Talk:2008 United States presidential election in New Hampshire

United States: New Hampshire / Presidential elections / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	New Hampshire portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Elections and Referendums B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Merge

proposal

I propose merging:

into this article (United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008).

This is part of a larger proposal to merge articles on different parties' primaries and the general election into one article on that election.

You'll find my proposed version of the merge here: United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008/sandbox.—GoldRingChip 13:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed.—GoldRingChip 12:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merged from Talk:New Hampshire Democratic primary, 2008

2008 United States presidential election in New Hampshire was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 19, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Mike Gravel

He's a democratic party candidate and is on the ballot in New Hampshire so update his results in the table as well. 88.112.174.74 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud

I read on prison planet that there was a fraud. And Obama actually won. What the fuck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.167.28.217 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

district picture...

Does anyone know where to get the map and data to make an images like these for the Democrats in New Hampshire? ~ Paul^C/_T+ 08:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have data for results by county. Perhaps we could use a picture of New Hampshire counties...--Dem393 (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans?

Why are republican candidates listed in the results as this article is about the DEMOCRATIC primary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munnp001 (talk = contribs) 00:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC) =[reply]

Hello, Munnp001. I have removed all non-Democratic information from the article, including the section about the recount. This article is meant to provide an in-depth view into the Democratic primary. Any information that applies to the entire primary should be in the other article.--Dem393 (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recount is specific to the Democrats. It just happens that one of the republican candidates also demanded a recount. Terjen (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table shows votes cast for Republican candidates which were tabulated in the Democratic primary by the New Hampshire Secretary of State. Similarly the Republican Primary tabulation includes votes cast for Democratic candidates. I don't know why they do this, but they do, and we go with the source. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Write-in votes explain everything. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA review

1. Prose- Fail. Lead section needs work. Needs help from all of the following areas: Wikipedia:Lead section, Wikipedia:Words to avoid. There are a few spelling and grammar errors.

2. Verifiable-Check, but one of the references in the final needs to have a title.

3. Coverage- Fail. There is little information about the campaigns in New Hampshire. What about the NH debate or campaign? Newspaper endorsements?

4. Neutral- Check

5. Stable- Check

6. Images- Fail. There should be at least one picture of the event. Feel free to renominate the article once these concerns are addressed.User:calbear22 (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merged from Talk:New Hampshire Republican primary, 2008

Question about official return

I've just added the official return as being the best source, but noticed that it tabulates votes for the Democratic Party candidates as well as the Republicans. Am I right in assuming that what these are is where a voter has correctly filled out their ballot for the Democratic primary, but accidentally put it into the ballot box for the Republican primary? Or is there some other explanation? Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merged from Talk:New Hampshire primary, 2008

Allegations of fraud

Minimally, this section should point out potential differences in the makeup of the electorate in areas with hand counting vs. machine counting. I.e. are machines more likely to be found in urban areas which may draw a different population of voters? Xargque (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC) None of the sources in this section are reliable. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS is a tabellation of official election result numbers, and should definitely be kept. The 7.0% difference between manual and machine counting is significant, especially given that none of the polls, futures or early election results indictated a win for Clinton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the source and the sentences in the article associated with that source since it is from a Ron Paul support site. Please see WP:RS as for what constitutes a reliable source. Thank you.--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are all sites that support any political candidate unreliable sources? Even if so, all the site does is tabulate the raw data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.249.88 (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the analysis of "Citizens for Legitimate Government" with the same conclusion as on the Ron Paul support site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.144 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above reasoning for the 7.0% vote discrepancy is faulty. It is fabricated via manipulation of absolutely unrelated and disproportionate facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaybi (talk contribs) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC) =[reply]

How do the exit polls compare with the official results? ... Seabhcan 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been removed. Please do not replace it unless there is a Wikipedia:Reliable source confirming any of these allegations. Right now it's just a handful of small blogs. Any speculation about diebold vs. hand-counted percentages is original research unless you cite a reliable source. Rhobite (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize overseas news agencies counted as "some blogs" now. Fifty7 (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to an article in The Dallas Morning News about this. This newspaper has a circulation of around a half-million subscribers, and is one of the twenty largest paid circulations in the United States. 193.190.253.144 (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is MaltaStar.com an "international news outlet"? While it's not technically a blog it's just some random news page.. and it is citing blogs (presscue) as its source for that article. The Dallas Morning News is currently the only reliable source, and all other uncited facts should be deleted from the section. Rhobite (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, that section is using 7 Sources, but the first 4 are definately non-reliable (blogs). On the later 3, their URLs might not be Blogs, but they definately aren't major news outlit sites. (I didn't see a reference to Dallas Morning News in the URLs listed) So I'd be in favor of deleting this section. Jon (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the reference to Dallas Morning News again (it got lost in the edit war). Can someone please clean up this section, removing all blog references but keeping the newspapers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the blog links and original research (adding the percentages is statistically flawed, etc). I hope that these accusations will be covered more by actual media outlets. Anonymous users, please refrain from replacing blog links in the absence of media coverage. We have a very high bar for what sources are "cite-able".Rhobite (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On overseas new outlits, they might not be blogs, but they are no better at reporting things in the US than local US newspaper writers would be at reporting things overseas. Jon (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If blogs are not reliable sources, then why is DailyKoS used as a reference in dozens of entries? 76.31.249.88 (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean - DailyKos is not used as a reference anywhere in this article. Markos Moulitsas is quoted once. As he is a very notable figure this is fine, esp. since he provides a counterpoint to the conspiracy theorists. I noticed that you removed his quote for no reason - please stop removing cited facts and replacing them with links to non-notable blogs. You MUST read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Rhobite (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean in other articles. For example this entry has several references to DailyKos, Wonkette, Typepad, etc. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A professor of Econ has a statistical analysis on the hand vs. machine data. This could be good further reading... http://robertghansen.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-hampshire-machine-count-bias.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.242.162 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary crying similar to "Dean Scream"?

The parenthetical remark "(similar to the 'Dean Scream')" should go.

It's opinion. And not a very defensible one at that. 68.155.128.151 (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "ElectionCenter2008; Iowa Caucuses (Special Coverage) County Results". CNN. 2008-01-03. CNN. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 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 to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Hampshire Democratic primary, 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071213000637/http://wbztv.com:80/topstories/local_story_334132330.html to http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_334132330.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Hampshire Democratic primary, 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on New Hampshire Democratic primary, 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New Hampshire Republican primary, 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Primary Infoboxes Really Need To Be Here?

I'm sorry, but do the infoboxes for the 2008 Democratic and Republican New Hampshire Primaries really still need to here on this article? They now have their own articles and it feels pointless to still have them here when they have that same info on separate articles.

--JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point: No. (I find this article semi-unreadable because of all the charts; complicated layout is not wikipedia's strong point) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, DavidWBrooks. Should one of us removed the infoboxes from the article? --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[CNN2-1] "ElectionCenter2008; Iowa Caucuses (Special Coverage) County Results". CNN. 2008-01-03. CNN. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

[1]