Template talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Who should be here

This template needs to match the pages it's associated with. Any candidates not listed and sourced on the candidate pages (third party; Democratic; and Republican) shouldn't be listed in this template. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly true. To some extent, this should be none by sourcing entries there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Does David Koch (candidate) count? He lacks an independent source (third-party is ambiguous here). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question. The section says "notable" independent candidates. How is Koch notable? I'm inclined to remove him. PubliusFL 05:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore

The Reuters report was poorly written. According to other sources, Gore still maintains his current position that while he does not plan to be a candidate, he has not ruled it out.--Folksong 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Al Gore has not stated what he'll do in 2008 and until he does Al Gore should remain on the Potential candidates list. Thanks. Oh yEs itS caRly 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the only reason Gore should stay on the list is because of what's been discussed on United States presidential election, 2008. Every other candidate has expressed "serious interest" or has filed, and there are links on the page indicating that. Gore is a compromise because of his widespread media apparances. Whie several OTHER candidates have not said definitively yes or no (Bloomberg, Pataki, Nader, etc.), for some reason Gore's an exception here. This template ought to reflect the reality of the main article, and not the other way around. So, Gore (reluctantly) remains. Zz414 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Wikipedia lists him as being an official candidate, which to my knowledge isn't correct. Although he has made it pretty clear that is is going to run, he hasn't declared yet, and his page says that he hasn't yet started an exploratory Committee either. So I'm going to move him back into the potential candidates list, I mean, he could always change his mind. Thethinredline 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)of course some of us just wish al would just shut up and go back to kissing john kerry's butt.

Jon Corzine

The newspaper link from The Trentonion works fine Will Corzine be hearing ‘Hail to the Chief’? Corzine should be listed until he either announces he is or is not running. Quinnipiac University even recently polled to see if Corzine has soft or hard support from New Jerseyians Poll: New Jerseyans Don't Want a President Corzine Looks like he is interested. 67.98.154.56 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And the Trentonian is not a reliable source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Trentonion site is from 2005. Corzine is not running. The only people left is Clark, Gore, and Sharpton. Oh yEs itS caRly 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Revamp

I attempted to revamp this template based on the three pages, and I came up with this:

This didn't look right, what with all the red links. I don't think anyone who makes a website "announcing" their run for President deserves a page on Wikipedia, but people who announced within a pre-existing party structure should. So, I removed the "Potential Third Party candidates," as a lot might be wishful thinking and most of these people haven't responded to their "potentiality." I also reduced the Independent section to those who have notable activities other than their announced 2008 run.--Tim Thomason 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FEC filings

Some anonymous users have incorrectly been reading the documents. For instance, Brownback filed a retraction about candidacy in December 2006 to state that he was just forming an exploratory committee, but in January 2007 he filed for official candidacy:[1]. Please be aware that the filings state "exploratory committee" or "candidate" on them, and they are distinguishable. Please refrain from future edits and reversions as such without carefully examining the actual scanned documents. --Zz414 16:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved McCain from "exploratory committee" to "candidate," per his new FEC-2 filing on 1 March. PubliusFL 18:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Former Candidates

Now that Tom Vilsack is the first formally announced candidate to drop out, should there be a category for former candidates? - Prezboy1 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That was the decision over at the Election page, with a new category for "Candidates who filed with the FEC and dropped out before the primaries." --Zz414 19:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that candidates who formally began the process and then withdrew (like Vilsack) should be mentioned in the box under Withdrawn candidates, and I've added that. There's no need to include potential candidates who never started running at all (like Kerry). Wasted Time R 17:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate Biographies vs Campaign Articles

I altered this to provide separate lines for candidate bios and campaigns. It got reverted back. At the moment it doesn't have a direct link to bios of Hillary, Obama, and Mike Gravel, which is a mistake. I want it to have both. DavidYork71 10:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hobie Hunter, why did you delete the links to all of the 2008 campaign articles? Few articles could be more directly relevant to the 2008 presidential election. PubliusFL 23:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because this the way the templete for months. I believe the format should be simple, not have seven categories. People who are looking for candidates would be distracted by so many categories. I think this arrangement would be better:

Integration vs. separation

Without explanation User:Hobie Hunter reverted my edit here in which I integrated the views & campaign section into the whole. I think my version is better for two reasons:

1. It makes the template slightly smaller, it makes better use of available space
2. It is more ordered, the elections are about politicians with views and campaigns, not about politicians separate from their views and campaigns.

Therefore I have revered hobie hunter's action. C mon 14:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think seperation would be better. Size doesn't really matter, and it only makes it slightly smaller. In addition, intergration makes the templete more crowded and harder to navigate. Until we can reach a compromise, the templete will stay the way it has been. --Hobie Hunter 21:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree with C mon's version of the template. —Nightstallion (?) 12:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to prefer [[C mon's version. I think it is cleaner and more concise. I think shorter templates are better in general as they are an add-on to an article page. I feel that with Hobie Hunter's version, I have to move my mouse to completely different parts of the template to see the different article pages for a given candidate. With C Mon's version, all three pieces (campaign, views, and person) are within several pixels of each other. Theflyer 13:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that shorter is better. Wasted Time R 14:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Technically speaking, Hillary Clinton is not a declared candidate, she has only formed an exploratory committee. She should be moved to reflect this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.12.88 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Indeed it should... I am being Bold Lord Metroid 12:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it is so commonly believed that Ms. Clinton is a declared candidate when in fact as of 31 March 2007 it seems she only has an Exploratory Committee, it seems impossible to accurately convey her status on this template because it is always being changed. Thus the template is often inaccurate in this one sense. I propose adding the following superscript, ^{(See discussion)}, next to her entry until such time as her actual status matches the commonly perceived status. Theflyer 16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton is an official candidate, just because she announced on the day she formed an exploratory committee, doesn't mean she isn't a candidate.--Hobie Hunter 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hobie, If I read the Exploratory Committee page correctly, there are two basic ways of determining whether a candidate has transitioned from "exploring" to seeking a nomination.

1. They formally drop the "Exploratory" word from their Committee filings. Surely these committee filings must be in the public record but a quick search isn't turning them up. This would, IMHO, seem to be the most concrete and sourcable evidence.
2. In an exploratory phase, "money may be raised without the full disclosure of sources required of true candidates. Only when the candidate drops the exploratory label does the full responsibility of transparency apply." This would indicate that any candidate who is fully disclosing their campaign funds has transitioned to officially seeking the nomination.

Since Hillary is clearly fully disclosing her funds as of this last week, she must, as you state, be officially seeking the candidacy. But, this is really a proxy and it would be far better if we could cite the transition to committee filing records. It might even be worth documenting here on the talk page all the key transitions for the politicians on this template as they move from thinking about running, to "exploring", to seeking to dropping (or obtaining the nomination). Theflyer 15:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is why using proxy evidence is so dangerous. I dug around a bit more and found the Federal Election Commission's web page devoted specifically to the 2008 filings of Presidential hopefuls. In terms of what the campaigns have actually declared with the FEC, it would appear that we may have a number of the politicians in the wrong place. Theflyer 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't make heads and tails of that official .gov site please anyone fix the template. Lord Metroid 18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That link is clearly not completely up to date. For example, it's missing the 1 March filing by John McCain which moved him from the "exploratory" category to the "official" category. I linked to an image of it above (under the "FEC Filings" heading), and it can easily be found by a search of the site. Clinton's latest filing still shows an exploratory committee, so why is she no longer in the exploratory category? PubliusFL 14:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Some one/people are obviously POV pushing. Lord Metroid 12:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep this up guys, and you might qualify for an entry in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars! Wasted Time R 12:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Come'on... It needs to be correct. Lord Metroid 12:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying to be "correct" here means being toyed with; read [2]. Wasted Time R 12:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should completely remove the FEC category from the template then? Lord Metroid 14:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Exploratory equals Candidate

• On the interminable, exploratory issue, the Federal Election Commission does not distinguish between "exploratory" and any other category of candidate campaign committees. You're in or your out. For the Romney campaign, the committee itself declared in a press release upon filing papers for the Romney for President Exploratory Committee, Inc., that the reporting after "declaring" is for the same entity, same cash accounts, same FEC acccount, and involved only a corporate name change, dropping Exploratory. The issue is all hot air. Clinton is obviously a candidate. Here's the cite/source: Governor Mitt Romney Forms Presidential Exploratory Committee Romney for President, Inc. (www.MittRomney.com)' Wednesday, Jan 03, 2007. -- Yellowdesk 21:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Here's the FEC's statement on the topic. See: Testing the Waters and Campaign Committees (Press Release) Federal Election Commission (no date). There can be a "testing the waters activity" -- it need not be reported. Everything else does. If you're reporting, you're a candidate.

Here's the quote:

An individual who merely tests the waters, but does not campaign for office, does not have to register or report as a candidate.

And if you're a candidate, you undertake the following activities:

• Making statements that refer to yourself as a candidate;
• Using advertising to publicize your intention to campaign; or
• Taking action to qualify for the ballot.

Five-plus million dollars of expenditure in the first quarter make Clinton a candidate. :: -- Yellowdesk 00:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What is your suggestion? Should we drop the "exploratory" categories on the template? Or only include people under "exploratory" who are NOT reporting (indicating that they still believe they fall under the "testing the waters" exemption? PubliusFL 00:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of category "Exploratory" and "Declared" for individuals filing with FEC

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete the category Exploratory and Declared from the template. Any candidate required to file reports with the Federal Election Commission is termed merely candidate, all others not filing (yet) for this election cycle are potential candidates. The edit accomplishing the change [3] -- Yellowdesk 14:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Responding to PubliusFL on the Clinton section above, my proposed perspective is that the '"exploratory'" business is entirely bogus (see my comments above in the last part of the Clinton section). The candidates themselves know this. If anyone has filed with the FEC, they are a bona fide candidate. They had to declare a primary campaign committee with the FEC and sign the papers. This would stop all of hairsplitting on categorizing candidates. The template declares that the standard is "Filing with the FEC" = candidate, and it saves everyone angst and discussion. -- Yellowdesk 02:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Any candidate filing with the FEC shall be considered a candidate, and only individuals not filing with the FEC are potential candidates; delete the word "Exploratory" from the template, and delete the word "Declared" from the template.

Discussion

1. Comment I'm not sure. I saw a documentary stating how anyone fulfilling the constitutional requirements can form an "exploratory committee," and that each election cycle there are countless committees formed by persons who are not serious about running for office and do so for novelty purposes. There are probably many other people with exploratory committees that we have not heard of. But I do agree that there is essentially no difference between Hillary Clinton's status and that of any of the other "declared" candidates. I'll look into the issue more before deciding whether to support or oppose the proposal. Any other comments? -Prezboy1 13:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that question comes down to notability, a different issue, which I have no comment on. The proposal is merely: if they've filed with the FEC they're a candidate (perhaps not notable). Everyone else is a potential candidate (perhaps not notable). -- Yellowdesk 14:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Comment And by the way, why are there so many changes being done to the wording of the Political articles? First we had to change "beliefs" to "positions," and now this. I hate to break it to you Yellowdesk, but you're being too nit-picky and are making it more difficult to write articles by having to observe these completely frivolous diction rules. --SirAndrew1 04:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Support as the proposer -- Yellowdesk 02:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Lord Metroid 07:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, aye. —Nightstallion (?) 11:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, you're either a filed candidate or not. Candidates may drop out at any point, so the moniker "exploratory" is really rather meaningless. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support The only real problem with this is if some vanity candidate, whom reliable source agree is not making a substantive campaign, files - and we can deal with that when it comes up. As Yellowdesk says, that's a question of notability. If anyone feels like adding an asterisk to those who have only "exploratory" committees, fine by me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Yes, it does make more sense to group them into a declared group and a potential candidate group for those not yet filed with the FEC (such as Hagel or Al Gore). Bill Richardson and Mike Huckabee have filed committees with the FEC and are campaigning here in New Hampshire just as much as any other candidate, so there's no reason to refrain from calling them candidates at this point. --Prezboy1 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll point out the proposal is there be no such word declared on the template. Hence just candidate, or potential candidate -- Yellowdesk

Yeah, that's what I'm supporting here... maybe I didn't make that totally clear in my wording, but I do agree with what you say. -Prezboy1 20:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support--Sina 20:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, agreed. You're either a filed candidate or not — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. And as Septentrionalis said above, we can put an asterisk next to "exploratory" candidates if deemed absolutely necessary by consensus. Italiavivi 12:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, I see the change is already made but will add my vote of support. The candidate's campaign page will/can/should discuss the specifics of their candidacy. Theflyer 12:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose Unnecessary and a waste of time. There have been many people who have formed exploratory committees and have not filed for candidacy. Political science is not an exact science, and the reason we declare someone to have an exploratory committee is pretty self-explanatory- They are exploring the possibility of becoming a candidate, plain and simple.--SirAndrew1 04:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The contrary waste of time is the further above discussion about a genuine candidate with an exploratory committee, Clinton. The people you describe are "potential candidates," in FEC terms, merely "testing the waters," and they have not made efforts, according to the FEC terms, toward their "taking action to qualify for the ballot." or expending money "using advertising to publicize [their] intention to campaign" -- Yellowdesk

Just because the FEC defines something as mean something doesn't mean it can't mean something else in the world of Politics. In the world of Politics, a "candidate" is not the same as someone with an exploratory committee. Making the comparison between "intending to run" and "running" is like saying "looking for work" and actually "working" are the same thing. They're not. And it's okay, Yellowdesk, your Pro-Clinton colors are showing. You just want her to look like she's a real candidate for publicity. --SirAndrew1 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You would be mistaken in assuming I'm pro-Clinton. That her committee has spent in the first quarter this year more than five million dollars makes Clinton's claim of being "undeclared" meaningless. My proposal is intended to avoid the wasted effort of distinguishing something that has no consequence, and which the candidates use merely to save face or avoid being assessed as the candidates they actually are. I propose the above because the candidates know that there are no changes in their reporting (nearly 6,000 pages for Clinton's 1st quarter 2007 FEC filings) whether they call their committee "exploratory" or themselves "undeclared" or not. If they're undertaking candidate activities, they're a candidate: that's what's really useful about the Federal Election Commission's thresholds on reporting and candidate-required-designation of committee: it saves us from quibbling over distinguishing about something that has little consequence. -- Yellowdesk 03:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This particular part of the discussion is a little insane. On January 20, Clinton announced, "I'm in. And I'm in to win." [4] This is one of those cases where you have to apply the Duck test. Wasted Time R 13:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

• Abstain. What will this template look like in 2009? Or 2019? Encyclopedias are meant for the long haul. Wasted Time R 16:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Michael Moriarty

Michael Moriarty is currently a resident of British Columbia (see Michael_Moriarty#Personal_life). Thus, he is not eligible to be elected President per Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office, as he hasn't lived in the US for the past 14 years. He should be removed from the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohrr (talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Isn't he that guy from Law & Order?--69.118.235.97 23:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is. Valadius 00:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Moriarty is not necessarily ineligible to be elected President. It is a point of some dispute among political scientists as to whether the residency requirement means fourteen consecutive years, as the word "consecutive" does not appear in the Qualifications clause. Nor is it made clear whether or not the fourteen years must be consecutive immediately prior to taking office. It is also possible that, although Moriarty's primary residence for the past several years has been in British Columbia, he may have maintained a legal residence in the U.S. (many celebrities have multiple residences in different countries, after all). If this is the case, he is most definitely eligible for election. This being said, I agree his name should not appear on the template until his eligibility has been firmly established. --JayJasper 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

links to select campaigns/views → bias?

Are these really necessary on this template? Surely the main bio page will link to them if they are extensive enough to have been split off to their own article. As it is, the template gives extra weight to certain candidates, which gives an appearance of bias. That said, an article that summarizes the positions of all the candidates on the issues (a for/against table), if it existed, would be a great one to add to this template IMO. Also, should the template link Wikia:campaigns:United States presidential election, 2008 as a source of additional campaign-related info? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think having the shortcut is well worth the extra space it may take up. Makes the sorting and finding the info one would want to know much more available for the viewer. Lord Metroid 16:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not bias, it simply reflects what articles are available. Nothing prevents editors from writing political positions articles for candidates who don't have them. Wasted Time R 01:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Area Looks Cluttered/ Bias

The third party section of the template is an eye-sore. With all the abbriviations for the parties, and all the names together it is not neat and organized. Each minor party should have it's own section similar to Democrat and Republican, so that you can see which candidates are running against eachother. A bias towards these third parties should not be allowed here on wikipedia, since this is not CNN and Fox news where all the third parties are shunned. It's not that I am displeased with the way it is handled, but it is very cluttered and needs to be done over. Casey14 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I should get right on it as soon as I possibly have time Lord Metroid 10:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it just didn't look good when I tried. Don't know if we should do it. Lord Metroid 19:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I also tried, but it dosn't look good either. Casey14 22:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The job of wikipedia isn't to present elections in an ideal matter, for all intents and purposes this election is between a republican and a democrat, and wikipedia should reflect that reality. Madrone 08:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to determine which political party should win an election, but to present all parties equally, not giving two select parties preferences. Casey14 04:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Madrone, and no thrid party candidate even has a chance of getting a 1/2 percent in the general election. I think it's enough to just list them the way they are. There are about 140 people running for president anyway, so I think we're fine with this. Mr. DigDug 6:54 p.m. EST, 8-18-2007. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:54:23, August 18, 2007 (UTC).

Hagel listed twice

He really isn't important enough to be listed once as a potential Republican candidate and once as a potential 'other' candidate.Flatterworld 16:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)