Talk:Virtual incumbent

Neologism

Raul is probably right about this being a neologism. I'm trying to to find out of Graham and Fund just made it up for the occasion. Should be easy to find out today in the library.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: it seems to be a relatively new term of art among campaign strategists, journalists and pundits. I'll add what I find over the next few days, but leave it up to others to decide whether it meets the inclusion criteria.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've now found it applied to Gore, Nixon, and Putin. Going back to at least 1992. It also appears in discussions of local elections and even in the Roman Empire. So I'm pretty confident about it as a notion in political science. I'm therefore revising my position: I don't think it's a neologism. It may fail a notability criteria and the amount of attention it gives to the 2008 US election may violate UNDUE. But when I heard Sen Graham use it I was hoping WP would have more or less the article I've now written.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final update: I've removed the neologism tag, and am now going back into retirement. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you just had a really important conversation. with YOURSELF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.134.80 (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]