Talk:Dewey Defeats Truman

Addition of "Comparisons to 2016 election" headline
I added a comparison to the 2016 election subheader. Irrespective of the Newsweek headline, the 2016 election was considered a stunning upset with polling and general data suggesting that Hillary would win.

"Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. He entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and was elected in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, although he lost the popular vote." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump). "The news media and election experts were surprised at Trump's winning the electoral college. English political scientist Lloyd Gruber said, "One of the major casualties of the 2016 election season has been the reputation of political science, a discipline whose practitioners had largely dismissed Donald Trump's chances of gaining the Republican nomination."[362] The final polls showed a lead by Clinton—and in the end, she did receive more votes.[363] Trump himself expected, based on polling, to lose the election, and rented a small hotel ballroom to make a brief concession speech; "I said if we're going to lose I don't want a big ballroom", he later remarked.[364]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump). "Trump's victory was considered a stunning political upset by most observers, as polls had consistently showed Hillary Clinton with a nationwide – though diminishing – lead, as well as a favorable advantage in most of the competitive states. Trump's support had been modestly underestimated throughout his campaign,[294] and many observers blamed errors in polls, partially attributed to pollsters overestimating Clinton's support among well-educated and nonwhite voters, while underestimating Trump's support among white working-class voters.[295] The polls were relatively accurate,[296] but media outlets and pundits alike showed overconfidence in a Clinton victory despite a large number of undecided voters and a favorable concentration of Trump's core constituencies in competitive states.[297]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#2016_presidential_campaign). "Clinton led in nearly every pre-election nationwide poll and in most swing state polls, leading some comparisons of Trump's victory to that of Harry S. Truman in 1948 as one of the greatest political upsets in modern U.S. history.[16][17]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election). "Clinton was endorsed by The New York Times,[239] The Washington Post,[240] Los Angeles Times,[241] Houston Chronicle,[242][243] The Cincinnati Enquirer,[244][245] The Dallas Morning News,[246][247] and The Arizona Republic,[248] editorial boards. The Houston Chronicle traditionally endorses Republicans later in the election, but chose to endorse Clinton in July. The Dallas Morning News had not endorsed a Democrat for president since 1940. The Cincinnati Enquirer had not endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate for almost 100 years. The Arizona Republic, which began publishing in 1890, had never endorsed a Democratic candidate.USA Today, which had never endorsed a presidential candidate, broke the tradition and took sides in the race with an editorial which declared Trump as "erratic", describing his business career as "checkered", calling him a "serial liar" and "unfit for the presidency". The newspaper, however, said the "editorial does not represent unqualified support for Hillary Clinton."[249][250][251] The Atlantic, which had only made two presidential endorsements in its 160-year history, endorsed Clinton.[252]A group of 70 Nobel laureates endorsed Clinton in an open letter released in October 2016. Among the signatories to the letter were chemist Peter Agre, economist Robert J. Shiller, and physicist Robert Woodrow Wilson.[253]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign). I'm sure there's enough citations here by other writers to consider leaving the category up or at least editing it. Otherwise, I would suggest a political bias here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.93.68 (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

on Newsweek Cover VIA Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-newsweek-cover/ “For the past six months Newsweek Special Editions has been piecing together a Road to the White House Tribute Issue for both major party candidates,” Tony Romando of Topix Media said.

But Topix made a business decision to only print the Clinton version ahead of time given that she is almost universally favored to win the election. If Trump wins, the Clinton copies will be trashed and the Trump version will be rushed to the printing presses — a simple business calculation, Romando said.

Rolando explained: “Unlike hard news magazines, commemorative editions for sporting events, elections and unfortunately deaths are created weeks, months, and even years in advance. The largest publishers in America have dozens of tributes ready to print at plants across the country,” he said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.93.68 (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed?
There is a "citation needed" note appended to the sentence about a webcomic (Achewood) containing the newspaper headline in question. Why do we need to read someone's description of the strip's contents (and accept it as proof) when we can as well follow the link and view the strip with our own eyes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.143.110 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (Even though this is quite old, I'd still like to answer it.) It's because of a Wikipedia policy of No original research. All observations should be directly from the text and with no Synthesis of it to support a particular POV. Tutelary (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek "Madam President" cover
The way this is currently written seems a bit biased, as Newsweek had prepared both Clinton and Trump versions of the cover per standard journalistic practice.

For example, this is mentioned on Snopes, but we don't consider them a reliable source (so let's keep looking). --SoledadKabocha (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm removing it for now. I'm also removing the NYT article because it doesn't mention the story other than in the title, and only uses it as a metaphor. Opencooper (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed a recent addition of a paragraph on the recent election and instead added a "see also" link to its individual article. By all means write about it on it's own article, but devoting a whole section to it on the article titled "Dewey Defeats Truman" is off topic and gives undue weight to a recent event which is certainly not the first. This article should not be a listing of each event where polling was wrong or a paper misprinted the wrong winner. I've removed those examples in the past as well. Please add the information of those on their own articles and let this article be about this specific event. If you want you can also try creating an article that lists such events. Thanks. Opencooper (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay that's no problem the way Opencooper proposed it be dealt with makes sense. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being understanding. I felt bad about removing it since it's well-sourced and written in a neutral and concise manner. It's just that scope creep is a really problem for articles and often requires aggressive culling. For reference, these were the examples I removed before, which should hopefully show how this article was becoming a catch-all for the types of errors I talked about before. Happy editing and don't hesitate to bring it up if you feel it should be handled differently. Opencooper (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe if we could only restrict new additions to sources that directly say "Dewey Defeats Truman" in their headlines, as a sort of meta analysis. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dewey Defeats Truman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706152417/http://www.joc.com/history/p14.asp to http://www.joc.com/history/p14.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

4th 'graph in section on election-result misreporting removed
Sorry folks, I was in the midst of my closing thot about the removal I'd done, when I slipped and lost all my work toward this, my talk contrib (which would have included the "ready for you to cut & paste" (almost as if "along-the-dotted-lines") 'graph that could much better have gone into the corresponding article about the reporting on the relevantly comparable other election. That 'graph would be relevant in journalistic accounts (but not ours, on this historical one -- since we focus on topics, largely not restricted to being current and thus often specific in some aspect other than time. In any case, someone with a more agile interface than mine should make sure the off-topic but analogous 'graph I removed (I try to not do windows), but which someone or some-two should recover (from the very recent wp:edit history of the accompanying article), the 'graph I removed but had intended to paste into this talk-contrib, which is in, roughly, what folks have traditionally meant by "literary public domain", and amounts to, legally and morally, being almost glatt kosher to add here: under CC0 &/or something else along GFDL (or whatever else it was that I meant to summon up) lines. (BTW, if your instructors set, without reservations, an assignment simply in terms like "as if you were contributing to WP", from the real (current or old) chunk of wiki markup that you'd like to start from, tune it up and expand, give a summary description of your changes -- different from (and -- arguably, at least in some ways you think the instructor considers meritorious -- at least no worse than) the revision that was current when you started.) --JerzyA (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"DEMOCRATS MAKE SWEEP OF STATE OFFICES" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect DEMOCRATS MAKE SWEEP OF STATE OFFICES. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 17:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Madame President and other boners
I'd like to put back the stuff reverted. It does indeed have to do with "Dewey Defeats Truman." When a similar incident happens, (and as I have shown, it had happened several times, most notably the Topix/Newsweek Madame President commemorative issue). these have always been referred to as "Dewey Defeats Truman," making inclusion of these in the article both helpful and interesting. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"Democrats Make Sweep Of State Offices" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Democrats Make Sweep Of State Offices. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 29 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)