of whining already. No need to be reminded next time. But since you and Timmeh seem to feel some deep-seated need to ignore the NPOV rule that assetrs (as a core value of wiki)


 * ""All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.""


 * I'll simply stop trying to correct your bias for a while. I'm sure since you happen to LIKE one particular point of view, then it's OK to continuously deleted other, sourced viewpoints.


 * BTW, at least 3 other editors have made changes (either deleting the adjective 'narrow' or adding back either the '3,000,000 vote margin' or the sourced citations asserting it was a 'clear-cut victory'. So the 'consensus' doesn't seem so clear. I agree that others seem to agree with you. Now the 'reasonable' thing would be to include both perspectives.


 * But hey, if this means so much to you, and a reliably-sourced opposing view seems so uncomfortable to you and Timmeh, you can get what you whined about. Congratulations! :) CaptainChrisD (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's try to stay on topic and away from personal attacks... (and that isn't an invitation to say "he started it") Electiontechnology (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Chris, please try to stay civil when in a dispute with other editors. Also, constantly reverting, against consensus and in the process removing reliable sources does not help at all. It just causes anger and frustration. As I've said several times, the 3 million vote margin statement adds nothing to the text or the point of it, and you have presented no evidence showing that it does. The assertion that the election victory was narrow is the only significant view presented so far, as the source you provided just states that it was a clear victory, not a large one. The point your source is making in saying that is to contrast it to the 2000 election, in which there was not a "clear-cut" victory. We are not trying to compare the 2004 election to the 2000 election in this article. We're comparing the 2008 election to the 2004 election and showing the political climate that existed and led to the 2006 and 2008 elections as a result of Bush's narrow win and the very divided electorate. Tim  meh  !  17:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Timmeh. Since Frightwolf initiated the discussion about 'whining' I could only assume that was what HE viewed as civil conversation and responded in the appropriate vernacular. But my additional assertions that the victory created a 'clearer mandated' and was 'clear-cut' (I also found another reliable reference that called it 'substantial' and 'large') clearly DO serve to go against the view that it was narrow. Also. YOU also seem to be reverting as freuently as I am. And the assertion of a 'clear' consensus does not appear correct either. Other ediors including Tripodics, Loonymonkey, and an apparently-unrelated IP contributor also appeared to recognize that there are issues with attaching the adjective 'narrow' to this victory. In fact, the section was started long before I got here.

The point of this section of the article was to provide 'background' to the events that led to the 2008 election. Some of the things that led to that were Bush's actions, and several sources note that he interpreted the 2004 election as giving him a clear mandate to implement the policies. While your assertion about the narrowness of the victory serves to point out the divided nature of the electorate, my point about the victory being 'clear-cut' serves to show where the perspective of a 'mandate' arose from. And you can make the valid point that that doesn't belong in an 'background' section, but then neither does ANY subjective assertion (such as narrow) that serves to characterize the electorate.

"Clear-cut" implies a different perspective on this election than "narrow" does. Wikipedia specifially holds as a central tenet that articles should "represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." My point is that the sources I cited DO clearly represent a different (and significant) point of view.

It doesn't matter if you agree with 'clear-cut'. It doesn't matter if I agree with 'narrow' (I don't). What matters is that if we are going to present one, then we need to present the other, since they clearly BOTH meet the requirements outlined in NPOV.

But if we are NOT going to present both, then we should REMOVE both.

In the end, this is a rather silly edit war. I disagree that a 'consensus' has been reached on this matter, but it is clear that as long as I (or others) try to address what we see as violations of the WP NPOV stricture, that you (and others) will change them back. While clearly NOT "borderline vandalism" (on either of our parts), it IS going to accomplish nothing. So for the time being, although I still disagree with the presentation, I will stop trying to address this matter.

But really....in all objectivity? Ask yourself: Is the reader REALLY better served by removing the perspective that the Bush victory was a "clear-cut" victory? Does the assertion that it was a 'narrow' victory, to the exclusion of other equally-valid perspectives make this a better article? CaptainChrisD (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a better article since we're not suggesting Bush won by 3,000,000 votes. And consensus has been reached. -- Frightwolf (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While wrong about the consensus, you are right about the size of the victory. It was actually 3,012,166. CaptainChrisD (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, now you're just trolling. Just in case though: around 57,000 votes was the minimum Kerry needed to win, which was less than 1% of the total popular vote.  Some margin of victory that. -- Frightwolf (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That *is* an interesting way of looking at. So I assume you'll agree that President Obama's victory was also quite narrow, since all it would have taken for McCain to be president was for 1.6 million voters in California, 118,000 voters in Florida and 129,500 voters in Ohio to have changed their minds and voted for McCain, thus giving McCain all three states, and consequently the victory in the electoral college. I agree that is pretty narrow...less than 1.45% of voters in the nation changing their minds was all it would have taken for McCain to win. That is the same logic you used to justify 'narrow', correct? CaptainChrisD (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clear-cut does not imply a different perspective. It is a totally different characterization, not the opposite of narrow. Everybody agrees that the election victory was "clear-cut" because it was clear who the winner was the next day, unlike elections that went to the House of Representatives or had a recount. Yet again, "clear-cut" is not synonymous to "large" or "substantial". The facts show that the election was in fact narrow, when compared to almost all previous elections. Like the 3 million vote margin statement, the "clear-cut" statement is true but does not add anything to the point of the text, which is to show the 2004 election results and the political climate they created that led to the subsequent elections. If you're going to mention that the victory was "clear-cut", you'd have to do the same on every previous election article, except 1800, 1824, and 2000.


 * Consensus was reached. Tripodics did not comment on version 3, and he opposed the other versions. The IP did not bring up any issue on the talk page or even provide an edit summary for his removal. There is still consensus, as every original supporter still supports version 3 of the text (plus one). You are the only editor still opposed to the inclusion of "narrow", and you are apparently not convincing anyone to support your cause. You have yet to provide any reliable sources to back up your claim that the election victory was not narrow. Tim  meh  !  18:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, you have won. You have more people who agree with you who are motivated enough to talk about this than I do. In Wikipedia, that is what passes for 'consensus', so I said I would cease reverting 'narrow' for now. I will accept that that is enough of a consensus. Still not sure how seeing a contest as a "clear-cut victory" and seeing it as a "narrow victory" are not different perspectives, but as other posters have mentioned, it's too trivial a point to fight an edit war against an editor equally motivated to make sure his perspective is the sole position.

I do find it interesting that in the interest of consensus, I was willing to accept several different options including keeping BOTH narrow and 'clear-cut', keeping 'narrow' and mentioning the perceived 'mandate', eliminating both, or simply including the objective vote differential. Seems that the 'only' possible 'correct' position just happens to be the one that only mentions 'narrow'. CaptainChrisD (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

People, can we please adopt Version #3 & move on? This dispute is turning LAME. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris, for finally accepting that there is consensus. Now, hopefully this argument will cease today. Tim meh  !  20:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion should be closed & archived, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)