Talk:2008 United States presidential debates

Please don't lie

Removed assertion that viewers considered Obama winner of the third debate. Someone had put it on with a reference that led to an unrelated page---that kind of dishonesty is, first of all, utterly obvious, and second pisses me off as an Obama supporter because it makes us look unscrupulous.

If the same asshole changed John McCain's name to 'Blinky McWhistle', again, really, in this year of all years can you not think of a better way to contest the election than childish Wikipedia vandalism?

Nor can you think of a better insult than 'Blinky McWhistle'? Bassett42 (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: There is speculation unconfirmed, Joe W. was sent to the Obama rally to push a subject for McCain. Again, it is speculative. Questions as to why a man with Mr. Wurzelbacher would take time to go to a rally for a man whom has none of 'Joe the Plumbers political leanings? Planting people at opponents rallies is not uncommon in American Politics. Debates are not supposed to have 'winners', they are intended to be a discussion of ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.115.48 (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

that is stupid, but i think Blinky Mcwhistle sounds hilarious. hee hee. it wasn't me by the way, i just think it's funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.204.180 (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Use this article for general election debates

Not much to say on the general election yet, but this would probably be the place for it. Until such info becomes available, I've edited the article to simply point to the separate party debate pages. If other political parties hold debates, this is a good place to add links to those articles. Once this article is expanded with general election debate info, these links should end up in the "see also" section. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edit by 75.65.164.143

An edit entitled "clarifications" reversed my reference to the CPD debates as being sponsored by the Democratic and Republican parties, and permitting only third-party participants who already meet strict polling parameters. Such an edit is the opposite of a clarification, and needs to be reverted or revised. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed this article's name

Per WP:Naming conventions re simplicity and preciseness. But do revert me if I was overbold. Thx.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You were overbold, and I have moved it back. This article doesn't just deal with Obama and McCain, but also with the vice-presidential debate. It will likely also mention third party candidates protesting that they weren't involved, alternate debates held by third parties, etc. United States presidential election debates, 2008 is the appropriate name and matches up with Democratic Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008, Republican Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008, and United States presidential election debates, 2004. Your move comment made reference to the Lincoln-Douglas debates article, but those are a special case, where they became famous for their eloquence. No U.S. presidential debates in current times are in danger of doing that! Wasted Time R (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre-convention joint appearance

I removed this section this this appearance is not really joint, and it really isn't a debate. The candidates are not appearing together on the stage, the pastor is interviewing each of them separately and the candidates will only answer the pastor's questions (no retorts). I still feel that this section should be removed and would like additional input. Jmerchant29 (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

On the Democratic and Republican debate pages we show all joint appearances where more than one candidate appears, and some where only one candidate showed up (Tancredo and the NAACP), regardless of whether or not they actually debate. For example, on the Democratic side we show the Yahoo mashup and the Compassion Forum. The same goes for the MTV debate, which was more of a dialogue since the candidates did not respond to each other, and as far as I can tell some of them weren't even in the same room. Therefore, we put in all joint appearances where they took questions from somebody. Since it is unlikely there will be too many more joint appearances, there is no danger of this section ballooning too much.Calwatch (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Saddleback Forum should be included here. It's close enough to a debate to merit coverage, and as Calwatch says, there aren't any more events like this planned that I know of. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Since they both appeared in New York for a 9/11 tribute, should that be mentioned here as well. They shook hands and laid a wreath at the twin towers site. Also, since Saddleback has it's own wiki page, how about shorting the paragraphs? Jmerchant29 (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict in sources

The topics of the first and third debates have a conflict between different sources. The one currently used, an AP article [1] says that the first debate will be on foreign policy and the third will be on domestic issues. Meanwhile, the official CPD site [2] says the reverse. I don't have time to dig for any further sources, but maybe someone else who has more time or knowledge can resolve this. When in doubt, I would be inclined to go with the official page, but perhaps there was an addendum somewhere that I missed. Anyway, thanks to the regular editors of this article for attention to this issue. Eric (EWS23) 01:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The CPD changed the topics of the debate after they announced the dates and topics initially. The AP article is correct. The CPD must not have updated their website yet.Jmerchant29 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Omission

McCain requested 10 debates, Obama refused. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/mccain.town.hall/index.html

Obama countered offered 1 debate on the Friday before July 4th when most people are on vacation. McCain refused http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5837182.html

McCain wants to postpone the debates and work with Obama on the economic crisis. www.cnn.com

Nader wants in but Obama and McCain don't want him. http://media.www.marquettetribune.org/media/storage/paper1130/news/2008/09/09/News/Nader.Seeks.Debate.With.Mccain.Obama-3419690.shtml

Why aren't these facts in the article?

TV

Any info on who will air these debates, and on whether they'll be webcast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.232.110.66 (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain attempt to avoid debating Obama sign of a faltering campaign

On Wednesday, September 24, John McCain invoked the current economic crisis as reason for not showing up for the first 2008 presidential debate. Online versions of USA Today and the Boston Globe cite one possible reason being that his campaign had received disastrous poll results on McCain's ability to handle the economy. Is this approprioate to cite, of course with footnotes. A person dressed as a chciken appeard in front of McCain Palin headquarters in Manchester, NH today, this is reported on WCRB. CApitol3 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

CNN reports that McCain requested the debate be postponed. There is no mention of cancellation. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fossett&Elvis (talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No but the McCain camp is proposing that it replace the Vice Presidential debate. Which might be the real purpose behind this: to keep Palin from embarassing McCain on live TV. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I saw on the news that McCain would replace the VP debates BUT that the VP debates would replace the 1st debate at a different date. The University of Mississippi was scheduled for the 1st debate but the proposal would be for them to hold the VP debates about 2 weeks later. So the above is misinformation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fossett&Elvis (talk • contribs) 20:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging withdrawal into first debate

I made an edit adding a withdrawal section regarding today's events, while someone else added individual sections for each debate and a shorter summary of the controversy after I began writing. I am going to delete my section and integrate it into an expanded bit under first presidential debate. Huadpe (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Format

I would prefer this article follow the format of Democratic Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008 with a clear separation of each debate along with its links. I find this new format very difficult to follow. In the meantime, I'll group the External links section, but I don't consider that to be the optimum solution. Flatterworld (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone PLEASE add useful information on the TOWN HALL FORMAT of the SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE such as how it will work, the choice of questions, the duty of the moderator, audience participation and demeanor (can they applaud or boo), can candidates avoid a question and change the discussion to a topic they prefer to answer, can the moderator ask a follow-up question, prior to the debate. 76.242.70.86 (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Macain looking not looking at obama

He coud not look at Obama because his neck is stiff, because in Vietnam when he was a prisoner he was tied and pulled at the neck. It is not his fault that he could not look at Obama, We should metion this in the article--Not G. Ivingname (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur, we can't criticize McCain for an injury he received serving this country. Saksjn (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Although if you mention it, try not to soound too melodramatic. Maybe "He was unable to face Mr Obama due to a neck injury"Bassett42 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ifill / moderator

I removed a section added to this[3] and several other articles.[4][5][6] The claim that one of the moderators wrote a pro-Obama book is weakly sourced (a conservative blog, the book itself, a Fox News blurb) and of uncertain relevance. It certainly does not belong in the articles about the presidential candidates or campaigns, or in the bio of Palin herself. This article is the only one where it could plausibly be relevant, but even if true these sources do not show that the moderator's authorship of the book is notable to the debate. So far all we have are a few complaints from partisans, and partisan complaints are a matter of course. Also, and assuming it is done in good faith, this still raises questions of introducing bias into the articles.Wikidemon (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that this is a valid addition to this article. Fox News is not a weak source, and the person quoted in the article is with NPR. However, the blurb that was introduced could be written with a little less bias. Jmerchant29 (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's relevant for the same reason that professional sports referees are prohibited from gambling - she has a huge financial stake in the outcome of the election - it's not a coincidence that the book is being released on the day of Obama's (if he wins) inauguration. That being said, I am not going to do any more editing to this or any other article regarding this subject. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

VP debate moderator wrote pro-Obama book which is being released on January 20, 2009

I added this to the article, but someone erased it:

Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a pro-Obama book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is being released on January 20, 2009.

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we also add a section to every related article about Tom Brokaw's pro-McCain bias and the fact that the McCain campaign refused to have the debate unless Brokaw was the moderator? —KCinDC (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If Browak has a financial interest in the outome, then yes. This book is beng released on the very day that Obama would take office, so the author will make millions of dollars if he wins. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2) The above editor (Grundle2600) has now reverted this in several articles (up to 3RR), including uncivil edit summaries[7][8][9][10][11] - and started more-or-less identical discussion threads on five articles too, [12][13][14][15][16] which I directed here. The editor actually reverted at least one of my attempts to consolidate the discussion. I will not engage any further in an edit war, although I am leaving a notice on the editor's talk page - this looks like a disruption problem at this point, especially given the editor's accusations of "censorship", "dictatorship", everybody needing to know this, etc.[17][18] Wikidemon (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you erased it from every single article that had a section on the VP debate. You said it was in other articles, but you erased all of them. You said it wasn't relevant, but it is extremely relevant, because if Obama wins, the moderator will make millions of dollars from sales of her book, which goes on sale Janauary 20, 2009, the very day that Obama would take office. You said it was poorly sourced, but amazon.com is the best possible source for a book's release date. I also see on your talk page that many, many, many other people have accused you of censorship. The fact that you threatened to ban all of them is proof that you are trying to censor people. You even censor things on various talk pages. Wikipedia is supposed to be for everyone. You are trying to prevent people from having free speech. If that's not a dictator, then I don't know what is. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, when you erased it from one article, you said it was because it was in another article. But you erased it from all the articles! You said it was poorly sourced, but amazon is a great source. You said it's not relevant, but she could make millions of dollars if Obama wins, so it's very relevant. Professional athletes are banned from gambling for the same reason. I used the words "censorship" and "dictatorship" because you threatened to ban me for adding that stuff. Wikipedia is supposed to be abut free speech. If you censor me and ban me, how does that not make you a "censor" and a "dictator"? Also, on your talk page, many, many other people say that you censored them and threatened to ban them too. Even when they were just writing on an article's talk page, they say you repeatedly did things to repeatedly archive the talk page and prevent them from expressing their opinions. I never erase anything that is sourced, and I never threaten to ban anyone. But you do it all the time. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I'm curious if it would be possible for both parties to stick to the merits for/against inclusion of this, rather than accusations of ill-intent against one another? --Elliskev 16:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, and suspect it was directed to Grundle's accusations of censorship, dictatorship, etc. But no, I'm a longtime legit editor; Grundle seems not to have the hang of things here and is being disruptive so I'm explaining the multi-article reversions. You'll notice that my first post, initiating the discussion, assumed good faith and was quite courteous - but that's obviously not working. Coordinating and documenting disruptive edits across multiple articles on the talk page here is the first step to possible administrative action if it continues. The POV issue is also relevant. The editor seems to think this is some kind of media bias that needs to be exposed. We can have the content discussion too, though. That's why I started the article in the first place, and started it here (the only one of the four articles where the material has a reasonable argument for inclusion).Wikidemon (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I will respond on your talk later. --Elliskev 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if things have settled down and everyone is talking.Wikidemon (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if the book is relevant to the debate, it's clearly not relevant to the other four articles. —KCinDC (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant to every article that has a section on the VP debate. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On the merits – for this article only: Unless someone has seen an advance-copy, who's to say that the book is "pro-Obama"? Of the three references, only the Fox piece describes it that way - and that was an opinion piece. Take out the "pro-Obama" description and the Fox News reference, and shorten the section-header, and I think the addition might be OK.--Appraiser (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I will trust other editors to make changes - I just don't want it totally removed from all the articles. I think that every article with a section on the VP debate should have it, but having it in one article is better than having it in none. (Oops! This was me, but I forgot to sign it. Sorry! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

No, it's not relevant to every article. Just because an article mentions the debate, it doesn't have to include every detail about it. See WP:SS. —KCinDC (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If this is real and of due weight it merits inclusion in this article. I'd like to see some demonstration of weight, meaning some sourcing to non-partisan mainstream news sources as a significant thing to discuss in its own right. If all we have from the reliable sources is a report that other people have complained or created a controversy, we have to set a high bar for that. Already, and more so in the next few days, we will get tens of thousands of articles on hundreds of different issues related to the debates, with each side complaining, praising, speculating, etc. For any of this to rise to the level of being worth reporting, the controversy would have to be a significant one as evidenced by lots of mainstream sources talking about it -- not editors' personal judgment that this says something bad about the press, the candidates, the debate, etc. In any event, I don't have a terribly strong opinion on this, just trying to bring the matter up for discussion in one place... Wikidemon (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It absolutely doesn't belong in any article other than possibly this one, but I'm not convinced it belongs here either. Are we going to add a section for each debate detailing accusations of bias against the moderator? —KCinDC (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the Washington Post, "There is no evidence that the book will be favorable to the Democratic nominee."[19] I think mentioning the book in this article is appropriate, but without the POV "pro-Obama" qualifier.--Appraiser (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Juan Williams quote. I think it's inappropriate to single out one Fox commentator's opinion for inclusion. Maybe if we were including opinions from all sides about all moderators, but that would be pretty ridiculous. Hell, if we're assuming Ifill is motivated only by money, then she must be making an Obama-bashing book to generate lots of controversy and sales. —KCinDC (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Those following the pushing of the Ifill controversy may want to add the Gwen Ifill article to their watchlists as well. —KCinDC (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, you're weren't kidding. What a mess. Single purpose accounts ranting about "censorship" after repeated attempts to migrate commentary verbatim from the Drudgereport into a WP:BLP. Plus, few of them know to sign their posts or indent so the discussion is incomprehensible. Well, it will die down in a few news cycles. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've rearranged the discussion to make it a little more comprehensible (for now). Some of the problem was people responding to unsigned comments from 2006 as if they were just made. —KCinDC (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this fully, and have seen contradictory accounts in what I have seen, but here's my take. Have the candidates or their representatives raised any objection to Ifill as a moderator? If so, that's a highly material bit that belongs in the article. If the criticism and complaints are coming from third parties (bloggers, news commentators, etc.), it strikes me as being tangential There will always be criticism of moderators in debates. If that criticism comes from the participants, well, that's noeworthy. If it comes from others, it's not. TJRC (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Here, have some sources, the first is an AP story which has appeared widely: [20] [21] [22] [23] -- SEWilco (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm keeping my promise to not edit that section any more, and I'm wishing I hadn't made that promise! Hopefully, someone else will do it. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just set an expiration on the promise, say another 12 hours? That leaves some time for you to help out before the actual debate. I don't think people should be held indefinitely to self-imposed article bans... Staying on good terms with everyone and avoiding any edit wars is the real issue. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK! But maybe 12 hours isn't the best length, because I think it'll be the middle of the night. I'dd add some stuff before I go to bed, and then I'll trust others to make any changes that could make it better. Or maybe someone else will have already done it by then. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting one about the controversy,[24] though it's too much of an op ed pundit piece to be reliable. Wikidemon (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I added.

Concern has been raised over the fact that the debate's moderator, Gwen Ifill, is author of a new book The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, which is to be released by publisher Doubleday on January 20, 2009, the day of the presidential inauguration. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering that (1) complaints didn't start until today, though the book was announced months ago, before McCain approved Ifill as a moderator; (2) the only person "raising concerns" in the AP piece is Michelle Malkin; and (3) McCain is quoted in the piece as saying today that he has no problem with Ifill, including the sentence in this article seems to be a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. If it is to be included, then the countervailing points I mentioned should be included as well. —KCinDC (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add whatever you like. But please don't erase it. There are other sources that were mentioned in this section of the talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there are sources doesn't mean it belongs in the article. The sentence serves no purpose except to cast aspersions on Ifill, and Wikipedia shouldn't be acting as a branch of Michelle Malkin's blog. —KCinDC (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

She is by no means the only one who has expressed concern. It's all over the internet. I just wanted to keep my contribution limited to one sentence, because it just needed to be mentioned so readers would know about it. I'm not going to cite every one of the dozens of people who have raised concern over this. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Political bloggers express concern about all sorts of things all the time. That doesn't mean we pepper all the political Wikipedia articles with mentions of their complaints. Since the McCain campaign has no problem with Ifill, the issue seems not to warrant mention here. I haven't removed it, since I've reverted it previously. Instead I added some text (and unfortunately submitted without an edit summary), but I hope that someone else will remove the whole thing, which is kind of silly at this point. —KCinDC (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In 24 hours from now it won't be "silly." There will be a lot more critics than just bloggers. This ABC News article quotes Rush Limbaugh as saying, "This is a conflict of interest... She has a financial stake in Obama winning the race." Grundle2600 (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The whole paragraph should be removed because:

1. It's irrelevant
2. It gives undue weight to a very minor issue (it's the biggest paragraph in that section, making it unfocussed)
3. Reference 31 (amazon.com link to Ifill's book) is not needed - it doesn't mention criticism of the book regarding the debate. (It could also be seen as advertising).
4. The book was known well in advance, and the criticism (described as "wide media attention") has only been reported now
5. Reference 30 (epochtimes.com) says it's a "non-issue".
6. Reference 34 (NYT) not needed - very sparse and no criticism given
7. Reference 32 is the same as reference 35.

--IE (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't removed the paragraph, but I've cut it down into 2 sentences, and merged with the main paragraph. --IE (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

References

big omission

Rather than quote a poll about the first debate, we should summarize the questions and the answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fossett&Elvis (talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into a transcription of the debate (Wikipedia isn't really the place for that) there is room to highlight some of the more notable quotes. It's important to keep WP:OR in mind, though. The notability of any quotes must come from third-party sources, not just what we personally find interesting. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Separate VP debate article

If there's going to be a separate VP debate article (discussion), then details about the VP debate should go there, with only a bare summary in this article, rather than having two separate descriptions of the debate evolving in parallel (with attention being split between them) and eventually having to be reconciled. Also, the separate article, if it stands, should not be named "2008 vice presidential debate", but something like "United States vice presidential debate, 2008". —KCinDC (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - although I slightly favor keeping the material here, as long as there's a separate article it should all go there. Whether it stays as a stand-alone article, or ends up getting shipped back here, it's best to avoid having two different versions of the same thing - that more than doubles the effort of keeping everything straight.Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree; but I tend to think that there is enough stuff here to warrant a separate article, especially once the next two debates start getting filled in. TJRC (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It was named after the 1984 vice presidential debate if we are talking rename should probably rename both. Hobartimus (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't seen that one. The exact titles don't matter to me, but I think they should be consistent and should include "United States". —KCinDC (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't say a word if you add United States to both. Hobartimus (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer consistency in naming, just so they sort nicely on category pages. But I agree that's a bit of a nit. TJRC (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Though looking at 1984 vice presidential debate, it's not exactly evidence that a VP debate article is a good idea. —KCinDC (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well yes it has 6 sources after 24 years after the event. The current one however has 15 sources not even 1 day after the event. Hobartimus (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the 1984 article was written in 2007, 23 years after the event, without online access to contemporary news accounts. With more sources to draw on, I'd expect the 2008 article to be of higher quality. TJRC (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Seal at first debate

I deleted this one-sentence paragraph from the start of the section on the first debate, though it's been there for a while:

The seal on the stage (at the University of Mississppi) said "The union and the constitution forever".

It has no source, and I'm not sure how it's significant. Maybe it belongs somewhere, but it certainly doesn't seem like a good lead sentence for the section. —KCinDC (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

October 7: Second presidential debate (Nashville townhall)

This section immediately needs someone with expertise to address the following issues:
1 What are the source of the questions to be posed to the candidates?
2 Are the questions posed to the candidates selected beforehand and by who?
3 Are follow-up questions allowed, extemporaneously by the audience or by the moderator?
4 Can the audience submit ad hoc questions to the moderator or at microphones?
5 Can the candidates refuse to answer a question by beginning a stump speech or by answering an unrelated question?
6 Can the audience applaud or boo a candidate's response?
7 Are the pre-chosen or extemporaneous questions forced (by prior negotiation with the candidates) to avoid character-based issues (e.g. a candidate's: association with Bill Ayers, association with Charles Keating of Lincoln Savings and Loan, attempts to dissuade regulators of the savings and loans, gambling addiction or compulsion, tax records - do they reflect gambling winnings and losses, relationship with any Muslim causes, class-standing at the Military Academy, Columbia, Harvard?) Kenfowler1945 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Template gap

Which template is creating the gap here? Can it be fixed? - RoyBoy 03:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Using preview it is Template:Infobox historical event. - RoyBoy 03:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Should the questions be listed here?

In the article for the 2004 presidential debates, the questions asked were archived and listed in the article. Should the questions from the two debates so far be added to the article? --Blue387 (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

2nd debate section bias

Why is there a random blurb about McCain's criticisms of Obama's support of a planetarium earmark? There is not context for that, there is no discussion of any other topics hardly, no criticism of McCain by Obama. This is pure bias. 166.82.206.146 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. It should be removed. --Lightenoughtotravel (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. The section could use a lot of rewriting anyway. There seems to be a random emphasis on certain issues or questions and it's written in a bit too personal of a style. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama won the first 2 debates

Why doesn't the artice mention that Obama won the first 2 debates? Wolfno7 (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Because that would be an opinion.--Appraiser (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

The Joe the Plumber article was deleted and redirected here. What do you guys think about that?J'onn J'onzz (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit extreme, but I guess the point is that if it becomes a sufficiently large issue to stand on its own over the next few days, it will perhaps merit its own article. Especially if it has any influence on the election discourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.205.235 (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. Grsz^X 02:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that "Joe the plumber" deserves his own article, but agree we should wait until he is interviewed by one of the news networks, which he surely will be in the next few days. JV-CDX (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the actual company that Joe Wurzelbacher ("Joe the Plumber") was considering buying? 24.115.70.59 (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber is stated by the local Fox affiliate to be interested in purchasing "Newall's Plumbing Company". The correct spelling is Newell. It has multiple locations in the Toledo area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlb108qwert (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have deleted the seperate article on joe the plumber if there was no information posted on the article it now redirects to to replace it.207.237.50.106 (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Several editors including myself have been fighting a tide of IP vandalism on this page in wake of the third debate. I would suggest semi-protection for the next 24 hours until things start to calm down again. Thoughts? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's too bad at this point Bassett42 (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on it, and if it gets too much more I'll semi-protect it. I'll probably be on for around an hour or so. If it gets really bad and it doesn't seem like anyone is going to do anything, make a request on WP:RFPP. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

The Joe the Plumber redirect is direct to #REDIRECT [[United States presidential election debates, 2008#October 15: Third presidential debate (Hofstra University – Hempstead, New York)]] but the Joe the plumber (lowercase 'p') only redirects to the page itself and not the page sub-heading. I'd align them both, but they've been locked! —Sladen (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps bring it up here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Joe_the_Plumber. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 06:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

fixed.--Appraiser (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber should be a standalone article

This is absurd. Joe Wurzelbacher of Ohio is on the front page of every news site I have been to. Could some admin please check to see how many people are searching Wikipedia right now to find info about him?

And there is widely scattered but relevant info out there. For example, from the Toledo Blade: "Linda Howe, executive director of the Lucas County Board of Elections, said a Samuel Joseph Worzelbacher, whose address and age match Joe the Plumber’s, registered in Lucas County on Sept. 10, 1992. He voted in his first primary on March 4, 2008, registering as a Republican."

The same phony arguments were used to try to force a speedy delete of Debra Bartoshevich. When it failed, the article served to gather information about the background of a controversial political event into one coherent and balanced account. Somebody please put Joe the Plumber back. betsythedevine (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber's Relation to Keating..

Whoever is repeatedly editing out the now-verified and sourced fact (by a right-wing blogger no less) that Joe the Plumber is related by marriage to Chuck Keating needs to cut it out with the vandalism. -scoop

A claim "verified by a blogger" isn't worth the paper that it isn't printed on. In any event, it's meaningless trivia that is far outside the scope of this article. This article is the debate, not a bio of Joe. --B (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Circling the wagons are we now, scoop? ;)

B, I think it should be allowed. After all, Wikipedia generally tends to go with the New York Times’ “fake but accurate” standard. Remember folks: It’s not the nature of the evidence, but rather the seriousness of the charge that matters. Looftie (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe The Plumber...

Okay, so he's being discussed by all the media networks, what more do you want? he IS a factor in the debate so he should have his own article, people are coming to Wikipedia to find out about events, people, etc, and if they search for Joe the Plumber, they want to know who he is, not a small mention in the middle of an article. Please change it.205.155.5.195 (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

He has his own article/ redirect interference

He has an article under Joseph Wurzelbacher. Searches in wikipedia for Joe the Plumber or Joe Wurzelbacher both redirect to the section of this present article on the third debate. They should redirect to the bio article on the fellow. Additionally, no one has ascertained if he is also Samuel Joseph Worzelbacher (note the different spelling of the second letter in his last name). Dogru144 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

==I took out the allegations of racism arising out of Joe's metaphorical use of tap dancing around issues, comparing Obama to Sammy Davis Jr. The allegation is a smear, and contributes nothing to the article, about the presidential election debates.

Please clean up third debate section

I would ask that whoever wrote the portion on the third debate to please ban yourself from Wikipedia. If you cannot convey your thoughts in any form other than run-on sentences, then you have no business commenting on a blog, much less editing an online encyclopedia. Even with my IE window at full screen, one of your sentences is four lines long. From what school did you drop out? If you didn’t, you are truly a travesty of our public education system.

I am sorry if I have come off like a pretentious liberal snob (ok, the preceding two words are superfluous), but that section is atrocious. Looftie (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Attacking other editors is hardly constructive. If you dislike the writing so much then why don't you edit it? Dp76764 (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how I chose to do so, the act of mentioning it was constructive in that it at least now has some attention. If someone is so inclined to make an encyclopedic addition, then he should have a basic understanding of sentence structure. I don’t think I am acting as the grammar Gestapo. That section is simply embarrassing.

Regarding why I didn't fix it; it takes me about 15 seconds to type a request here. It would take me 15 minutes or more (which I don’t have) to clean up that disaster.

I assumed that there are plenty of other people capable of doing the task if I mentioned it here. Judging by the amount of activity on this discussion page since I last check it, it would appear that my assumption was correct.Looftie (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

all the same, if you are going to complain about something, at leats try to fix it first. i agree that they should try to type more carfully, but you should get yourself all worked up about something and then just ask US to spend our time working on what you are mad about instead of you. i'm sorry, was that second sentence too long? i can shorten it if you like. i hope i don't come off as a jerk, i just think that that was not very polite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrence Fletcher (talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing on whether Joe the Plumber gets an article or not

Currently, searches for Joe the Plumber and Joseph Wurzelbacher redirect to this article, and the biographical article has been nominated for deletion. To join the AfD discussion, here is the AfD. betsythedevine (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Excessive Weight/Detail in JtP's section

There is way too much detail about "Joe the Plumber"'s personal life and opinions in his section. This gives undue weight to the section and reduces the quality of the article. They would be pertinent IF a reliable source reported on how these items applied to his impact on the debate. The articles cited offer no analysis whatsoever and are merely reporting facts about his life. None of this is pertinent to the actual Presidential Debate. I believe these details are more appropriate to being in JtP's personal article over this one; if a reader wants to know more about him and his views/life, they should find it in HIS article, not an article about the Presidential Debate. Dp76764 (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain referred to JP 11 times. The fact that JP didn't pay taxes combined with his "taxation without representation" comment clearly put him in the tax protestor camp. McCain is representing him as a typical blue collar voter. The tax protestors are far right wing, not typical. So either JP is misunderstood by McCain or McCain is trying to appeal to voters in the tax protestor segment. This is why the liens and his comments on taxation are relevant and should be included. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• All that may be true, but until a reliable source reports on it, drawing conclusions such as these is original research. As I said above, the sources cited aren't making those (or any) conclusions; they are merely reporting some facts. Thus these items loose their relevance. I think these paragraphs (the last two in particular) should be removed until such time as a reliable source actually draws some conclusions. Dp76764 (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In my view this detail violates our policy on biographies of living people. It is inappropriate to publicise further an individual's debts. Moreover various editors have been adding the information incorrectly per the sources - only one lien is to do with taxes for a relatively (in my view) trivial amount. If you are going to add a fact, get it right. --Matilda ^talk 04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

3rd debate

"Many reports claimed than this was Senator McCain's finest debate of the three" This sentence is unsourced. Can someone remove it please?84.13.172.146 (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not possible to determine who did better. People will have different PoVs on their performances. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand and also the sentence in question still needs a reliable source to remain in the article. Until that happens, it should be removed according to Wikipedia policies, especially in an article that attracts many readers.84.13.172.146 (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It lacks a source, and I'm sure there are many to support it. It seems like many thought this was McCain's best debate, and that Obama still did better than he did. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is supposed to be on Saturday Night Live to do her Tina Fey impression. Now we're talkin' effective public appearances. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

4th debate

There is a debate scheduled for Sunday, and three of the top third party candidates are going to attend. I added that.Ericl (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Like it. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect interpretation of polls

I am going to remove this from the article: "The three-point gap separating the two candidates was equal to the poll’s margin of error.[49]" A poll's margin of error is the probability the results are not a faithful representation of the oppinion of all voters. It is a function of the number of people interviewed (which at 3% is roughly 1,100 individuals). Dc76\^talk 19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, my comment "removed poor and misleading understanding of statistics adding other info from that poll" should be understood as "removed poor and misleading understanding of statistics + adding other info from that poll" Feel free to remove those 2 sentances if you think it's too lengthy. Dc76\^talk 20:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove POV from Second Debate?

Does anyone object to removing the POV tag from the second debate section? Jmerchant29 (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

3 and a half years later, safe to assume that's a no! I'll do it now. Tiller54 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Corrections to section "Third Party Debates"

The author of this section appears to have confused and combined two separate third party debates, the one on 10/15 and the one on 10/23. I have corrected and expanded this section accordingly, providing footnotes for each statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.171.24 (talk) 29 October 2008

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States presidential election debates, 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081107004127/http://www.zogby.com:80/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1538 to http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1538
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081001210345/http://debate.wustl.edu/index.php to http://debate.wustl.edu/index.php

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) 16:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United States presidential election debates which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)