Talk:2012 United States presidential election/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Sections

What!? No!! Why are there no longer sections for the Republicans? Sure, those were just weird ways how we were defining them, but they should not be all grouped together! Even with the written descriptions, we determined there's no way in hell Sanford or Ensign could be candidates, and Daniels and Cheney, among others, are for sure no-goes. Either there are sections separating them, or we completely delete the ones that just aren't going to happen. There are so many people listed here with such long descriptions that readers won't read that half of them will not be candidates. Reywas92^Talk 18:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe there are several candidates still listed that don't meet the agreed-upon criteria. If we cleaned up the list using the criteria we agreed upon above, would you be satisfied with a lack of sections? Timmeh 19:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that would mean the only ones listed are those with a significant amount of recent speculation and a good chance of running. You can't just bunch together 22 people as all being potential candidates when 1) no one will read all the info to see which ones have been eliminated already and 2) I find that at least eight of them have a slim to none chance. There can either be no more than a top ten actually remaining and speculated on or they must be divided to clarify status. Reywas92^Talk 20:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I only started a rough cleanup, there's still a lot more sorting through and some that might still be up in the air like Tom Ridge and Paul Ryan. I am still with dumping individuals that haven't been speculated on in over 6 months David1982m (talk • contribs)

Fun Fact: Carter, Bush 41, Obama, Mondale, Quayle, Gore, Cheney & Biden (to mention a few) are eligiable to run for President in 2012. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Mondale dead? If so, then he can't run lol David1982m (talk • contribs)

Fritz is still kicking at 81. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

By rights anyone over the age of 35 is eligible, qualified is another question.David1982m (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Actually, the qualifications are 'American citizen born' 'age 35 and up' etc. 'Ha ha' I get your point. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If I was just 8 years older I could be a potential candidate, if I just had a source lol .David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

In response to ReyWas92, I can understand where you are coming from but, really who is to say they won't run. I admit it would be ballsy for Sanford or Ensign to run, but they could. I think people tend to easily forgive sex scandals, look at Bill Clinton, however, he can't run again. This article really should be about names that are being thrown around to compliment the article. The fact of whether they will run or not is something to be determined at a later date. Right now, this should just include the names are being thrown around regularly. This new method works, I think would be better if we did something with candidates that speculation has stopped after 6 months, but I'll take this like we discussed..David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

The other reason I keep pushing the 6 month thing is that Fred Thompson only has 2 sources one in August 2008 (before the 2008 Election) and the other in December 2008. So, potentially only one of his sources qualifies and it's over 6 months old. Should we take him down or does someone know of a newer source for him? .David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

You're right, but if we use some common sense and look ahead 6 months after the sex scandals, etc., these names won't be thrown around anymore. How much is regularly? Really, as this still has Cheney, Daniels, and Paul, as well as Ensign and Sanford, the article looks like a joke unless these are separated from those who have actually shown signs of interest like Gingrich, Romney, and Pataki. Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, about the detail for each potential candidate: Why do we have mini-biographies for each? This just adds extra unrelated information. For each candidate, we should only say who claimed they would/could run and why they claimed that. Timmeh 20:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Keep it simple, and to the point.--JayJasper (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, the text should be about their specualation not them. Also, I'm not sure if Johnson should have been re-added. Your Thoughts?.David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

I think Johnson should stay, since both citations on him are dated following the '08 election (which took place Nov. 4).--JayJasper (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What about Fred Thompson only one of his sources is post the 2008 election and his only source is from December 2008? David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

As far as common sense, I honestly believe context of Wikipedia terms that would be considered Original Work, just my opinion. David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Thompson should probably be removed, as there dosen't seem to be any recent sources on him available.--JayJasper (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I will remove Thompson, but I still think Gary Johnson should be taken off. He only has 2 sources. One from September 2008 before the 2008 election and the other is from April 2009. Thats means he only has one valid source and I was under the impression these potential candidates need at least 2 valid sources? David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Yep, he fails the criteria. I suggest looking for sources first before removing him, though. You might be able to find one and satisfy the criteria. Timmeh 21:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the recently added source for Johnson necessarily fits the criteria either. It's a poll and I'm not so sure the source itself is even reputable, your thoughts? David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

(outdent) The poll doesn't fit the criteria because it just has his name listed. There's no actual speculation in it. Unless you can find another source that fits the criteria, Johnson will likely have to be removed. Timmeh 22:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok I moved them over to the Rep page, however, now what do we do with Independents and Libertarians? David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Info about Candidates.

Based upon comments here I made some changes to Giuliani, it's not perfect. We may need short the length of text, but otherwise, what do you think? David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

It looks too much like a news feed to me. I think putting it in paragraph form would be the best way to go about it, with each candidate getting just one paragraph unless the candidate has received an extraordinary amount of coverage related to a possible 2012 run. That's just me, though. Feel free to ask other editors for their opinions. Timmeh (review me) 23:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lines about Ages

I was looking at the sections in regard lengthy and as much as I kind of like the Age references they are really original work and taking up a lot of space in articles. If I have no objections, I will remove them. Diamond Dave 23:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)

Remove them, unless the candidate is over 65 (the standard retirement age in the US). Timmeh (review me) 00:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruled Out Candidates

I got a suggestion filter removing candidates. Cheney, Pence, Jindal, Paul, DeMint, Sanford, and Daniels, they have all said "no" and/or their sources have said no. Let's leave these candidates up, but leave up for like 6 months until speculation ceases. Jindal I was thinking was ruled out, but he is still being speculated and Ron Paul too. Sanford hasn't been commented on since June, but that could change. I would say give these types of candidates, meaning ones that have said no or their sources ruled them out (Sanford), a chance to be speculated again. 6 months that's it, if they are not speculated on again after that they get taken off. The only one I have tough time doing that to is Ensign because none of his sources have ruled him out. Sanford's sources have ruled him out, so in 6 months if he is not speculated again, I could see taking him off. Also, Pence recently was on Fox News and pushed again about whether or not he was running, he even though. That means even though said no he is still being speculated. We all know just because someone says no, could later on be a yes. David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Alternately, I know someone mentioned this idea before, but what instead of 6 months we wait until after the 2010 elections. If potentially ruled out candidates have no new sources they get taken down.

As for concerns of keeping ruled out candidates and look of the article itself. If no one has made a statement and we are going to judge on our own, whether they have sources or not, that they are ruled out, that is ORIGINAL WORK. This whole article is hypothetical until someone makes a formal statement, so for us to make judgments outside of what sources are saying then that is ORIGINAL WORK. That's why we should keep it to names that are being thrown around in 2 or more reputable sources with a strong explanation of the possible run or a statement from the individual that has been published since November 3, 2009 (2008 Election). Then once formal statements start being made, we take people down.David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

The six month arbitrary time length makes me a bit uneasy, but overall I'm not opposed to your idea. I think we should keep candidates listed as long as sources are still speculating about them, even if other sources have ruled them out. Timmeh (review me) 00:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to the other editors ideas, I would say only put the 6 month stipulation on the Ruled Out candidates only. Like Sanford's most recent source is June 24, 2009. If a newer source does not come up for him before December 24, 2009 (6 months), he gets take down or moved to a separate category. Only suggest this because this seems to be largely where we are divided as to what to do with supposedly Ruled Out candidates..David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

We need to make a clear distinction to the casual reader that some of these people are possible candidates and some of them, by means of explicit statement or other disqualification, are not possible candidates anymore. That's not original research, that's following other references that say they're out. And a rule on the sources that seems to be forgotten: they must be serious speculation, not just mention that someone else has speculated. Sure, some politicians lie, but I'd trust them a lot more on themselves than some pundit speculating and some other source mentioning the original in passing. A few of them have made very definitive statements. Really, we should just go back to how it was before this entire discussion, similar to Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012. Reywas92^Talk 01:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Until the primaries begin I really don't think can honestly determine who is possible and who is not. This article should only be about names of individuals who have stated an interest, either yes or no, or people pundits and journalists believe to be planning on running or people they don't believe are running. Because nothing is absolute at this point, we need to keep it as vague as possible, because there honestly is not enough hard facts or source to prove some is ruled out until the primary process actually begins. ..David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Then why don't we just remove them all until then? I think it would be simple enough to separate based on that little yes or no or no comment. You just said yourself that there are different groups of individuals based on what they or others ahve said, and it wouldn't be too hard to implement that. I just can't stand to see those who have made Shermanesque statements listed together with those who are actually interested. Reywas92^Talk 03:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think the fact the someone went to Iowa is original work. I went to Iowa once I guess I am running for President in 2012 too. I think if segregate them, it should only be By who made a positive statement, negative statement, Haven't issued a statement, candidates that speculation has ceased after 6 months. That would be ideal for me, but I am open to compromise, but I honestly feel that my suggestion above is best. I also still think the bios are overkill, if people need to know about the candidate themselves, they can read their article. There should only be the source a brief statement from the source and the publication. 2 at minimum, 3 at maximum, unless one is a verbal statement from the candidate about whether or not they will run. It also very import, IMO, that we include anyone who was speculated as a potential candidate even for a should remain because their speculation is part of history. The fact the Sanford was considered is a historical fact and is an important fact to have in this article, particularly after the election because he was considered, it's just too bad his only personal mistakes prevented him. What if this happened to Sanford at the started of the primaries just before the Iowa caucuses, would we take him down or put him as ruled out?David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Two Source Limit for Potential Candidates for the Sake of Brevity?

Since we're only requiring two sources for a potential presidential candidate in order for them to be listed on this page, should we delete all the but two most recent sources for each candidate? That might help shorten the page up and make it less wordy. The two most recent sources regarding an individual's potential candidacy should be enough information. --Ai.kefu (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about 2 minimum to get on and 3 maximum of all. The only except I would make is if there's a source has a verbal statement in it. Maximum 3 verbal statements and maximum 3 sources with references to their possible candidacy. Diamond Dave 20:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)

The reason having more sources will take up a lot of extra space is because of the way the information is arranged for each candidate. If we just said something along the lines of "Sources such as Source1 and Source2 have considered John Doe a likely candidate for the 2012 Republican nomination because...", with two or three of the sources cited at the end of that sentence, we'd save a lot of space. Timmeh (review me) 00:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. In that case, why do we need a sentence that says "Sources such as blah blah blah"? Why don't we just put the two references after the name of the candidate (i.e. John Doe[1][2]) and do away with that last column altogether? That would seriously clean up the page. --Ai.kefu (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Move the candidates to a new page

Look at the 2008 election article. The candidates will not remain on this page, once the election developments expand. It doesn't make much sense for them to be on this page. The above article has no potential candidates listed. They are found at separate pages separated by party. I suggest this page do the same in order to save space and tighten the candidates listed. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. It's kind of redundant to list all the candidates on the 2012 election page, and then again on each party's 2012 election page. I'm in favor of it, if others are. --Ai.kefu (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

CONFLICT

Only two editors: Timmeh and David agreed on this page reform. Not fair. I want an explanation.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Reywas92 was not against the current arrangement. Could you tell us specifically what objections you have to this arrangement? Timmeh (review me) 01:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I really thought this was the consensus, which part doesn't work for you? David1982m (talk • contribs)

I am against the current arrangement if it continues to list such a large number of people at all and/or so many people who have been disqualified or disqualified themselves. I am for the current arrangement if Pence, Palin, DeMint, Sanford, Ensign, Daniels, Cheney, and Paul are removed. If you still want to keep former potential candidates speculated upon and those who said they would not run, then they should be divided up that way. Thank you. Reywas92^Talk 01:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure if Palin is ruled out. I'm sure I can find sources speculating her. I'd have to find it, but I do remember not long ago Rush Limbaugh speculating her on Fox News and this was after her resignation. He said something to the end that the Democrats and Liberals are afraid of her, thats why they keep attacking her, he did say, however, that because she resigned she may not run though. I'm not entirely opposed to removing the others, except I prefer removing people only every 6 months as a general rule if no new sources show up for someone. I don't think we should remove them entirely, I know COMMON SENSE would say they are not likely, but they could still run and any other suggestion would be ORIGINAL WORK I think David1982m (talk •

There really isn't a valid reason to remove them if sources are still speculating on them, and I'm sure you know we can't take the candidates' word for it that they won't run. Politicians lie very often. Why do you think those people don't belong, Reywas? Timmeh (review me) 02:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not too mention I just found a July reputable source for Ron Paul, so as much I was prepared to take him down, I don't think I can now.David1982m (talk • contribs) 02:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

I agree with Reywas92. The sections should be split up into 2 between the people who have been ruled out and say how the circumstances such as illness, death, joing Obama, etc. makes a run for president almost impossible. Unless if there is a legit reason why not to do it, I will implement my idea tonight.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm on board with the split-section idea. I don't think the "ruled out" candidates should be lumped in with the still "viable" candidates. I think the distinction would be helpful for the readers.--JayJasper (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the logic behind having separate sections. If a candidate has been effectively ruled out according to my criteria, why should we list them anymore? What makes them continually notable here? Right now, the candidates not complying with my criteria above are being completely removed, not lumped in with the viable candidates. Timmeh (review me) 00:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think because your criteria includes that many politicians are liars and that those issuing a definitive statement can still be included together with actual contenders. I would support removing all that are ruled out, not continually notable here, and are of no use to readers, i.e. whom I have named before, but someone thinks that's original research. Reywas92^Talk 02:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems like there still some debate as what ruled out means. Mike Pence said he's not interested, how does his statement differ from Dick Cheney, Jim DeMint, or Mitch Daniels saying no? I ask because he now he is being considered Denying Interest. This why I think they should be lumped together too much debate over what is ruled out and really for us to try to interpret what they mean is really ORIGINAL WORK.David1982m (talk • contribs) 02:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

Mike Pence should not be in ruled out because he simply said he has no plans, which doesn't mean he'll never run.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Jerzeykydd, how does Pence statement really differ from DeMint, Daniels, or Cheney. Saying no doesn't necessarily mean they won't run either. .David1982m (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

I don't think this is very hard to comprehend, and it's definitely not OR. If a person says they're not interested or outright said no, then they go under Denied Interest or better yet removed. If they've said something positive or visited Iowa, then they have Expressed Interest, either directly or indirectly. If they haven't said anything but are being seriously speculated upon, then they go under No Statement. It's that simple, and we aren't making anything of our own up. Reywas92^Talk 02:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think the fact the someone went to Iowa is original work. I went to Iowa once I guess I am running for President in 2012 too. I think if segregate them, it should only be By who made a positive statement, negative statement, Haven't issued a statement, candidates that speculation has ceased after 6 months. That would be ideal for me, but I am open to compromise, but I honestly feel that my suggestion above is best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs) 03:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolution

Look guys: I'm trying to do something that is not original work (unlike in the past to be 100% honest). I'm trying to split the sections to a ruled out section without original work. I want to put candidates who have used the Shermanesque response and put other candidates who, via consensus of wikipedia editors, have clearly indicated they would never run for higher office. All of these candidates should be in ABC order, unlike the other section, and have all candidates who have been a potential candidate throughout the post-2008 election (like Patreaus). Can we agree on this?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

JerzeyKydd, I like the first half of that. The Shermanesque statement idea makes sense. I do, however, think for us to make a consensus on who is Ruled Out is Original Work. So I would be in support of a Shermanesque Statement section and putting anyone in there who said no, but I am opposed to arbitrarily put people in their that we as a consensus think will never run, that is Original Work. I am for the Shermanesque part, but not the other part. David1982m (talk • contribs) 02:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Who are we to decide what constitutes being ruled out? We should not be relying on candidates' statements at all because they often lie (Obama in 2004). I would not object to splitting the current arrangement into "expressed interest" and "made no statement", but having a ruled out section based on candidates' statements is original work, and having one based on no further speculation would be excessive and, IMO, a violation of WP:NOT, not to mention make the page excessively long. Timmeh (review me) 13:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok: So before I do anything I want David/Timmeh to agree. So are you guys okay with a split section of viable candidates and ruled out candidates, where ruled out candidates include anyone who was once a potential candidate but can't run because of illness, death, direct involvement into scandal, joing of Obama, or simply stating the Shermanesque statement. No candidate can be in the list for any other reason than the ones stated above. Is this okay?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am only support of separating those who have given Shermanesque statements from the others. I am opposed to including in that section or having a section at all for "where ruled out candidates include anyone who was once a potential candidate but can't run because of illness, death, direct involvement into scandal, joing of Obama, or simply stating the Shermanesque statement. No candidate can be in the list for any other reason than the ones stated above." That's Original Work to say that they will not run. where ruled out candidates include anyone who was once a potential candidate but can't run because of illness, death, direct involvement into scandal, joing of Obama, or simply stating the Shermanesque statement. No candidate can be in the list for any other reason than the ones stated above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

SOLUTION TO RULED OUT DEBATE

I made some changes that I believe should satisfy everyone. I changed the Verbiage this section to allow readers understand exactly who is included and that no one list here is meant to be serious considered because no has been announced. These are just names being floated around as possible. I then sorted everyone by their most recent sort date. This sort moved Cheney, Daniels, Ensign, and Sanford to the end of the list. The Average Reader is not stupid, if someone sees that no one has speculated on them since between June 2, 2009 (Cheney) and June 24, 2009 (Sanford), it's fair for someone to assume they have been ruled out, without us using ORIGINAL WORK to state they are by putting them in a separate category and possibly wrongfully saying they are ruled out. It's common sense no is talking about someone anymore, odds are they aren't going to run. The only argument to that is Pence is July 24, 2009, but again he said he doesn't have plans to run. That may be denying interest. I really hope this settles the debate. I still think as time goes on and we keep using this latest publication date method. The older publication dates are going to move to the bottom and as time goes on the Ruled Out candidates will become more and more blatantly likely that that person is not going to run. The obvious assumption will be there, you have to be an idiot not see it and this way we don't have to use ORIGINAL WORK to make them ruled out. ?David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

First, you don't have to uses capital letters every time you mention original work. Second, I don't care if it is original work, Sanford, Ensign, Daniels, and Cheney are not potential candidates and should not be under the Possible Republican Party candidates section grouped together with everyone else. We shouldn't have to wait arbitrarily until December to remove these no-gos. If someone continues to speculate about them or they change their minds, then they can be added back in. Or I just concur with the above proposal and remove all people from this page and list them at Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 or other because they'll all be removed when the time comes anyway. Reywas92^Talk 14:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with showing them as speculated as possible candidates at one point in time, that's why display the publication dates. By rights we don't know who will be ruled out until the primaries. Even the people have said yes very likely could change their minds. David1982m (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Sounds good. I've reworded the section to make it flow better and sound less awkward. I've tried to keep the intended meaning. Let me know if you find something that needs to be changed. Timmeh (review me) 14:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, no one has ever answered why the heck we have almost the exact same thing at United States presidential election, 2012#Possible Republican Party candidates and Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012#Potential Republican candidates. It's ridiculous to have duplicative information because any changes must must made to both pages, and one could easily have conflicting information. We should really remove the people from this page and leave the list only at the Primary article. Reywas92^Talk 14:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I like that except I still kind of don't like the option of taking people of the list just because somebody says they are ruled out, even in the media. I'll accept this way though to avoid further debate. I would prefer only remove people if they don't fit the source requirement of at least 2 sources or sources are older than November 3, 2009. The Republican Page should match this page to be consistent. It will look stupid if some candidates are listed here and not there, it doesn't make any sense not to have them match (talk • <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned 14:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but almost by definition if it is duplicated on both pages they will not be consistent. To match, they will take twice the number of edits and they must be carefully monitored. As suggested above, there should not be anyone listed on this article other than Obama. The potential candidates should be on the Primany article. Reywas92^Talk 16:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm infavour of 'deleting' the potential candidates until after the 2010 congressional elections. Anyways, I'll go along with what ya'll choose. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Republicans?

How many editors prefer the page with no Republican candidates, like it is at the moment? Personally, I thought it was useful to have them here, even if it's all duplicated at the primary page. Some readers would be interested to see them, but will not click the link to the primary page.

Does anyone know how this was done for the 2008 election page, or earlier election? In mid-2005 how many potential Republicans and/or Democrats were listed on the 2008 election page? I may go try to find that out myself actually. Ratemonth (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, like I am, in what the 2008 election page looked like at the same amount of time from the actual election as we are from the 2012 election, here it is as of August 8, 2005:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2008&diff=20559131&oldid=20558768

I would suggest looking at the section "Politicians pursuing a 2008 candidacy". I'm not saying we should do it the way it was done four years ago, but I think it's useful to have that as a point of comparison. Ratemonth (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok I moved them over to the Rep page, however, now what do we do with Independents and Libertarians? David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

If you're going to remove all Republican candidates you ought to remove all the others as well. As I have said countless times, there should be a separate page. The primary page goes into too much detail, it should simply be a list. The info should be on a separate page, and show all parties.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved. I've created page for Third party (United States) and independent presidential candidates, 2012 and move those candidates to that page.--JayJasper (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Good job on that. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I also reached out 2008 Election editors for feedback as well and asked them to comment here. David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Also, in connection to what Ratemonth did, heres; August 8, 2003 for 2004 election page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2004&diff=8601345&oldid=8601344 David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Put me down for "this page should not exist at all". It is far too premature to be making any predictions about the election of 2012. We can say with some confidence that one will be held. That's it. Every sentence that has to be qualified with "likely", "possible" or "predicted" is pure crystal-ballery. The fact that some of the speculation is sourced does not make it notable or encyclopedic speculation. Slash this back to a placeholder page until there is something substantive to say. Rossami (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The page should stand as it is. Reliable sources cover it, and it is discussed in the media frequently. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good comparison: the 2008 election page on August 8, 2005. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't oppose the removal of potential candidates from this page. However, we cannot just have several sections filled only with a main article link. Either restore the candidates or remove the possible candidates sections completely. You can either put the links under "see also" or have just one heading for potential candidates with a paragraph or two describing the general idea and containing links to the newly created pages. Timmeh (review me) 21:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A bulleted list would suffice. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a bulleted list for the links or for the candidates? Timmeh (review me) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a bulleted list would be the best solution.--JayJasper (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal For The Candidate Section

Someone proposed this but it seemed as though it dissapeared. I propose that we keep the potential candidates section like this up to the 2010 midterm elections. The "election season" usually starts some time after that. Or, we place all the candidates (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, and so on) in one seperate article that is linked to in the article. FallenMorgan (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Obama image should be removed. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We should not have several sections with no content in them other than a main article link. Also, I agree with GoodDay that the Obama image should be removed to keep consistency. Timmeh (review me) 22:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And overall I dissagree with the independents and third parties getting shoved into their own insignificant article. I think that the 2012 election article should be relatively stand-alone, with no "outsourcing." FallenMorgan (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not realistic. If you want to add the candidates, make a bulleted list, that way they are listed but not taking up too much space and detracting from the article. Also, I believe the Obama image should remain, since he is the president, and it's assumed he will run for re-election. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it was fine the way it was before, and the article is fairly short to begin with. Plus, what existed before was more aesthetically pleasing than a bulleted list. FallenMorgan (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You can find the lists on the separate pages. New developments will soon fill up this page, and the potential candidate list would eventually be moved or deleted. I feel it is best to not place the image of the candidate on the article until they actually are a candidate. Until then, a bulleted list will suffice. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll get on it. FallenMorgan (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to transfer the sources here too. Timmeh (review me) 23:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Did it. There's probably some cleanup necessary. I'm a messy editor at times. FallenMorgan (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Also, I don't see the necessity of having the candidates' names in bold. Timmeh (review me) 23:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks nice, that's why. FallenMorgan (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there now any reason for the Republicans to not be alphabetical? I know that the order they're in is based on the Republican primaries page, but to the random reader they will just look like a badly organized list here. Ratemonth (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll rearrange them. Timmeh (review me) 23:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We also have to remember the agreed upon criteria: Two sources for each candidate published after November 4, 2008, with at least a paragraph or two of coverage in each. Right now there's only one source cited for each candidate. Timmeh (review me) 00:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

*SIGH* Now we're all the way back to the beginning. Some of these candidates may actually run, many will not. The reason we added all the prose to the people in the first place is to actually distinguish who who has good odds and who doesn't. It's one thing to list Cheney, Ensign, Daniels, Sanford, etc. when there's a description with their will-not-run status, but it's plain stupid to include them without any disclaimer. Reywas92^Talk 00:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I just realized that; Reywas is right, guys. A simple bulleted list won't work. We either need the full descriptions like there were before, or we need to list none at all. Timmeh (review me) 00:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I envisioned a bulleted list like this with a short description. --William S. Saturn (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That makes more sense, mainly because it has actual explanatory text. I would support such a setup. Timmeh (review me) 15:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I don't like about that is at least the way everything appears now on the Rep Primary page, it was easy to read. Someone could scan the page and get a quick sense of who was running, who might be running, who is probably not, and who is definitely not running. Now, you have to read that whole section to find. Diamond Dave 19:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)

I think William's idea would work, as it (apparently) did in the 2008 article. David has a legitimate concern about readibility , but I really don't think it will be a big problem, as the purpose of the list on this page is to provide an "at-a-glance" reading of who the potential candidates are, and a link for "further information" is provided at the top of the section.--JayJasper (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Plus, these aren't really candidates. Like I said above, I would support the addition of a candidate's image once they are an "official" candidate. Per common sense, Barack Obama is assumed to run for re-election, since he is the president and therefore the inclusion of his image makes sense.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense, IMO--JayJasper (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

Agreed. Maybe the list with images for confirmed candidates, and a bulleted list for the others? Also, since Obama is only assumed to run for re-election, he'd be in the category of unconfirmed candidates. Who knows how it'll turn out by 2012? FallenMorgan (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems the two source rule has been forgotten. I seen no reason it shouldn't still apply, so all the listed candidates need another source. Timmeh (review me) 02:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Look on the Republican Party's 2012 primary article. There are multiple sources for all of them but I just added one, simply because I don't follow the rules (actually, I just didn't know they were there). By the way, what do you think of my new signature style? FalleиMorgaи —Preceding undated comment added 04:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC).

Yeah, I would prefer having two sources for each candidate. About your signature, I think it looks fine. Just don't forget to use four tildes so it gets dated as well. Timmeh (review me) 12:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanford & Daniels

Why are they included in the candidates list? See Sanford says no to presidential run Daniels says no to presidential run Dick Cheney says no every year and we are including him. So are we basing potential candidates on if they are mentioned in the press even if they say they are not running? BrianY (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If we took them down it would be considered ORIGINAL WORK according to WIKIPEDIA standards, because the primaries have not yet begun. Therefore, we have no idea who will really be running, we only know who is speculated. It's been proven that just because someone says no, does not mean they are not lying. Daniels and Sanford are staying because they have been speculated on within the last 6 months, which implies the possibility of them running still exists. Diamond Dave 20:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)

Already one source ruled out a Sanford candidacy because of his extramarital affair. I don't think it'll be hard to find another, and if we do, we can remove him. Timmeh (review me) 21:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't I post it above? It would not be considered original work because we have citations for not including them. Original work is when you decide that a candidate is potential or a candidate is not running when there is not an adequate reference. BrianY (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the standards should be high for inclusion on his page, but Sanford should definitely be included on the Republican primary article, since the speculation did occur. This isn't a news website, we can't just remove information not applicable at this time, because it was applicable at a time in the past. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? So Sanford saying he doesn't intend to run is irrelevant? When you talk about "High for inclusion" what should the standards be? Anybody (like Sanford and Daniels) who is speculated about in blogs, or news stories? (As you mentioned above) That can't be a high standard because it's anybody. Even Cheney who has said he is not running in any presidential race from (2005? earlier?) deserves a spot without telling the reader of this article that his current intentions or permanent intentions are to not seek the race? BrianY (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The speculation continued in reliable sources until the extramarital affair. He "was" speculated, and therefore should be mentioned as a past speculated candidate on the Republican primary page. On this page there should be a tighter standard for inclusion, no "ruled-out" candidates like Sanford. I don't know what that inclusion should be (maybe 5 reliable sources) but as I said, ruled-out candidates should be documented on the appropriate sub-page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying Sanford shouldn't be included on this page because he is a "ruled-out" candidate? BrianY (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. At the end of the election, the only candidates on this page will be the candidates that actually ran a campaign. But all the candidates that were speculated will be found on the appropriate sub-page. This is how the 2008 articles are set up. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So, I am going to go ahead and remove him on this page. (there are two references above noting his non interest now) He will be included on the appropriate subpage. I am also going to remove Daniels who has said he won't run. Should we also remove Cheney who says he won't run? BrianY (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Did Cheney affirmatively state that he wasn't going to run in 2012? --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are a follower of US Politics, you will know that countless times, Cheney has said he will never run for the office of President. Did he single out 2012? No. BrianY (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot has changed with Cheney in the past few months, he's criticized President Bush, he now supports gay marriage and he has been very much in the public spotlight arguing against the policies of the Obama administration. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also been agreed for those reasons sources prior to the 2008 election are not valid in this article. All the sources where Cheney said No were before the 2008 election. So, how does anyone know he has changed his mind? This is why Petraeus is no longer on the list, all his sources were before 2008 and no new sources have arose that are speculating him. Cheney should remain until speculate for him ceases, which is why there's a 6 month rule in place now, which is why I think Sanford and Daniels should remain for at least 6 months from their most recent sources. After that it's for to say speculation has ceased. Just because someone does know, it's been proven that that means nothing, they can and will always change their minds. Diamond Dave 02:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC) David1982m (talk • contribs)

Who exactly agreed to the arbitrary six months? If multiple sources say they won't run, that overrides older ones saying they would. Sure, they're commentators, but I don't know where they get this BS that just criticizing the new President of the opposite party means they'll run for it, especially after multiple Shermanesque statements. And I think that your meaningless six months is for speculation dependent on outcome, not definitive statements.Reywas92^Talk 03:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I originally thought no one else agree to it, but I have since seen other editors state it as if it's now the new criteria, so I went along with it. Diamond Dave 02:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC) David1982m (talk • contribs)

Sources pertaining to any election other than 2012 are irrelevant. Cheney has been speculated, and he has not ruled out a 2012 run, therefore he should remain. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The main thing is that sources have speculated about him and he has not been ruled out by reliable sources. Anything he says is irrelevant. Timmeh (review me) 03:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Until the primaries this article should only contains the names of individuals who are being thrown around as possible candidates. We should be specifically stating that. For us to speculate and assume based upon a pundit, journalist, or candidate themselves, it's original work, because we all know politicians have always change their minds and some pundits and journalists are idiots who don't know what they are talking about, even if there are from reputable publication. Therefore, we can't use their source, unless it's stated they are only names being floated around, these individuals may or may not be running and that won't be determined until the primaries. Diamond Dave 02:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC) David1982m (talk • contribs)

Con-ven-ti-OWNS

Would anyone be able to explain why certain cities bid for certain party's conventions? Like Indy for the Republican and Columbus for the Democratic? For example, do the local politics of said city have anything to do with it? Does a city decide to host a convention and then pick one of the parties? Questions like these fill my head...4.225.19.128 (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's like any other really big convention; the idea is that even after the costs of added security, etc., the convention will bring big money into town, in addition to attracting press attention from all over the planet. Almost any big-city mayor and business community avidly yearns for such a chance, if the town is big enough to host it; this is even true for a town where the local politicos are mostly of the other party (ask the Twin Cities about that). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you for the info, friendo!199.8.26.10 (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Clinton

I don't know if anyone cares, but Hillary Clinton today said 3 times she will not run for president again: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/12/hillary-clinton-says-she-wont-run-for-president-again/ Ratemonth (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

She's not even listed under possible candidates, so I don't see what this has to do with the article. Sources weren't speculating about her anyway, and she's been denying interest since she bowed out last year. Let's just put her behind us so we can focus on those that are being pondered about by reliable sources. Timmeh 00:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheney? Really?

When Cheney started his Vice-Presidency, he announced that he would not seek the Presidency. The man has a history of health issues, and in 2012 he will be 71. Unless he actually gave some indication that he is seeking office, I think he should be removed as an option because on surface the possibility seems ludicrous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.176.103 (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

David Petreaus

I think David Petreaus should be added to the potential candidates list. General Mung Beans 2 (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

He is listed under Possible Republican Party candidates.--JayJasper (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

David Petreaus

I think David Petreaus should not be added to the potential candidated list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.177.149 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Alan Keyes

He's probably going to run again. Whether for the GOP or a 3rd party, I do not know, you think he should be added? Nicholas Tan (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a few recently published articles speculating about a possible Keyes run, go ahead and add him. Timmeh 17:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"2012 election" and "election 2012"

Why does "2012 election" and "election 2012" redirect here. There are other (world) elections in that year. Seems like a more neutral redirect would be appropriate...--70.121.225.112 (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I upgraded 2012 election to a disambiguation page listing the various world elections of 2012 (feel free to expand the list if you know of others) and re-redirected Election 2012 to it. Thanks for bringing this to light.--JayJasper (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

"The Puerto Rico Democracy act of 2007 (H.R. 900) was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on February 7, 2007 by Congressman José Serrano (D-New York). The bill would have provided for a referendum to be held no later than December 31, 2009. The referendum would have given Puerto Ricans the choice between the options of retaining their present political status, or choosing a new status. If the former option were to win, the referendum would have been held again every 8 years. If the latter option were to win, a separate referendum would have been held no later than December 31, 2011." In theory we might have a new state by the time this election rolls along, should we make note of it?

Carowinds (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, as the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 appears to have a decent chance of passing and the way the plebiscite it proposes is structured favors the pro-statehood side. I'm not holding my breath that it will pass with that favor intact, but it's a real possibility that the next administration will preside over a republic of 51 states. --Kudzu1 (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Washington and Oregon

Change OR gain 1 seat to Washington http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2010582738_census24m.html