Talk:2012 United States presidential election

Official portraits
For the page, there should be the 2009 Obama and Biden portrait and the portrait of Romney should be his governor one. JustYourAveragePoliticsGeek (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. However, his governor's photo was from 2002. He looks a bit young in that one. Kinda iffy. Trajan1 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest a properly downscaled version of the image contained in this link here? https://www.cnn.com/2012/11/02/opinion/romney-vision-for-america/index.html
 * It's an opinion piece used by Romney himself (even is credited), it's from 2012, it is clearly an actual portrait, and so I don't think you can get much better than that, right? Don't know if there are rights issues with using it, though. 38.70.255.205 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Romney Needs A Better Picture - Time Difference Be Damned
This article is great - but for a living candidate like Mitt Romney to be the only major party politician of any election (excluding Hillary in 2016, who should probably have one too) in the modern era to not have an official portrait on this wikipedia article is a bit distasteful.

Yes, his senate portrait is from 2019, and his governor's photo is from 2005. Big deal. It's a real portrait of him, and a still-living candidate like him deserves to have the dignity of a portrait like every other candidate. A picture from some "event" like the VaLuEs vOtEr sUmMiT is just lame.

Here are some good possibilities for REAL PORTRAITS:

Trajan1 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Info Box Heckled
I recently opened this page and it seems to me that party names of the candidates has been heckled with in the Info Box. Kindly make the appropriate corrections. MildGovernor (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistency: no "Controversies" section, poorly flowing bullet points instead
I was looking at the articles on previous and subsequent elections and feel that the formatting is notably inconsistent here. There are abnormally many, and over-detailed, bullet points in the "notable expressions and phrases" section, here also including "statements" unlike other similar articles, that seems to do the heavy lifting that would normally occur in either a few paragraphs under the general "General election campaign" section, or in a dedicated "Controversies" section. I strongly feel like that does this article a major disservice.

This article is also a major outlier in that respect: I didn't go back all the way, but the 1988, 1992, and 1996 page all talk about controversies within the general election section, including breakouts for larger controversies; the 2000 page uses space in the general campaign section without subheadings; the 2004 page has a "controversies" section nested under the general campaign section; the 2008 page actually has a dedicated top-level controversies section with its own subheadings; then there's this article, which hardly has any summary of the campaign as a whole at all; the 2016 page returns to the previous approach; and the 2020 page has a massive and detailed general campaign section.

Similarly, an examination of the consistently appearing "notable expressions" section is usually relatively concise and focuses more on the statements themselves rather than analysis, or if the statement was a controversy in itself, it is given dedicated attention. The current approach is the worst of both worlds.

I propose the article re-flow or re-write some of these sections to match other wikipedia articles in the same series. Return the "notable expressions" section to its initial purpose, and take any important content into a draft for the main campaign section, with some possible additions to describe the flow of the race beyond what's in the intro (if appropriate). 38.70.255.205 (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)