This article was copy editedbyTwofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on June 21, 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
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.
"I'm paying for this microphone, Mr. Green."[edit]
Someone with knowledge about how to expand an English text might add something about the Nashua debate, which was more or less decisive I think. Bush first carried Iowa and then all this happened: [1] and you can watch it here: [2]--Maarten1963 (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(replying 10 years later) @Maarten1963 – I have added this when I expanded the article recently. if you have any other suggestions, please provide as I plan to nominate it for GA. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Ronald Reagan presidential campaign, 1980. 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.
Not that it doesn't deserve some mention.....but to hold this up as a centerpiece of the Reagan 1980 campaign is nonsense. It isn't noted that way in the overall article on the election and it shouldn't be treated that way here. As another editor noted in a previous removal: this deserves a very thorough discussion here prior to any addition.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A good example of the problem with this section (as it was): As part of his campaign, Reagan used dog whistle rhetoric, coded rhetoric that uses racial fears and prejudice, to appeal to white voters. Reagan's use of a phrase such as "states' rights", although literally referring to powers of individual state governments in the United States, was described by many as "code words" for institutionalized segregation and racism.. In fact, Reagan used the term "state's rights" all the time with no racial backdrop at all. He once used the term when testifying to congress on water use issues out west and also him and William F. Buckley discussed the issue at length on Firing Line (with the only racial connection being Reagan saying that any state "where the constitutional rights of a human being in this country, the rights guaranteed by that document to all of us, where those rights are being violated, then I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to go in and enforce those rights at the point of a bayonet, if necessary".) There are a lot of ways to interpret Reagan's comments on this, welfare reform, and so on. Yet the edit I removed clearly took the position of people like Ian Haney López and runs with it being a calculated move to get votes (in particular in the south). All this is a violation of NPOV. The editor who added this has been pushing this all over wiki. This is not a place to grind Axes.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say that it deserves some mention, and then you blank the section entirely - this makes no sense. And no, it doesn't present it as a centerpiece of the campaign; strawmen aside, as you yourself quote, it says "As part of his campaign..." In any event, the idea that one can use a phrase in more than one way does not invalidate the idea that one of the meanings exists or was intended. The racial undertones of Reagan's campaign are well documented. If you have a problem with NPOV, you are of course free to add material from reliable sources that disagree. Section blanking because you disagree with the politics is not appropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things I'm going to note is the fact that virtually all of this was noted years after the fact. I.e. it is in retrospect. Do you take issue with that? If I have to, I can get very specific on this point (as I am someone who was there). Virtually no one (at the time; outside of the Carter campaign) ran with: this was a big part of the campaign. As a starter (on election night) Dan Rather said Reagan ran a high-road, classy campaign. (I assume no one is going to call Dan Rather a shill for the right.) There are others (including one of the principal people who has made this point in the New York Times: Paul Krugman). But I want to get the collaboration ball started right now so that no time is wasted.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't take issue with it at all - attitudes about things frequently change over time, and one does not have to be a shill for anybody to see something one way, learn some stuff, and then change your perception of the thing. That doesn't mean the underlying thing changed, or that the earlier or perception is inherently wrong. But it also doesn't mean that we can only have one opinion of a thing, frozen in time for all of eternity. Lots of people on the left excused Clinton in the late 90s (and avoided eye contact in 2016) - should we ignore the fact that views on his misconduct have evolved? Parsecboy (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My general outline at this point is a intro saying that in the years since several commentators have taken note of [stuff like neshoba, food stamps, welfare queens, etc] as a code language to attract racist voters......from there will give Reagan's denial along with contemporary denials that the intent was racist. I still question that this deserves such a lengthy section. It seems to throw the article out of balance. But if we must have it, we must have it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am planning to expand this article as it has many Expand Section templates and many sections needs to be included. I am planning to include the following:
Background - will include Reagan's summarized biography with his previous presidential runs in 1968 and 1976.
Presidential debates - would be including his debate performance, quotes (There you go again) and polling data.
Opponents - including information about campaign and primaries of Jimmy Carter and independent candidate John B. Anderson.
Results - there is no mention of result with his performance in states and electoral college margin except in the lead section.
Aftermath - including his 1984 run, post-presidency, etc.
Suitable images - images of debates, campaign, flyers, etc.
Impressive job. You've really fleshed things out. About the only thing I noticed was the statement "Kennedy could not articulate any appreciation of the economic anguish of Middle Americans." If you are going to include that....you may want to throw in the background. That came out of (IIRC) a live interview Ted did on CBS when he was asked "why do you want to be president?".....and he kind of stumbled around. Anyway, again: well done.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rja13ww33: Thanks! The statement that "Kennedy could not articulate any appreciation...." was written in "TIME: Running through" magazine after the convention. I just took the statement from the source.(TIME magazine; Primary Challenges to Incumbent Presidents) You can make the changes if required.
Also, as it is 5x expanded, I have nominated it for DYK and hoping to soon request for copy-editing.
Done
