Talk:1980 United States presidential election
(Redirected from Talk:United States presidential election, 1980)
Latest comment: 6 months ago by Flogdafrog in topic Should we still’s have John Anderson in the Infobox?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1980 United States presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Should we still’s have John Anderson in the Infobox?
editAs the title suggests, he only won 6.6 percent of the vote and didn’t make Reagan loose any states. Qutlooker (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- By American historical standards, 6.6 percent was a substantial showing for an independent candidate for POTUS (as compared to, say, Barry Commoner). It has been suggested that he helped split the anti-Reagan vote, not that he made Reagan lose any states. I think he definitely should stay. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- He should definitely stay. After all, he was in one of the debates (with Reagan).Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- All Wiki Boxs for elections in the USA show canidates with above 5% of the vote, he also was very influential and competed in the debates Flogdafrog (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Details about Chappaquiddick incident need to be included in the article
editPeople won't always read the linked source.2601:447:4100:1BE0:E059:C871:9CA2:2686 (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it is necessary to have that level of detail. Also (something I didn't mention in my edit summary), I think the way the addition was phrased was not NPOV. So that killed two birds with one stone. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, it relates to the reason why Ted Kennedy was vulnerable in the 1980 election. The incident was not a typical controversy, but one that involved controversially taking a human life. That would very likely turn off voters.2601:447:4100:1BE0:E059:C871:9CA2:2686 (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah but the way it was phrased really presents a issue. Saying "not only" did he drive a woman off a bridge, but he ran off without rescuing her. Oh, and he also "evaded" prison time. All that is loading the dice. According to him, he made several dives on the car....and saying he evaded prison is basically a POV statement that he should have gotten prison. The incident has so many moving parts that I thought just linking to it was best. Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- But that's what happened. He evaded prison and only got his drivers license suspended.137.70.164.141 (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Again: it is a POV statement. And two people hardly constitute a consensus. Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- But that's what happened. He evaded prison and only got his drivers license suspended.137.70.164.141 (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah but the way it was phrased really presents a issue. Saying "not only" did he drive a woman off a bridge, but he ran off without rescuing her. Oh, and he also "evaded" prison time. All that is loading the dice. According to him, he made several dives on the car....and saying he evaded prison is basically a POV statement that he should have gotten prison. The incident has so many moving parts that I thought just linking to it was best. Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, it relates to the reason why Ted Kennedy was vulnerable in the 1980 election. The incident was not a typical controversy, but one that involved controversially taking a human life. That would very likely turn off voters.2601:447:4100:1BE0:E059:C871:9CA2:2686 (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)