Talk:Super Tuesday, 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No support?[edit]

I would like to see a section entitled "Support" to go with the criticisms. Are the states moving up just to have more influence? Or are they converging on a single date so that everyone's vote counts the same? I was personally annoyed when the candidate I liked dropped out before my state's primary last time, and think it would be more fair for there to be a "primary day" just like there's an election day.Jlygrnmigt 13:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I went ahead and added some information and citations to the support section. Feel free to dig in! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates for late August[edit]

Last night I did a major update on the article. Among other changes, both Minnesota and Connecticut moved their elections up to February 5th. Also, I removed both West Virginia and Kansas from the article. Everything I can find on Kansas indicates that it was supposed to hold a primary on February 5th, however the state legislature did not allocate any funding for the election. As such, Kansas will hold its contest on an as-yet-undetermined date. Also, West Virginia Republicans are not holding a primary per se on this date. It appears that they are chosing 18 of their delegates on February 5, plus 12 more on May 13. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kansas Democratic party website indicates that Kansas Democrats will Caucus on "Super Tuesday" February 5th 2008 [1] --Phospheros 23:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the same press release yesterday. However if you read the full text:


As you can see, while the Kansas Democratic Party Executive Committee has given their stamp of approval to a planned caucus on February 5th, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee has yet to approve it. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Site sources of various names, please[edit]

Most of the various alternatives I've never heard of. While it also seems to be missing "National Primary Day" which I have heard people use to describe this one. Jon (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of January 10, 2008; I have still only heard the term "Super Tuesday" used to refer to the upcoming primary on Feb 5, 2008. I have been unable to find any sources of the name "Super Duper Tuesday" nor have any been cited in this article. If none are added, I believe this article should be combined with "Super Tuesday" and the term "Super Duper Tuesday" removed. -- Macduff (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the references in this article? Reference #3 is It could all be over after `Super Duper Tuesday` and #5 is California primary move creates Super-duper Tuesday, both articles on CNN's website. Reference #10 is the Chicago Tribune article Illinois joins crush on Super Duper Tuesday, and the first reference, BBC News uses the term in the first paragraph of the cited article. Likewise CNN news anchors have used the term a couple of times every hour so far today. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just used five of the existing citations in the article as references for the Super Duper Tuesday name (which also re-ordered the numbers from my previous message from 1-3-5-10 to 1 - 5). As I did not add the other alternative names to the article, I cannot testify as to their veracity. Speaking as someone who monitors CNN ten hours a day every day as part of his job, I think I have heard a couple of news anchors and/or pundits use Giga Tuesday and Tuesday of Destiny a couple of times, but nowhere near as much as Super Duper Tuesday. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I still see the term "Super Tuesday" commonly used in many newspapers [2][3] [4] and on various candidate's campaign sites[5][6] so I think it makes sense to mention that this term is also still used for the day in question. --Macduff (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My presumption is that "Super Duper Tuesday" will be a largely one-time event, with the system either fixed by the 2012 election, or a majority of states moving their elections to the same date. Some news sources have referred to March 4th as Super Tuesday, no doubt because Super Tuesday has always been in March, and 3/4 has more contests (OH, RI, TX, VT) than any other day in March. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard Giga Tuesday or Tuesday of Destiny and would like to see sources for that. On MSNBC and FOX News, I've heard Tsunami Tuesday more than any other name. I admit it's kind of a ridiculous name, but it seems the most common. Also, yes they are still calling it Super Tuesday, as it is indeed still a Super Tuesday, it just happens to be the largest Super Tuesday to date in terms of number of states participating. I think we should merge this article with the 2008 section of the Super Tuesday article and make this page a redirect to that particular section of the page. Super Duper Tuesday is just 2008's extra-large Super Tuesday. In 2012, there'll either be the usual amount of primaries on Super Tuesday or this year's schedule will remain virtually the same and it'll probably be just called Super Tuesday as that will be the standard. -- Mac OS X 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the contest is Super Tuesday, not "Super Duper Tuesday" or any of these other colloquialisms promoted by the networks. You could as well add all the networks' splash names for the election -- "Decision 2008" and so forth -- to the main United States presidential election, 2008 article, and you'd be as wrong. These newsanchor tag lines add ZERO to anyone's understanding of the event in the article. 216.231.46.147 (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of who uses them, the alternative names have been used thousands of times by hundreds of news sources (Google shows over 1500 hits for "Super Duper Tuesday" in news sources in the past 24 hours). These alternative names all exist as redirects to the article, where -as per the Wikipedia Manual of Style- they are bolded and included in the first sentence, and all are properly sourced and cited to reliable sources. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with 216. All we are doing is parroting what the cable news industry tells us. This is madness and if i do say so, a major part of the problem of why our electoral process is so messed up. Let's put a Fox News logo on the top of the page. WikiTony (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for deleting properly sourced and cited content. Regardless of your opinion of Fox News, when 1500 news sources and the candidates themselves call the election these names, they should be included in the article. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. Google hits are not a particularly interesting metric, and "Super Duper Tuesday" is idiotic and juvenile. NO ONE calls it that except a few news people trying to make their show stand out. As for the others -- GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK. This junk, especially sitting at the top of the article, HARMS THE ARTICLE. It reduces its sense. It makes it harder for Wikipedia users -- none of whom are ever going to be looking for "Tuesday of Destiny" -- to find actual information in it. 216.231.46.147 (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kraz. If you look at the history of this article it started off entitled the more obscure title of "Super Duper Tuesday," and when it became apparent "Super Tuesday" was more prevelant, it was moved. That move was proper, but that doesn't mean other names were not in use. The Google metric is relevant, and if Wikipedia wants to define -- or if we can define -- a baseline for what gets mentioned or not, great; clearly, "Tuesday of Destiny" is less prevelant than "Super Duper Tuesday." However, wholesale deletion of the alternate terms is not the way to go, and I'd prefer they be preserved in their entirety until, if it's decided, we form a policy to drop the more obscure ones. -- Kallahan (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that it hurts the article by cluttering it up with junk, right at the top, that contributes nothing to the understanding of what Super Tuesday 2008 is, when it happened, and what happened. Think about the poor people who are using Wikipedia to find out what happened then -- they have to wade through this garbage. Seriously, people: no one really calls it by these other names. It's a joke. What's important is what states were in it, how they voted, how their votes turn into how many delegates, etc. 216.231.46.147 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for "super duper tuesday" shows 921,000 results [7], with this Wikipedia article as the #2 entry. With nearly a million references to Super Duper Tuesday on the web, are you seriously suggesting that we not explain to people why this article comes up as one of their top two search results? As is noted in the official WP:NOT#PAPER policy, Wikipedia is not bound by the traditional content limitations of more physical references. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a google search of "super duper tuesday" with quotes around the term returns only 122,000 results.[8] -- Macduff (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "Super Tuesday"[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merger. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus for merger. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very first I've heard it called "super duper" is right HERE- when I looked up "Super Tuesday" to verify the date.

The expression "Super Tuesday" has been in use for years, and is understood to be the day that many states hold their primary elections or caucuses at the same time.

Many people (like ME) don't know that Super Tuesday used to be in March. The exact date is irrelevant to the use and meaning of the expression.

I say you should merge "super duper" into "Super Tuesday" and explain it as a new name for the day that arose this year due to the machinations of several of the states' political parties in trying to get their own primary before others.

Sassafrasgreen (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. "Super Duper Tuesday" is just this year's Super Tuesday. The fact that it has more states participating on the same day is irrelevant. It isn't a separate major event on its own. There isn't even a clear "official" name for it, as pundits try to make up their own and hope it sticks. -- Mac OS X 11:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Much like 2004's Mini-Tuesday, 2008's Super Duper Tuesday is a sufficiently unique event -and similar to Mini-Tuesday, most likely a one-time event- that is notable enough to warrant its own article. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Mini-Tuesday" is also known as "Super Tuesday I," consistent with the year where "Super Tuesday" was coined (there were three that year.) That is another reason why that particular article should be put into the Super Tuesday main article, too, and its information placed into the respective articles about the 2004 party primaries, as those are the only primaries the article could conceivably address, or likely will ever be able to address. No objection to noting it alternate names in those articles. -Kallahan (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Enough history and complexity and significance to warrant its own article. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Super Tuesday appears in over 3000 news stories (via Google News [9]); Super Duper Tuesday appears in only about 500 [10]. They refer to the same event, which is why I am recommending they be merged. Even the main Wikipedia articles on the 2008 primaries refer to the day as "Super Tuesday" and not "Super Duper Tuesday."| Getting caught up in the media's nomenclature of the moment is silly, variously describing the event that in past years has been known as "Super Tuesday." The citations and research can simply be moved to the appropriate page as one of its sections. Kallahan (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To follow up, the primaries on Feb 5 have been described as "Super Duper" 12 times in the last 24 hours. For just "Super"?: over 70. This article will just confuse people. Kallahan (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to me that "Super Tuesday" is just as much a product of the media's silly nomenclature of the moment as "Super Duper Tuesday." But even if it is, so what? As per WP:NOT#PAPER, Wikipedia is not bound by the size and space limitation of a traditional encyclopedia. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Super Tuesday is what the day is called, and like Wikipedia does for so many articles, the variations should be redirected to that. And I find that to be an entertaining argument from someone who so freely flags articles for speedy deletion... what made you liberalize your standards in the last 12 hours? Kallahan (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the time being, a link at Super Tuesday seems sufficient. The above 70 to 12 stat is unconvincing for at least two reasons: it does not take into account the other names used on the page (e.g., Tsunami Tuesday) and it does not take into account that internet usage (or the subset of it referred to) is not the be-all and end-all. TV, talk radio, print, and (gasp) actual conversation provide much of the use of the term. Finally, the event's importance as a one-off event can be revisited with ease should time reveal SDT to be merely a chapter in ST's story. -Rrius (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Keep Super Tuesday for the history of this topic; use Super Tuesday (2008) to focus on the details of the 2008 event. There will presumably be a Super Tuesday (2012) and a Super Tuesday (2012); if each year's event gets its own page, we don't have to argue about merging those, either. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Agree with John Broughton. The current election year will yield different results and therefore content than any other year. Merging all years makes the article unwieldy to read. If I wnat to know who is holding a primary on Super Tuesday 2008, then I probably don't care abotu Super Tuesday 1980 or whatever. Eric Jensen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.142.73 (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I would have supported the merge, the page move is probably a better solution, and it's already been done. I don't think that there is a problem any more, so this discussion can probably be closed (and those unsightly tags removed from the articles). - Enuja (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Super Tuesday should remain as a parent article with summaries and pointers to the Super Tuesdays for each year. I like the Super Tuesday (Year) format like Super Tuesday (2008). I suggest moving all the other pages to the same format with intros about the other names. This will become increasingly helpful as more Super Tuesdays are created in the future.-----Adimovk5 (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renaming article[edit]

It seems clear that although the terms Super-duper Tuesday and Tsunami Tuesday are used in the media, the term Super Tuesday is the most wide-spread and most often used term for the event that this article describes. For that reason, I believe this article should be moved to "Super Tuesday (2008)" and the other terms listed as alternate names. -- Macduff (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article in the midst of a merge debate is ... very unusual. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is your source for saying "Super Tuesday" is the most common way of referring to 5 February 2008? -Rrius (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be the most commonly used term in contemporary news sources [11] -- Macduff (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I like Super Tuesday (2008). It distinguishes it from other years and leaves little doubt what subject the title refers to.-----Adimovk5 (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would "Super Tuesday, 2008" be appropriate per other naming conventions? Not sure if there's any policy or WikiProject, but that seems appropriate given the ever-increasingly detailed coverage Wikipedia gives these topics, so we could hypothetically have a series: Super Tuesday, 2004; Super Tuesday, 2008; Super Tuesday, 2012; Super Tuesday, 2016; etc. Thompsontough (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, especially since some years appear to have had multiple Super Tuesday events. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates[edit]

Please setup this page to show the number of delegates selected on this day, the total number of delegates needed for the nominations, and a current discussion of the liklyhood that either nomination will be won on this day.Nhmarkco (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a commented out "results" section that we will un-hide after the election. Ultimately it will probably look pretty close to Mini-Tuesday#2004 Results. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some people have been reading this page[edit]

Searched "Tuesday of Destiny" on Google News. Note the word order/choice of words of this paragraph.[12]

It is likely that the candidates of both parties will be determined on this day, rendering Pennsylvania again meaningless. Pundits have dubbed Feb. 5 "Super Tuesday," "Super Duper Tuesday," "Giga Tuesday," "Tsunami Tuesday," and, for the drama queens of political observation, "The Tuesday of Destiny."

Fun to see admirers! -Kallahan (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun[edit]

[13] -Kallahan (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

States and entitied[edit]

Text formerly said "Twenty-four states (including American Samoa) ". While American Samoa and Democrats Abroad are entitled to select party delegates similarly to state delegations, neither is a U.S. State. I changed it to 22 states plus those two non-states; if it actually is 24 states plus those two non-states please correct further. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's Twenty-four states + One unincorporated territory (American Samoa) and "the Democrats Abroad".

--Phospheros (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Democrats Abroad Global Primary may start on February 5, but it runs for seven days. As this is the only primary that will not have results on Super Tuesday 2008, I am removing it from the list of "Super Tuesday 2008" contests. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, Hawaii Republican caucuses, 2008 should be included... ~ PaulT+/C 01:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time of day[edit]

What time of day are the results likely to be announced? ElectricLemon (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how close the various races are, probably late in the evening Eastern time. Close contests probably will not be declared until the next day. Likewise, after all the networks got the exit polling wrong in NH last month, they are unlikely to name any winners until they are absolutely sure. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divide into two different articles for both parties?[edit]

So far, the other articles on primaries and caucuses are separated into 2 for each party. For example, the Iowa caucuses are divided into Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2008 and Iowa Republican caucuses, 2008. Should we do the same for this Super Tuesday article?--Dem393 (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are forked once they reach a certain size. If this article were to reach that threshold, splitting into Democratic and Republican halves would be a natural fork. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you, because that wasn't the procedure that was followed before. Ever since the Iowa caucuses, all primary and caucus articles have been split in half for both parties. Some of the articles weren't even what you consider "long" when they were first created! Since this Super Tuesday article has the potential to grow as more information is added (such as pre-primary polling and results interpretations) I feel that the article should be split now. Once we start adding more information, the blend of Democratic and Republican statistics is going to get very confusing.--Dem393 (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2008 article is about one specific event, the Democratic caucus in Iowa, just as the New Hampshire Republican primary, 2008 article covers just the primary election of Republicans in New Hampshire. The Super Tuesday (2008) article is about the greater 2008 Super Tuesday election, regardless of the party, state, and type of contest. Regardless, the table in the results section very clearly has Democrats on the left and Republicans on the right. How is that confusing? If people want to know the nitty-gritty details like the fact that John McCain received 1% of the vote (and no delegates) from the West Virginia contest, they need to follow the {{main}} links at the top of the section that tells people to see the Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries and Results of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries articles for more details. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Parties[edit]

Looking at the precedence set by the Mini-Tuesday article, we have not excluded any third-party candidates in the past. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


http vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/pres/grn/map010004000000.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.189.170.66 (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Сalifornia -Nader Arkanzas -Uncomitted Illinoys- McCinthi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.189.170.66 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Results table is all bolded[edit]

I noticed that all of the text in the results table is bolded, but I can't find out why. Theoretically, as we add the winners of the primaries of the table, they shouldn't be bolded.--Dem393 (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utah?[edit]

Why isn't utah called any more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.14.55 (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Samoa[edit]

Since American Samoa is not a state but a territory, I think we need an asterisk in the Super Tuesday election results box to denote this.

Also, the Democratic "Summary" box below the main box incorrectly states that Mrs. Clinton won 9 states, when in fact she only won 8 states. Her win in American Samoa did not provide her with any delegates.

Airwalk86 (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my thought would be why bother including American Samoa if the territory has zero delegates. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, never mind. It appears that the table in this article was wrong, as the American Samoa Democratic caucuses, 2008 article states that American Samoa has three delegates total. I went ahead and re-corrected the article. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Add in the stoms that happend that day too, they could have effected the election —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.253 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on WTA[edit]

What does WTA mean? It is next to most John McCain wins.ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article's Notes section, "(WTA) means Winner Takes All, and applies solely to Republican contests." --Kralizec! (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Super Tuesday, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Super Tuesday, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Tuesday,_2008&oldid=1205512573"