Jump to content

Talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Consolidated Major Candidates Inclusion / Exclusion Talk

(As an effor to stop the multiple merry go round on the topic, I've consolidated the conversations about Candidate inclusion exclusion here in the same order as they were previously held) --207.235.64.30 (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please add (or move) new convs regarding this topic to the end of this section. --207.235.64.30 (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Alan Keyes?

Why is there no mention at all of Alan Keyes, when he was just in today's republican debate? Macduff (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

He was a very late addition to the race, and it's overly generous to call him a candidate. The fact that he was in the debate just speaks to the idiocy of whoever planned the debate. Nevermore27 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Guilty as charged. I did a refactoring of the sections to syncronize them with other election years, and I removed him as a "minor candidate". My reasoning is that he wasn't in any but one major debate, isn't included in almost any major polls, etc. I was actually quite disappointed to hear he's running (I like him too much to watch fail to get enough media attention again). The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Keyes is a bit of a ridiculous candidate, came in ridiculously late, no one takes him seriously, but he is going to be on the NH ballot, so I think there should be a mention of him on this page, for the benefit of anyone wondering about him who comes here to find out. William Quill (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keyes entered the race September 14, 2007 -- just 9 short days after Fred Thompson, over one year before the general -- which has never been considered late, historically. To say Keyes entered too late for inclusion is inaccurate. Alan Keyes is a national candidate. He is currently confirmed on the ballot in 18 primary states, including: California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Conneticut, New Hampshire, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Washington state, Arizona, Utah, Louisiana, Maryland. Additional states are being added as deadlines are reached. Keyes participated in the Values Voters (Maryland) Debate in Sept. '07 as well as the Des Moines Register/IPTV Debate referenced above, Dec. 12, 2007. Keyes has been included in the American Research Group, Inc. polls, and polled at 3% in the USAToday/Gallop Poll following his most recent debate appearance, putting him even with Ron Paul (at the time) and above Tancredo and Hunter, who have all consistently been included here. savvyconsumer7 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Alan Keyes has receieved 0% of the vote in every caucus and primary to date. He is not a major candidate. His picture should be removed from the main page.76.195.84.182 (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Might I suggest a vote to have Alan Keyes on or off the Republican page? 216.107.227.138 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He should be off the candidates section. Nobody talks about him, he hasn't even gotten 1 vote in Iowa or New Hampshire. Frankly I didn't even know he was running until I saw him on here. HoosierState 23:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If Alan Keyes gets 0% of the vote again in Michigan, I think he should be removed as a major candidate. We are not even talking delegates here. He has gotten 0% of individual votes in all primaries and caucuses to date. 75.21.97.158 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Once again Alan Keyes did not even recieve 1 vote, I really think he should be removed. If you can't even receive 1 vote then you're irrelevant. HoosierStateTalk 01:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Not even 1 vote. Come on now, I thought you were supposed to be able to fool some of the people all of the time. I bet someone even voted for Pat 'The ballot was confusing' Bucannan. AK isn't on a single media outlets rankings, I haven't seen him do an interview (except the 'is that a racial question' bit)and the only debate he was invited to(Tavis Smiley?) was the one everyone else turned down. For god's sake take him off the list. The Russian State controlled press uses his charge of voter fraud in NH to give the impression America doesn't have free elections. AK is a smart guy, but hes melodramatic, prissy and has no real experience (anyone can be an ambasador to the UN its like being the the ambasador to the international terminal at JFK). He has no chance in hell of even getting media attention and even less of one with BO running. The only use for the guy is a possible running mate for an independent Ron Paul (the wacko with some votes). That way Ron Paul can write in his newsletter "See I'm not a racist, My running mate is one of the good ones." --mitrebox (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't even know Keyes was running until my Government teacher gave us an official list and then saw it on the Wiki a couple of days later. I removed him, somebody will probably revert, but Keyes has no business being mentioned as a "candidate". HoosierStateTalk 03:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • From AlanKeys.com
Forum Stats Threads: 338, Posts: 2,179, Members: 1,288, Active Members: 446
Pledge signers: 'Pledge to tell 5 friends' 4166 with a goal of 5000 pledge has been going on since sept 14th
I think his own site is a testament to his irrelevancy, but there is room in the 'other candidates' section of the republican 08 candidates article for him. I'll put it to a vote on that article but since he doesn't even hace a wikipedia candancy article it may be a little lopsided. --mitrebox (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You know what's funny is that he wasn't even listed on the Iowa Caucuses ballot, the New Hampshire Primaries ballot, or the Michigan Primaries ballot. I think it's safe to say he's not a candidate. HoosierStateTalk 03:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • See told you somebody would revert. No matter he'll drop out soon enough. The guy isn't even on any ballots but we have to have him on wikipedia. Man if this is the case I could be a candidate, I'm not on the ballots but I want to be president. Haha not really. HoosierStateTalk 03:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • First of all, what is with all the hate against Alan Keyes? It seems like he's being kept off the list of candidates purely out of bias. Secondly, Keyes has gotten votes. Iowa's GOP just refuses to reveal them: http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/05/keyes-votes-not-yet-counted-in-iowa/ This is major news of yet another election fraud, and it's ridiculous that Wikipedia is going along with the censorship of Keyes. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • As is mentioned in other discussions, the Iowa GOP does not require individual precients to count and report write in candidates. Write ins are counted by the party, by hand, at the state GOP headquarters where the ballots are locked away for security. Hand counts of write ins are long tedious expensive processes, thats why civilized nations have ballots with peoples names on them. One has to determine each name and determine the intent of the voter (misspelled names, partial names (Barrak Keyes), A***???* Keeezzzee etc ). The Iowa GOP is conducting the hand count under their own rules. Furthermore its a caucus not a primary, its run by the party not the state. There can't be fraud because no one has a constitutional 'right' to vote in a caucus. Its ridiculous that wikipedia (a website that anyone can edit) has so few Keyes supporters that they can't keep 'us' from 'repressing the masses', "help I'm being repressed." --mitrebox (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you even read the site you submitted as evidence? It suggests he's only running to pay off past campaign debts. I might actually say LOL on a talk page. and i just did.--mitrebox (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • And you obviously didn't read the site very well. The site itself never suggests that's why he's running. What it says is, "Some people have suggested that he’s only running to help pay down past campaign bills, and that he will continue his campaign as a third party or independent candidate in order to continue paying down such debts. Still, his organization claims they received a significant number of votes and suggest a conspiracy involving the use of “communist-style” tactics to surpress the Keyes vote total…" That's far from what you're saying, that the site itself supports such a theory. Try reading the article again with some reading comprehension this time. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh my dearest apologies, I guess I misread that, being confused what with all the Alan Keyes news reports going around. Feb 5th will be a historic day for Alan, never before will a candidate have received so small a percentage of total votes cast. I'd say he should take a page from UFO Kuchenich but Alan never even got started. --mitrebox (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Misread, huh? A good thing you told me that, or I'd have gotten the impression you were deliberately and dishonestly taking it out of context, what with all the snide attacks on Keyes you're making. Oh, and it's spelled "Kucinich".--Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Much of the information criticizing the Keyes campaign is factually incorrect -- where is your documentation. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE MY POST. Thank you!

Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Thank you for removing Alan Keyes from the list. I didn't even know he was a candidate until I saw him on this page. The guy is NOT mentioned at all in the major news networks.

Consistency

We should at least be consistent between all the pages on the election template. He's listed on the template as a candidate, he has a column in the primary results page, etc. He should either be on all pages or none of them. William Quill (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • If the criteria prior to Super-Tuesday is $50,000 then here is documentation from the Federal Elections Committee (FEC). Keyes entered the race on 9-14-07. Per the FEC, as of the end of the 3rd quarter on 9-30-07, Keyes had net receipts of $77,768. It still remains that Keyes is a multi-state candidate, with net receipts above $50,000 going into Super Tuesday and should be included. Search Keyes at the FEC website at:

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/srssea.shtml PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE!Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

From Gravel's Webpage

We're Still in the Race! January 4th, 2008 by J. Skyler S. Mc...

Once again, the Mainstream Media has not gotten the facts straight.

MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann has incorrectly declared that Sen. Gravel has dropped out of the race following the January third caucus in Iowa. This is not true, and Sen. Gravel is still an active member in this race. We are requesting that MSNBC and Keith Olbermann retract their statement, and issue an apology to the campaign for promoting blatantly false misinformation.

Again, Sen. Gravel has not dissolved his campaign, and has no intentions of doing so

Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gravel needs to stop complaining and get back to providing traction on my unpaved driveway. --NEMT (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Turtlescrubber (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Alan Keyes?

Is he still in the race. There is no mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs) 23:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

He is still in. This article only lists the major candidates for the two main parties; he's still in United States Republican presidential candidates, 2008. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Only cause Alan Keeps editing wikipedia. --mitrebox (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike Gravel

Mike Gravel announced earlier today that he will be dropping out of the race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true. This is cited nowhere. Tinmanic (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Turn on CNN. They're talking about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you should be able to provide a source. Please do so. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your televeision. Turn it on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 04:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read this.--Nkrosse (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
CNN says he is still a candidate. See CNN. Your edits are vandalism. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I will read it as soon as you turn on your television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


This is false. TigerManXL is most likely trolling. (189.148.8.18 (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC))
TigerManXL has also violated WP:3RR. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're going to feel real silly once they get back around to this story again on CNN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 04:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Using CNN as a reliable source, http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/ confirms that Gravel is still a candidate. There has been no source provided that suggests otherwise. Remember, Wikipedia's policies require that content be verifiable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks for the info. That contradicts the story they were running on TV earlier.

It also confirms Alan Keyes is not a candidate. Apparently Alan's nephew keeps putting him back on the republican pages.--mitrebox (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

CNN needs to get their act together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Mike Gravel has rectenly dropped out of the race. His picture should be removed from the viable candidate section and the following text should be included:

You are not listening. Without a citation, this cannot be added. Saying "I saw it on CNN" is not a reliable citation. When you find it in print it can be added. Horologium (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

www.cnn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 05:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2982 http://www.boxxet.com/Michael_Bloomberg/Biden_Dodd_Gravel_Drop_Out.1gfvqx.d

(ec x2)First, Sign your posts. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know how to do it by now. Secondly, you are acting in a disruptive fashion; you cannot possibly think that your behavior is appropriate. Your edit warring is directly responsible for the page lock now in place. Until you can provide a SPECIFIC citation to a specific article, you have nothing. Please stop referencing CNN, because they haven't printed anything about Gravel exiting the race. The two sources you added are not only blogs, but they are dated January 4th, the last time Gravel was rumored to have dropped out; they don't support your assertion at all.Horologium (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly trolling, and I was the one who requested the lock due to disruptive users such as yourself. I provided 2 specific citations. If your candidate dropped out, that is hardly my fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 06:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

At the bottom of the boxxet article, it states "Correction: Mike Gravel is still campaigning, as one of my commentors has pointed out. My bad..." The Jan 4 speculations proved to be in error. --Evb-wiki (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you did not request protection, you requested an unprotect to add your unsourced assertion, then a re-protect. I read your request for unprotection; that was what brought me back here. As for your calling me a troll, that's laughable. Horologium (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

according to gravel2008.us he'll be at the Alternative Debate tonight has a fund raiser Saturday. If he dropped out he must have taken the Clinton 'I will not campaign' pledge when he did it.--mitrebox (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a Clinton endorsement would be interesting.

Horologium, it is clear why you were not allowed to become an administrator, considering your troubling demeanor.

Wow, way to incinerate WP:NPA, and it's not even correct. I haven't requested adminship yet. Horologium (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes yes everything is clear now... oh wait I don't care about any of this.--mitrebox (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page suggests otherwise. You have no business telling me to do anything considering how you are not an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 06:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the lock has been resolved, I will make the proper corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 06:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(ecx3)My talk page suggests that an administrator considered nominating me for adminship, and I declined, due to an arbitration case in which I contributed evidence. And while I can't block you, I can report your behavior, after which an admin can block you. And the page protection on this article is not going to be lifted with that "wait it out" mentality. And sign your posts. Horologium (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your behavior is clearly unwarranted and would not be desirable for an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, this article will remain fully protected until a reliable source (not a blog, an actual reliable source) can be found supporting either side. Second, TigerManXL, your comments are rude, borderline personal attacks. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Whether or not a user accepts a request for adminship is his or her choice and has no basis in this dispute and is never the judge of a user's capabilities as an editor. Whenever a reliable source can be found, please request unprotection at WP:RFPP. And TigerManXL, please sign your posts. Any questions can be directed to my talk page. Cheers!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ? contribs 06:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright Gonzo, I was just insulted because a user interjected himself into the conversatiion and impled that he had authority over the matter when he clearly did not. I will find further resources in addition to the ones I have already provided. TigerManXL (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats alright, I know we all can get a little jumpy sometimes. Let's all step away from the situation for a bit and see if we can focus on finding the right info and make the article as good as we can. And thank you TigerManXL for signing your posts!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ? contribs 06:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to CNN Election 2008, ABCnews Vote 2008, CBS Campaign 2008 and FoxNews YouDecide '08 all show that Mike Gravel has not withdrawn. --Evb-wiki (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide updated, reliable sources only. 146.151.12.169 (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got CNN.com & CNN on TV, nowhere have they announced that Mike Gravel dropped out of the race. Please note: I'm a Canadian and therefore I've no favourite candidate (in otherwords NPOV). GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
PS- Would somebody re-insert 'Mike Gravel', as he's still a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination? GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Source for Keyes

Here's the most recent one I could fine. He's definitely still in, and I think he should be included in the article (he is running a multi-state campaign, even if he's not doing it especially well). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not arguing that hes in, thats settled by his FEC statement, just arguing that he is not relevant to the Main article. There are 19 democrats and 37 republicans running for president. They are listed on the subpages where they are relevant. --mitrebox (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The source was for the benefit of User:Evb-wiki, who specifically requested one in his last reversion.
I can live with not including him, but I'd like to be clear on what the standard for inclusion on this page is. As I understood it, it was anybody running a multi-state campaign, which Keyes undeniably is. I don't actually see much to separate him from Gravel, to be honest. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I had reverted his removal a week or two ago, but the discussion at that time (see above) suggested there was a consensus to exclude him from the gallery. Of course, consensus can change. Nevertheless, he is not included in any of the big U.S. news network's coverage - CNN Election 2008, ABCnews Vote 2008, CBS Campaign 2008 and FoxNews YouDecide '08 - Gravel is included in their coverage. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The difference between the two is 1 Graves held political office before so he can theoretically run a successful campaign. 2 he garnered some attention with those weird ads and his non-conventional approach. 3 hes on CNNs, FNCs, ABCs, NBCs, and CBSs lists where as Keyes never has been any of those. --mitrebox (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As for 1, I'm leery of giving elected office (of the sort that Gravel's held) precedence over unelected office of the sort that Keyes has held (much more recently than Gravel's done anything). I address the issue of quantity of coverage below. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Keyes and Gravel are in the same boat, remove them both. They're irrevelvant. Both have zero delegates and both are barely getting any votes. As mitre mentioned they are all included on the sub pages, and we should keep this article limited to the main candidates (Dem: Obama and Clinton - Rep: Romney, McCain, Paul, and Huckabee). HoosierStateTalk 01:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) That's fair, and I'm certainly no Keyes zealot (I'm a Canadian, and one who likes Mike Gravel at that). But I think we should apply a uniform standard, and I can't think of one by which Gravel's in and Keyes is out. Gravel's been getting marginally better media coverage (although I've seen it reported that he's quit, that he's a Republican, and that he's the former Governor of Arkansas, so the coverage isn't that good for him either) but, while amount of coverage is a determinant when it comes to who gets an article, it's not necessarily a determinant for what's included within an article. We use real measures for that, and both Gravel and Keyes are in more or less the same boat by all of those measures. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a talk for standards on the template page [[1]] $50,000 for Dems and Reps and $5000 for 3rd parties is one idea. Another says Rep and Dem candidates at this point (or after Tuesday at least) must have at least 1 delegate.--mitrebox (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's take this conversation over there. Thanks for pointing it out. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If the criteria prior to Super-Tuesday is $50,000 then here is documentation from the Federal Elections Committee (FEC). Keyes entered the race on 9-14-07. Per the FEC, as of the end of the 3rd quarter on 9-30-07, Keyes had net receipts of $77,768. It still remains that Keyes is a multi-state candidate, with net receipts above $50,000 going into Super Tuesday and should be included. Search Keyes at the FEC website at: http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/srssea.shtml

Per the FEC, http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_28990167738+0 Keyes Net Contribution as of 12/31/2007 were $206,796.32 well in excess of the $50,000 mark set to be considered a major candidate in the GOP.Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is documentation Keyes is still in the race and campaigning in Texas until March 4th, when they have their primary: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/religion/stories/MYSA012308.02B.Keyes.286665f.html PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE MY STATEMENT. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvyconsumer7 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 1 February 2008

Third opinion

Hey. A third opinion was requested for this discussion, so here it is. I don't think that Keyes belongs on this page, for the reason that HoosierState mentioned. They can be in the subpages, but the main page should be reserved for the main candidates that are still in. However, I also agree with what SarcasticIdealist is saying about treating both Keyes and Gravel the same way, so I don't think that Gravel should be listed either. Also, I'd offer a blanket warning to everyone - but especially to Mitrebox and Savvyconsumer7 - about edit warring and 3RR. This is ridiculous. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee wheez, Mike Gravel gets the axe? isn't he registered in all 50 states? Wow, Gravel got gavel'd. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
PS- I wish people would relax & realize the Democratic & Republican nominations won't be offically decided until August & September. For goodness sake, it's only February. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I really think that, since Gravel is still included in all major U.S. network news candidate listings - see, e.g., CNN Election 2008, ABCnews Vote 2008, CBS Campaign 2008 and FoxNews YouDecide '08 - he should remain listed on this page. Otherwise, we need to explain why he is not. Keyes (on the other hand) is not listed, and I don't think he has ever been included by the networks during this campaign. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I added Gravel back, but that will probably get reverted. But my opinion is that even if you only have 1%, you're still in the race. The article should mention all the candidates. - Spyke1077 (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Keyes should be listed here. He is running a multi-state campaign. That is the criteria for inclusion. Keyes got 14% in 2000. He obviously deserves to be included. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Keyes should be list. Keyes' lack of major media coverage is indicative of the blacklisting occurring against him. The major media did not cover Keyes on the day of his announcement, in 2007. The lack of major media is a cause, not a result, of the slowness with which the campaign is building traction. Keyes is attempting to turn that around, on the ground in Texas. Keyes is actively campaigning, using the internet as a vehicle to get the word out (which does not require all that much money.) Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please Helpme. Is a 3rd opinion binding? What is the process for resolution. The 3rd opinion said remove Keyes, remove Gravel. Someone has removed Keyes and reinstated Gravel. What's the process from here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvyconsumer7 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We should use state registration: Gravel is registered as a presidential candidate in all 50 states; Keyes isn't. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely accurate. I know Gravel wasn't able to get on the primary ballots in Alabama (link), Vermont (link), Virginia (link), Rhode Island (link), or Oklahoma (link), probably among others. The January Ballot Access News had a more comprehensive list, but it hasn't been put online yet and I don't have my copy with me to check. (I assume this is what you meant by "registered as a presidential candidate in all 50 states" -- let me know if I misunderstood.) -David Schaich Talk/Cont 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
While they cannot be considered an official arbiter, CNN lists Gravel as a candidate (as well as now-departed Dodd, Kucinich, Biden, Edwards, and Richardson); AFAIK, they have never listed Keyes (although they still list now-departed Giuliani, Thompson, and Hunter). Gravel may not be on the ballot in all 50 states, but he is on the ballot in the vast majority of them. Keyes is on the ballot in only 16 states. I'd say keep Gravel on this list and remove Keyes. Horologium (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)In fact, ABC news and MSNBC don't have Keyes either; both have Gravel, and the MSNBC candidate profile for the GOP has Tommy Thompson, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback and Jim Gilmore on it, but not Keyes. Keyes really does not belong on this list, but I really don't much care one way or the other towards Gravel. If pressed, I'd say include him, because all the major news sources seem to be doing so. Horologium (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My apologies David Schaich, I'd asumed Gravel was registered in all 50 states. His prominance in this article led me to think so. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep them both. They're both still in. And they're both major candidates in some way or another. Does it really bother anybody that much to have them in? Come on, Keyes got 14% back in 2000. And the media has treated Gravel as a major candidate most of the time. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What Keyes did in 2000 has no relevance. Keyes is not a major candidate. He's only campaigning in Texas, which isn't even a Super Tuesday state. Gravel has not been mentioned at all by the media. He hasn't even made it to the debates because he does not meet the requirements. I still say exclude both. There are sub pages for a reason. HoosierStateTalk 22:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JBFrenchhorn, keep them both. Keyes is focusing his efforts in Texas, just as Giuliani jumped ahead to Florida. That does not mean he is not a candidate in all the other states, as well. For instance, while campaigning in Texas last Saturday, he attended campaign events in TX in the afternoon, then flew to IL to give a speech in the evening, per his website: "Alan Keyes to speak at the Ronald Reagan Day Dinner, Republican Assembles of Lake County Illinois, 5:30pm - 9:00pm, at the White Deer Run Country Club, 250 West Greggs Parkway, Vernon Hills, Il 60061 Phone: (847) 680-6100. For more info call Mr. Raymond S. True, Chariman (847) 367-5231." Remember, Keyes is on the ballot in at least 18 primary states, plus he will participate in the caucus states, as well.Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with that, keep Gravel and Keyes. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be my preference as well, although I'd rather delete both than treat them differently. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
We gotta have Gravel & Keyes. I feel there's a rush to eliminate candidates from the Democratic & Republican lists. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As I've noted above, and User talk:Horologium also states, there is a good reason to treat Keyes and Gravel differently. The reliable sources that have lists of candidates - i.e., CNN Election 2008, ABCnews Vote 2008, CBS Campaign 2008 and FoxNews YouDecide '08 - treat them differently. These sources list Gravel but do not list Keyes. Remember, Wikipedia's role is to describe, not prescribe. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with this. However, what we should describe should, in my view, be based on objective measures (fundraising, presence on ballots, etc.), rather than on what others have chosen to describe. Remember, according to WP:N, "notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." Media coverage makes people notable enough for articles, but I don't think media coverage is a good measure of which candidates should be included in an article.
I did misspeak slightly earlier, however: I'd be quite prepared to include Gravel but not Keyes provided that doing so was based on a set of objective criteria that was universally applied. For example, if we decided that a candidate had to be on the ballot in at least twenty-five states to be included, it might then be okay to keep Gravel but not Keyes. I just don't like doing so on the basis that that's what others are doing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think setting our own criteria might violate WP:SYNTH. Find a reliable source that includes Keyes on a list of national candidates and I would probably say keep Keyes too. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Keyes and Gravel should both be kept in until concensus has been reached. Keyes has been in and out of the article for quite a while, at least as far back as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008&oldid=183643037 Until concensus has been reached, we should give both candidates the benefit of the doubt, especially in light of the fact that both are still completely in the race. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Find a source that lists includes Alan Keyes on a list of national candidates and I'll agree; I'm in complete agreement with Evb-wiki on this. Keyes (regardless of his performance in the past) is not a contender in this election. In the two races in which he has been on the ballot (yes, only two so far), his better performance was in Florida, where he took a whopping .2% (yes, that is two tenths of one percent) of the vote. At least Gravel has been in most of the contests, and actually took over 1.2% in the Florida contest. I'm not going to revert you and get into an edit war, but I really object to your revert. Horologium (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me? or is that image of Alan Keyes funny looking. Like he's warning everyone - I'm telling you, people; I'm telling you. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Get Alan Keyes off of this page! Who cares how much money he has raised! He has received zero votes, he has never been on any national debate. I dont want to here anything about how he has 'raised enough money to be considered a candidate' because Stephen Colbert's campaign raised more than his yet Colbert isnt on our list. So the only reason Keyes should be up here is if Stephen Colbert is here too. 216.107.227.138 (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Colbert withdrew, and wasn't accepted as a candidate for either major party's nomination in any event. Otherwise, I'd probably be fully supportive of keeping him on this page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Might I suggest moving to an official vote? ThirdPoliceman (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Another issue to consider is this: Clinton, Obama, Gravel, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, and Romney all have specific articles on their 2008 presidential campaigns. Keyes does not. That is a notable distinction between him and Gravel (and all of the "first tier" major party candidates). Horologium (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Keyes participated in the Values Voter's Debate held in Maryland, and the Dec. 12th IPTV/Des Moines Register's GOP Debate held in Iowa, which was televized nationally on FOXNews. Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Alan Keyes is not a major candidate, period. Please remove him from the main page. He is a third tier candidate. He has received 0% of the popular vote in every state that he actually is on the ballot, and many states do not even have him on the ballot. To be a major candidate you have to get at least 1% of the popular vote in at least 1 state. Every minor candidate can say they got 0% of the popular vote. Keyes is a minor third tier candidate for the 2008 election. 75.21.123.50 (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally someone sees the light! HoosierStateTalk 16:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible COI of two editors

Sorry to point this out but it seems that the two editors insistent on putting Keyes in have possible COI's

While having a clear POV and making POV edits may be at issue here, I see no concrete evidence that there is a WP:COI. Not everyone who supports a specific candidate has a COI. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with User:Evb-wiki; these articles would be a lot sparser if we prohibited everybody with strong views in favour of one candidate or another from editing them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that most of the editors on this article have strong views on the candidates; however, it is appropriate to check those views at the door when one begins to edit. I have mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia which candidate I support, but it is unlikely to be evident from my editing of this article which one it is. Having a PoV is not a CoI, but editing to further that PoV is a problem. The first diff [2] is a bit troubling; the other one (the contribution list) is simply a terribly aggressive edit war, in which the other participant was indef-blocked. He appears to be a Single Purpose Account, but there is no hard-and-fast rule on such editors participating. Horologium (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I will be voting for Keyes on Tuesday, just as many of you will probably be voting for someone in the coming weeks. I am not an employee of the campaign, however. Not that I'm making accusations or anything, but I assume that some of the other editors to this article may have a slight COI against Keyes due to their support of another GOP candidate. As Horologium suggested, most of the people here probably support one candidate or another. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither is a COI. The first case is just somebody violating WP:OWN for political reasons (something they should be warned and\or blocked for). The second case is somebody just collaborating because there's a certain candidate they like. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how I violated WP:OWN. As the concensus decided below, Keyes should have been in. I did not edit the article beyond what a reasonable unbiased person would have done in the circumstances, with the knowledge that I had. Of course, my support of Keyes just made me persevere at it. I am sure a Paul or Romney supporter would have done the same thing if one of those candidates was removed.  :) JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to a source for Keyes

Another thing, Horologium and Evb-wiki asked above for a source that lists the national candidates and that includes Keyes. Go to http://www.gallup.com/poll/104071/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx for the results of the Gallup poll that was taken earlier this week. Keyes was included. Other than the candidates currently listed in this article and those who have dropped out, Keyes is the only one listed. Go to http://www.gallup.com/poll/103348/Giuliani-Leads-GOP-Race-Huckabee-Others-Tie-Second.aspx to see the results of a gallup poll from the middle of December. Hopefully, these sources also show that my POV has not caused me to believe differently than I would otherwise about Keyes inclusion. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, that first reference is enough for me. It's current, it lists Keyes, and it's a reliable source. I can support adding (or retaining, whichever is currently accurate) Keyes in the gallery, although I still note that he is the only one of the candidates who lacks a separate campaign article. Horologium (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Based on the Gallup source, I can live with the inclusion of Keyes, for now. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you very much. And sorry about the reverts:). JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely we can remove Gravel and Keyes

and place them in a separate category of people who are officially running but not actively campaigning. Serendipodous 12:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer it the way it is: the capaign section & the withdrawn section. If anyone wants to add the delegate count to each candidate box? that may help in showing who's currently the more prominant. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is not about current results, its about the election. Results are reported in the sub pages. --74.1.243.210 (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
But WP is about things that are notable. Gravel's and Keyes' candidacies are not notable - no mainstream media media coverage of the election mentions them. CuriousOliver (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Notabilitiy is a measure of there being citable sources describing the topic. Important enough to do quality research. They are notable enough to stay. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No, what you describe would be verifiability. That G and K are running is verifiable but not notable, because most people do not care whether they run or not. They should not be mentioned for the same reason we do not mention the color of Obama's socks on Super Tuesday. CuriousOliver (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing notability with viability. Mike Gravel's performance yesterday was noted by plenty of reliable sources. [3] And even Alan Keyes received some coverage. [4] He may be notable merely for "living off of matching funds." Determining viability maybe easy (for statisticians), but it is original research. See WP:SYNTH. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Almost every source reporting on the election mentions Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Paul, but not Gravel and Keyes. Check, for example, BBC or CNN. That has to be the criterion for notability, otherwise you either have to include also dozens of other candidates or make up some arbitary criterion. We can not allow Gravel and Keyes campaigners to abuse WP for their purposes. CuriousOliver (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
For AK those aren't coverage as much as just small town vote counts. "Ron Paul received 58 local votes, while Alan Keyes got one." Montrose Daily Press, CO. Coverage is Madison County got 2 inches of rain last night as heavy storms rolled in. While the state is positive for 08 the storm hardly put a dent in the severe drought ravaging the South East. In Memphis the same system caused.... Numbers Reporting is Madison County: 2/5/2008 2in. There is a huge difference --207.235.64.30 (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps using the header Candidates receiving delegates rather than either adjective (notable or viable) would be less problematic. It would be more accurate (with the inclusion of Ron Paul), verifiable, less WP:POV and WP:SYNTH, and would allow for the exclusion of both Gravel and Keyes (at least for now - hehe). --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless Gravel & Keyes have withdrawn from their respective party nomination races (which would have their names placed in the withdrawn section), they should be restored. PS- Instead of adding/removing their images, can we reach a consensus here first? Also, I've a compromise: re-add Gravel & Keyes, minus their images. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that G and K are running is as notable as the fact that Michelle Obama's dress on election day was red. It's just obvious they should not be there. CuriousOliver (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If a 'survey' was set up, to get a consesus view on 'inclusion/exclusion' of Gravel & Keyes? We'd settle this issue - Ps- if a consensus called for exclusion? We'd have to create a new section just for Gravel & Keyes (since they've not withdrawn their candidacies). GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
They do have a section its called the 2008 Republican Candidates & 2008 Democrat Candidates articles. Theres a lot of other names in there. --207.235.64.30 (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to work under the assumption that every candidate is listed. If there were only ten or twenty candidates, I would include them all, but I understand there are dozens of them, and from the beginning, only a small selection was listed. Unless there is some convincing argument why G and K should be part of that small selection, they should simply not be mentioned. CuriousOliver (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Both ought to be included. Neither candidate has withdrawn. Due to their past records, both are more notable than the dozens of other people who are "running." JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious, who are these other Democratic & Republican presidential candidates that aren't mentioned in the article? GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_presidential_candidates%2C_2008#Other_candidates for the Republicans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_presidential_candidates%2C_2008#Other_candidates for the Democrats. There are apparently a lot of generally unknown people who somehow qualify for the ballot in some state or another. Most of them are apparently so little known that they don't have Wikipedia articles about them. Fewer than five of them actually do. Neither Gravel nor Keyes fits into this "other candidates" category. Both are significant, known people who are on the ballot in many states. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For those who've been calling for the exclusion of Gravel & Keyes? my humble apologies. I was unaware of all those other current Republican & Democratic candidates. Very well, Gravel & Keyes should remain excluded. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not an adequate argument. Both are on ballots, both participated in at least one debate and both are mentioned in the media. This is a waste of time. --STX 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I have not heard either mentioned by the media and neither received ANY delegates during Super Tuesday. HoosierStateTalk 21:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Your point?--STX 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Neither are a major candidate thus both should remain excluded. HoosierStateTalk 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
But on what basis? Debate appearances = media attention. Delegates for Super Tuesday? When was this established as the criteria? --STX 22:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
On the basis of lack of votes. --68.209.2.187 (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Both candidates are actively running. So both should be included. We should remain objective and not establish some arbitrary criteria such as how many delegates they get, etc. As I said, this article should include candidates who are actively running. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Gravel and Keyes: Vote Here

After much heated discussion over whether or not Gravel and Keyes should be included/excluded on the 2008 election page, I think it would be best to solve this problem with a vote. Everybody is encouraged to participate. How about we conclude this vote in exactly 168 hours (7 days), and whichever decision has earned the most votes will have the verdict. Please vote Yes if you are in favor of keeping Gravel and Keyes on the 2008 election page ('they are candidates and deserve to be represented regardless of their media attention'). Please vote No if you are in favor of the two being excluded from the page ('they are not campaigning nor earning votes'). ThirdPoliceman (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I say they both have Registered with the FEC and are on the ballots in many states therefore both are presidential contenders and should be treated as such.Andrew L. Lessig III 02:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo III (talk • contribs)

Ah, Voting Is Evil (at least on Wikipedia) and this is not the way to settle this. It makes more logical sense to, I don't know, maybe wait a while to see if those candidates drop out? There really is no need to worry about this in such an urgent manner. Cowman109Talk 02:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Again I will say that this is a waste of time. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Just include them and get over it or else come up with a criteria that makes sense and could get a consensus.--STX 03:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's so annoying to see them one day and not see them the other. Whatever you decide, stick to it. (189.148.77.137 (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Does not the argument that they are irrelevant apply to every third party candidate? If we include third parties we must include these candidates as well. --Ray andrew (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We've got a possible new argument on the horizon, Mitt Romney is suspending his campaign (that's suspending, not withdrawing). GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Considering today's development, [5] we should probably remove all candidates except McCain from the republican candidate gallery. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the candidate section to support both views to a degree. Since Clinton and Obama are the only serious candidates, I have put them under the MAJOR CANDIDATES heading. For Gravel, I listed him under OTHER CANDIDATES. For the Republicans, Huckabee, McCain, and Paul are the MAJOR CANDIDATES and Keyes can be an OTHER CANDIDATE but he was removed before I edited it so I just chose to leave that alone. Personally, I find including Gravel and Keyes to be misleading to someone who is trying to get caught up on the election but I agree that they are technically still running and should be shown as such. --Barinade2151 (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If we're passing judgment on majority/minority status of the remaining candidates, I wonder whether Paul can seriously be considered a major candidate at this point. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You beat me to it, I was about to suggest that. Ron Paul?? a major candidate? GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I re-added Keyes, as he wasn't listed anywhere. I don't think we should have the "Candidates with Delegates" titles for these sections; there are still delegates to be won. I think Gravel, Hillary, and Obama should all be in one section, rather than having a separate section for Gravel. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the issue here? I think Gravel and Keyes should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but not treated in the same manner as the candidates who actually have delegates. Are they even on the ballot anywhere? CNN has votes for Gravel listed only for Michigan and New Hampshire - none for South Carolina, Florida, or any of the 2/5 states. It doesn't even have Keyes listed at all. Gravel, at least, participated in a bunch of Democratic debates. Keyes participated in, what, one? Aren't there other people who are on ballots, and so forth? john k (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We should create a yo yo section in this article, for Gravel and Keyes. They've been in & out of the article frequently. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

John Kenney: CNN should not be the criteria. The criteria should be whether or not a candidate is running. On Tuesday, Keyes got nearly 10,000 votes here in CA. And he is and has been on the ballots in many other states. Anyway, they should not be removed, as concensus has not been reached to that effect. So I have reverted Romeisburning's edits. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

10,000 out of nearly 2,500,000 now thats what I call contending for a nomination. Keyes is so irrelevant. You can't compete in 1 debate and "campaign" in a couple states and call yourself a nominee. But whatever.... HoosierStateTalk 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that some difference similar to what I did earlier or what Romeisburning did be put on this page to differentiate the delegate-holding candidates from Gravel and Keyes. I understand that technically they should be included. My problem is that a person coming to this page to get information on the candidates will be misled into thinking that Gravel and Keyes are in a competitive situation with the other candidates. We all know this is completely false especially when sites like CNN or Fox News barely have a mention of these supposed "candidates." I will change my stance is either one of them receives delegates but, up to this point, I would say they are completely irrelevant. --Barinade2151 (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Keyes and Gravel are, theoretically, in a competitive state with the other candidates. There are many elections that have not yet occurred. Although it is unlikely that they will win, and haven't done very well up to this point, they are just as legitimate as the others. They are both running, and people can vote for them, and they could, theoretically, win, even if in actuality the chances are slim. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes for Gravel, no for Keyes. Gravel has run a much higher profile campaign, and was in almost every Democratic debate. Keyes has not, and is not even mentioned on most major media news sites. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding candidates not notable can be considered vandalism

Some people keep adding unnotable candidates such as Mike Gravel, Alan Keyes and a number of other candidates, in violation of WP:NOTE. Clearly, their motivation is not improving Wikipedia, but to support a candidacy. Such acts are vandalism, should be reverted immediately and users who repeat it should be blocked. CuriousOliver (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I do NOT support Keyes. I will not vote for him. However, he DOES meet the criteria. Further, YOU are the one challenging his notability. On what grounds? The man meets every criteria of being notable. He is a former office holder, has run for other offices, is a nationally known speaker and author. He is arguably more notable than Mike Huckabee. If you feel he doesn't meet WP:Note I encourage you to involve an admin. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
He might be a notable person, but his candidacy is not. Notability must be proven for inclusion, not the other way round. CuriousOliver (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
A notable person who declares candidacy for the highest office in the land is, in and of itself, notable. Oh, btw, don't bother retracting your unfounded allegation that I'm trying to include Keyes because I support him. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It may also be a good idea to consult WP:AGF. Also worth reviewing are the vast and seemingly endless discussions of Keyes and Gravel in this very page, which indicate that consensus has not been reached on whether to include them, and, if so, in what way. Edit-warring and accusations of vandalism are not constructive ways to reach consensus. Cheers, David Schaich Talk/Cont 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Both Keyes and Gravel must be removed. They aren't notable candidates. They aren't even on many ballots. They aren't going to win. Bottom line. It is mathematically impossible for them to win. 65.41.247.27 (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Keyes is getting 2% in Gallup. Pretty interesting for a guy who has raised almost no funds, especially compared to Paul who has raised millions and it only at 5%. He is on 50% of the ballots. At this point, it is mathematically impossible for Paul to win too, but I don't see an effort to remove him. Where is your sense of fairness? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article is about who is running for President -- not who may or may not win. This highhanded editing of history by CuriousOliver and his/her tiny junta of self-appointed gatekeepers is shameful. How is it that a Wikipedia user has the power to do something so clearly undemocratic and destructive? I consider his/her removal of factual information about so many legitimate candidates to be vandalism of this article. Can somebody tell me how to counter this shameful and arrogant practice? Is there some kind of formal complaint process? I am sorry I do not know how Wikipedia works - I am a candidate for President of the United States and this is not my realm of expertise, and it is not something I should have to fight about. Is there anybody out there who can work with me to try to make this article a source of accurate information about this election? Kelceywilson (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant References for Keyes/Gravel

It is irrelevant whether Gravel, Keyes or anybody else is a candidate and receives votes, because hundreds of candidates do so. Check the articles about candidates. Also, whether they have a local, national or intergalactical campaign is irrelevant. Relevant is only whether their candidacy or their campaign is notable. Candidacies and campaigns that are not usually mentioned in general election coverage are not notable. Check WP:NOTE, especially the section about lists of people. People like Ron Paul, Ralph Nader or Michael Bloomberg may be included not because they may win, but because the public talks about their actual or potential candidacies. But the general public pays no attention to Gravel, Keyes, Constitution Party, Prohibition Party, Unity08 and so on, and therefore none of them should be there. According to Wikipedia guideline WP:NOTE it is not about whether they are candidates, but whether they are notable candidates. This is the way it has to be, because otherwise we either would have to include hundreds or thousands of irrelevant candidates or make up some arbitrary criteria about which we will never achieve consensus (national campaign - what's that?). And those who don't seem to understand this ("But he's a candidate, why do you deny this blah blah blah"), please refrain from touching the article, you are not improving it and you obviously don't bother about Wikipedia guidelines. CuriousOliver (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Those references are very old and are straight from the candidate's website. I wouldn't call those very reliable. Despite people's want to keep both in the article neither are even on the ballot in most states. How someone can receive zero, I repeat, zero votes and still be considered as running national campaign is beyond me. HoosierStateTalk 01:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Keyes HAS recieved votes. He is currently conducting campaign events. He is focusing most of his efforts in Texas at this time.

Niteshift36 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Proof from a neutral reference? HoosierStateTalk 01:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Proof of what? That he has recieved votes? If I bother to retrieve the links, will you drop this ridiculous crusade to delete him? Or will I be doing it just to give you some new reason to whine about how few votes he got and change your arguement? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Proof that he is running a NATIONAL campaign. And no I will not drop the argument against him because he irrelevant in this election. HoosierStateTalk 01:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Not only is Keyes irrelevant but the very words from Niteshift36 above suggests Keyes is NOT running a national campaign. Focusing most of his efforts in Texas shows that he is focused on making a statement in that state and that state alone and has no national aspirations. He has not received any delegates, has a minimal amount of votes, is not on the ballot of many states, and is rarely (if ever) mentioned in the media. Keyes' style of campaigning is most likely a reflection of his beliefs in his chances on the national level. In other words, minimal. I sincerely believe that placing Alan Keyes (and to a degree Mike Gravel) in this article is to the detriment of the article itself and only satisfies the POV of some of the members at this site. --Barinade2151 (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
So you want me to work and it still won't change the fact that you are going to continue vandalizing the article. Like I said, listen to him on your local radio station. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
First off I am committing no vandalism, period. Not only don't I have time to listen to Keyes and his irrelevant campaign but I have no reason to. HoosierStateTalk 02:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, since you appear to be in Indiana, you can hear an interview with him on "Abdul in the Morning," WXNT, Newstalk 1430, Monday, February 11 at 7:35am C.T. - 8:00am C.T Niteshift36 (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You made the claim that Keyes has recieved "zero, I repeat zero votes". Here is where you get to look foolish: In Florida alone, Keyes received 4,052 votes. [6] Now this is where you predicatably whine about how few it is. Go ahead, be that guy. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He had a state delegate in the ME caucus. [7] Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC) He got 9542 votes in CA. [8]. He got 817 votes in OK. [9] Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Keyes got 252 votes in UT. [10] 890 votes in AZ. [11] 841 in LA. [12] Niteshift36 (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a look at actual primary results, because Keyes received 0 delegates from Maine. Congratulations on Keyes receiving a few votes here and there but it resulted in 0 delegates, which is what really matters. John McCain is going to be the Republican nominee and that's pretty much is all that's going to matter. Continue to include him because (as I've already said many many many times) he's irrelevant. I'm done arguing over somebody as pointless as Alan Keyes. HoosierStateTalk 02:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Learn to read closer. He had a STATE delegate to the caucus. Not a delegate to the NATIONAL convention. I know the difference and said what was exactly correct. I don't support Keyes. I won't be voting for him. But he does belong here. Interesting how you can't admit that your statement that he's recieved "zero, I repeat zero votes" is completely false. There are other votes I haven't even put up yet. But nah, don't own up to a mistake, just pretend you didn't make it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Both Keyes and Gravel have to be removed. They will NOT win. They are not invited to any debates anymore. They are not included in the tallies for delegates won. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to win. They are not serious candidates and should be removed. Malamockq (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The you should remove Ron Paul. He can't possibly win at this point and has "scaled back" his campaign. Considering he only had 16 delegates, scaling back any further means not even trying. And CONCENTRATING his efforts doesn't mean he isn't campaigning at all in other states. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. However since Paul has delegates we should wait until he officially withdraws because he will have to release his delegates. HoosierStateTalk 03:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The same can be said about all the 3rd-party/independent candidate. However, that would be looking into a crystal ball and is not the Wikipedia way. The assertion that a candidate is relevant or not relevant is WP:POV, also a wp no no. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Including both could also be seen as POV. HoosierStateTalk 03:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Not if one uses an objective standard, such as verfiability or the inclusion on the daily Gallup Poll lists. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You keep ignoring notability. Gallup does not bother to include G and K in their diagrams, which only proves that even Gallup thought they are not notable. CuriousOliver (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You took down Edwards and he has only "suspended" his campaign. He still controls his delegates. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I took down nobody. Edwards actually ended his campaign, see his speech from New Orleans and his website. HoosierStateTalk 03:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's get technical now. I didn't mean you personally took it down. But I don't see you putting it back. And he SUSPENDED his campaign. It's a technicality, but given your apparent love of them, you should like that one. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
How about we include Gravel and Keyes relevant or not, then lets put Romney and Edwards back up there because their campaigns are still suspended, furthermore there are several other candidates for each party we could put up there even if they are campaigning or not. Next lets put all the third party candidates up there regardless of if they are with registered parties or not. Don't forget independents too! Oh, and each candidate has to have a picture and be included in their party's delegate count. With that done, everyone gets equal representation. Yes, I know there will be hundreds of candidates up there but we need to keep WP:POV in mind. Not doing so could violate it! --Barinade2151 (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Focusing one's efforts in one state does not make one not a serious national candidate. A candidate can only be in one place at a time. I think the candidates try to focus one places where campaigning would be most beneficial to the campaign. Giuliani focused on Florida. But that didn't mean that he wasn't a legitimate candidate in the states preceding Florida. And by the way, Keyes hasn't spent his whole campaign in Texas. He travelled to other states earlier. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Gravel-Keyes Compromise

Compromise: One subsection with pictures for candidates who are regularly mentioned in election coverage, and another subsection for other candidates like Gravel and Keyes, without pictures. CuriousOliver (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your gesture. Can I ask how you feel this is a compromise? How is burying a guy who IS showing up on one of the oldest, most notable polls in the country (Gallup) in text with other candidates that nobody has heard of is a compromise? It effectively obscures him from being readily identified as an active candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Even if they had twenty percent in polls, this does not change the fact that sources about the election in general usually does not mention them. For example, everybody now talks about there being two candidates for the Democrat Party. Even Gallup made diagrams showing candidates and did not bother to include Keyes or Gravel. CuriousOliver (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


The fact that Keyes is getting enough to register when they aren't even offering him as a choice in the poll increases the case for his notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I would not object to adding a sentence to AK, saying that he receives so many votes although hardly mentioned by mainstream sources. But the fact remains he is not mentioned in mainstream sources the way that HC, BO, JMC or MH are mentioned. Treating AK the same as them would be a distortion of reality. CuriousOliver (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere, I have no particularly strong opinions on whether or not these candidates should be included (I have quite a fondness for Gravel, but I'm also a Canadian who's busy enough following his own elections). I would just like to see a uniform standard, rather than "They're not going to win and are showing up less and less often in media coverage" vs. "They're on the ballot in X states). The compromise strikes me as frankly unnecessary at this point, since it just requires us to come up with criteria for three tiers of candidates (main candidates, also mentioned candidates, and unmentioned candidates) rather than two. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that we already have three categories: Cands with pics, cands without pics and cands not mentioned. We are just arguing into which of these three AK and MG belong. CuriousOliver (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Your fondness for Gravel is irrelevant. He, along with Keyes, are not notable candidates. They are not included in any of the debates. They are not going to win. It is impossible for them to win. Bottom line. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to win. Gravel can beat a dead horse until the primaries are long over, but it doesn't change the fact that he isn't notable anymore. Malamockq (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul can't possibly win at this point either. Will you agree to also take him down? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The very moment mainstream media does not usually talk about Ron Paul in general election coverage, I would take him down, or at least move him out of the picture gallery. CuriousOliver (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
All I'm asking for is some clear, unambiguous, agreed-upon criteria. I'm even willing to be very flexible in which criteria I'll agree to. If these criteria leave everybody in, that's fine. If they take out Gravel and Keyes, that's fine too. If they leave nobody but the Big 2 in each party, that's also fine. I just want to put an end to the arbitrary insertion/removal. Unless, that is, you're prepared to cite either a policy or an existing consensus that unambiguously sees these two removed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a point to this compromise. They should be removed period. Including them as "candidates" seems to be border line advertising/promoting, which isn't allowed on wiki. They don't have to "quit" in order for them to be removed from the article. By that logic, anyone could run for president under the republican/democratic party, and then paste their photo prominently into this article in an obvious display of self promotion, and just never quit so it remains there. Malamockq (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll AGF and figure you don't know what is going on. Your assessment of the logic is very faulty. I'd say yes, if "anyone" can get their name on half the ballots and get 2% in polls, they would be able to put their picture up. Do you know of any other candidate that is on 25 ballots, has already received thousands of votes and is tracking in the Gallup polls? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that being mentioned in Gallup polls alone qualifies for being mentioned. But even Gallup features other candidates more prominently than MG and AK, so if they are a standard, then we also should feature other candidates more prominently than MG and AK. CuriousOliver (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's use your "logic". The gap between Paul and Keyes is approx. 5%. The gap between Paul and Huckabee is how much? Shouldn't Huckabee and McCain be featured more prominently than Paul? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I just query (more than aware of both sides of debate but curious) after 45 more delegates have (actually) pledged to either Clinton or Obama, it will mathematically impossible for Gravel to reach the necessary amount of delegates needed for nomination, at this point if he were still to not withdraw (unlikely I know, but he hasn't done it yet and that is quite optimistic), could we then remove him from the candicacy pages? And ditto for Keyes/Paul although I realise their race is slightly closer. Dutpar (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of problems I see with this (which is not to say that it's a bad idea, just that there are a couple of problems I see with it):
  • Suppose Gravel withdrew today; we would (I presume) move him down to the "withdrawn candidates" section. Under your proposal, as I understand it, we would just take him off the page completely. It seems very strange to me that we would decrease a candidate's prominence because he declined to withdraw.
  • Gravel has said that he'll keep running for President after another candidate has won the Democratic nomination, either as a third party candidate or an independent. Taking him off of the page on the basis that he is no longer mathematically capable of winning the Democratic nomination, even though he's still a de facto candidate for President, seems odd. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps 'remove' was too strong a term, apologies. I was more thinking taking his name out of the delegates tables, and perhaps reducing him to an 'Also still running' section with no picture and a one liner.
  • If he keeps running but as an independent/third party then he wouldn't be included in the Democratic sections anyway, and certainly in terms of the sections reporting on the primaries his inclusion would be minimal. I'd want to question his sense in running as an independent anyway, when such low numbers have voters have backed him - can he really think he stands a chance? Dutpar (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
One more question: what happens when there's only one candidate mathematically capable of winning, but others haven't withdrawn (since they're not officially beaten until the nominating convention). Do we just leave one picture up? It seems like that would look weird for a race technically still in progress. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Well some candidates are already mathematically incapable of winning. While I'd contend that Huck & Paul are still relevant to the race as a whole, an election is a contest (Actually with delegates its more like a couple hundred congressional district or county contests, depending on the particular state parties rules). If you can't win a single one or even get 1% of your total parties vote you probably never deserved to be in the article in the first place. --207.235.64.30 (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if there is only one candidate capable of winning, I think the article should reflect that - I assume I'm correct in thinking that once the delegates have been won, these numbers won't change at the actual nominating convention. Post-election we wouldn't leave the losing candidate on as a potential president until the winner is sworn in would we? I don't see how this is fundamentally different - just because the official ceremony hasn't happened - the votes and hence the winner can't change. The race is over when the winning line is crossed, not when the medals are given out! Dutpar (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed standard

Over at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008, they've agreed on the following criteria to list a major party candidate:

  • A declared principal presidential campaign committee, as filed with the Federal Elections Commission
  • $50,000 of activity as reported to the Federal Elections Commission in the current election cycle
  • Actual campaigning or effort in the current elections cycle.
  • A non-deleted biography article about the candidate.

I suggest we follow suit, because it's as good a measure as anything we're likely to be able to come up with. Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks arbitrary to me, partially needing of interpretation and not necessarily based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Also, when I checked that talk page, it seemed to me there was no consensus there, too. Further, we not only need a criteria for inclusion, but also a criteria for who gets into the picture galleries. CuriousOliver (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's arbitrary - arbitrariness is inevitable (unless, of course, you want to base it solely on WP:N, in which case we can just do away with the first three points, since WP:N is how we determine who gets biography articles). And there is consensus on this point over there - they're re-opening discussion on how to deal with the minor party candidates (in fact, they're talking about making it less restrictive), but the consensus on the big party candidates is intact. In fact, the only point on which there was some disagreement is on whether the activity requirement should be $5,000 or $50,000 - and I assume you're not in favour lowering it to $5,000.
All of that said, I'm quite open to hearing counter-suggestions. Anything we come up with is going to be arbitrary and, while my personal preference is for something that's arbitrarily inclusive, I'd be happy to yield to a consensus for something that's arbitrarily restrictive. All I'm asking is that we have a clear standard. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this necessary? I don't even know who fits under those criteria. I just know who are major candidates that the media is talking about, and that's good enough for me. The media talks about Obama, Clinton as serious candidates. Doesn't talk about Gravel. The simplest solution is always the best one. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Because notability is not temporary, it doesn't matter whether the media doesn't talk about a candidate much anymore. If the candidate was notable when he/she entered the race, and has not withdrawn from/suspended/abandoned the race, he/she should not be arbitrarily removed. The 1st & 4th criterium suggested above seem to address verifiability and notability, respectively. The 2nd & 3rd are perhaps evidence of an abandoned campaign. It seems like workable compromise. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about within context of an election. I don't think it's good for wiki to be out of touch with reality. Lets get real shall we folks? Following specific and rigid guidelines, isn't using common sense. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I will ask this though. Does Gravel fit these criteria? And if so, can you cite sources that indicate that he is indeed campaigning and spending money on his campaign actively. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Delegate count section

Why isn't Mike Gravel listed? GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Because our very Curious friend removed him from the template here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There has been a pretty good edit war over both the Republican and Democratic delegate count templates the last few days. Primarily the fight has been over whether Gravel and Keyes should be included on the templates, but there has been the periodic removal of the candidates that withdrew from the races as well. Just as background, when I created the templates it was based on overview of results section on the primary results articles, so anyone that was on the table in those sections also made it onto the templates. I don't see a problem with maintaining that relationship and it's definitely not worth the revert wars that have been going on over who should and shouldn't be included on that template. Although, one of the anon's that edit the Republican template made a good point about Keyes not being listed on either of the sources used on the Republican template,[13] so that is probably a good argument to not keep Keyes on the Republican template. However, Gravel is included on the source used on the Democratic template, so that is probably a good argument for keeping Gravel on the Democratic template.--Bobblehead (rants) 17:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This all comes back to making a standard, knowing who you have in mind to exclude. It's a crock, but there are some VERY dedicated people who, for some reason, feel that they can determine who is or is not relevent to the election. As was pointed out, notability is not temporary. For a bio article, Keyes more than meets the requirements of WP:Not. The fact that he is running makes him MORE notable. But I suspect that enough registered and anonymous editors have it out for him and will ultimately get him removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as the template goes, my comment wasn't really about getting Keyes excluded, just that the sources that are currently used on the templates do not include Keyes, so based solely on that Keyes shouldn't be included on the templates. That does not preclude us from using a different source that includes Keyes. If you have a source that includes Keyes in the delegate count, then you're more than welcome to provide that and we can discuss replacing the CNN source with the new one that you found. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a NPOV source that tracks all Republicans that have gotten votes, including the nearly 17,000 Keyes has received. It shows delegates etc. [14] And Keyes does meet all 4 of the criteria proposed above. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is The Green Papers a reliable source? It appears to be a blog, which would seem to kick it make a self-published website. I'm not saying they aren't a reliable source, I've just never heard of them. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The above criteria, is a proposal, and not a very good one. It has arbitrary requirements. I can add more that would bump off Keyes and Gravel. No television media source is listing either of those people as candidates anymore. Malamockq (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And you just proved my point. You want Keyes and Gravel off so badly that you can "add more that would bump them off". That is called an agenda. Perhaps you should read WP:NPOV Niteshift36 (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Except abcnews, CNN and CBSnews (to name but a few) each still include Gravel on their candidate lists. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost 17,000 votes out of over 33,385,691 votes cast. Wow thats wp:note, hey how many write ins did Mickey Mouse get this year? Its a delegate count list, not a vote list or a place to declare your favorite flavor of crazy.--68.243.140.63 (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

17,000 divided by 33,385,691 equals .0005 or .05%. Doesn't exactly scream noteworthiness to me. --Barinade2151 (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Keyes was nothworthy before he declared his candidacy. Read WP:Note. Notability is not temporary. His candidacy simply increases his notability, not decreases it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Now your comments are as off the wall as Keyes. Please retain your apple-ness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9BA7i3sgCU --63.133.202.106 (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even sure how you think that makes sense. And your URL doesn't even work. But arguing with anonymous editors who won't even bother to register is looking pointless. Come out of the shadows friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Its purpose is not to be a delegate count list, even though for the last three days it has contained one. It is a list of candidates. The delegate count list was just added three days ago by TheHoosierState89 "to show is relevant and who isnt." See [15]. The overall purpose is to list the candidates without regard for who won what where. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines that were suggested seem pretty arbitrary to me. Furthermore, I have never heard of this "Green Papers" place and I think it is a poor source especially if it is also a blog. I would suggest using a source that is both well established and highly scrutinized. Some of these would be CNN, New York Times, USA Today, ABC, NBC, Fox News, AP, etc. If a source includes Gravel and/or Keyes then I have no problem including them in the templates. If either in not included, then follow suit and do not include them. I feel that just suggesting to change the whole template if you can find a source you like leads down the wrong path. People would use that to find obscure sources to serve their own personal interests. We need to find a source and agree upon it in some way. CNN was used as a source for a while on the templates so I suggest to continue using that one. This Green Papers thing is way too obscure in my opinion. --Barinade2151 (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So because you never heard of "Green Papers", it must not be accurate, right? They are a "blog" in that they compile information from other sources. They don't do their own reasearch. Can any one of you disprove any of their statistics? At all? I found them via the Wall Street Journal. Rather than post links to 20 different state websites and the results from each county, why not use them? They're not giving opinions. They're presenting straight statistics and more complete than the major media outlets are. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
CNN and NY Times continue to be used on the Republican and Democratic delegate count templates. Niteshift added The Green Papers to the Republican template to have Alan Keyes included. On a side note, thegreenpapers.com has 308 hits on articles and talk pages and they did get a quote on the Wall Street Journal.[16] But it does seem to be fairly obscure. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
GP on its home page claims to be a blog, stating 'we were blogging before blogging was cool' (ummm, blogging is about as cool as having a bumper sticker on your car - its natures way of saying 'don't ever have a conversation with me about anything').--207.235.64.30 (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This talk page should be used for the main article ('whether or not to show the template on the article'). The template talk pages should be used to discuss template content. Additionally discussions for Keyes and Gravel should not be intrinsically linked, there are differences between the two they may affect their standing. ('Just because page x has a doesn't mean page y should too'.) Issues should be handled individually and under their own merits. --207.235.64.30 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not just list Gravel and Keys as candidates who have filled with the FEC and keep them out of this article and the ones from each party? They don't even have one delegate and their relevance to someone following the process is next to none. (Jmrepetto (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Keyes/Gravel Final resolution

Ok, here's the deal, it really doesn't matter if we include Gravel/Keyes at this point or not, because come each parties National Conventions when a candidate is chosen to run for the party both Keyes and Gravel will be listed with the rest of the withdrawn candidates, I don't think anyone disputes that they are notable enough for that list. So, in order to stop the arguing why don't we just let the Keyes/Gravel supporters keep their candidate up their so they stop whining and when the conventions come they will be removed and no one will have anything to complain about. It's not like having them on a wikipedia page is going to change the election results one iota, so stop fretting about and just deal with it until the conventions. It's not like they will end up permanently being there anyways. Get my drift? Anyone else agree? I would say lets vote on it, but then someone will just remind us that wikipedia is not a democracy because they have nothing better to do than remind people not to vote. War wizard90 (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least put 'Mike Gravel' under "Mathematically Eliminated Candidates"? Would this NOT be accurate? Alefu (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Ron Paul listed as a potential candidate for some third parties?

Is there a source for this? He has explicitly stated in interviews that he is not interested in running for president on a third party ticket and there have been no other hints or signs of interest from his staffers or anything to contradict that position. In general, shouldn't you need to list sources for something like a "potential" candidate? At least with people like Al Gore or Mike Bloomberg their staffers have leaked things like they are considering it but there has been nothing of the sort for Ron Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.212.187 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted him from those lists of potential candidates. If anyone wants to re-add him, then list a source when doing so. 70.190.114.235 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The article still claims under the Libertarian Party that Ron Paul is a potential candidate, which is sourced to a website that says little more than the Libertarian Party desperately wants him back. However, Paul has openly stated in the YouTube-CNN Debate that he will not run for any third party if he does not land on the Republican Ticket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.168.233 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

NO what Ron Paul said that there was a "small chance" that he would run on another ticket. He NEVER stated that he would NOT run as and independent or liberatarian.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Swing State Map

The swing state map needs fixing. West Virginia is listed as one of the swing states in the section and Virginia isn't, but the map highlights Virginia as a swing state and not West Virginia. EJB341 20:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs Updating There are some states that are competitive that are not shown to be on the map. Washington - John McCain is very competitive in all of the SurveyUSA polls. Louisiana - Clinton is very competitive in this state. It went for Bill twice. North Carolina - Clinton is also very competitive here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.162.16 (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Potential battleground states

Any reason why Oregon, New Jersey, New Hampshire, or Maine are not listed while Republican strongholds Virginia, Kentucky, and Colorado are? It seems like a bias.--Southern Texas 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, probably because no one has done it. Feel free to add some more to the list. My personal opinion, New Hampshire should definitely be added. Oregon maybe. New Jersey, probably not. On the other side, Virginia yes. Colorado maybe. Kentucky, no. That's just my opinion. Turtlescrubber 23:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I really think this list should be thinned down. The only real battleground states are Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and New Mexico in my opinion of course.--Southern Texas 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it should be thinned out, but being this far out from an election I don't think it really matters that much. I don't really see a pov issue as this section is concerned. It's more of a current event that is receiving incomplete and sporadic coverage. Turtlescrubber 02:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to thin it out and remove the tags and we'll see what happens.--Southern Texas 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it looks good. Turtlescrubber 01:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For those editing this section, here's a Fineman s tory in Newsweek arguing that New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona will be defining states in this election: [17]. --Aranae 21:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We should restore the other list of swing states. It's much more comprehesive and shows all the swing states. Besides, your definition of swing states is just your opinion. --65.9.236.213 13:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we worry about sourcing what we already have before adding more unsourced material? Turtlescrubber 22:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
For the swing states, I'd have New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Florida. Each of the states were won by 5% or less. This is largely in agreement with the on swing states. I got the results from electoral-vote.com. --Hobie Hunter 02:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The battle ground party is such a mess. There are new polling in Florida, and it was reverted with the edits made by 65.9.236.213. It needs fixing! Politics rule 20:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Colorado and Nevada are secure Red states, Minnesota, and Oregon are secure blue states. These should be removed. Removing the polling information added by User:Politics rule is uncalled for. The list is way too long right now.--Southern Texas 22:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that all states decided by less than 5% in the last election should be included in the "potential battleground states"-section, as well as special states like AR (Hillary Clinton -> former first lady), NJ and CT -> polls show Giuliani beeing competetive there and WV -> polls showing Hillary Clinton competetive there. There are also several poll which show her competetive in KY. Both WV and KY were won by Bill Clinton twice and then twice by george Bush. So I wouldn´t rule it out as a possible battleground for Hillary Clinton. And someone please update the map with the states I just mentioned ! --The Pollster 06:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of bias, isn't it a little early for presumed nominees? Why does every battleground-state synopsis include a poll result for HRC vs. Giuliani? Mateo LeFou 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure it´s early and there are still 4 months until the primaries but as of now we only have Clinton vs. Giuliani polls which are updated on a regular basis in a number of states. That´s because major polling companies don´t waste their money on polls like Kucinich vs. Paul, candidates who are reaching 1% in national polls. Therefore I find it fine to update the state polls on the basis of Clinton vs. Giuliani until we know the candidates. To include polls from low-polling candidates would be ridiculous as they are not as well know as someone like Clinton, who´s been a polarizing figure for more about 20 years. They are still lagging behind in name recognition and would provide distorted state polls in favor of the well known Clinton. That´s why Giuliani is a good option until we know the nominees, because he too enjoys nearly 100% name recognition. --The Pollster 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You can run down the list of high polling candidates using your fingers, and have to use two hands. Clinton vs Giuliani is probably not going to happen - even if you concede that it's more likely to happen than any other pairup. 69.138.245.9 03:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the possibility of discussing the battleground states in a more narrative fashion? For example, paragraph one might list the states that came within 5% in the 2004 presidential election. Paragraph two could discuss states that might now be in play when considering results from the 2006 elections (states like Virginia, Colorado, Kentucky, and Missouri). Paragraph three might discuss the impact of certain candidates on bringing various states into play: Giuliani on NJ, NY, and yes even CT, Clinton on FL, AR, MO, KY, for just two examples. To take the discussion even further, a fourth paragraph might point out that certain match-ups could bring even more states into play. Recent polls by Survey USA, for example, show Clinton beating Romney in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Alabama. This sort of treatment offers various ways of treating the notion of battleground states without presuming either side's nominee or relying too heavily on historical or media-driven narratives of which states can be called battleground. Seems more objective to me.

I would also suggest moving state-by-state polling data that is currently in the battleground section into the state-by-state section, or giving state-by-state polling data (that is, general election match-ups on a state-by-state basis) a page of its own. There is more and recent polling data than what's been listed here, and what we see seems sort of unorganized. No offense to whomever put it up. --Doktorliability 06:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of battleground states, why are they even noted to begin with? This seems highly speculative and most of, if not all, or the information would be removed after the election anyway. I was under the impression that articles should be based on fact, not predictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyisland (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The non-battleground states don't include Alabama for the Republicans. Nearby the republicans are listed with 142 Electoral College votes instead of the appropriate 148 as shown on the map. BlairLTFPM (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

New Jersey should definitely be added as a potential battleground state. Polling in late March by three different public polls showed the state virtually even between Obam and McCain [18] I've yet to see a single public poll showing IN, KY or TN within single digits; by the way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

combine "major party" and "third party"

separating these two sections is implicit support of the two-party system and therefore a violation of neutral point of view. Lorleolando (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Everyone knows the United States has a two-party system so by showing it on Wiki isn't really supporting it. It's just showing the facts of the system we have. HoosierState 15:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really. The third parties aren't even garnering 1% of the vote this year, and don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of winning. Wikipedia is not a democracy - we're more interested in reported the facts as is than trying to make the field level for the down and outs. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The United States does not have a two-party system in any legal or official way. It is that way only because of the media, and therefore the public, attitude towards it. Therefore we shouldn't acknowledge it in this article, to maintain neutral point of view. Right?Lorleolando (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Lorleolando. All the parties that have ballot access should be listed in the same category. This article should conform to a neutral, objective point of view to be credible. 76.195.84.182 (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost no third parties have ballot access in any state. In most states you have to garner 5% of the previous elections votes to have your parties candidates automacally on the ballot. In 2004 no thrid party gained 5% of the vote in all states. There is this magical word called defacto. Example:In the US there is a defacto two party system. There is no leagl or offical way to number floors in an office building and there are some variances on LL or 1 but I can't imagine anyone randomly numbering floors. Defacto is a word that takes very complex and complicated things and shortens them in managable terms, like an encylopedia article. Furthermore Independents and Third Parties should have their own section, partly because it helps contrast third party participation from one election cycle to another.--mitrebox (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The contrast will be made when the numbers come out; there is no need to oversimply and overcategorize the information. The article must be honest and objective, not suggestive. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, all parties should show on the same list. Keep the formality of the article and neutral point of view. What is the rationale for not having them together? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Uga Man

I will probably be running as a write-in candidate, Where should I add my name?--Uga Man (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Any self-addition without citations to a reliable source will in all likelihood be promptly removed. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
However, if there is a reliable source, you will most certain get your own Wikipedia entry. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The Uga Man presidential campaign has begun. If I am interviewed by WikiNews and state I am running as a write-in candidate would it count as a reliable source? Where do we list write-in candidates?--Uga Man (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Another consideration is whether the individual in question is notable, and has--perhaps several-- reliable sources describing that person. About 200 individuals have registered with the Federal Elections Commission in the current election cycle. A lot less than that number are judged notable enough to appear on this page. Whether one interview on Wikinews warrents listing is rather doubtful. See:Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Autobiography.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I am not notable enough to have an article, but some candidates are still listed who don't have an article themselves. I want to create a new section for write-in candidates and add myself. What does everybody think?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 19:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
You say on your user page that you're ineligible to serve as President because of your age. Wouldn't that also make you ineligible to file with the FEC? In any event, I'd favour a separate article listing all of the no-names running, with a link from this one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If about 200 people have filed with the FEC to run for President, that fact is itself notable enough to be included, with source, of course. That's relevant to the election cycle. SkyDot (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for additional polling

I would like to see a pole on some real canidates. such as huckabee vs clinton or manybe obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.35 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New Info Box

You can find it here

Shall I place this on the page. Yes? No? Any amendment's needed? Samaster1991 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

4 or 5 notable candidates may run in this election. That's too many images in the lead and would make it look cluttered. I think you should remove the party symbols and just put the map like United States presidential election, 1800. --STX 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
In other words, I like the way the infobox looks now.--STX 19:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Ok, thanks Samaster1991 (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah sure post it but i might recomend better colors those ones are kinda pastely it might catch more people's eyes if the color was brighter and bolderCharlieh7337 (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

†?

What exactly is this cross symbol meant to symbolize next to some candidates' names? Religious leaders? Withdrawn candidates? I've only seen it used to indicate military commanders who have died in battles in infoboxes on wikipedia. --NEMT (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I too thought it was 'dead' until I saw so many. Perhaps it designates 'reverend'? Regardless, it needs to be explained. Modest Genius talk 05:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It is explained, but the comment is easy to miss. "Candidates marked with a † have not registered with the Federal Election Commission." HTH. Amayzes (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the † to an X to avoid confusion with the death symbol or a religious designation. Hope it's a little less puzzling.--JayJasper (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Iowa caucuses/primaries

Will someone please update this with the results of the Iowa caucuses/primaries? I think Obama and Huckabee won. And now, apparently, Biden and Dodd have dropped out of the race. Contralya (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike Gravel has dropped out as well, from what I've heard. And yes, Obama and Huckabee won. If I remember this right, the Democrat "standings" (for lack of a better word, due to my limited vocabulary...) were Obama, Edwards and Clinton. I forget the others. And, if I remember right, because I'm more hazy on this one, the Republican "standings" were Huckabee, Romney (?) and either Giuliani or McCain. I remember Ron Paul was in fourth and I think it was Thompson in fifth? Really need someone to find the actual standings though, but I'm positive on the Democrats. I wasn't up to see the Republican final tally (they dragged on and on. XP). user:SuperDMChan 11:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Gravel has refused to drop out so he's still in. The Democratic results were Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel. The Republicans were Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain, Paul, Giuliani, and Hunter. I know I'm right but you can check here to confirm my information. HoosierState 18:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the results of Iowa should be POSTED in the article. Contralya (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Moore and Alexander have filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander have already filed with the Federal Election Commission, but since each state's ballot laws are different, they are having trouble getting on an active ballot for November 2008, especially Pennsylvania, which was predicted by Socialist Party USA to be on of the hardest states to get on an active ballot. --Alexandergungnahov (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If it weren't for PA's stringent ballot laws the US would almost certainly have a Socialist party President. --NEMT (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide a link? I heard that they were working on the FEC paperwork over a month ago, but have not yet been able to find them in FEC disclosure report searches. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 03:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've found out what happened -- the Moore/Alexander campaign received permission to bundle their statement of organization etc. with the Year-End 2007 report, due 31 January. So they should be popping up in the FEC database in the next couple of weeks. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 02:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Polls?

There is practically no point in having that poll data. It is very outdated, and would need to be updated every month in order to be accurate. Contralya (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think we need some volunteers to monitor its removal. Kinda a big job for just one or two people. It will harder to keep it out of the article as the election approaches. However, it should be done. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Its all Hillary and Guiliani anyway. I think all candidate specific polling data should be removed. It definitely pushes a pov. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What about the polls in the "Potential Battleground states"? Shouldn't they be removed too? I certainly think so. HoosierState 06:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they should. All candidate specific polling in the article should be removed. Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

If we're going to report on the details of each primary we have to do it without spin - this is not a newspaper article, it's an encyclopedia, so words like "humiliating" and "debacle" and "free-fall" and "surprisingly" are way inappropriate, as well as violating the concept of WP:CRYSTAL. I removed the recent additions, and think they need to be re-worded in a much more neutral tone if they are to be included at all. Tvoz |talk 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

True. That is POV --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 06:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul's Image was deleted by a vandal

Some vandal removed Ron Paul's image under the current Republican candidates. Will someone please revert it? Thank You 75.21.97.158 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is extremely strange

I am logged in on every other page I visit on Wikipedia, but somehow I get logged out on this one. Can someone please help with this? I really want to remove a bothersome misplaced apostrophe in the section on Florida as a hotly contested state. I also would like to add something about how Michigan's high minority population, particularly its large population of Arab-Americans and Muslims, adds to its Democratic appeal as I think this is one thing that distinguishes it from a lot of other "swing states" particularly its neighbors in the Midwest. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the Word Really Getting Out?

Our South Carolina Republican primary started this week and the Democrats get their chance the week after. The word is not getting out as to the when and where voters are suppose to go for these primaries. Hey, voting is a privilege that we Americans should take advantage of! So why are some of us kept in the dark most of the time?

CORRECTION: South Carolina's Republican Primary starts this Saturday, January 19th. And rumor has it, Democrat Primary follows shortly afterwards. Any ideas? 65.188.22.40 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar: the 2008 campaign is getting fiercely, ferocious. I sent my President a Xmas card. Doesn't everybody in our country? You should if you haven't. Then I get this postcard from Hillary's office. I say, "What?!!!!! Has Mr. George W. gone Hillary on me?" 65.188.22.40 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okayyyyy..... 12.116.162.162 (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Duncan Hunter is no longer in the presidential race

This page needs update, Duncan Hunter, according to this page, is still running. He is not. Look at his campaign website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.48.84 (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been changed. --Barinade2151 (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

About the testicle-picture vandalism that is refusing to go away. How do we get rid of this? Werothegreat (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It was added to the "Wikinews as articles on..." template, and therefore it was added to every page that made use of that template, including this one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Contorvosy alligation

I removed the following because it came from a website forum. If anyone can find a more credible source I'll put it back in.

Bev Harris, who founded the group black box voting says there were problems with the chain of custody of the ballots as well as a lack of proper accounting of how the ballots were stored, transpored and sealed, which makes a recount's results suspect. http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/71456.html

I'm concerned that all the photos could be easily faked by slapping labels on a bunch of moving boxes.--mitrebox (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also no proof that the photos were take prior to counting rather than after.--mitrebox (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Black Box Voting is not very credible IMHO, and I think it fails WP:RS. So take that for what it's worth. Calwatch (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I think its fine to cite Black Box Voting (though it should be made clear who is making these claims, as they are, as is mentioend before, rather controversial), but not their forums; if the group puts out a formal report or something, that's fine, but random forum posts are not a viable Wikipedia source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

While it is acceptable to put these links at the bottom of individual persons campaign articles, they are not acceptable here. See:

-- Cat chi? 00:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry I should have discussed it here first. I undid them as they are informative as they lead to office links and cannot be classed as spamming.

It was the same with the Opinion Polling for the election, according to Wikipedia they are encyclopedic but exceptions were madeSamaster1991 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

These are like inline links to Coca Cola's and Pepsi's websites when talking about cola in general. Them being official candidate pages is irrelevant. -- Cat chi? 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand that last comment. These are links to specific candidates' Web sites when talking about those specific candidates. If nothing else, they show that these candidates really are candidates (which can matter for those independents without Wikipedia articles). Why don't we just stick all of these links in <ref></ref> tags? That seems like it should solve any problems. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 01:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
They aren't use as references. Each individuals campaign has an article dedicated to it,

thats the place for these links. -- Cat chi? 01:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it hinges on, given the fact that the internet is such a force in modern politics, are links to the Offical site relevant to candidate info? Is the reader interested in that info? Wikipedia is not a search engine but with all the politics in play typing in 'John Jackson' might not turn up the Offical candidates site. Cola and candidate for leader of the free world are not the same thing, no matter what that Damn Doctor Pepper says. Is it more important to give the reader the info about a candidates campaign or is it more important to strictly cling to our WPolicies that we don't even enforce equally across other pages?--mitrebox (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Each of the candidates has an article in Wikipedia, and those articles contain links to the candidates' websites. Inline links are supposed to be used only as references, not as navigation to offsite links. Horologium (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the need to place links within the body of this article. If it violates policy, then the policy needs to be changed, or a consensus needs to come to exempt these articles from the policy. Calwatch (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Why? -- Cat chi? 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Calwatch that this article should be an exception to the no-external-links-in-the-body-of-the-article rule because it lists minor party and indepedent candidates who don't have WP articles. At the very least, these links should be used as references to confirm that candidates without articles are indeed candidates.--JayJasper (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Add all the independant candidate sites back as references so there is something cited to prove that they are candidates as it is Wikipedia's policy for all sources to be cited. Mrld (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson is listed as not endorsing anyone, which is correct, but this article claims he has eight delegates - which is absolutely false. Thompson has always had 0 Republican superdelegates, and placed third in the South Carolina primary, which failed to get him ANY delegates. This article makes it sound like Thompson is going to be sitting back and waiting for others to negotiate with him later to pick up his endorsement and, by extension, his delegates. He doesn't have anything to negotiate with. Also, delegate counting (even when legitimate) will quickly become outdated unless someone is referencing CNN, MSNBC, etc. to check for updated counts from each primary/caucus as well as shifts among polled superdelegates from each party. Readeraml (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Thompson does not have any delegates. I do not see where in the article it says Thompson won any delegates though. However just for future reference the Republican Party does not have "superdelegates" only the Democrats do. HoosierStateTalk 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Those are the ones that wear the capes right?--mitrebox (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Or are those the ones that carry pitchforks and torches? Oh wait thats the angry mob :P -- Cat chi? 18:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

Shouldn't the lead mention who the main candidates are? Richard001 (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On being self-referential

{{editprotect}}

I think this text is inappropriate: "Whether or not the debates were actually held, however, was not considered sufficiently relevant to merit a mention in such popular online references as Wikipedia." 75.73.71.69 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

what the feet are you talking about?--mitrebox (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This is in reference to the following paragraph. I had added the final sentence in the hopes of provoking someone who knew more about the topic of giving an update--clearly someone had written this in summer of 2007 and then the issue had been dropped.
In late April, Huffington Post, Yahoo!, and Slate magazine announced that they would be hosting one Democratic and one Republican debate for Presidential hopefuls. The debates were proposed to be held after Labor Day and hosted by Charlie Rose. Of the debates, Arianna Huffington remarked "It was clear to me, the 2008 campaign was going to be dominated by what's happening online — new technologies, new media like never before."[1] Whether or not the debates were actually held, however, was not considered sufficiently relevant to merit a mention in such popular online references as Wikipedia.
Labor Day is now long past, so the paragraph in this form (with or without the final sentence) really does not belong here, though if anyone knows anything about the debates (which were presumably held?), one could write something retrospectively about them.--Bhuck (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Kucinich urges supporters to back Obama.

Could someone please add the following info under: Candidates and potential candidates => Major parties => Democratic Party => Withdrawn Candidates

I see that it says the following:

      • Tom Vilsack, former Governor of Iowa, a presidential candidate from November 30, 2006 to February 23, 2007, withdrew from seeking the Democratic nomination due to a lack of funds and endorsed Senator Clinton.

Under Kucinich's withdrawal, it should also mention that he urges his supporters to vote for Obama. Source is below.

Source: Kucinich urges supporters to back Obama. Main Article: [19]

Quote by Kucinich (from the article): "But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.190.98 (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That was in the context of the Iowa caucuses. He has delivered no such instruction more generally since his withdrawal, to the best of my knowledge (although it seems reasonable to assume that he is backing Obama, based on that quote, to reach that conclusion in the article would be original research). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudy to withdraw

It was just confirmed on "Nightline". He's gonna make the announcement tomorrow and back McCain. Tuxedo Mark (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep - we're all aware. We're just not removing him as a candidate until it's official. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's now on BBC - can an admin update this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7218879.stm Cheers! Dutpar (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Edwards

John Edwards is out as well. But we'll wait till the announcement, of course.

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/edwards-to-quit-presidential-race/20080130091709990001

82.152.204.58 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} I would like to propose adding an external link to http://4-president.com, a comprehensive real-time monitoring of blog posts and articles by the candidates, the pundits, and those who report on the elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbakks (talk • contribs)

4-president is a blog roll. It has up to date info but is rather indiscriminate on its sources (wordpress, etc). Does putting this as a link mean that we will accept it as a reputable source of information? I feel that WP readers expect some kind of authority from the links we post. Blogs sometimes get information first but also get it wrong more often than traditional media. WP is not up to the minute. Traditional Sources can and have been wrong in the past Rathergate, but they have reputations to uphold. When a blog gets it wrong nobody notices. And please sign your protect requests.--mitrebox (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Declined this edit is not needed immediately, and probably isn't a reliable source.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ? contribs 18:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Images placings

Would somebody place the Paul & Romney images under the Huckabee & Keyes images? Some less familier editors may not known they've got to move article to the left to see all the Republican candidates. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, Keyes' image lasted a couple of days on this article. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Putting republicans and democrats side by side

Democratic Party

Main article: United States Democratic presidential candidates, 2008

Candidate for the Democratic Party:

  • Democrat candidate goes here
    Democrat candidate goes here

Withdrawn candidates:

  • List of withdrawn democrats (can be a table)

Republican Party

Main article: United States Republican presidential candidates, 2008

Candidate for the Republican Party:

  • Republican candidate goes here
    Republican candidate goes here

Withdrawn candidates:

  • List of withdrawn republicans (can be a table)

Edit point alpha

I think it would be better to put republicans and democrats side by side like below. Right wing party to the right and left wing to the left. Eventually there will only be one candidate for each party so the slight misalignment (democrats have 3 candidates and republicans 4 at the moment) wont be an issue then. -- Cat chi? 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this wouldn't look good, it would be too dificult to sort out. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Too hard to read. Serendipodous 12:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It's just as easy to read, and more practical.(189.148.77.137 (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
Since the Dems and Reps are not running against each other yet, it actually doesn't make much sense to place them side by side. It may be an idea for after the primaries. Besides, because a reader would have to scroll sideways to see it all, it is more difficult to read. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This isn't for now (as in right away) but for later (probably when all the major primaries are concluded) when each party has only one candidate left. I don't think it will be any more difficult to read after the material is refined a bit. Both sides will have only one image. Oh heck I will remove all but one image on each. -- Cat chi? 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
After the convention we can add a side by side info box like the 2004 article. Too bad they insist on Gravel and Keyes (who?) being in the article in spite of wp:notable. Keyes has never dropped out of a race before a convention, he lives off of the matching funds. He has no reputation to protect.--74.1.243.210 (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, once the candidates are decided, there will be something like this (pictures and minimal information side-by-side) in the infobox, yes? Then in the article itself, we'll have a summary of the primaries, the withdrawn candidates, and their campaigns, which it would make more sense to group separately by party. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 03:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The way Mike Gravel and Alan Keyes keep popping up, we will never have one candidate for each party until September. But I think this would look best when we get to that point. --Barinade2151 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats the idea yes. Mike Gravel and Alan Keyes ruin your html tables :). I merely started a conceptual discussion in advance. For the past presidencies we could do this. -- Cat chi? 03:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Okay, the game has started and we gotta revise the heck out of this sucker

I figure we have to make it look more like the 2004 article. I've started the job, and I think that after the big day tomarrow, we should begin on the project in earnest.Ericl (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The 2004 article is about a past election. For a better comparison look for the Feb 6th 2004 version of the page. --74.1.243.210 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article mention that John McCain may not be eligible for PotUS because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone?

The same reason Arnold Schwarzenneger can't run for PotUS is why McCain would be ineligible (without a Constitutional amendment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.192.172 (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a territory of the United States, hence not disqualifying. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


The criteria is not whether you are born in the US, but whether you are born as a US citizen. McCain is, Schwarzenegger is not. Not only those who are born in the US are US citizens, but also those whose

parents were citizens - which is what makes McCain citizen at birth. CuriousOliver (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Obama was born outside the US also (Ambassador dad). American by birth is 1. parents are American (Obama, McCain) or 2. born in the US (children of illegals are American if born in TX). --207.235.64.30 (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hawaii is in the U.S., or didn't you know that? Obama was born in Honolulu. Oh, and it's not just Texas. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Oops bad source. http://genealogy.about.com/od/aframertrees/p/barack_obama.htm here's a better one. Guys been around, Hawaii - Kenya - Indonesia - Illinois (how/why do you go from Hawaii to Chicago? )--207.235.64.30 (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
True enough. Had McCain been ineligiable, he & the Republican Party & everyone else would known it by now. PS- take a peek at President Chester A. Arthur's article (possibley born in Canada, though not proven). Arthur's was born a US citizen, no matter his birth location. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

George Romney, Mitt's dad, ran for president in 1968. He was born in Mexico, but was still a natural born citizen because his parents were US citizens. john k (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole topic is treated quite extensively (including a mention of McCain) at Natural-born citizen. It might be worth linking to that article, but we certainly shouldn't duplicate that page here (nor dive into original research by trying to figure out the law on a talk page). Kingdon (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Writing

The section on the primaries is very poorly written, and reads like a personal essay rather than an encyclopedia article. The actual content isn't bad, but it needs to be presented much better than it is at the moment. I'm not really sure where to start. john k (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Elector information not technically correct

At the end of the first section of the article is the phrase:

"As in the 2004 presidential election, the allocation of electoral votes to each state will be partially based on the 2000 Census." There is nothing in the Constitution that declares that Electors are to be allocated based on the Census.

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress".

Nothing about the Census. It's the number of Representatives that is in turn based on the Census. The phrase should be altered or simply deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.19.67 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So how is that not based partially on the 2000 census? I think that sentence is in there to address the question of how recent the population data that helps determine states' relative electoral power is. Answer: the 2000 census. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose, but this is very indirect, and infelicitously phrased. john k (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well feel free to de-infelicitouslize it. WP should be the encyclopedia anyone can read. --68.209.2.187 (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to alternative wordings, if somebody wants to suggest some. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"The allocation of electoral votes to each state is derived from adding the number of senators to the number of representatives, as set by the 2000 Census." ? john k (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please correct

I see this is locked, but please someone change the reference to the elections that were sent to the House and Senate to 1800 and 1824. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.104.136.5 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The dates in there are actually correct; 1825 (immediately following the 1824 election) is the only time since the passage of the twelfth amendment) that the President was selected by the House of Representatives, while 1837 (immediately following the 1836 election) was the only time that the Vice President was selected by the Senate. The 1801 (immediately following the 1800 election) was a different circumstance, in which electors just cast two votes, without specifying which was for President and which for Vice President (the situation that was rectified by the twelfth amendment). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing most or all of the third party candidates

The dozens of third party candidates listed in the article are irrelevant, just as the dozens of candidates running for nomination of the Democrats or Republicans. If there is no objection, I will remove most or all of them. The criteria should be: Which candidates are usually mentioned when the election in general is covered in mainstream media reporting on the election as a national event? CuriousOliver (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

For starters, I will remove all candidates without references. Those should not be there by any standard CuriousOliver (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Next, I will remove all third party candidates not actually running. CuriousOliver (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think thats fine. We can always add the 1 or 2 third party candidates who will actually run in the general. HoosierStateTalk 18:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree as well, and as this seems to be the consensus, have been editing Template:2008_Independent_presidential_candidates accordingly. Jfire (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about the election, not about who is likely to actually win. All candidates should be listed, regardless of their actual chances of winning. This article is (should remain) a starting point for anybody wanting to know who's running, who ran, etc. It's not just a current-events article, but will have historical value as well. If someone never ran, I can see removing them, or at least changing a listed name into a comment such as, "there was a significant rumor at such-and-such a time about this candidate running." Maybe a better criterion for inclusion would be whether there was any noteworthy activity surrounding a candidate or issue. Just filing with the SEC is noteworthy enough for a one-liner, at least, IMHO. SkyDot (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"The dozens of third party candidates listed in the article are irrelevant..." Irrelevant? Please explain. This seems like a partisan choice to me - and also quite disrespectful of the many people who are doing their best to serve their country. I am wondering what makes you, CuriousOliver, think you should be the person who decides who is relevant or not? Kelceywilson (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for Notable Candidates

To trim down the large number of candidates, we need to apply Wikipedia guideline WP:NOTE. To apply this guideline to candidates, I would like to suggest the following interpretation CuriousOliver (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • For past elections, sources should not be older than a few weeks or months on the day of election. For future elections, sources should not be older than a few weeks or months today.
  • Sources should be about the election in general, not a specific aspect of them, unless that aspect can be verified to be a key aspect. For example, sources focusing on specific parties, topics or groups of voters are only relevant if that party, topic or group of voters is relevant.


I don't understand this desire to not show all the official candidates. The truth is not clutter. It's easy to make a complete list. How many people and students from all over the world will come to this article and wrongly but understandably conclude there are only a few independent candidates? Do you really want to misinform people? Surely the fact that a person has filed with the FEC is enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Can you please explain your rational for publishing an incomplete article? Surely, it's not really a matter of length. I've seen far longer articles on Wikipedia -- and it would not need to be overly long to be complete. Kelceywilson (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Gravel?

Am I missing something or is Mike Gravel not a Democratic candidate? Why is there no mention of his candidacy. He doesn't seem to have dropped out either. His campaign page says he his candidacy is active. As an encyclopedia article, the job here is not to make judgment calls on the merit or worth of a candidate, but to simply state the facts for posterity. Whatever be the case, someone please gather the required information and add him to the this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.144.109 (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are missing a lot. CuriousOliver (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I think he's still running, actually, but..nobody knows.Herunar (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Major parties

Can someone please remove the double "Major parties"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.125 (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominations

I was just checking the formatting of other presidential election articles, and they all list a full list of potential candidates for each party with images of them. Shouldn't we therefore restore all of them, or are we waiting until the final nominees to emerge before we do that?

Since we don't have space to include images for all candidates, we only can have images for the most notable ones. CuriousOliver (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, at what point can we note McCain as the formal nominee of the Republicans in the Republican primary section? Is it after all others drop out, after he gets enough delegates or is it after the convention? EJB341 (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Formal nominee is formal nominee which is the one nominated at an election. But you can report that some one is widely expected to become the formal candidate. CuriousOliver (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I can only assume that those who keep adding Mike Gravel, Alan Keyes and a number of totally irrelevant third party candidates are either ignorant of Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NOTE or ignore them deliberately because they are part of the campaign for those respective candidates. This should be considered vandalism. CuriousOliver (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume that people who keep deleting Keyes are ignorant of the world around them. Keyes is actually tracking on Gallup at 2%. And you can remove your FALSE ALLEGATIONS. I am not a Keyes supporter. I have NO intention of voting for him. But, unlike you, I assume good faith and figure you just don't realize that the man does meet notability standards. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Delegates

I added the delegate count boxes below the candidates to show who is relevant in this campaign and who isn't. Feel free to remove if you feel that strongly. I just think it helps random passers by to understand who's actually doing well. HoosierStateTalk 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The boxes are great as long as candidates without delegates are not included. CuriousOliver (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving?

Speaking of vast discussions, is anyone managing archiving for this talk page? It's getting a little massive. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 00:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've archived all threads without comments in 2008. See Talk:United States presidential election, 2008/Archive 2. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Presidential elections 1920 and 1928

I think this is a bit confusing: "The 2008 election therefore marks the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent president nor an incumbent vice president running for their party's nomination in the presidential election.[2] The 1952 election was the last time neither the incumbent president nor incumbent vice president ran in the general election, after President Harry S. Truman bowed out following his loss in the New Hampshire primary and Vice President Alben Barkley then sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination.[3] (Truman's name was on the New Hampshire primary ballot but he did not campaign. He lost to Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver and formally withdrew his name from consideration.) Also, Cheney's decision marks the first time since 1920 that neither an incumbent president nor vice president has even sought his party's nomination; the last vice president to decline to run was Thomas Riley Marshall, vice president in the administration of Woodrow Wilson."

So the incumbent vice president in 1928, Charles Dawes, "sought" the nomination but he didn't "run" for the nomination? What's the difference? In United States presidential election, 1928 both the president Calvin Coolidge and his vice president Charles Dawes are listed under "candidates." Vints (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed that inaccurate line from the article. President Coolidge sought (and won) a full presidential term in 1924. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Coolidge and Dawes should be 'removed' from the 1928 article. Afterall, we don't have Al Gore listed on this article. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The system before 1972 is really completely different from the system as it stands now. Back then, the nominee was decided at the convention. Alben Barkley didn't run in the primaries. But he was interested in being president, and had some state delegations that wanted to promote him as a candidate. I'm not sure how serious it ever was - I don't think there was ever much sense he was going to win. Up until 1972, it doesn't really make sense to talk about people running for president in the primaries, because this wasn't really how it worked. Oftentimes the candidates running in primaries were not even serious candidates for the nomination, but favorite sons who wanted to hold their state's delegation at the convention in order to increase their state's power. Thus Pat Brown in 1960, for instance. Other times, they would be stalking horses for incumbents - in 1964, for instance, various favorite sons ran in Democratic primaries against George Wallace, as LBJ considered himself to be above campaigning in primaries (note also that LBJ won New Hampshire as a write-in candidate in 1968. Again, sitting presidents were not supposed to run in primaries. Humphrey did the same thing that year, as sitting VP). So, really, this is the first election in the modern primary system in which neither the sitting vice president nor the sitting president was involved. Note, though, that there have only been two previous elections in the modern system where there was not a sitting president - 1988 and 2000. Comparing post-1972 elections with 1968 and 1952 is dubious. Comparing it with earlier elections like 1928 and 1920, where primaries were even less prominent than they were in the 50s and 60s, is just absurd. john k (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Now that Romney has released his delegates & endorsed McCain, can we declare that he's withdrawn for the race (suspended campaign Feb 7; withdrawn Feb 14)? GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. HoosierStateTalk 00:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

John Taylor Bowles

Should we include John Taylor Bowles. I just read a very interesting interview he had with wikinews and it seems he filed.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

==Delegate count== According to CNN, John McCain has an estimated 881 delegates. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Extreme vandalism

Sorry if I came to the wrong place, but I simply couldn't figure out who the admins of this page are. The point is that when I opened this page United States presidential election, 2008 exactly with the comma, I saw an extremely rude and unambiguously spiteful vandalism, which was not recorded in the history page (presumably from an anonymous IP). I no longer see it, but I wonder if anyone could see to it for safety's sake. Thanks.

Triple sec (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


As of 02/20/08 17:05 (GMT+1) this still happens if the link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008 .plz someone remove that, it casts really bad light on wikipedia :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.111.4 (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Er I have no idea what page you guys are referring to. Is it not this page? This edit would show up in the edit history if the page were vandalized. Cowman109Talk 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you be a bit more specific as to where/what this was? Was it image vandalism? It might have been a template that is transcluded on this page that was vandalized... whatever it is, it's gone now, at least. Cowman109Talk 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact

Could just be abit of trivial fact, but according to the 12th amendment,"explicitly precluded from being Vice President those ineligible to be President: ... and those who are not natural-born citizens".

Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii, and it wasn't a state 'till 1959, could that have excluded his candidacy?. Rodrigue (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

John McCain was born on a military base in Panama. Constitutionally, he is therefore not a natural-born citizen, and is ineligible to serve as President. --166.102.95.14 (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

They're both perfectly eligible. See Natural-born citizen for more information. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 00:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Rodrigue, I don't understand your reasoning regarding Obama. The year 1961 occurred after 1959. Could you elaborate? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually yeah, little over-sight there, guess he barely was born after it gained state-hood, just wondering if he wasn't. Rodrigue (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The longstanding consensus

Under section 2 ("The Long Campaign"), in the pre-primary section, under January, we read:

"Around the first of the year, the longstanding consensus that the so-called "chattering classes" had agreed to began to fall apart. Support for Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama began rising in the polls, passing longtime front runners Romney and Clinton for first place in Iowa, and suddenly John McCain displaced Rudy Guiliani and Romney as the front-runner in New Hampshire. When Iowa held its caucuses at last, the two upstart campaigns were triumphant."


The problem I see is that a "longstanding consensus" is referred to before it has ever been described or foreshadowed anywhere in the article. The writers evidently have in mind a consensus consisting of Hillary + Romney, or perhaps Hillary + (Romney/Guliani). But this only emerges in the text *after* we read the sentence alluding to the longstanding consensus. Today, we are all familiar with the consensus being described. But I think that for the sake of anyone reading this article ten years hence, we need an introductory sentence setting out the fact that there was a consensus, and describing the consensus at issue. Documentation of the consensus would be nice too.

An unrelated comment/question: Are the "chattering classes" really the seat of the consensus being described? Or is it the media, the party establishments, or the country at large? Regardless of the answer, documentation would be nice.

Finally, is "chattering classes" too derogatory a term for the present purposes? (OED characterizes it as frequently derogatory). Jzimba (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)JZimba —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzimba (talk • contribs) 01:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to mention as well, that in the only place where the word "consensus" appears earlier in the article, Barack Obama is included in the consensus. He is also listed as a front-runner in terms of fundraising. So the quoted paragraph throws us for a loop when it characterizes Obama's surge as a falling-apart of the consensus.

Suggestion: Write the paragraph in more baldly factual terms like so: "Around the first of the year, support for Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama began rising in the polls, passing longtime front runners Romney and Clinton for first place in Iowa, and suddenly John McCain displaced Rudy Guiliani and Romney as the front-runner in New Hampshire. When Iowa held its caucuses at last, the two upstart campaigns were triumphant." 71.192.96.194 (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)JZimba

Enter, Ralph Nader

Just curious. Do we know if any political parties are trying to draft him? Do we have any sources on that? PS: Does anybody have any smelling salts for Michael Moore? -- GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. He was on the Green Party primary ballot in California on Super Tuesday. He won with 60.6 percent of the Green vote. See [20]. I didn't look up his standings in any other states. I don't know where else he was on the ballot. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Gravel's numbers

I didn't really want to start another topic with this, but the others on here have gone cold. This follows on from section 1.10 though. Just taking the actually pledged delegates from the total available, currently leaves 1820 (not counting Edwards 12 votes) available delegates - well below the 2025 necessary to reach nomination. So Gravel is now unable to be nominated regardless of whether he has formally stepped down. Can we please perhaps reduce his prominence, ie. by removing his photo, and reducing him to a "Still technically running" byline, on both this article and the respective Democrat-only one? It seems strange he hasn't made an announcement, but with his press coverage maybe he has and nobody broadcast it! Anyways, does anyone have any weighty arguments against these changes? Dutpar (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned? ya'll can do as you wish, concerning Gravel & Keyes. PS: It would be so much easier if Gravel & Keyes would end their ego trips (and thus end the fight over including/excluding their images). GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone deleted most of the discussion of Gravel and Keyes. I still think both should be kept. I know it is extremely unlikely that Gravel will win. However, if no candidate gets a majority of the delegates to the convention, it is still technically possible. If this becomes an issue again, I will restore the deleted discussions. In my opinion, they were deleted prematurely.JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Delegate count section

Are we putting the candidates in alphabetical order or delegate count order? GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Who's ever continously putting 'Obama' ahead of 'Clinton' in the Dems delegate section? Stop it. Those canadidate are listed in alphabetical order. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Some news sources (e.g. [21])started to report that the number of delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination is 2,024 and NOT 2,025 and previously reported. Can we correct this? Alefu (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know? Why, CNN continues to say 2025 is needed? GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Gravel, Keyes and Paul

Why nost just list them as candidates who filed under the FEC in their respective party's candidates page? It's absolutely pointless to list them here. At least their pictures should be huffed.. (189.148.14.6 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Why?-Localzuk(talk)# —Preceding comment was added at 21:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, they've gone to debates, raised money (in Paul's case lots) from other people, and are actively campaigning. We had the same discussion when John Cox was in the race, and the general consensus was when you are making a national campaign, have paid staff, and are raising or spending something at least in the mid six figures, and are getting national coverage, you count. Alan Keyes is still getting media attention, and has gotten into a few debates. Gravel went to almost all of the debates until October, and Paul went to most of the debates as well. Calwatch (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Because all they do is take up space. At least they should be put last to not get in the way of people following the actual election.

Gravel hasn't been in any debate lately. Neither has Keyes. The media rarely mentions them. They belong with the other crazies that filed with the FEC. (189.148.14.6 (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

As Calwatch stated above, Gravel, Keyes, and Paul are in "the actual election." JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you should refrain from calling them 'crazies' simply because they don't have huge bucket fulls of money like the top few.-Localzuk(talk) 01:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What now? McCain won, do they "still have a chance"? (189.148.20.4 (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Presumption is a bad idea. Anything could happen between now and September. What if he were to drop his candidacy due to health reasons? The others who haven't pulled out would still be in on a chance... I know it's a slim chance but it is possible-Localzuk(talk) 18:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Then you may as well readd Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, and Gingrich, since your theoretical "dropping out due to health reasons" would release McCain's candidates altogether and give any of these a serious chance :P . Jpers36 (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. Can candidates who have said they don't wish to be candidates any more re-enter? Or be forced to re-enter? I didn't know they could do either. The ones who would be contenders then would be those who didn't withdraw - so Paul, Gravel and Keyes...
The issue here isn't one of whether someone has won yet or not, it is simply one of being neutral and not taking a stance on the issue itself. Listing McCain as the winner by having his photo at the top is making that stance and therefore is violating WP:NPOV.-Localzuk(talk) 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
McCain has all the pledged delegates he needs, it is a mathematical certainty that he is the nominee. Reporting a fact isn't making a stance, not wanting to report a fact or downplaying it is taking a stance in favor of people who have been mathematically eliminated. However this was already settled by listing both of them as that. (189.148.125.22 (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
No, the decision has not been made - can you provide evidence for me that the GOP nomination has been decided to be McCain? No, because the decision hasn't been made yet! You are dismissing several months where other, random, things could happen.-Localzuk(talk) 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
He has mathematically locked the nomination for all practical effects and purposes. The decision has been made. By the voters.

Both Keyes and Paul have already been classified as mathematically eliminating so I guess this is a pointless discussion since the distinction has been made. (189.148.125.22 (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

You are missing the point. Has the GOP nomination been officially confirmed? No. Then we can't say he is the official nomination, and we can't say the others have 'withdrawn'. We can only state how things stand now really, not by making comparisons with maths and WP:OR.-Localzuk(talk) 18:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither the Democratic Party or the Republican Party have chosen their presidential nominees (they won't until August & September, respectively). Also, Gravel, Keyes & Paul haven't withdrawn from the race (therefore they shouldn't be listed as withdrawn). GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, if McCain (for unforseen reasons) dropped out before September? His pleged delegates would be released & could vote for anyone. Heck, the Republican National Convention could nominate Clinton or Obama, if it wanted to. In 1864 (under the name National Union), they nominated a fusion ticket - Lincoln (a Republican) & A. Johnson (a Democrat). GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The GOP Candidate

McCain has officially won the nomination and Huckabee has dropped out. The candidates section should be changed to reflect this. McCain is the GOP candidate now.

I agree, but expect people to try to keep the now irrelevant Paul and Keyes on the article till september. (189.148.20.4 (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Paul has not dropped out. McCain has NOT officially won the nomination. Please move Paul's postiion out of the withdrawn candidates section. 75.21.106.148 (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He has all the delegates needed. It appears some people are very adamant about keeping Paul, Gravel, and Keyes too. It's a little suspicious... (Jmrepetto (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC))
The Republicans don't pick their presidential nominee until September. Due to the fact McCain has a majority of the delegates pledging to support him in September? he's the 'presumptive nominee'. Delegate don't vote until September. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
"Presumptive" implies probability rather than certainty. Republican primary voters have already picked their nominee by awarding him an outright majority of pledged delegates. McCain is not merely the probable nominee - his nomination is a mathematical certainty. The convention will formally select him as nominee, but at this point it may be stated that McCain is de facto the Republican candidate for the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Ofus (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
PS- IMHO, McCain's image should be removed from the top of the article; he's not yet been nominated. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Until it has been actually voted on then it should stay as undecided.-Localzuk(talk) 18:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think the section for the images at the top of the article should be eliminated altogether; restoring it after the presidential election (Nov 4). Why? They'll be a fight for who's image goes on the left side (which is preserved for the winning candidate in the election). GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia, Please add my link to the News Media section of United State Presidential election page. I am a reliable news source on the 2008 Campaign and Elections. I get news from major news sources. I tried placing my link but it repeatedly got deleted. Here is my link. Bird's Eye View NewsstandPresidential Election Campaign 2008, Campaign 2008 Headline News, Breaking News, Top News Video My site is "The Bird's Eye View Newsstand".

I look forward to your response. I would appreciate my link as a news media source at United States Presidential Election page.

I enjoy Wikipeda.

Sincerely, Robin Casey--Isavesmart (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, welcome to Wikipedia. Secondly, and I do not mean to disparage your site, but I do not see any reliable coverage on your site that cannot be obtained directly from the major news outlets that you source. Wikipedia is not intended as an advertising resource for your ISaveSmart.com website. However, if you are interested in newswriting, might I suggest you take a look at our sister project Wikinews? -- RoninBK T C 09:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


First president from congress since 1960

It should be included in this article somewhere that this election will produce the first sitting member of congress to become president since 1960 when JFK was elected. Since then and until now (provided nothing dramatic happens) it has always been a governor or VP to win the election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.104.39 (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit presumptious isn't it? As the election hasn't happened yet...-Localzuk(talk) 00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, McCain (the Republican presumptive), Clinton & Obama (the Democratic candidates), or any of the other party candidates could easily resign from the House or Senate 'before' being elected President. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
That is very very unlikely and you know it. You shouldn't make arguments based on absurd scenarios. (189.148.125.22 (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
Unlikely, but theoretically possible. And I would point out that an Argumentum ad lapidem or dismissing a statement as absurd without giving a reason why it is supposedly absurd is just as much a fallacy. -- RoninBK T C 04:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You said they could easily resign before being elected. What are your basis for that claim? Other than talking about unlikely (unless you can prove they are likely) scenarios? (189.148.125.22 (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
It is also theoretically possible that the entire country could be nuked out of existence before the general election, ensuring that neither McCain, Hillary, or Obama are ever officially nominated or elected president. However, I believe we can safely dismiss both of these extremely unlikely scenarios. Ofus (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
That is your opinion and placing that in the article, or anything related to this would simply be original research. We do not editorialise on this site, we simply repeat and summarise what others say.-Localzuk(talk) 16:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It is neither of those, stop twisting people's words. (189.148.125.22 (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
Huh 'I believe we can safely dismiss both of those extremely unlikely scenarios' isn't opinion? The simple case is that the election hasn't happened yet so saying that the next president, regardless of how the GOP/DEM nominations stand, will be a member of congress is simply an assumtion. Not fact. Even if someone else says it, it is still not fact - it would be their opinion too. It could be stated as their opinion, but not as fact!! How is this hard to understand?-Localzuk(talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Clinton, Obama, McCain and even Gravel and Paul are from congress. Even if they resign or haven't been there in years (Gravel), their previous position is congress and unless something extraordinary happens, both candidates will be from congress (Senators) and the next president will be a former senator at the time of his inauguration. However this is nothing but a curiosity, and not that relevant so why are we arguing? Good day. (189.148.125.22 (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
The reason is that there could be a president elected *not from a major party*, which you seem to be ignoring.-Localzuk(talk) 22:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Resigning from the Senate would not create a distinction that would invalidate the claim. However, the third party candidacies do introduce the theoretical possibility that the President could be someone other than a senator. -- RoninBK T C 03:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Resigning from the Senate or House before being elected President is a possability. For example, Dole resigned from the Senate in June 1996; had Dole been elected in November? He wouldn't have been the first Senator since 1960, to be elected President. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see that as being anything more than a semantic difference. If you don't hold a job between being a senator and becoming President then it counts. -- RoninBK T C 14:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, though it is highly likely that the person who's elected President & the person who is runner up, will be from both 'major parties'? We must approach this article, as though that's not the case (approach it in a NPOV way). GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul has not Withdrawn

The article states Ron Paul has withdrawn from the race, along with Alan Keyes. Neither has withdrawn. --IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, both are still candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This is just another example of the media spreading false information about Ron Paul. -- L.V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.235.231 (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Technically correct, however since McCain has acheived the required number of delegates, they have both been mathematically eliminated from contention. The article should be edited to reflect the distinction. -- RoninBK T C 03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the category they were placed in satisfactory. Gravel belongs in that category (obviously for his party) as well. He would need 2,025 delegates to win, and there aren't that many up for grabs anymore. (189.148.125.22 (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm reluctant to classify Gravel in that manner, because there is no winner on the Democratic side yet. I guess I'm using the Huckabee argument, that the candidate is still considered a viable candidate unless they withdraw, or a winner emerges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roninbk (talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Total delegates - Secured Clinton delegates - Secured Obama delegates < 2,025. Even if Gravel won all the remaining primaries and got all the superdelegates to vote for him, he could never get 2,025 delegates. Isn't that what mathematical elimination is about? It is impossible for him to win. (189.148.125.22 (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
Except if Mike Gravel won every remaining delegate and got all the superdelegates to vote for him, nobody would have a majority and it would be a brokered convention, meaning that he could still win. Obviously that's not going to happen, but might as well leave him in until he's mathematically eliminated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Mike Gravel is still actively campaigning. He is actually pursuing a strategy to bring about a brokered convention [22] -- RoninBK T C 07:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering there are about 800 or so superdelegates, and they get one vote, and they're are millions of other US voters, how many votes per se does 1 superdelegate have in relation to other voters, or at least those who already have. Rodrigue (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way? Ron Paul has just withdrawn from the Republician nomination race. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Ummmmm, no he hasn't. Go do some research and check back in. Oh, by the way...June 21st, be ready. War wizard90 (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry folks, I was mistaken. How's that CNN 'photo of the day' music go? wa-wa-waaa. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes he has. Ron Paul will end presidential run and Paul ends his campaign. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ron Paul should not be included in withdrawn candidate section, he has not withdrawn, if you read the link Mbenzdabest used to proove that Ron Paul had withdrawn, you will see that he actually has not withdrawn - keywords "hint", "will end", "winding down" - if you bother to read past the misleading (and outright lies) in the article titles. The point is as of right now, he has not withdrawn, and stating so is incorrect. 83.104.225.76 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, please don't be such so self-righteous and ignorant. I did read both articles. You need to get past all the rhetoric, such as Ron Paul stating, "My campaign is never over" . The fact is he has admitted John McCain is the nominee, that there's no way he can win, and he's actively campaigning for his congressional seat back home. Give me a break. If you can't see past this statement: "Though victory in the conventional political sense is not available in the presidential race, many victories have been achieved due to your hard work and enthusiasm," then obviously you are completely unaware of all the BS politicians will say just to satisfy their supporters. Let me translate Ron Paul's statement: "I'm out." And please refrain from making any more personal attacks on me or any other person on Wikipedia. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make any personal attacks on you or anyone - though you called me self-righteous and ignorant, whatever - I was stating the fact, that until he has officially withdrawn he should not be considered a withdrawn candidate, it's a pretty hard logic to counter. Btw, how do you translate Ron Paul's asking for more delegates, funding and support as "I quit"? Plus he's been on Fox and CNN over the past couple days to reaffirm that he has not withdrawn. Edit: And he won his congressional seat last week.83.104.225.76 (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks as they damage the encyclopedia. And regarding whether RP has withdrawn, until either he is not chosen as the Republican nominee - something that won't occur for months, or gives a statement saying he has withdrawn, he should not be classed as withdrawn. 'Translating' Ron Paul's statement as 'I'm out' is not valid - as it is your own synthesis of the speech. We can only take what he says at face value, and report upon the views of reliable sources.-Localzuk(talk) 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nominee Template

A few days ago I saw a nominee template at the top of the page that showed John McCain vs. TBD. How come this template was removed? John McCain has won, it is mathematically impossible that he will lose. Could we return the template backup with his picture? If the Ron Paul enthusiasts are going to shoot this idea down, then could we at least put the template up with the picture of an elephant vs. donkey? This would make the page at least look better. ThirdPoliceman (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That template is for who's elected President & who's runner-up. Thus, it can't be filled until after the November 4th, presidential election. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the template shouldn't be placed until after the election. (189.148.125.22 (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
I also agree with the idea of witholding the template until after election day. In the meantime, however, perhaps a "pre-election" template could be created for the parties' nominees. Ideas, anyone?--JayJasper (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Only after the parties have chosen their nominees; but we can't have them at the top of the article (only in their respective 'party sections'). GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I should have clarified this in my earlier comments. Thanks for making the point.--JayJasper (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the template is back. Good. (Jmrepetto (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

It's removed again (as it should be). The top of the article (please see the 1788 to 2004 related articles), is for the presidential candidate who wins the election & for the candidate who's runner-up. The template shouldn't be added until after the election (November 4, 2008). GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Even though I think that the topic on whether the nominee template should be added after the election is debateable, I think that the template should be added to the article after the democrats have chosen their nominee, instead of adding it to the article now, or after the election.SeeYaLater (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Delegates

So if the article count is correct, overall, with caucuses and primaries Obama won more delegates in Texas than clinton?.Is that right?.Maybe the media was misleading then. Rodrigue (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't exactly incorrect that Clinton won the Texas vote overall, but yes, the media was misleading. After all, it wanted to sell papers. The fact was, weeks before, Hillary Clinton vowed she would quit if she couldn't win by landslides in Texas and Ohios. Texas and Ohios eventually gave her a net of about 5 delegates. There was no comeback. Herunar (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the results, I don't know how well the math even stands for her to win the nomination. Rodrigue (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out, just for accuracy sake, that Ron Paul has at least 48 delegates, not 14. 142.68.219.114 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Top of the article

Would somebody remove John McCain & the Democratic 'donkey' images from the top of the article? McCain isn't the Republican nominee (nor has he won the election) & we don't know if the winner & runner-up will be of the 'major parties'. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've removed it. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry but Mccain is the nominee, unless your really clinging to some small technicalitie, but he's won enough delegates and the image was fine 'till the democrats had one.Just saying it wasn't really a bad thing. Rodrigue (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The top (left side) is for the candidate who wins the Presidential election. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, yes there isn't a winner yet, but your argument about Mccain possibly not being the nominee and the winner of the general election not being from the "major" parties just seems desperate and weak, for atleast that we can assume. Rodrigue (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comments on this issue above. The Republican party have not officially chosen a candidate, and the election hasn't happened yet. Therefore, we should not be any guessing, whether based on the prior election history (ie. 2 party politics), whether the candidate has enough delegates etc... Making out that these people are the winners before the time is simply your opinion and not appropriate.-Localzuk(talk) 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it.There are effectivley only 3 possible candidates in this race, but they're are also dozens of independants officially on the ballot who recieve far less than just one percent of the vote, should they be counted as well?.And mccain has won enough delegates to secure the nomination, no other republican can win.

Its just common sense. Rodrigue (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is predicting the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.-Localzuk(talk) 23:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Revotes

Ericl added the assertion that Michigan and Florida would likely be holding revotes for their primaries on June 3rd, but I was concerned about lack of a source. Colfer2 found a source for the date in newsweek.com [24], but by my reading, this only says that Michigan is likely to hold a revote on June 3rd... it appears, according to that very recent (March 14th, i.e. today) article that Florida is actually unlikely to hold a revote of any kind.

Am I missing something here? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Colfer2's recent edits have addressed my concern. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop moving Ron Paul around

  • Every day Ron Paul is in a different section. First he's taken off because major news sources reported his candidacy was over, then added because he says on his website that "his campaign is never over" (whatever), then he gets an asterisk in the withdrawn candidates explaining his particular case of not withdrawing (which I personally think is what makes sense the most), NOW he has his own special section with an "unlikely event of multiple ballots or released delegates." Can we have some formality on this Wikipedia article? All Ron Paul lovers and all Ron Paul haters need to stop with their biases. Take a vote. Propose a solution everyone can agree. As long as this article doesn't keep changing every day because of one person's own feelings on Ron Paul. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. When I heard Ron Paul was running? I didn't think it meant he was running all over this article. Seriously though, Ron Paul's entry should be stabilized. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I know for a fact that Ron Paul is running. Now I don't know if he is running for office but I sure know he is running around this article. :) -- Cat chi? 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Article too long

I was not the person who put in the tag, but I do not think that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with until after the election in November is over. At that point, some of the items in here will be irrelevant, for example, the section on electoral college changes. Either this issue will not longer be valid or it will become its own article. Battleground states will also become a non-issue after the election. There are most likely others that are important during the election process, but will become non-issues afterwards. Zzmonty (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While splitting or trimming the article after November could definitely be done, it is also good though to have one comprehensive and complete article that can be used as a reference for virtually anything regarding the '08 US presidential election. Rishi.bedi (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to condense it just yet. After the conventions, we might be able to cut down on some things like primary results. After the election, we can condense it a lot more. But for now, keep it as is. Some of the possible changes to the Electoral College are technically impossible at this point.Metallurgist (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

New York (State) vs. New York CIty

Why is Rudy Giuliani listed with a city while all other candidates are listed with a state? Is it because his last elected office was that of the mayor of a city? Is this consistant?

BTW, there is no "New York City". The official name is "City of New York". user:mnw2000 15:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that is why and in all articles that I could find mentioning Mr. Giuliani with reference to the presidential election, he is listed with his city. I'm not sure about the New York City vs. City of New York, but he was not listed with "City of New York" anywhere. Rishi.bedi (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Essential information missing

Something so integral to understanding this election (and remember how many of Wikipedia's readers are not in the USA) is that the winner of the election will need 270 electoral votes to win the election. However, this utterly germane information is nowhere to be found in the article except for one buried, tangential reference. (Do a search on "270" and see just how buried it is.) I find this rather depressing. An obvious place for the information might be in the caption at the top of the article, in the map of electoral votes, which as is is very mystifying in its lack of contextual information. Moncrief (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Gravel now a Libertarian?

http://www.thirdpartywatch.com/ Cameron Nedland (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He is no longer listed in this article, even under withdrawn candidates where he now belongs. He needs to be re-added. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he announced his switch of parties today. [25] -- Macduff (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. He should still be listed in this section though as a matter of historical importance. He was a candidate for the GOP nomination. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're slightly confused, possibly with Ron Paul. Gravel was a candidate for the Democratic nomination.125.239.180.147 (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul was a Libertarian at one time. He is a Republican now. Gravel was a Democrat. According to the article linked to by Macduff above, Gravel is now a Libertarian. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Gravel should still be listed in the withdrawn section, right? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

McCain

Can we change this a little?

McCain's bipartisan compromise on judicial nominations and his strong support of campaign finance reform have drawn the ire of many groups, many of which have vowed to work against any McCain campaigns for the Republican nomination in 2008. He has a strong stance on many issues and economically falls more along the lines of traditional "fiscal conservatism." These factors, along with his commitment to the War on Terror (including Iraq) have boosted his popularity amongst conservatives since 2004, when he emphasized these traits while stumping for Republican candidates.

There's quite a few other factors that have arguably turned GOP conservatives against McCain, not just the Gang of 14 and campaign finance. His initial (now reversed) stance of Bush's tax cuts, his support for the environment, immigration reform and stem cell research, his opposition to the marriage amendment, his past battles with the relgious right, opposition to torture/Gitmo and his past support for gun control. We can't list all that, too long and some of it's probably original research, but could we maybe rephrase it as him drawing ire of conservatives because of his moderate/maverick stances on some issues, rather than specifically citing only two when others may have factored in as well. It would be more general and also works the "moderate/maverick" point about McCain into the description, because it is a part of his public perception. EJB341 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Gravel and Keyes again

Gravel and Keyes are not listed in the lists of candidates. They should be. Although Gravel has now joined the Libertarians, he should still be mentioned under withdrawn candidates, as he was in fact a candidate in this year's Dem. primaries. Keyes, who appears to have been removed from the list in the last day or two, should still be listed, either with Paul in the special heading or under withdrawn candidates. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've no clue as to what Keyes' status is. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Keyes is going to leave the GOP soon. His campaign has unofficially stated that he is leaving. But I don't think he has made any official announcement yet. He is hoping to get the CP nomination. I think the elephant is still on his website though. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reform Party candidates

Where's the candidates for this party's presidential nomination? Are there any? GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they don't have any listed at their candidate page. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
  1. ^ "Presidential debates set for cyberspace", Beth Fouhy, AP (and found at Msnbc.com), April 23, 2007.
  2. ^ Harnden, Toby (2007-11-13). "The top US conservatives and liberals". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2008-01-10.
  3. ^ O. Hatfield, Mark. "Vice Presidents of the United States: Alben W. Barkley" (PDF). Senate. pp. 423–429.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_4&oldid=1140135945"