Talk:United States Republican presidential candidates, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet.
If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them; rather, refer to them as having ran and lost, dropped out, etc.

Archives: - /Archive 1

Contents

[edit] We need a wikitable of candidate viewpoints

I know a wikitable would be impossible on many issues that can't be accurately summarized with short answers, but I think it would be a worthwhile effort. For those who don't know what a wikitable is check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software williameis 02:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul to declare

Ron Paul will declare his candidacy tomorrow, so someone bump him up tomorrow morning. --Kalmia 22:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Ron Paul is now in the race. What is the status on adding him to this page? Is there an important reason he hasn't been added? --Kylejack 8 July 2007

  • Look again. He's there, and he's been there for quite a while. - Nhprman 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FRED THOMPSON

Fred Thompson has not filed with the FEC nor is he running a multi-state campaign! He is in the wrong category on the entry! If I knew how to fix it, I would.

[edit] Alan Keyes

There is a "Draft Alan Keyes" movement and Keyes has said that he will run if he feels that there is enough grassroots support for him. Someone should put him under potential candidates. See this website: http://www.alankeyes.com/

[edit] Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Thanks, Nick

[edit] Transclusion into 2008 Presidential Candidates

I'd like to move the table with the main Republican candidates into a template and transclude it onto this page and 2008 Presidential Candidates. Please comment at Talk:2008_Presidential_Candidates#Transcluding_Democratic_and_Republican_candidates. Λυδαcιτγ 05:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor formatting of references

A lot of editors don't apparently realize that an external link is NOT satisfactory as a citation; a correct citation includes the publication, the date of the publication, the title of the article or page, and the author, if any. Here's an example, for the article, of a good footnote:

  • Stinebaker, Joe. [http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8NPL5LO1.html "Rep. Ron Paul to run for president"], ''The Dallas Morning News'', 2007-03-11. Retrieved on 2007-03-11

Footnotes that consist solely of URLs are a disaster in the waiting; when the URL goes bad, the footnote is worthless (or worse than worthless, because is may have deterred someone else from actually doing a good citation). By comparision, if a full citation has a bad URL, the citation is still quite useful.

So I encourage editors who are interested in the quality of this page (which probably has a lot of readers) to improve it by fixing the footnotes so that they are real citations, not just URLs, and editors who add external links to add full citations, not just the links themselves.

(I realize that some editors may think "fix the references yourself"; I'm posting this here for editors who don't realize that it's just a little more effort to do a full citation, and much, much better for Wikipedia.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Cox-nationwide Campaign

Cox should be under declared for nationwide campaigners. He is running nationwide, and this article skews it that he isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey14 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Shinoda for PREZ?

I am about to delete Mike Shinoda's name from the listing. Being only 30, he is not qualified for the office of president, and, even with citation, his campaign would not be anything more than a joke. Any opposition?Jpatch 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Cox a a major candidate, to appear in MSNBC debate

This has been discussed on the template for 2008 Election page. Cox has been invited and will attend a major MSNBC debate on Nov 7, thus solidifing him as a national candidate. Please add him. Casey14 02:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with this now. I was among those who was against Cox moving up, but with the Iowa straw poll results + this, I agree that he belongs with the others. --Aranae 03:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is up with the order?

The order these candidates are presented in makes no sense to me. I think the best NPOV way to do this is to list them alphabetically by last name. The only other NPOV method would be to base placement on polls but that is unreliable and constantly changing from day to day. Neovita 18:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Suggest the page maintainer(s) give this idea due consideration. Kerojack, Argenta 20:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What about order of announced candidacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.200.120 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huckabee on evolution

What does his stance on evolution have to do with his running for president? I would like to remove this reference, but someone reverts me when I try. 198.151.179.236 19:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It gives an indication on his outlook on certain matters of "faith". Evolution is still a theory to some.Kerojack, Argenta 02:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Colbert

I won't cross post this on the Democrat page, but in essence Mr. Colbert tried to get on the ballot for both parties, and wouldn't pay the $35,000 required by the Republicans, and did manage the $2,500 entrance fee for the Democrats but reputedly was considered to be running as a joke and for that reason alone he never got on the ballot with the Democrats. OK, he did declare himself a Presidential Candidate, but only as a "favorite son" in the State of South Carolina. In view of his high profile, I believe he merits a mention, however small, on both pages. Kerojack, Argenta 02:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Declined to seek nomination?

Wouldn't any person in the country who didn't seek a nomination fit under this heading? Like, really... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.48.183 (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's no need to list everyone whom people just expected to run. Why not put Arnold Schwarzenegger on there too? LK (t|c) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely unnecessary. Who would have to agree to change this?(Jschager (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Terrible formatting

The most glaring problem with the national candidates is that the official logos are not all the same size. I don't have time to fix this (one needs to upload the images and a thumbnail version, I guess, and I don't know how to do this). But Ron Paul has an official logo (at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/get-involved/downloads/) and it should be up instead of that silly-looking poster. John McCain's logo should be larger to conform with the width of the others. I can't find a Tancredo logo gif, but there must be one somewhere. Can someone please take care of this? Thanks.Sxp151 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giuliani

"Giuliani is pro-choice, and supports a type of civil union between same sex couples and agrees for legal and medical reasons that same sex relationships should get the same rights under the law. He also believes in strong restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms and agrees with harsh punishment for illegal weapons or non permitted weapons."

That needs changing, since it no longer really represents Giuliani's current view points. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Giuliani's statements used to reflect that he was solidly pro-gun control and pro-civil unions (and possibly even pro-gay marriage). But more recently he has changed several of his stances on social policy. He's now more or less abandoned his former position on guns. On gay rights, he now says that civil unionss go to far and that if a few states legalize gay marriage laws he would support a Federal Marriage Amendment, although he is still in favor of domestic partnerships and non-discrimination laws. And may also be noteworthy that he isn't completely pro-choice any more (he's changed on partial birth, consent, federal funding and judicial appointments, and NARAL now list him as "mixed choice" instead of "pro-choice.") And he's more to the right on immigration than he used to be. 82.152.200.188 (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Keyes

Is he not running a national campaign? Why is he listed in the "other" section?Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps moving him from the main candidates list, for some unknownable reason. It's hard because this article is really in 3 different parts, with each part having its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhinz (talk • contribs) 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Alan Keyes is being excluded because he is irrelevent. The debates he was invited to are the ones in which no major republican candidate attended. Every other candidate who attended those debates has since droped out. He wasen't even recorded in vote counts for any of the contests thus far.
  • From AlanKeys.com on 1/16/2007
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
His own site is a testament to his irrelevancy, but there is room in the 'other candidates' section for him with all of the information currently in his row. I would put it to a vote on that article but since he doesn't even have a wikipedia candancy article it may be a little lopsided. --mitrebox (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)--mitrebox (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The debate he was at where he interrupted the moderator had all of the major candidates.Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not many people know he is even running.....does he even have a national campaign? Still think he should be moved back to the Other Candidates section. Zachorious (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You and everyone but Alan. He needs to stop editing wikipedia and go get some votes. If he has no delegates after Feb 5th I move that he's out and never gets back in. --mitrebox (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why wait till then? He wasn't at the last debate nor was he on the Florida ballot. I'm going to move him back to the "Other Candidates" section. Zachorious (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, he WAS on the ballot in FL. Got some votes too. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delegates selected from caucuses

All delegates selected from a state party caucus, unless otherwise specified, are unbound. Please read the description in the list of Republican primary and caucuses. In addition, CNN is allocating delegates proportionally (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IA), while AP is allocating delegates assuming that county conventions will pass their choices up to congressional district conventions... which would result in a winner-take-all system by geography, resulting in the breakdown shown (http://www.iowagop.net/) and a 30/7 Huckabee/Romney split as projected by AP. This needs to either be blanked or clarified that these are not "results", but estimates by AP and CNN. Calwatch (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul winner of most GOP straw polls

Perhaps edits of this page should be limited to established editors. Vandals keep reverting the statement that Ron Paul has won the majority of GOP straw polls - as demonstrated by the linked article. And this without comment in the talk section. JLMadrigal (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remove Alan Keyes. If you go to his website, they will tell you there that it is a draft campaign, not an official candidacy.

Please stop making this claim: Alan Keyes became a candidate September 14, 2007.[1] Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

Maybe I'm missing the point of the page, but United States Republican Party presidential nomination, 2008 seems awfully useless, and at passing glance it does not look like there is any information on that page that is not included on this page. The article also appears to be abandoned; it is not categorized in any election related category and has been updated sparingly since 2007. Or am I mistaken and this page is being reserved for use at the convention? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see any useful information in United States Republican Party presidential nomination, 2008. It's all out-dated and speculation at that. I would just put a deletion request in for "United States Republican Party presidential nomination, 2008". --Bark (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bark that the article should be deleted. It's a mess, and serves no apparently useful function.--JayJasper (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with merger/deletion. It should probably just redirect to this article. -- Macduff (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be the simplest, and probably most sensible, move.--JayJasper (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Seeing a clear consensus building, I decided to be bold and redirect the page to this article. If anyone has a strong objection to the move, or a better idea, it can always be reverted. But I had a sense that this would be an acceptable move.--JayJasper (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where's Mike?

There any reason Huckabee is nowhere to be found on this page? 66.191.250.7 (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal and Replacement of "Withdrawn"

It makes no sense to keep it when there's a nominee and everyone else, withdrawn or otherwise, is not that nominee. Moreover, putting a bunch of minor candidates before the national candidates that have withdrawn makes equally no sense. Reverting back; we can debate the changes here.

And where did Huckabee go?--Kallahan (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree to some extent. Like United States Democratic presidential candidates, 2008, all the national candidates that have not yet withdrawn should still be described as such. It doesn't matter that Ron Paul and Alan Keyes have absolutely no chance to be the nominee at this point. They are still national candidates that are in the race, and this article should reflect that. It is not Wikipedia's place to preemptively withdraw them from the race before they themselves have. I don't have a problem with having a "Presumptive Nominee" section for just McCain, but the other candidates that are still in the race (Paul and Keyes) should be differentiated from the candidates that have withdrawn. In my mind, there should be three sections: Presumptive Nominee (McCain), Other candidates with national campaigns (Paul, Keyes), and Withdrawn from seeking nomination (the national candidates that have withdrawn, ex. Brownback, Gilmore, Giuliani, Huckabee, etc).
I did not remove Huckabee. That was someone else. I did, however, re-add Alan Keyes, who you have now removed again (probably unintentionally). -kotra (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
So, if there's no objection, I will go ahead and split the Candidates with national campaigns section into two categories, as discussed above. -kotra (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with splitting into "active" vs. "withdrawn". United States presidential election, 2008 and the Democratic analog of this page both use that format. Splitting into "presumptive", "have campaigns", and "withdrawn", however, is inherently biased and not consistent with WP:NPOV. There is no such thing as a "presumptive" nominee -- or more accurately, 'presumptive' just means that some person somewhere presumes that that candidate will win -- which is clearly that person's particular POV. The nomination is not determined until the September convention. Read the Republican National party rules and call to convention -- they clearly state how the nominee is to be determined, and they don't even allude to a "presumptive" candidate having any meaning at the convention. Ramorum (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Another note -- United States presidential election (2008) lists Alan Keyes under "withdrawn", although that may be inaccurate -- it is possible to seek nomination from both the Republican and Constitution parties at the same time. The page should be fixed, if that's the issue. Ramorum (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Just so I can understand, if Keyes and Paul never withdraw... do they get to stay in this new category permanently? --Kallahan (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that's impossible. Unless I'm mistaken, at the Republican National Convention in September, all other candidates besides the official nominee are automatically withdrawn from the Republican race. Though I doubt Keyes and Paul will wait until then. Apparently Paul is already winding down his campaign. In any case, the Candidates with national campaigns section is inaccurate as it stands now, because it's for candidates that "...are conducting multi-state campaigns." Some in that list are still, and some aren't. At the very least, that should be fixed.
Just an aside, it's interesting to note that the articles about the Democratic side of the race are well-maintained enough that they don't suffer from these problems. The listing here, for example. An example of Democrat bias in Wikipedia? Just idle speculation. -kotra (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not that the other candidates will be "withdrawn" from the Republican race -- the "race" is over at that point. Just like it's silly to say that after the election in November, the non-winning candidates will be "withdrawn". Ramorum (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. I think this is just semantics though, of course Ron Paul will not be described as a current candidate when the race is over, even in the ridiculously improbable event that he hasn't officially withdrawn. Alan Keyes is out of the picture now, since apparently he's left the Republican Party for the Constitution Party.
I'd like to bring up my suggested splitting of the "Candidates with national campaigns" section again, since no consensus had been achieved before. Can we agree that it's wrong as it is described now? "These candidates have filed with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), and are conducting multi-state campaigns" (own emphasis) implies current campaigning, which none of them are doing anymore, except Ron Paul. If we can agree this is an incorrect description, how best should we fix it? I suggest moving everyone besides Ron Paul to a "Withdrawn from seeking nomination" section, like on the Democrat page, to be consistent with that page, and to set Ron Paul, who is still in the race, apart from the withdrawn candidates. Thoughts? -kotra (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This statement is incorrect

' He has a strong stance on many issues and economically falls more along the lines of traditional "fiscal conservatism." '

McCain is not fiscally conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He has stated that he will keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years, which would cost (at least) trillions and trillions of dollars. The statement is so false it is laughable. Elodoth (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's all relative POV on a wide-ranging political spectrum, but since that wasn't cited (namely, who said this/thinks this), I agree with it's removal. --Bark (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It's really not POV that the Iraq War has cost trillions of dollars already, though. It's easily citable. Elodoth (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the original author of that might have been thinking of McCain's outspoken criticism of pork barrel spending. I agree with Bark, though. It's just relative opinion and I agree with its removal. -kotra (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He wasen't refering to a full military presence in Iraq, he was refering to residual troops. The United States still has troops in Japan, Germany, and South Korea even those the wars there are long over. It is a standard practise of the USA to keep a troop presence. Don't be so foolish Elodoth and spread incorrect conclusions over Wikipedia.. 69.245.80.218 (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This statement is an opinion

' "Though Ron Paul and Alan Keyes have not issued any statements, it is no longer possible for them to be nominated and it is assumed that they will withdraw in the coming days or weeks." '

I changed it to this, which is mere fact:

' Ron Paul and Alan Keyes have not issued any statements of withdrawal. '

It would take God to make the definitive statement that there is no possibility of anyone but McCain winning the nomination. Any number of things could happen between now and the convention, including many of McCain's delegates voting for someone other than McCain. McCain could drop dead for all we know, and on and on, with possibilities. Elodoth (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should concern ourselves with hypotheticals. Mathmatically, they are eliminated. I agree with the "assumption" part, but ignoring the mathmatics of the delegate race isn't very accurate in reflecting the nature of winning delegates. By law in most if not all states, the actual pledged delagates have to vote who they're pledged too. I think a statement like:
' "Though Ron Paul and Alan Keyes have not issued any statements, it is no longer mathematically possible for them to win the nomination in the primary/caucus process." '--Bark (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Your mathematics aren't much better than your spelling. 1162 "pledged" delegates out of 1191 required to win doesn't equal a mathematical guarantee. 1162 < 1191 last time I checked. (and even the 1191 are only "virtual" delegates who [mostly, at least] have not yet been elected or taken a pledge) Ramorum (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That isn't entirely true; McCain could either become incapacitated or the "natural born citizen" issue might turn out legally disqualify him from become president. Admittedly, both situations are highly unlikely, but not impossible. I think a better wording would be "Though Ron Paul and Alan Keyes have not issued any statements, it is no longer statistically possible for either of them to secure the nomination, except in the unlikely event of McCain becoming incapacitated or otherwise unqualified to be President." Not as concise, but more accurate. -kotra (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The only problem with that is if such an event were to happen, Huckabee, Romney, and maybe some other former candidates would reenter the race. Remember, Romney and Huckabee still have delegates pledged to them, and they have a lot more than Keyes or Paul. If something crazy like that would happen, more craziness would follow, and they would definitely reenter the "race" (namely, fight for the nomination at the convention). That's a whole lot of maybes and possibilities, and I don't think it's fitting to include it.
Again, too many hypotheticals. I stand by suggestion. Even if aliens abducted McCain or Bigfoot eats him, and he disappeared forever, there aren't enough free delegates left in the primary/caucus process to give anyone else a majority. That's just the math. It would have to get settled at the convention, a rather contentious convention I would imagine. That's why I like my statement. It's clear, concise, accurate, doesn't rely on hypotheticals, and gets the intended point across. Mathmatically, neither Keyes or Paul can win the majority of delegates in the primary/caucus process no matter what may happen. The convention is it's own animal entirely, and I think we should wait to cross that bridge if and when we get to it, not before.--Bark (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If McCain died, all his "pledged" delegates would become free automatically -- so your statement "there aren't enough free delegates left" is patently false. Besides that, this isn't a mathematical game. The nominee is determined by human beings making actual votes at an actual convention -- not by just counting up the virtual delegates after state primaries and caucuses. Your "we should wait to cross that bridge ... when we get to it" is a reason why we can't make statements like you suggest. Ramorum (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. However, in the case of McCain being taken out of the race, we don't know what will happen. All I'm saying is that it is possible for Paul or Keyes to still secure the nomination, albeit only in very unlikely circumstances. I agree, not in the primary/caucus process unless there was a revote, but at or near the Republican Convention if a brokered convention occurred. I don't even know if Huckabee and Romney would be actually allowed to re-enter the race at that point, especially if the primaries and caucuses had already passed, unless the primaries and caucuses had a revote. If not a revote, though, a brokered convention would occur, and Paul, since he has actually received some delegates, might have a good chance there. If a revote, either Paul or Keyes may still have a chance, though a very slim one. Of course, it would be chaos if any of this happened, and I agree, completely hypothetical. But saying it's mathematically impossible for either to win at this point is technically not accurate. Extremely unlikely, yes. Impossible, no. -kotra (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"Though Ron Paul and Alan Keyes have not issued any statements, it is no longer mathematically possible for them to win the nomination in the primary/caucus process." - No one else can get the majority of delegates in the primary/caucus process, and the delegates can't switch until the convention. Either way, my entire statement is 100% accurate with reality . . . Although hasn't Paul made a statement now? Maybe the entire thing should just go.--Bark (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Technically nobody wins the nomination in the primary/caucus process. Who wins the nomination is decided at the convention. Someone can become the presumptive nominee, as McCain has, but until September, nobody will have actually won the nomination. I understand your meaning, though. How's this: "Though Ron Paul and Alan Keyes have not issued any statements, it is no longer mathematically possible for either of them to obtain a majority of the delegates during the primary/caucus process."
As for Paul, he's still in the race. -kotra (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I like it, but since Ron Paul did issue a statement, maybe it should be, "Though Ron Paul and Alan Keyes are still active candidates, it is no longer mathematically possible for either of them to obtain a majority of the delegates during the primary/caucus process."--Bark (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good. I've changed it to that. Yay, agreement. -kotra (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And there was much rejoicing.--Bark (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cox and Keyes

John Cox and Keyes both need to be listed on this page as candidadates that had/have national campaigns. 00:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)