Talk:2008 Democratic National Convention/Archive 1

Archive 1

Deletion

I think this page should be deleted. It is too early for a page on the 2008 Democratic National Convention; no one has even officially announced running yet. I request this page be deleted like the U.S. presidental election, 2012 page. Thank you. --Blue387 03:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

On May 30 2005 this page was nominated for deletion. The result of the debate was to keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2008 Democratic National Convention for discussion. Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have the next presidential election but this page should be about the primary not the convention. When you talk about candidates running against each other you're talking about the primaries. The conventions don't mean much anymore.

The convention is a hot item for many people. Furthermore, we can't have the article be about the primaries if they don't even exist yet. When the site is awarded, the page will surely change to reflect the selected city. Meantime, it's fine where it is. Trodaikid1983 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Updates?

The candidate list at the bottom should be removed, as this is much better covered in U.S._presidential_election,_2008. Actually, all paragraphs starting with "Because the 2004" should be deleted as they are better covered in the election article. --Matt 05:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Opinion

Anyone rooting for Denver can post the template {{User:1ne/Userboxes/Denver2008}} on their page, or add Category:Wikipedians for Denver 2008. Off the record, I really encourage everybody's support for my hometown in the bid for the DNC 2008. Thanks. Editor19841 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a userbox for those who support New Orleans to host it?--Chili14^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not even known yet who will be technically eligible to run for President: some are seeking a constitutional amendment to allow foreign-born American citizens to run for President. If so, then prominent Democrats such as Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (born in Canada), California Representative Tom Lantos (born in Hungary) and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (born in Czechoslovakia) might be considered potential candidates for the nomination.

I removed this because it is very unlikley the constitution is going to be admended anytime soon. Smith03 17:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Convention location

is it Minneapolis or Minneapolis and St Paul or is it st paul? the article reads M-SP, but the info is about Mpls but the proposed site is of the actual convention is in st paul

Well, the convention would be awarded to a combined Minneapolis/St. Paul bid, with the convention proceedings itself held in St. Paul, but with the headquarters hotel and other official events being held in Minneapolis. The text should be rewritten to reflect the combined bid, but I never liked these sections anyway, and the text should go away once a city is selected.Simon12 18:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Something is not right here, According to this article and the 2008 Republican National Convention are both parties are holding their conventions in St. Paul, Minnesota. I seriously doubt that both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are both holding their conventions in same town. Can someone give clarification and edit each article appropriately. 151.198.152.109 01:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Democratic article does not say convention will be in St. Paul. It says it will be in Denver or New York, which is correct. No changes needed. Simon12 01:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible Demonstrations

Is this section of the article even necessary? It makes an unsubstantiated comparison with the 1968 election, using weasel words to suggest the United States is on the verge of 60-style social upheaval without citing any sources. This section does not seem necessary and it would be reasonable to consider deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.15.226.72 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Be bold and delete away. Maybe the first sentence is savable, but it should be sourced. Simon12 23:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that needs to be deleted. I can cite sources. Recreate68.org, for example. There is a large-scale demonstration planned with various groups who appear to be attending. This will be a definite feature of the convention, and I will myself be reporting in Denver for an independent television show. So I'm going to re-add that section. Acumensch (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the current text:

Large-scale demonstrations are planned to take at the convention, in which what a "diversity of tactics" has been called for. A group of Denver demonstrators developed the site [Recreate68 recreate68.org] and believe the demonstrations at the 2008 convention will be comparable to the demonstrations that took place at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in which "Yip-ins" and riots took place.

1. "in which what a "diversity of tactics" has been called for" makes no sense.
2. the second sentence should be split into two or three sentences
3. we need citations
4. [Recreate68 recreate68.org] should probably be [[Recreate68|recreate68.org]]

I'm hesitant to NPOV this article. You should have just edited the existing page - don't keep taking this part out for whatever reason.

1. A diversity of tactics is a common phrase. It means there are going to be many different groups doing different sorts of demonstrations at one time.
2. then split them.
3. Citations that say what? There are a lot of groups from Washington DC to Washington State who've said they will be demonstrating at the DNC http://www.unconventionalaction.org/ http://dncdisruption08.org/ http://www.infoshop.org/wiki/index.php/Democratic_National_Convention_2008 http://www.tentstate.org/
4. Then change it on the article. Acumensch (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Primary Cascade into 2007

Okay, Flordia has moved it's primary to January 29, which means that there's definately going to be a credentials fight on the first day of the convention. That's not speculation. Unless the National Party gives in soon, it's a given. 66.108.107.222 14:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC) EricL

I removed the section on "Credentials Fight" because it was, in fact, unsourced speculation. We can add it back if we have a source for its assertions. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Logo announced

The convention logo was announced October 3 [1] but is not available. The convention's main page has a link to photos of the logo unveiling but those are under unknown copyright. A "read more" link supposedly shows the logo, but "read more" is not a clickable link. And we don't know its copyright status. So logo is no go here. (SEWilco 18:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Date of convention

I reverted the claim that the reason the conventions are this late are because of the Olympics. First, the source doesn't support the claim - it only says the conventions are being held after the Olympics, not why they are being held this late. Usually, but not always, the Summer Olympics straddle July/August, and usually one convention is before the games and one after. The party in the White House has gone second, by tradition, for decades, and usually the other party goes before the Olympics, and the incumbent party goes after the Olympics. But this time, the Democrats decided to go after the Olympics. The GOP, wanting to keep the tradition, and the strategic advantage of having their convention second, was therefore forced to have their convention in early September, the latest a convention has ever been held in recent times. Bottom line, the Olympics themselves did not force the late conventions. This is all way too much detail for the main article. Here are some sources for the above: [2][3] [4]Simon12 (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I stand corrected. However, I can merge one of the existing items in the trivia section to the lead section and cite a page from the DNC's official cite, right? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Category deletion proposed

Note: The category 2008 Democratic National Convention has been proposed for deletion. Simon12 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision, yes, but deletion---NO WAY!Ericl (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Obama vs. Clinton

As with "Superduper Tuesday" out of the way, the Democratic Convention will be all about Obama Vs. Clinton. As of Feb. 6th, the delegate count is fifty fifty and that means that unless either one can get something like 75% of the remaining delegates, nobody will have nearly enough to force the other out. The only way it'll be a coronation is if one candidate, God forbid, dies or is severely injured. Then half the convention will be about THAT.

I know it's early, and the whole article's going to be revised beyond recogniation, but a convention like this is about the Candidates and the Race between them.Ericl (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what conventions used to be for...wheeling and dealing to win the candidacy. it'll be nice to have a convention that means something...if it comes to that. Kingturtle (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision

We should revise the article to make it look more like the 2004 one. Ericl (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be ready to absorb a heck of a lot of info over the coming months. I have taken the liberty of changint the "Obama vs. Clinton" section to one specifically dedicated to the idea of a brokered convention, as descriptions of candidates, etc are found on the relevant other articles. If there isn't consensus for this we can certainly readd it. Joshdboz (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the edits. We do not need to cover the primaries, or give bios of the candidates here. This article should cover the convention itself, and any convention-specific events before the primaries (such as meetings of convention committees in case of a credentials fight). I don't think the current format prevents any of 10,000 changes to come in this article. Simon12 (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Obama pledged Clinton super

User:DemocratNanny recently reverted this sentence that I had added The Barack Obama is hoping to have the most pledged delegates before the convention, while Hillary Clinton has a lead in and continues to court more superdelegates. which I took as directly as possible from the article cited at the end of the paragraph. In lieu of starting an edit war, should the Obama strategy and Clinton's lead in superdelegates be mentioned as factors in a brokered convention? Joshdboz (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

First, he's not "the" Barack Obama. Second, its safe to assume both candidates (and even Mike Gravel) would like to have the most pledged delegates. Plus, we really don't know how a superdelegate will vote, until they vote. Charles Stewart (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my error. Yes, obviously every candidate wants the most pledged delegates, the question is whether some of the convention scenarios (and campaign strategies for them) that have been reported in the media should be mentioned here. Joshdboz (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Since over half (like 52%) of all pledged delegates have yet to be awarded, I'd wait until at least next Tuesday's Potomac Primary to include it, and only then if neither candidate starts to emerge as the favorite. Charles Stewart (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Joshdboz (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Stuff like this may work in the article about the campaign. The campaign is not the convention. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Democrat is a noun, not an adjective

Democrat is not an adjective, its a noun. The adjective-form of the word is 'democratic' so would be proper for the phrase 'democratic party' or 'democratic convention'. Democratic National Convention is the phrasing used in the logo, as shown on the page, so the text should accompany this. I made the change to match the phrasing used by the Democratic Party earlier today, but it was reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.216.43 (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia

Not a hit-job on Mrs. Clinton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.122.59 (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It shoudn't be a hit-job on anyone. However please don't delete osurced material without any discussion. Can you explaain your objection to the "North Dakota delegates" section that you've repeatedly deleted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why discuss it? Are we to write a section for every state's delegates? That was clearly only added by an Obama fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.122.59 (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Every state's delegates?...yes, that's kinda the point. Grsz^talk 03:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

An unrelated point that fits under this heading is the use of bold in the rules section. Is that necessary? I thought an encyclopedia was supposed to report facts, not to stress words. I do not think the use of bold is in any way unbalanced, it just seems out of place for an encyclopedia and makes it look sloppy and unprofessional. BobertWABC (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, per the style guide. Janus303 (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Clinton

In the logo, it said that the nominee was obama. I included Clinton because she can (and hopefully will) be the nominee. Give her a chance!!!

Barring a tragedy, Obama will be nominated for President on August 28th. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)