Talk:2008 Washington gubernatorial election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

removed the phrase she is not popular due to NPOV issues --kralahome 03:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

added 'lengthy court battle' phrase and added Ron Sims as a possible Democrat. --bmvaughn 16:59, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

Dino Rossi's party preference[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comment: Please continue this discussion at Talk:Dino Rossi so that we don't have to follow the same discussion on two different pages. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the provided citations state that Rossi registered with the Washington Secretary of State as preferring the "G.O.P. Party." This is the registration that appears on the official election pages provided as citations supporting Rossi's information. This is the registration that appeared in the primary voter information pamphlet, that appeared on the primary ballot, and will appear in both the general election voter information pamphlet and ballot. As long as these citations are used, it is a violation of Wikipedia standards to claim he ran as anything other than the "G.O.P. Party." If these citations are removed, they will be replaced because, after all, you can't get any more official and primary source than the state Secretary of State's election information page. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with standards of truthfulness; partisanship should not be a factor. TechBear (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a lot of reverts with regards to Rossi's party preference. The facts are: Rossi filed his candidate papers with a very clear "Prefers G.O.P. Party" indicated. Secretary of State Sam Reed, in accordance with the law, noted this party preference on the state's official elections information web pages, in voter information pamphlets and on the ballot. At no time did Rossi ever file with the Secretary of State that this published party preference was in error.

Those who assert that Rossi is running with a party preference of Republican MUST provide a convincing argument as to why Rossi's own registered preference and the state's official elections information must be ignored. Until that argument can be made and a consensus reached, this article should reflect the official registration, which is: Prefers G.O.P. Party. TechBear (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument to replace party affiliation with the "Prefers XXXX Party" statement on the ballot suggests that a new party has been established called the "G.O.P. Party" and this candidate, Dino Rossi, has joined it and left the party known as the "Republican Party". There is no record of that having happened. The "preference" itself was concocted as a means to provide some indication in the new "Top Two" primary system of which party a candidate belonged to when the system itself was meant to eliminate party preference on the voters part. The system did not create a new party that has suddenly replaced the Republican party, and the term G.O.P., or Grand Old Party is merely a nickname for the official name, Republican Party. Furthermore let's have this discussion in one place, not two. Dankirkd (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rossi registered with a party preference of G.O.P. That was Rossi's doing, not something he was forced to do or that was done against his will. Secretary of State Sam Reed -- himself a Republican, if that makes any difference -- was obligated by law to show Rossi's registered preference on all official election materials. That this might lead some to be confused is irrelevant. You fail to explain why the official registration with the state elections department should be ignored. If Rossi had meant to run as a Republican, why did he not register with a party preference of Republican? TechBear (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can probably stop hiding behind Rossi's registration for the primary. He's running in the election as a Republican, which is the term most people would identify with that party (not GOP). GOP is a redirect to Republican anyway, so it kind of makes the whole thing a moot point and, since all but one source (his registration) indicate he's a Republican, it would also strike me as being POV to continue to try to insert that term into this article and Dino Rossi. There are now three people who oppose the term versus your one so I would ask you to stop trying to insert your revisions here. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should start following Wikipedia standards with regards to Reliable Sources, Verifiability and Original Research. Rossi registered as preferring the G.O.P. Party. That is the information that is shown on every last bit of official election material provided by the elected official responsible for enforcing state election law. If you don't like this, it is YOUR responsibility to provide citations that override the sources that meet Wikipedia standards with regards to Reliable Sources, Verifiability and Original Research. Your invoking the 3RR is bogus: I am attempting to prevent vandals from using the Wikipedia to promote incorrect information. TechBear (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can go ahead and try to revert those edits as vandalism, but you will be blocked for violating 3RR, so I wish you good luck. I have provided copious sourcing for his registration as a Republican and we've reviewed the argument for including this material numerous times. Your attempts to insert your POV into this article will be reverted, so make those changes at your own peril. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to discuss the matter. My assertion is that, until concensus is reached, the article should reflect official state registration documents as filed by the candidate himself. TechBear (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, it has not. TechBear (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TechBear, as I asked on the Dino Rossi talk page, please describe what you want to see and what you want it to link to. "prefers GOP Party" redirecting to "Republican Party (US)" seems to solve the issue. What else do you want? The GOP is the Republican party. Nobody is saying any different. It's a nickname. Rossi is not working to create a third party in Washington, he is using the infrastructure of the Republican party to get his message out and to build campaign support. What is the deal here? Chadlupkes (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be a nickname for the Republican Party, the party preference given in Rossi's filing papers is "G.O.P. Party," not "Republican Party." Given the nature of Washington's Top Two primary system, where party allegiance or membership is NOT a part of the candidate's filing papers while party preference IS, I assert that the actual party preference filed by the candidate as part of his legal filing with state election officials should be given in the article. To claim that he is running as a Republican violates the Wikipedia standards of Reliable Sources, Verifiability and Original Research insofar as 1) all reliable sources given in the article state that he filed and is running with a party preference of "G.O.P. Party" and 2) no verifiable citations have been provided which would override information provided to and presented by state election officials. Until and unless these two standards have been met, claims that Rossi is running as a Republican candidate are original research. TechBear (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are hefty citations provided that indicate he is a Republican candidate and this is how he should be identified. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under state law, he is running as preferring "G.O.P. Party." That is how he filed, that is what all official elections materials state, that is how he will appear on the General Election ballot. That should be the end of the story. TechBear (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not state law. Dino Rossi is a Republican. "Republican" and "GOP" mean the same thing. They are synonymous. That the Secretary of State's office lists Dino's "preferred" party preference has no bearing on his actual party. To say so would be unpublished synthesis and original research. There are four sources cited (and thousands more uncited) which list him as a Republican. This should (and will) be reflected in the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is state law. I invite you to look at RCW 29A.04.110 and RCW 29A.52.112. His "actual" party preference is irrelevant under state election laws dealing with the Top Two Primary, as the provided cites from the Revised Code of Washington show. That Republican and G.O.P. are the same is clearly not the issue, otherwise you would not object to the article showing Rossi's actual, registered party preference. I am the one quoting official state elections information; you are the one making things up. I have made my case: now make yours that the state elections information is irrelevant and/or incorrect. TechBear (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

G.O.P.[edit]

After going to the discussion over at Dino Rossi, it's clear to me that the question of "how does he appear on the ballot", which is relevant to this article, and "what party is he in", which is relevant to that article, are not the same question. They are not discussing the former question over there, but the latter; so, it's not amenable to the question here. I added cites that indicate that yes, the party preference submitted with the candidacy filing is what appears on the ballot. As this is an article about an election, and not the broader matters of the people in the election, the information in this article should be tied solely to the election and issues related to the election including its ballots.

(breathe...) So, since Rossi filed with party preference of "G.O.P.", that's how it should appear in the article about the election filed for (i.e. this one). - Keith D. Tyler 00:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality[edit]

This article seems to be very anti-Rossi, with information on Rossi not allowing the opposing campaign tape him, controversy over the "GOP Party" thing, but nothing against Grgoire, like the 3.2 billion dollar projected deficit, her taking money from tribes for her re-election to exempt them from taxes from casino earnings, and lies she has made in the campaign, like claiming Rossi is against stem cell research when he had cancer in his family and supports stem cell research but is against embryonic stem cell research only. Or how she claims he supports lowering the minimum wage, but he only supports lowering it for people under 18 as a training wage, and how the attack ad showes people in the 30's and 40's claiming they would be victims of the lower wage, when since they are 18 they would not be effected. This article needs to become much more fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.248.49 (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content on this page related to Rossi are notable events that occurred during and are directly related to the election and campaign cycle. The content you want to add are instead talking points about events that happened in the past, conjecture about the future, or other political positions that are unrelated specifically to the election and/or campaign activities, aside from being among the political issues raised by Rossi. That sort of thing would belong on the Chris Gregoire page under Criticism. Articles on elections themselves aren't the place to have political he-said/she-said. The occurrance at the police guild endorsement event, for example, is undisputed, and the paragraph on it includes both Gregoire's and Rossi's viewpoints, so how is that bias? NPOV doesn't mean you take out notable content just because there's too much notable content related to one side. It does mean, however, that you can add additional notable content, as long as its notable, and on-topic. Removing tag. - Keith D. Tyler 17:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that questionable campaign financing and lies about the opponent are notable. If critcism against Grgoire only belongs under her article, then the same would be true about Rossi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.248.49 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, tell us first who you work for and we'll be happy to consider your requests within the context of that bias. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Who do I work for? QFC, does that help?

I think it's inconsistent that you're characterizing the inclusion of content about undisputed events as criticism, and then using this characterization to compare them to campaign political attacks. Are you suggesting that those events didn't happen, or happened differently than described? Then provide reason to doubt the sources or provide contrasting or corrective sources. But the Rossi campaign both acknowledges and defends the cameraman event, and that information is included in the section. Rossi campaign certainly does not seem to think that their policy or their enforcement of it reflects badly on them. Ditto for the choice of party name on the ballot. The Rossi campaign acknowledges and defends the choice and doesn't consider it negative. So I don't see the basis for your characterization of these events as negative. The Rossi campaign doesn't seem to agree with you. - Keith D. Tyler 01:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Im just saying there is nothing here that could possibly be considered pro rossi, while there are many things that can be considered anti rossi, other than poll numbers when the razor thin race oscillates to his side for a few days before going back to gregoire's side for a few days. On that note, I will also say that rossi leads seem to take a little longer to be posted than gregoire leads.

"Could be considered" -- By who exactly? Not the Rossi campaign, so who then? Or is this just your opinion? - Keith D. Tyler 18:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

infobox[edit]

Fixed it, apparently it only accepts "legislative" and "presidential" as valid "types", and "presidential" is the one that shows the candidate's name, I guess. I changed it from "nominee" to "candidate" since in WA the primaries don't work that way. - Keith D. Tyler 03:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Election Results Image[edit]

Several times this image in the article has been changed from [this image] to [this image]. Contrary to what the previous reverts have claimed, the former image is not out of date (check update history for confirmation). I believe the former image is superior and should be preferred in this context for several reasons.

1) Color gradients that reflect voting margin are inherently convey greater information than a simple won/lost two-tone color scheme.
2) Because washington gubernatorial elections, unlike federal presidential elections, are not done in an electoral college fashion, but rather by total votes across the entire state, a simple two-tone coloration by county can be misleading. In short, who won a county in this election means much less meaningful than who won a state in the presidential election because the county has no electoral votes to give to the candidate.
3) The image is up to date and I have made my color scheme readily available at the discussion page for the image. The specific objection was raised that Rossi had won Spokane and Whitman Counties, which is true. This is reflected in the gradient image, but the color is not nearly as red as the other counties reflecting the much closer margin of victory for Rossi (nearly 50-50). Again, the coloration and methodology is on the image's discussion page.
4) SVG images are preferred to PNGs at wikipedia, as WP:USOP defines.
5) the former image has many artifacts from editing in the form of white bands near county borders that make it unsightly.

I would be happy to discuss any objection to this image here. Taollan82 (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Washington gubernatorial election, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Washington gubernatorial election, 2008. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Washington_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1196526250"