Talk:United States presidential election, 2008/Archive 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Differences between templete & page

For instance, the templete lists Al Gore as having serious interest in running while the page does not. Also, Bill Wyatt is listed as an official Republican candidate on the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobie Hunter (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

One question

Does any candidate has a polish 'roots'? S. M. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.205.72.216 (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

It's official

Dodd is running for president. Check out http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16565744/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.8.3.9 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Ron Paul

He's filed, but it's unclear if he'll be a Republican, Libertarian, or independent. I put him under the GOP because that's what he is now. Also, I only could find blog citations, so I put one of the more reputable blogs down, but feel free to improve the citation when one comes along. Zz414 21:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't 2006 anymore.

This article needs to change the wording so it does not read like 2007 was still in the future. Don't know how to do it though. (scratches head) -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

New Hampshire Republican Primary?

Article says it's supposed to occur on a Monday, is that correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.106.255 (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC). no.66.108.2.161 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1952 vs. 1928 "non-incumbent" election issue

The last time a sitting U.S. President or U.S. Vice President did not enter a state primary or caucus (seeking election to the Presidency) was 1928. I revised the article to reflect this fact--although 1952 and 1968 were close (Truman entered the New Hampshire primary in 1952, but lost to Estes Kefauver and dropped out; Lyndon Johnson won the New Hampshire primary in 1968, but dropped out anyway). ProfessorPaul 08:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC) ==John Kerry==

I don't know if John Kerry is running for President according to this: [1] Carpet9 16:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

He still could, if Massachusetts law allows it. Remember how Joe Lieberman ran for the Senate and the Vice Presidency in 2000? Valadius 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But Massachussetts law does not allow it. Carpet9 23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

He just announced that he won't be running in 2008. [2] Macduff 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

a Grand Revision

With 2007 over two weeks old, there is something new to consider. Starting next month, the parties in a number of states are going to sponser candidate forums and debates. Invitation to these debates are extremely important to a candidate's status, so I think that the candidate section should start out with "candidates invited to at least ONE major forum." Being invited to a major cattle call is a form of recognition. Look at Larry Agren, he wasn't invited and that was the end of him as a serious candidate. Also, there's the listing of all the candidates in order of staus, front runners, middle tier, "what the hell are they doing here? teir. It's already happened: GOP:Rudy, Romney, McCain and everyone else. Dems: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, everyone else. usually one from "everyone else" manages to make it past Iowa, but the front runners are almost always the one's who go all the way.Ericl 17:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Charles Smith

I've noticed that some people have been removing Michael Charles Smith from the Republican list recently. Is there any reason for this? Is there any way to verify that he has officially filed? Valadius 21:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It says so on his page, so we're not making it up. This article confirms it: http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2006/04/02/news/top_story/news01.txt Rowsdower45 15:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC) == Third parties?==

I read that the only parties on enough ballots in enough States to theoretically win the presidency are the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Constitution Party. Should we limit the "third parties" listed to those, and include other candidates under "independents" or some other category? I don't think that the Reform Party, the Socialist Party, or the Prohibition Party merit the same attention as the other three, if that's the case. Zz414 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe Biden filing

Because I've been suddenly accused of "link spam," I'll post it here. Biden has sent out an e-mail announcing that he'll file with the FEC tomorrow, January 31. His official site will be joebiden.com. Just a heads-up as soon as it happens so we can move him. Zz414 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Pataki statement

It looks like Pataki is off the "interest" wagon, and someone has removed him.[3] He's in the Gore camp of "it's still a possibility," but it doesn't look like he's seriously interested. Zz414 21:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

47th Vice President

I've added the fact that the winning VP candidate, will become the 47th Vice President of the USA. The President & Vice President are elected together. If neither get a majority vote in the Electoral College, the House of Represenative chooses the president-elect & the Senate chooses the vice president-elect. GoodDay 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good addition. We don't need to worry about "candidates" until it's mid-2008, but listing those details is helpful. Zz414 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

John Kerry

It's official, Kerry isn't going to seek the presidency. Just look at this [4]

It's on his website too. 9th paragraph down. [5]

Go ahead and call the obvious states

Everyone and his grandmother knows that SC, Georgia, Virginia, Tennessee, Texas, North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana are going republican. And New England and California are going Democrat. Please put on there that "It is presumed, from political history, that the following states will go Democrat... Republican..."

Um, no. --Zz414 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Google and the wiki, and their own impact

In Google, searches for Edwards, Obama, Giuliani, Gingrich, Clinton, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee, and probably all other candidates return Wikipedia entries as the first, second, third or fourth hit. What impact will the Wikipedia have on the race? What impact will Google have on it, if they continue to rank us that near the top?

I believe that polling firms ask questions about where voters learn about the candidates. Is it possible to get such information for the Wiki? MrZaiustalk 06:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Estimated cost of the 2008 presidential election

Found FANTASTIC article in the New York Daily News, dated January 17, 2007, relating to the estimated cost of the 2008 presidential election. FEC Chairman Michael Toner stated he thought it would be a "$1 billion election" and that a candidate (probably) had to raise "$100 million" by the end of 2007 "just to be taken seriously." [6] The article has an excellent chart at the end. Have added the facts from this newspaper article and cited the source. ProfessorPaul 08:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? What about the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball"? Isn't this rampant speculation that the election will cost $X, or, alternatively, an insignificant assertion that, *gasp*, an election four years later may cost more than the previous one? I'm skeptical of the worth of this article, at least at this stage. Zz414 14:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that this election could be "The most expensive election in American history" is (I feel) not worth stating because due to inflation, even if the candidates spent the same real amount, the nominal amount would of course be higher. Therefore, unless adjusted for inflation, these numbers mean nothing. Moreover, these numbers are merely pure speculation...futher questioning such importance or relavency. 須藤 19:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

First election without incumbents in 80 years?

The general election did not have an incumbent in 1952 and 1968. Whether the incumbent entered the primaries is really not the major issue. The fact that the two designated candidates on the two major parties is. Maybe in the US, the long primary season is interesting, but for the world, the general election is the key contest. In that spirit, the statement, "First election without incumbents in 80 years" is not correct.

To be correct, the statement should read, "First election without incumbents involved in the primaries or general election in 80 years" user:mnw2000 22:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • That section does say "The 2008 race will be the first time since 1928 (80 years) that neither the sitting president nor the sitting vice president will enter a state caucus or primary and run for president" which explains pretty clearly what it means. I don't think it is misleading, and it is notable that it is the first time in 80 years that a president or vice president won't seek election to the office. It gives a sense of how wide open the election is for all parties, not just the challenging party. Given that the section explains what this statement means, I think it should stay. Alienmercy 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Obama's status

It appears some people think Obama's "kickoff rally" on Saturday indicated that he'd filed with the FEC as a candidate for the Democrats. In fact, he's still only filed an "exploratory committee" and has simply held a "kickoff rally" as he begins down that road. Please do not move him until he's actually filed as a candidate with the FEC, and not merely filed in an exploratory committee. --Zz414 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Obama has announced his candidacy, transmitted live worldwide (e.g. in the Netherlands, where I live). His Website has lost the label "Exploratory Committee". The candidate's stated intentions should be more important than whether he has or has not filed the paperwork (even then: how could we check that? The FEC updates their filings page currently only once a week). Peterbr 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Simply "announcing" candidacy means almost nothing. After all, Clinton also "announced" her candidacy, but all that means is a kickoff rally even though an exploratory committee had been filed. I suppose we'll just have to wait until the FEC papers are updated laster this week, but I'm pretty skeptical, because not a single news source indicates that he's filed with the FEC as a candidate. The FEC report indicates he's still only in the exploratory committee stage. --Zz414 16:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I'll add that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it relies upon sourced and cited data. If something can't be verified, then the default isn't to go with the unverified position; it's to go with the verified position and look for verification for the unverified position. --Zz414 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you only accept evidence from fec.gov, as if that is the Holy Grail. There are hundreds of newspapers around the world reporting (12,121 results) that Obama is officially candidate. The FEC needs some time to process and publish; while they're doing it, I suggest that this page reflects the position considered factual by most of the world's journalists, which is that Obama is an official candidate. You made three reverts yesterday, if I counted correctly, so I point to WP:3RR. I'm going to not modify this article for the next 24 hours and ask you to do the same; even though I just saw that Hillary is supposedly "official candidate". Let the others in the community have their say today ... Peterbr 08:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Voilà: filed. Peterbr 10:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Like I said, I'm not taking the FEC Web site has the "Holy Grail," but no media sources (that I could find) even announced that he'd filed with the FEC as a candidate. I was looking for the magic "FEC filed" words to appear on some media, and it never happened. But I'm happy to concede once he's listed somewhere. --Zz414 14:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, wait until Obama files with the FEC. GoodDay 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Al Sharpton

He shouldn't be under the potential candidates secton. First off, he's a reverend, not a politician. Also, he dosen't have a political website, a campaign site, or an exploratory committee. He being listed sort of reminds me of somebody putting Howard Stern on the list. I beleive it would be wise to remove him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobie Hunter (talk • contribs) 22:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Since the above is POV, can someone confirm Al Sharpton's candiate status? Anarchist42 22:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
There's already a citation indicating that he's seriously "expressing interest."[7] A candidate doesn't need a Web site to express interest. He's officially run in years past, so it's not as incredible as Howard Stern. Hobie, it had a citation, so it's perfectly legitimate. Here's a source from TODAY indicating that Sharpton has declined to endorse Obama because he is considering his own bid.[8] Sharpton stays, even though you may not like it. Zz414 23:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, Hobie edited his original comments, and I was responding to those: "He shouldn't be under the potential candidates secton. First off, he's a reverend, not a politician. Furthermore, he has no chance of winning the nomination, let alone the election. Finally, and most importantly, he dosen't have a political website, a campaign site, or an exploratory committee. He being list here has about as much credibility as Howard Stern. I'm removing him." Zz414 01:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Sharpton is a reverand, has no effect on his being a potential presidential candidate. Sorry 'Hobie', Sharpton stays. GoodDay 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving Al Gore

Could somebody please create a subpage for the whole Al Gore discussion. I think that we should creaate a specific archive of this because it is much longer than any other topic discussed abou the 08' election. --Hobie Hunter 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please archive!

Could someone please archive this page! For goodness sakes, the first post was from over a year ago! This page is becoming way too long. And besides, only the last three topics are still ongoing. --Hobie Hunter 21:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Hobie Hunter, 8:29 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I dumped all of the 2006 entries into the existing /Archive1; maybe not a best practice? We probably need monthly archiving from here on. Peterbr 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved about sixteen topics into Archive 1. We should probably form a new acrhive about all the stuff that originally wasn't in Archive 1.--Hobie Hunter 02:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani

Check it out [9] --Hobie Hunter 02:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani is playing a game, which I think reflects a pretty sophisticated understanding of how to manipulate the media and sites like Wikipedia.

Essentially, there are 3 things a candidate has to do: (1) file paperwork with the FEC, (2) form an exploratory committee, and (3) announce his/her candidacy.

Giuliani has done (1) and (2), and is waffling on (3), with the desired effect of getting a lot of speculation in the media about whether or not he's "really running."

From the MSNBC article cited:

“ During a news conference Saturday after a speech in Sacramento, Calif., Giuliani was asked, "Are you in this for good?"

"Yes, I am committed," he said. "This is something I believe I can bring something to, from the experiences that I've had."

When asked a follow-up question about when he would make a formal announcement, he responded, "Well, formally announce? I don't know. If you go back to my speech, I think I may have. I'm not sure."

He then alluded to making an announcement in multiple locations "so we get more attention" but provided no details.

 ”

So, let's not blindly play into his hand. I am going to rename the section headers to reflect the technical criteria (1) and (2), to remove the guesswork on (3).

Thoughts? -Pete 10:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinon, only the candidates who've filed with FEC should be listed in this article. The 'exploratories' and 'thinking about it' candidates additions, simply invite arguments about where who fits in what section. GoodDay 19:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. So Giuliani would stay, because he's filed with the FEC, right? I don't really care whether or not 'thinking about it' candidates or listed here, so long as it's consistent. They are listed in the "main" article linked, so removing them from here really does no harm. -Pete 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Guliani stays. GoodDay 23:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nader

Now that we've opened Pandora's Box by permitting Gore to be listed as a candidate even though he hasn't expressed serious interest, we've got to figure out what the limiting principle is for others. Nader has "left the door open," just like Gore, Bloomberg, and Pataki, but he has not expressed "serious interest" as of yet, and is not "actively considering" a run. It seems contingent on the Democrats, and it may change in the future, but again, until Nader expresses serious interest, he shouldn't be listed. --Zz414 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We have not opened up Pandora's Box. Nonetheless, Nader shouldn't be listed. He's completely ruled out the possibility of running. It's just one of those people who put unknown politicians who aren't running. In short, it's an isolated incident. --Hobie Hunter 22:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Drop-out candidates

I added this category. We spent a lot of energy figuring out whether to list Bayh and Warner after they'd expressed intentions but hadn't officially decided to run. Now that we have a candidate who was officially running, FEC filed, and an announced candidate, I think we should place him in a new category of candidates who filed with the FEC and dropped out before the primaries. I imagine we'll have a couple from the Democrats and the Republicans who do so. Ultimately, we'll have three categories: the nominee, candidates who lost the primaries, and candidates who filed and dropped out before the primaries. Thoughts? --Zz414 16:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We did discuss this, and came to the conclusion that we would create this category. Valadius 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, a user added Bayh, but Bayh only formed an Exploratory Committee and never announced his candidacy. --Zz414 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, now really isn't the time to have candidates who dropped out. This article is a place where people look to find out who's running. This category should be added when we get to primaries or the conventions. We don't have a section on this page for John Kerry or Russ Fiengold or Howard Dean. Vilsack should be listed with them --Hobie Hunter 21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Kerry, Feingold, and Dean never announced their official candidacy; they merely explored the possibility of becoming a candidate. That's the difference. If you want to draw the line at "participate in a primary," please explain why that's more significant than "FEC filed and officially announced" candidates. I think (and apparently Valadius said that consensus previously concluded) that announced candidacy should be the line, not participation in a primary. --Zz414 02:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point ZZ. I believe that participating in a primary or two is more important than filing than withdrawing because the primaries are part of the actual election. Vilsack dropped out over a year before the primaries. The category Vilsack really belongs in should be added once the actual election starts next January. After all, we don't want the page getting too crowded. --Hobie Hunter 03:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to start a quarrel again, but 'Al Gore' has got to go (see my posting above, at Al Gore IV). GoodDay 03:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
To avoid further futile discussion, I'm willing to wait another month. --Zz414 15:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hobie, please don't remove Vilsack, as consensus per Valadius and this discussion has indicated that it should remain. First, announcing candidacy and being called "candidate" is a big step. Allen, Bayh, Frist, Kerry, and Warner cannot say they were candidates for president in 2008; Vilsack can. Second, opinion polling for states like Iowa included Vilsack, not Allen, Bayh, Frist, Kerry, and Warner. Third, people actually endorsed Vilsack, like Sen. Tom Harkin; no one endorsed Allen, Bayh, Frist, Kerry, or Warner because they weren't candidates. Finally, the page won't get "too long." As discussed above, it will be broken into three simple categories: candidates who dropped out before the primary, candidates who dropped out during the primary, and the candidate for the party. --Zz414 15:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
First off, I looked for that discussion and didn't find any previous diacussion like this. Second, I meant right now the candidates section might get too long. Third, although Vilsack was a candidate, he was a candidate for less than three months and dropped out a year before any primaries. He didn't even make it to the most rudimentary debates. I think it would be more appropriate to have him as a note. --Hobie Hunter 00:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Consensus was reached here, as I originally stated, "Candidates who expressed interest, but then decided to back out and not pursue the nomination are not that significant. It's only when you actually enter the primary or official announce that it matters once you drop out." Or here, "Certainly I don't think he qualifies as a dropout candidate when he was never actually a candidate." The archives show exhaustive discussions of it. And making a "note" only makes the article longer, if that were actually your original concern. --Zz414 01:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I couldn't find the discussion. The first post in the first topic proves my point exactly. To quote the topic I don't know that this is a meaningful category to have. It's not going to be significant in the future. Candidates who expressed interest, but then decided to back out and not pursue the nomination are not that significant. It's only when you actually enter the primary or official announce that it matters once you drop out. At this stage, it's so early and speculative that a drop out isn't really a worthy event because, after all, they've "dropped out" only from, what, exploring the possibility of running? I don't think it's a good category. My main point is that if you're a candidate for three months and didn't participate in a single primary, caucus, or even a basic debate you're just not significant. I think it would be best to keep Vilsack as a note until there are other candidates like him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobie Hunter (talk • contribs) 14:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
If a non-candidate (Al Gore) is gonna be listed. Then a former candidate (Tom Vilsack) should be listed aswell. There'll be more candidates dropping out, before January 2008. Will they be eliminated aswell? GoodDay 16:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Vilsack should remain - this encyclopedia article should reflect the historical events of this race. -Pete 17:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I've said this before and I'll say it again, GoodDay, please don't talk about Al Gore here. It is a complete distraction to say Vilsack should be listed because Gore is. First of, Vilsack has not and will not be eliminated. He simply listed as a note. Furthermore, there are other 'non-candidates listed such as Al Sharpton, Michael Savage, and Wes Clark. Last but not least once there are two or three candidates who have droppped out before the primaries, there will be that specific category for that. Just as a note, I don't think anyone will remove Vilsack on the page. --Hobie Hunter 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Article is looking out of date

This article is begining to look out of date according to this article: [10] Casig10228 17:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

??? --Ai.kefu 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should contain accurate information. No matter how many times the votes were counted and what some editors desire. incumbent Vice President Al Gore lost the 2000 election. The page should reflect this. Thanks. Steve

Huh????--Hobie Hunter 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please specify what is out-of-date about this article. I've read the page you linked to, and I don't get it. Peterbr 15:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the user is joking or mistaken; none of his other contributions have anything to do with politics or current events. I really don't think his comment here should be considered further. Qqqqqq 02:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Valadius 17:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? On the main page regarding the election, it was stated that the 2008 election would be the first election in 80 years (since the 1928 election) without a sitting President or Vice President. But the 1952 election had neither. Just wanted some feedback before I attempted to edit that section. Bujudude

Truman's VP ran in 1952. He didn't win the primaries, though. Frankg 14:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
That's right, Vice President Alben W.Barkley sought the 1952 Democratic presidential nomination. He was unsuccessful, due in part to his age (75 years). Therefore, 2008 is the first time (since 1928) no incumbent President or incumbent Vice President sought his party's presidential nomination. GoodDay 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

NM Governor Bill Richardson's comment

The Associated Press has reported that New Mexico Governor and Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson has stated that the Democratic contest for President will be over in late January 2008 after the first four state contests (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina). The AP link is here: [11]. I have included it in this article and cited the source--but we can discuss Richardson's comment here, if needed. ProfessorPaul 00:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Richardson crystal-balling? Should we really mention his comment here? GoodDay 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

More official candidates

When did Jim Gilmore and Mike Huckabee announce that they were running? I see no reference to warrant their movement to the "Official candidates" section in this article, in Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Republican candidates nor in the candidate's articles. They were moved during the last 24 hours. Peterbr 12:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor-major party candidates

There are at least twice as many FEC-listed or at least announced candidates than those listed here. That includes "minor-major" candidates as I'll call them (because, while they've filed, they're probably not going to enter the national primary). Some, but not all, include Republicans Saint Jesus Michael Archangel, Hugh Cort, John Cox, Millie Howard, Mark Klein, Richard Smith, and Michael Charles Smith (the last of which is the only one currently listed); and Democrats Warren Ashe, Randy Crow, Michael Forrester, Dan Francis, Karl Krueger, and Sal Mohamed. Also, there are scores more independent candidates. Any way we can establish a principle for distinguishing these candidates, or making a complete list or explanation for why some are not listed? I don't think they should all be listed, because it just becomes a laundry list of names instead of an article, but I'm having trouble coming up with an articulate reason for doing so or a way to indicate why. --Zz414 16:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My proposal would be to remove the major-party candidates that have never been elected to some "higher office" before. Only those who've ever been elected to Vice President, Governor, Senator, Representative or Mayor have historically been proven to stand a chance in the race for a major party's nomination; plus war-winning generals. Only if other candidates are highlighted by "the media" should Wikipedia pay attention to them. Also see the shortlist published by the FEC, which seems to use a similar selection. For independents I wouldn't know what "rule" to apply. Peterbr 21:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest something slightly different. A lot of times a third-party candidate is running in only one or two states. I suggest keeping the larger party listings as they are, as removing would be a HUGE controversy - more so than I want to deal with as a major watcher of this page. In exchange, any third party candidate may be listed, BUT must be cited with FEC filing proof AND list if they are not on the ballot in all states. For instance, John Doe has filed but only for a spot on the Oregon Ballot - and should be listed as such. If you think about it, our system needs to recognize more than just the "headline-getters". Fair and open listing for all legal presidential candidates. - Thanks - Eisenmond 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the FEC shortlist idea. That said, we should be careful about candidates who've only held another office, which would ostensibly exclude Sharpton (who's received primary delegates in the past, after all), among others. As for Eisenmond, that's an appropriate burden for third-party candidates, I think. If an independent campaign garners enough support to be listed in several states, then that will be listed. Of course, I have no idea if candidates could even start filing in states right now if they wanted to, which may make that burden too high. No easy answers, but I appreciate the discussion. --Zz414 15:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The shortlist on the FEC site shows that Richardson, Gilmore, Tancredo, Thompson, Huckabee, etc. have all filed, but they are still listed under the "Candidates who have formed exploratory committees, but not yet filed with the FEC:" section. Either this information has been out of date for a month, or some other criteria is being used for this distinction. The same should be applied to Minor-major party candidates (I just don't understand what that currently is)--66.63.138.194 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
De facto this article is using the same criteria as the sub-articles Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Democratic candidates and Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Republican candidates, which are: "The following have officially declared their candidacy for the 2008 Presidential Election by filing (or announcing plans to file) the necessary papers with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC)." and "The following have officially decided to run for the Republican nomination for President office by filing the necessary papers with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), and are actively conducting a multi-state campaign." The operative word seems to me "official", which is shown in those sub-articles by using the heading "Official candidates". I propose to use that heading in this article as well, and make the criteria explicit. Peterbr 16:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am new to the wiki group, but I would like to chime in on this issue as I am one of the "minor" candidates. I took the trouble to file the Form 1&2 with the FEC. I am constitutionally qualified for this position and I intend to do what I can to obtain my goal. I thought the whole idea behind the Wikipedia was to be an encyclopedia which is truly made by the people. I can understand the question here but this is the internet, a place to FREELY exchange information and ideas. I think your discussion including comments like "highlighted by the media" is not in line with what wikipedia stands for. There are lots of topics that you would never see in the main stream media. This page is about the '08 Presidential Elections for the United States of America and for you to consider deleting or removing a name simply because it is not in the "mainstream" only serves to diminish the values of what I believe Wikipedia stands for. Not only that, but these people, whether they are in the main stream media or not, sacrifice a lot of time and effort to do this. The battle is hard enough with the current campaign finance laws for the "little" guy to reach out to people. For you to remove a VALID candidates name just because you have never heard of him or her is just plain wrong and goes against what this country is all about. Thanks for your time. Respectfully, Ray Mckinney

Opening paragraph

I dont understand the part where it says "no incumbent president seeking re-election",but bush cannot seek relection if he has had two terms,so why would it say no president will seek relection? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodrigue (talk • contribs) 17:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

In all the presidential elections 1932 to 2004, an incumbent president or an incumbent vice-president ran for his Party's presidential nomination (which isn't the case, in 2008). GoodDay 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, he said president, so that doesn't make much sense. Gooddays response didn't make sence, because he added vice-presidentm,which changes that whole thing entirely. What I really didn't understand was the "Vice-presidential candidate who recieves the most electoral votes will be the 47th vice-president." Every election, a president and vice-president run on a ticket to become the corresponding officer for the next four years. We don't elect people for 12 years in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.53.115 (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
See United States Electoral College, fo clarification. GoodDay 20:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

80 years?

It says currently that it's been 80 years since an election with neither an incumbent VP nor an incumbent president. What about 1952? I suppose Truman took a while to decide not to run, and Alben Barkley ran desultorily for the Democratic nomination, but I don't think anyone thought he had a chance to win. Color me dubious of this claim. john k 15:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the comments earlier on, at the end of #Article_is_looking_out_of_date. Peterbr 09:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's such a specific claim that I'm dubious of its usefulness. Nixon was, at any rate, the first modern vice president. Barkley had no kind of leg up for the nomination as a result of his position, and the Democratic nomination was certainly seen as wide open that year. Prior to Barkley, the last sitting vice president to even try to become president was, er...John C. Breckinridge in 1860. It was only with Nixon that the idea of a vice president succeeding his president became commonplace. john k 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a reference to a Washington Post article to demonstrate attribution to a reliable source. Peterbr 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course the claim is technically true. The question is whether it's significant. The 1952 Democratic nomination was wide open. Barkley was never the front-runner, ran in no primaries, and, indeed, did not win the nomination. The current phrasing suggests that the last wide open election of this kind was in 1928, but in fact, in all reasonable respects, it was in 1952. The claim is true, but misleading, in that it implies that Alben Barkley's role as vice president running for the nomination was comparable to that of Al Gore or George H.W. Bush or Hubert Humphrey or Richard Nixon, which it was not. john k 16:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not the question. If the claim is technically true, it's true. Truman actually RAN a campaign in New Hampshire in 1952, He didn't personally campaign, but neither did most incumbents prior or after him.

Until the AFL/CIO said that they wouldn't support him because he was too old, Barkley was indeed the front runner in 1952. He was a formal candidate for a time, so he counts. Also, Vice President John Nance Garner ran for president in 1940 and his name was put into nomination, and former vice president Henry Wallace ran as a third party candidate in 1948.´´´ericl

Just Curious

Why is it that we have deemed Mitt Romney as a frontrunner, but left out Newt Gingrich? Polls show Gingrich ahead of Romney quite consistently. Just throwing that out there. Jrborchik 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Gingrich isn't officially in the race. As long as he's not running, he can't be front-running. Peterbr 16:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Green Candidates

I've been watching the list of Green candidates and have seen the names change repeatedly. Right now the list isn't even organized the way the other third parties are, with announced candidates separate from those who just might be running. The list of announced candidates ought to include Elaine Brown, Nan Garrett, Kat Swift, and Kent Mesplay. Possible candidates should include Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Rebecca Rotzler, and Cindy Sheehan. --Banyan 22:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Nan Garrett has decided not to run [12]. Augustson has announced his intention to seek the Green nomination [13]. Another possible candidate is Al Gore. I had linked a site citing sources close to Gore, but his entry was removed for some reason. The alliance 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is incorrect to remove the link to the Wicked Witch of the West.

She has often been compared to The Wicked Witch of the West by various people including Rush Limbaugh. Even if you disagree with this comparison, the two have been compared, and readers should be able to view what Hillary Clinton is being compared to. Earl Grey Tea 23:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:LIVING. Peterbr 16:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

odds and betting

What are the odds for these candidates? Can someone at least provide a link, given that they may change? And is betting on this presidential race legal in the U.S.? It seems legal in the U.K. -Amit, 04/04/07


Gosh I wish the Dem's were actually putting up some serious candidates for this election. Hillary...are you kidding me? This is the front runner? Followed closely by Barrack Hussein O. Come on! These two are just embarrasing, is this how devastated the party has become in the past 8 years? I pray a more qualified, experienced, respectable, and basically legitimate candidate emerges soon. Although we can maintain some hope the election is aways off, so the potential for these two to burn out is great. -Jay 04/24/07

Giuliani: still in exloratory phase?

Is Rudy's campaign still in the exploratory phase, or is he officially in? His website says "campaign committee" as opposed to "exploratory committee". --Wgbc2032 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cut NPVIC paragraph

"The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a proposed agreement between states in the United States dealing with allocation of electoral votes. This interstate compact would effectively shift the method of election of the President of the United States to a national popular vote system. By the terms of the compact, states agree to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of the balance of votes in their own states. The compact would only go into effect once it was joined by states representing a majority of the electoral college. However thus far this proposal has only 10 electoral votes (all from Maryland), and is close to being passed in Arkansas and Hawaii. Hawaii needs only the Governor's signature, and Arkansas needs that and the approval of its state Senate (although the Governor has promised to sign it if it reaches his desk). Even if these two states opt in, the bill would need 250 more electoral votes to be enacted. Bills are being drafted or debated in all but 4 states at present. It is unlikely to pass in the state which would give it the most votes, California, due to Arnold Schwarzenneger's veto of the bill in 2006. Because of all of these factors, it is unlikely that this bill would be enacted in time to take effect in the 2008 presidential election." The wiki is not a crystal ball and as the last sentence states, unlikely to take effect in 2008. I've kept the other paragraph dealing with one more electorial vote (for now) since such legislation has passed the house. Jon 14:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Gore

I am fairly sure that fmr. Vice President Al Gore has explicitly stated more than once that he will not attempt a bid for 2008. Someone needs to gather citation evidence for this so he may be removed from the list (albeit, sadly) Gautam Discuss 09:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Though I prefer to remove 'Gore' from the article list, we may as well leave him (until he decides to run or not). Either that or go through another 'long' discussion. GoodDay 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Gore's made a number of non-denial denials, so far as I can tell. "I'm not planning to run," "I have no plans to run," that kind of thing. john k 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, didn't we agree to 'remove' Al Gore, if he didn't announce his candidacy at the last Acadamy Awards (February 25, 2007)? GoodDay 21:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No we didn't, although we agreed that would be the most likely place he would announce. See the Al Gore discussion --Hobie Hunter 20:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Battleground states

The new battleground states section reads like a running commentary and opinion piece: the sort of thing you'd read on the website of one of the major news outlets. There may be a place for this section, but it needs a lot of work to get to a state of WP:NPOV and not WP:OR. --Aranae 01:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Where is the list of battleground states coming from? There are legitimate arguments for each of them but I think Wisconsin has more of a chance of switching than Pennsylvania or Virginia. If you want to put a partisan message on a site like this, at least cite it somewhere. Papercrab 22:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle ground states should probably be removed altogether, because like stated above, it reads like running commentary. I'd bet my house it was contributed by one user all at once from something that if not plagerized, should be sold... to a paying media outlet where oppinions are commonplace. But deffinately removed from wikipedia. Do we really think that we can revise this section as a COMMUNITY or should we just rewrite something comparably, with the input of more minds (and maybe some sources?) or perhaps NOT write anything of the sort... and alow the opinion-seeker to look to john stewart or rush limbaugh. (P.S. just to scare everybody a little... did anybody notice that one of the 15 million "dittoheads" that listen to Rush on the EIB feels no shame in using him as a citation about comparisons he made about the Wicked Witch of the West and a candidate? i say we all listen to Rush for a few weeks... just long enough to get the picture... that Lush Rambo's bantar is still only as objective as Stephen Colbert)

I think a section for battleground states could be quite valuable, but only if there was a basis to list certain states as "battlegrounds". It's a bit early to know what will be at stake, but if there is cited polling that indicates a close race in a state, I don't see what harm it can do.

Presidential Debates

2008_Presidential_Debates I started this page to document the various presidential debates from here on until the election in November 2008. I started this page but I do not have the time to flesh it out, wanted to advertise it to you to hope some one would begin to take on the effort flesh it out. :-) --Dave1g 03:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What Makes A Candidate?

Under the topic of "Candidates and potential candidates" there are a number of categories. The question that I ask is "What makes a candidate?" If an individual has filed paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and has a Campaign Web Site, regardless of what others think of his/her chances, does that not make him/her a candidate? I believe that it should. This comes up because a number of persons are deleting additions to the candidate lists without verifying the facts as listed earlier. So, what does cause an individual to be listed as a candidate?? David3234710:52 9 July 2007 (UTC)

For the two major parties, it has got to be an individual who is A) running and B) appears in at least some media and/or bureau polls to be on this page, or it would get unwieldy in a big hurry. That's a big part of the reason why Democrats and Republicans have their own articles with candidates listed. Literally hundreds of people register with the FEC to run for President every four years (it's a fairly simple process considering that it's a government organization). This page would be useless if every minor candidate were listed with every major candidate in the two major parties. Thus, minor independents can be listed on this page, but only major candidates from the major parties, while the minor candidates can be mentioned on the party pages. - RPIRED 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Since I have no reason to disbelieve what you said, don't you think it would be a good idea to have those rules posted on the page since they (the rules) are not stated anywhere? It certainly would have avoided an "Edit War". David32347 8:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
"With official events, such as debates and candidate forums, beginning as early as February 2007, the status of a candidate will be based on whether or not he or she is invited" seems blunt enough to me. - RPIRED 12:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Election Observers

Will there be any election observers this time? Richardkselby 20:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Why not add Ron Paul in frontrunner status

Someone edited my post.He destroyed other candidates in msnbc and abc poll —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Becasue he is not the frontrunner in any scientifically conducted poll - I don't know what you;re referring to as ABC - I do know what the MSNBC online vote was: in their own words.Tvoz |talk 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone edited your post because they believe the media when they tell us who the frontrunners are. After all, they say if a candidate doesn't have enough media coverage he hasn't earned more media coverage. Orwellian doublespeak by a bunch of criminals running our media. Read the smear article and see the comments before they are deleted here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/comments?type=story&id=3165894 Watch this movie to see what ABC and other networks did to Larry Agran in 1992. They're doing the same thing to Ron Paul. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7344181953466797353

Here are two links to MSNBC polls, showing that Ron Paul clearly won.

MSNBC Poll - Positive/Nutral/Negative: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18659382/

MSNBC Poll - Stood out during debate: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18661344/

I also agree with the above comments made. There is evidence about this in the below video with former Fox News employees who talk about how Fox as well as other Rupert Murdoch owned networks, are not balanced at all. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428

Media caught lying about Ron Paul statements: http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5466_0_3_0_C/

Hopefully someone will take the time to look at the facts before removing facts from wikipedia...

Ron Paul consistently wins debate polls, despite what the mainstream wants. Ron Paul is a front runner!

Why not call Ron Paul a front runner? Because he isn't a front runner. The ability to win a voodoo poll has no correlation to the ability to win elections. It's nice that you're passionate about Ron Paul (like all those people organizing participation by his supporters in the voodoo polls), but you and your fellows should not be allowed to hijack Wikipedia to propagandize for him. Ehrbar 10:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you would take some time and check on the fact that all of the mainstream media outlets are run by only four organizations in the United States, and that their own employees have gone on record that the media they worked for was bias for whatever the owners wanted, and also that over 35 polls (mainstream polls) have shown Ron Paul as the front runner, but were removed shortly after, I think you will be able to figure out why.

Ron Paul is for bringing our troops home, which would end the excessive spending to the military owned companies, and he is also for upholding the Constitution, which means downsizing the government (which doesn't make many people happy).

Bring be links to facts if you want to debate your side of the argument against Ron Paul's status as the main front runner, not pointing fingers and inventing terms like "Voodoo" polling like our nice mainstream media propaganda machines do.

No one is contending that the other three front running Republicans should not have their voice heard either, just that the “mainstream media should stop slanting the truth to their own benefit”.

I can make this real short. Wikipedia isn't the place for conspiracy theory to be presented as fact. The Ron Paul article has good documentation on his popularity on the Internet, and rightly so, but so far the polls released have yet to show that he's polling higher than the low single digits as of yet out in the real world. Thus, he can't be considered a front-runner yet. - RPIRED 16:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If you'll look carefully, Unsigned Ron Paul Supporter, you'll see I did not invent the term voodoo polling. It's an established term to describe a poll that, by ignoring scientific sample selection and other safeguards, is utterly meaningless, that is without any evidential value. Citing them is as fully valuable as citing an Ouija board or a magic 8-ball. You have presented absolutely no evidence that Ron Paul is a front-runner.
Now, it may be that the media is deliberately suppressing actual evidence that Ron Paul is a front-runner, and that a real, scientific poll without such suppression would show that he is a front-runner. In that case, there are numerous polling firms in the U.S. the Ron Paul campaign could hire to run a legitimate scientifically-sampled poll, and then they could publish the full poll data website, and then you could cite that scientifically-sampled poll for your contention.
Until such a scientifically-sampled poll shows up, however, the only worthwhile polls available are the scientifically-sampled polls released by the mainstream media, not the web polls with self-selection and other major defects. And none of them show Ron Paul with 5% of the vote in any state, which means he's not a front-runner. Ehrbar 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted however, that Ron Paul was only in polls for 13 states, not including his home state of Texas. Thus we really have no idea how he is doing in the other 37 states, do we? Anarchist42 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently the only states that the media has done telephone based polls in (that I'm aware of, and correct me if I'm wrong) is Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida. Ron Paul was not even an option to choose from in these polls, nor has polling been done in what would be Ron Paul's stronger states. That doesn't mean he would be the frontrunner overall of course, but to get a ballanced view of things, I think we need more polling data.

Whether or not we think that is conspiracy theory or not I think is beside the point. If the news media or others want to ensure things are fair to all candidates, including democrats, there must be fairness in the polls. This includes Internet, Telephone, Text Messaging, or Paper ballot polls (paper ballot being the most reliable). It also must be fair how the resulting poll results is presented.
If someone doesn’t agree with the above, please explain and if possible, provide references to source information.
Instead of people constantly deleting the entirety of what someone else wrote or completely replacing it, I would think it is best to change what is already there to create a compromise, which is hopefully fair and balanced to all parties involved.
Whoever wrote what is currently on the article page (5-23-2007 14:10 EST) did a good job in accomplishing this above mentioned goal. Good references to all information sources presented in the new article, is as valuable as the information presented, and looks very well thought out.
Respectfully, Tim

Please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Information about state polling (of which there are far more available than IA, NH, SC, and FL) is available at Opinion polling for the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008, and it is fairly cut and dried. 0% in AR, 1% in CA, 0% in CO, 2% in CT and FL. The highest is 3% in NH. This is hardly "front-runner" status despite his clear popularity on the internet. - RPIRED 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Other than spammed internet polls, you Ron Paul supporters will need to point to a reliable poll that only allows one vote per person that shows Paul as a frontrunner for it to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I have a poll, it was done by Gallup, a well respected polling outfit.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/usatgallup-poll.html
Odd, he's not leading this poll. In fact, he has 0 support. Prnd3825 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Media Blackout?

Is it to soon to start a section concerning the media black out of candidates such as Ron Paul and Mike Gravel? A media black out on third party candidates has been the norm for years but the is the first time the MSM has actively tried to black out major party candidates to my knowledge. There's already been several instances that may seem small right now but if it continues it could be a huge story. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  03:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The media has always given little or no coverage to candidates the media feels has little or no chance of winning, especially when the field is large. Nothing new this year. More importantly, the media has every right to do that - it's called editorial discretion. And when you think about it, it was a lot worse when there was no internet, and it was much more difficult for candidates to get their message out and raise money from a large audience. Howard Dean showed that if you're an unknown candidate, but with the right message, you can use the internet to raise money and raise awareness, and the media will follow. Paul and Gravel are getting an appropriate amount of media coverage given their very small chance of winning. Simon12 04:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Howard Dean had exponentially more coverage then Paul or Gravel. Even in the past Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have received more coverage during their failed bids that never had a chance. Now you have ABC leaving Paul off their poll. Yahoo's "Full Coverage" omits both as well as others. They can say that online polls are unscientific but even if they are it still shows that Paul and Gravel have a more enthusiastic support base which should be a story in itself that they ignore. Also you can't ignore Alexa ratings that show a HUGE advantage for Paul currently and large spikes for Gravel. Now that may be all this is is just spikes but these spikes show that the public is at least interested in these guys but they're still being ignored. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  04:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how you can say that Jackson, who was the runner-up in the 88 primaries, "never had a chance." john k 15:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Gravel was in the debate and got pretty good coverage. That's not a blackout. --Macduff 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul won the debate and got no coverage. Go figure.

The time to mention a "media blackout" is when a reliable source covers the issue. Facts about winning polls, etc. are fine now, because they are easily substantiated; allegations of some kind of conspiracy are not appropriate unless they are quoted from a reliable source. -Pete 21:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not serious, are you? You think a reliable source in the media is going to report on a media blackout? It's not a conspiracy. ABC is actively deleting any positive comments about Ron Paul. I have had at leat 30 comments deleted and they were not spam. They simply stated that I like Ron Paul and plan to vote for him. We are going to international media with this story now because the American mainstream media is run by fascists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.127.103.243 (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
If you had 30+ comments on the same forum all 'simply stated that I like Ron Paul and plan to vote for him', then yes that is spam. Not commercial spam, but absolutely spam. That is exactly why online polls are worthless, a handful of highly motivated people like you run in and spam the poll voting dozens of times. Alsee 15:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Is Lew Rockwell a reliable source in your opinion? Or U.S. News and World Report? Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  08:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well blogs are generally not considered reliable, and the U.S. News article says nothing about a media blackout, and, in fact, the article is actually evidence of no media blackout. But I was going to say, however, that the Yahoo News list referenced in the LewRockwell blog was pretty outrageous as of this morning, as it omitted Paul, Tommy Thompson and Gilmore. Editorial discretion in a news broadcast or newspaper is one thing, but a simple list on a website should list all significant contenders. So what happens when I just checked it? Paul and Thompson have now been added. So we'll have to let the Jim Gilmore supporters make the case now. Simon12 01:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats actually an article on Lew Rockwell not a blog post. Lew Rockwell has been around for quite some time now and is fairly well respected. Additionally just because Paul and Thompson have now been added to the Yahoo list doesn't meen it's not worth mentioning. The only reason they were added is because they were pummeled with stories on Digg and posts to their own Yahoo Answers system. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  02:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
One of the few outlets the common person has is the Internet. Ask yourself just one question, and I'm not saying this is happening here in the U.S. currently, but anything is possible in the future.
If you lived in Germany just as the Nazi's started running the news media there and gaining power, where would you turn and what would you do to try and warn people (who may or maynot listen)?
With all due respect to the Ron Paul supporters out there, those of you who insist on citing unscientific polls like these are doing your candidate a grave disservice. These polls are not accurate, and they should not be mentioned as an equivalent to a scientifically conducted poll. Period. I have friends who are avid Paul supporters, and also believe he's being treated unfairly, but your insistence on introducing Godwin's Law is making them look bad.Toscaesque 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Tiering Candidates

Who decides which candidate is in which tier and how so? Putting the candidates into tiers may have unintended influence. Someone who knows nothing about any of the candidates might dismiss those not in the 'first tier'. Reading only about the candidates they think might have a shot. Thus missing an opportunity to find the candidate with whom they most agree. This early all candidates deserve equal status. The names should be listed in alphabetical order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.180.183.93 (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Tiering is definitely a violation of WP:POV unless someone can cite an objective source. Calwatch 02:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree. Even objective sources won't agree since this is a subjective standard. I think it is better to just not go there at all. The negatives of tiering seem to outweigh the positives. I appreciate Hobie's attempt to try and bring in more organization, but this may not be the way to do it. Also, I think the "front runner" comment earlier in the article is pushing it. Alienmercy 04:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see some other people agree with me. :) Is it fair to say that we can remove the NPOV tag from that section or does anyone have any objections? (For reference I put the tag there originally) --Ray andrew 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Please remove the "tiering" altogether. Even with outside "objective" sourcing, it's inappropriate to authoritatively list candidates in this fashion so early in the campaign, and it's a violation of NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.134.119.81 (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
Get rid of it this is suppose to be unbias is it notGang14 09:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest putting the candidates in alphabetical order if the tiers are to be removed.

I agree that actually listing candidates in tiers is a bad idea. That said, we should indicate which candidates are considered serious contenders for the nomination (Obama, Clinton, Edwards, for the Democrats, Romney, Giuliani, McCain, for the Republicans), and which are also-rans (the rest, more or less, with a few like Richardson or Huckabee being seen as having outside chances, and Thompson probably moving up to "serious contender" if he enters.) One can find numerous, numerous sources that would divide the candidates in this way, and it is neither OR nor POV to mention this. john k 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the tiering as it doesn't seem to have much support and likely violates WP:NPOV. john k's idea of indicating "also-rans" also has the same problem. There are plenty of other places people can go to find subjective rankings, and an encyclopedia shouldn't be one of them. I also suggest we get rid of any language crowning someone as a "front-runner". Alienmercy 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily advocating calling them "also-rans." But it is absolutely not POV to reflect information which is widely reported in the mainstream media. How is it possibly POV to state that Hillary Clinton is seen to be more likely to win the Democratic nomination than Mike Gravel? I doubt that Mike Gravel himself would dispute that. john k 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, tiering isn't POV. The tier is based on how many people would vote for a candidate, the amount of money that candidate can raise, the amount of support, nad organization. It is obvious that Barack Obama has better organization, support, coverage, and money than someone like Jim Gilmore or Dennis Kucinich. And as for someone thinking that only the first tier candidates have a chance of winning, they're probably right. The arcticle should reflect reality, right? Some candidates have a lot orgnization, support, coverage, and money than others. Some people say all candidates are equal and we should treat them as so. If you're not going to rank the candidates in tiers you should have at least something that shows how some candidates have much more chance of winning the nomination than others. Such as including a section on it, or ranking or something else. If you follow the election closely it's obvious that other candidates rank over others! --Hobie Hunter 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously not for us as editors to determine which candidates have a greater chance of winning. However, it's perfectly appropriate for us to report the candidates that every independent observer of American politics believe to have a greater chance of winning. john k 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Present facts and let readers draw their own conclusions about who has a chance of winning. Give info about poll data, support, organization, money, etc. but avoid speculation about future events. Alienmercy 13:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is widely reported does not mean its not point of view, it rust means that perhaps its a widely held point of view ;). The point I don't like it drawing a line and saying that thats it, everyone above the line is a serious contender and everyone below the line has no chance. Where that line is placed is very subjective, and I don't think we as an encyclopedia need to be doing that, instead we should be sticking to the facts. --Ray andrew 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I also vote against having tiers on this page. Putting a candidate in a tier requires an explanation and a citation (or several). This should be done in the text of the candidates' bio on the appropriate subpage. The information can be presented in a NPOV way and can be appropriate, but doing so in a list format such as is done here is not the way to do it. --Aranae 21:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't support having tiers. But in the text of the article it ought to say that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are viewed as the leading Democratic candidates, and that Giuliani, McCain, and Romney are, for some reason, viewed as the leading Republican candidates. I don't see how we can have an intelligent discussion of this stuff without at least indicating that much. john k 22:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I see that we already have such a statement in the article: "By the beginning of May, 2007, six candidates had achieved "front runner" status: Senator John McCain of Arizona, former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York on the Republican side;[5][6] and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York on the Democratic." This seems a) perfectly appropriate, and b) sufficient. There's no need to divide up the lists themselves. john k 22:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It should quote the polls, as many of these polls are only for the front tier candidates. Calwatch 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Candidate

I have created Template:Infobox Candidate for use on the candidates campaign articles. It's still a very basic infobox so feel free to expand it as well as add it to campaign articles. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  05:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

delete early stages section (Ron Paul, front runners and all)

I'm getting sick of reverting all the "Ron Paul" is a front runner stuff. I suggest we get rid of the "Early Stages" section as there is no real useful information in there and the citations given don't actually support the statements in the article. I think we ought not declare anyone a "front runner" especially based on straw polls, online polls, and other non-scientific means. If you want to give an indication of how candidates are performing, cite scientific poll data, money raised, etc. and let facts speak for themselves. Once you say "so and so is a front runner because..." it opens the door for editors to crown other front runners based on whatever criteria they want. If newspaper articles are reporting that Ron Paul supporters are running an Internet-based guerrilla marketing campaign which causes him to do well in online polls then say so and support it with a citation, but don't declare him a front runner because of it. Alienmercy 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Toscaesque 15:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the early stages section should be cut. --Ray andrew 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, at least as far as the frontrunners. Wikipedia shouldn't be anointing frontrunners, as that's complete POV. I would accept, however, cited lists to the effect of, "The New York Times lists X, Y, Z as Democratic/Republican frontrunners" with a link. Or maybe point out who are being included/excluded in the debates. Jpers36 20:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Mostly agree. The section can be kept, but should be mostly re-written. As for the front-runners, replace it with some simple facts. Who raised the most money as of the March FEC reports. Who's leading in an average of national polls, and in a couple of key states. Winner of online polls. That should give a clear understanding of the state of the race at this point without being POV. Simon12 01:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

NPVIC cut per wiki is not a crystal ball

"The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a proposed agreement between states in the United States dealing with allocation of electoral votes. This interstate compact would effectively shift the method of election of the President of the United States to a national popular vote system. By the terms of the compact, states agree to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of the balance of votes in their own states. The compact would only go into effect once it was joined by states representing a majority of the electoral college. However thus far this proposal has only 10 electoral votes (all from Maryland), and is close to being passed in Arkansas and Hawaii. Hawaii needs only the Governor's signature, and Arkansas needs that and the approval of its state Senate (although the Governor has promised to sign it if it reaches his desk). Even if these two states opt in, the bill would need 250 more electoral votes to be enacted. Bills are being drafted or debated in all but 4 states at present. It is unlikely to pass in the state which would give it the most votes, California, due to Arnold Schwarzenneger's veto of the bill in 2006. Because of all of these factors, it is unlikely that this bill would be enacted in time to take effect in the 2008 presidential election." Last sentence is sufficent to keep out of this article. Jon 17:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

3 revert violation?

Did User:75.45.164.186 violate the WP:3RR rule? Looks like 4 similar edits in the last 8 hours, but I'll let someone with more knowledge of the policy comment further. Simon12 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Added Thumbnail Chart

Chart summarizing Opinion Polling for the United States Presidential Election, 2008 - General Election - Two-Way Contest - Results of All Democratic and Republican Candidates (click to enlarge)
Chart summarizing Opinion Polling for the United States Presidential Election, 2008 - General Election - Two-Way Contest - Results of All Democratic and Republican Candidates (click to enlarge)

Added thumbnail Chart summarizing Opinion Polling for the United States Presidential Election, 2008 - General Election - Two-Way Contest - Results of All Democratic and Republican Candidates--Robapalooza 17:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Grid suggestion

What would people think about creating a grid that listed all of the candidates/potential candidates and (referenced) information about where they stand on major issues? M. Frederick 00:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be a bias magnet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.248.185 (talk • contribs)

How would it be any more of a bias magnet than this or any other election article? Candidates' individual wiki pages already reference where they stand on certain issues. If we have wikipedia grids that compare mp3 software, then why not presidential candidates?--M. Frederick 08:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Last Open Election

In 1952, incumbent VP Alben Barkley actively sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Again (with clarification)? Why has the 1952 election replaced the 1928 election as the LAST non-incumbent election. 1952 is only the 'last' if you mean presidential nominees (only). GoodDay 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored 1928; anon user 70.131.66.69 had earlier changed it to 1952, panic over. GoodDay 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Would 1968 be considered an open election, considering that Richard Nixon was a former Vice President? awkwardboyhero 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if nixon wasnt in the race wouldnt matter nixons opponent humphrey was the currect VP Gang14 05:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing seems rather silly. Barkley's run was in a time when the vice president was not considered to have any special claim on the presidential nomination, and, indeed, Barkley was not every in any real danger of being the nominee. 1952 was, for all practical purposes, a wide open race with no obvious incumbent frontrunner on either side. In 1952, it's worth noting, the last time a sitting VP had received a major party presidential nomination was John C. Breckinridge in 1860. Nixon and Humphrey, at least, were genuine frontrunners in 1960 and 1968 by virtue of their positions, as the vice presidency was transformed into its modern form during Nixon's time in the office (more or less). Claiming Barkley is at all analogous to them, much less to Bush I in 88 or Gore in 2000 is misleading. john k 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not put both 1928 (as the last primary election without an incumbent), and, as there is no incumbent in the primaries, 1952 (as the last general election without an incumbent)? Sketch051 17:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vilsack

Why was Vilsack's name removed? He filed with the FEC as an official candidate. Just because he dropped out early doesn't mean he wasn't an official candidate. 67.59.53.157 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bloomberg

I have taken the liberty of adding the fact that Michael Bloomberg has decided not to run. Anyone disagrees with this feel free to let me know. Knight45 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. more to the point, if he wasn't running "withdrawing" would be the wrong term since he never stated he would indeed campaign for president.Janemansfield74 23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul

why is ron paul put on here twice and for 2 different parties

whoever said u cant go for a third party nomination if you lose the other nomination and sign your posts Gang14 05:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"The most expensive election in American history"

I think it can be assumed that due to inflation and rising population, every presidential election will likely be more expensive than the last, and no adjustments were made to fairly compare this election with previous ones to show that it is infact more expensive. Rodrigue 17:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the article was misleading as it was written previously. But I believe we've overcompensated for this in the newly reworded section. Even the gentle estimates have the election costing more than $900,000,000.00, up from $650M in '04. Even gas prices have not risen at that ratio! What we're seeing is more than simple "inflation." --M. Frederick 03:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Well the article says it was $650M in '00, and $1B in '04, so $900M would actually be a decrease in costs! Simon12 04:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, no attempt was made at adjusting the cost of much older elections to see if the are more expensive.

Its the same problem when you determine the closest presidential election.Tradittionally, this is done by shear number of votes seperating the candidates, but that is biased towards a time when there was a lower population.So percent would give an unbaised measure, just like inflation adjustment would do so here. Rodrigue 18:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hard to find

Resolved.

Would someone make a redirect page from 2008 presidential election? It took forever to find this page. rabmny 01:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The redirect from *2008 presidential election* has existed since January. From your post on the Drawing board, my guess is that you were typing *2008 presidential campaign* in the search box. I just now created that redirect. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul listed under Libertarian Party?

Can someone please remove this, He is not a Libertarian but a registered Republican who declared his candidacy for President of the United States under the Republican Party. 141.150.115.190 16:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He's only listed as a potential candidate; the Libertarian Party is discussing dual nominating him if he gets the Republican nomination to prevent fielding their own spoiler candidate against the only libertarian major-party candidate. Nothing prevents a party from nominating someone who is not a member of their party. Sketch051 18:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. Turtlescrubber 00:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Effect of the Internet

The following should be appended to the "Effect of the Internet" section.

{{editprotected}} The Spartan Internet Political Performance (SIPP) Index employs 650 quantitative factors to determine the level of interest a candidate is generating online. The SIPP Index is the first Internet-wide measure of online political performance."[1]

Who would the world elect? Whowouldtheworldelect.com We all know about the influence that politics in the US has all over the world. The United States has deploy troops in more than 100 countries and it tries to hold itself as the only superpower. It's politics and elections have a profound impact in the life of every single country and people on the planet. If it was up to the world, who would it elect? . Evidence from a polled Whowouldtheworldelect.com suggest that people will elect Ron Paul for the republican party or Barack Obama from the democratic party.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldier23 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is only semi-protected, so nearly any editor can make the changes if appropriate. Cheers. --MZMcBride 09:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

National Socialist Movement

Can someone add the neo-nazis back to the third party political candidates? They were removed with the justification that "this is an avowed racist, neo-Nazi party". While that is true, and although they're undoubtedly a repulsive party, I don't recall censorship of bad political movements being one of Wikipedia's policies. 82.73.204.68 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias against Ron Paul

Why is there not much mention here of the increasingly widely held belief by many that Ron Paul will be the next President of the United State?

The Spartan Internet Political Performance (SIPP) Index should be added as an external link. It shows the Internet-wide popularity of a candidate based on over 650 quantitative factors on a weekly bases. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.56.243.95 (talk) 03:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Lols. Above link is lie, no doubted that Ron Paul is far beyond everyone on the internet with people. 24.147.63.209 22:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul is not even remotely favored to be President by any real measure. 76.181.68.195 01:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not an increasingly widely held belief. -- 12.116.162.162 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Early Stages Rewrite

I just thought that I should let everyone know that I just did some heavy editing to the Early Stages section, giving alot of background to why the campaigns are starting so early this time. --TheRealZajac 12:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And I revert as a obvious violation of WP:NPOV, we don't need to Bush bash here on wikipedia. (btw I'm a democrat). Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 06:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparison Chart

Can we add a section comparing the candidates on various issues? Is this not in the tradition of wikipedia? I would be interested in a chart with options on iraq, net neutrality, abortion, etc. If no one objects ill get around to adding one pretty soon. Teque5 22:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


I was thinking the chart should look something like this: http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

Maybe I should just add a link to it... ..any opinions?

This chart should be prominent on the 2008 presidential elections page. For readability, strictly symbols should be used in the chart--with each box linking to a separate page dedicated to that candidates position on that issue (including relevant citations). -Joaaelst 2:30, 1 Aug 2007
I don't know, the chart doesn't seem to simplify or present the information in a better way. Plus, how are we to know where they stand on each issue and if we can verify that, is it best represented by a check mark? I do like the idea of a chart, but it may be hard to find one that fits the candidates in an encyclopedic way. -- The Robot Champion  talk to me  00:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
A chart is a well needed addition to this topic. I'm personally a Ron Paul supporter, but found myself questioning some of my motives recently and came onto here to see if there was another canidate that matched my views better. Unfortunately, there was no chart for me to check that would have simplified the entire process. --C J Pro 20:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice overview, but most issues are too complicated to break it down to a mere support/oppose checkbox. For example on Iran sanctions, does opposing it mean the candidate thinks we should take stronger or weaker measures against Iran? Opposing sanctions could mean anything from not taking any action at all to a military invasion. The issues that can be simplified down to a simple support/oppose usually fall predictably on the party line anyway... this chart doesn't really provide epsecially useful information. I'd support linking to it but don't think it would be useful to include it in the article itself. 75.70.123.215 23:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Swing States

Why is Kentucky being considered a swing state again? Because it's not. No pundit considers Kentucky a swing state, for Pete's sake, that state went for Bush by a 60-40 margin last election. Kentucky is a republican stronghold, not a swing state. Leave Kentucky out of the swing state area, it's ruining the credibility of the section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.33.220.24 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

For what it's worth, the Kentucky Republicans are in the middle of a fairly serious schism, pitting Governor Ernie Fletcher, who is battling some legal issues, against Senator Mitch McConnell and former Congresswoman Anne Northrup and the Governor's race this year is expected to be close. Fletcher is fairly unpopular in the state due to his scandal. It's not inconcievable that Kentucky could be a swing state, but you're probably right that it's too early to declare it as such right now. - RPIRED 22:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I already stated why. Did you not see the poll stating that John Edwards would beat Rudy Giuliani there? Or that Bill Clinton won Kentucky twice? If you keep deleting it since it does not agree with your opinion, then you might be subject to an IP block.--Folksong 22:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, one unreliable poll. Well, whatever. If you want to keep Kentucky up, fine. Anyone with any sort of grasp on politics knows that Kentucky of all palces is not a swing state.

If its such a stronghold then why did Clinton win twice? --Ray andrew 13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I´d say we should add Oregon and Wisconsin to the "Swing State"-section. 2 reasons: Both were one of the closest states in 2000 and 2004 and recent polls show a Toss-Up between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani or John McCain there.

OR: Clinton vs. Giuliani 46%-45%, Clinton vs. McCain 46%-46% [14] [15]

WI: Giuliani vs. Clinton 45%-44% [16]

--The Pollster 08:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is Washington Considered a Swing State? Maria Cantwell won by a large, safe, margin, Democrats in the state legislature have super majorities and it hasn't voted for a Republican since Reagan.  :Virginia may be a little too Republican to be called a swing-state, despite it's Democratic trendings, the Democrats haven't won a president election since 1964, and the last time a senate election was up during a president election (2000), the Republicans defeated a Democratic incumbent. Sure, Virginia is trending democratic, but when they won their senate and governor elections are awfully close and the Republicans did a bit better in 2004 than in 2000. On the other hand, despite West Virginia's 2004 results, I think that should be sent back to the swing state column. It went for Clinton twice (Virginia went for Bush and Dole), and the Democrats hold nearly all statewide offices.

Although there may have been some mild validity in early projection of battleground states in 2004 because one of the candidates was the same, there's just no way to keep this section from being unencyclopedic conjecture this early in the election. Accoding to our articles, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin all either changed party since Bush Sr. or were close states in these elections. In other words, there are fewer states that aren't battleground/swing states (20) than that are (30). This section attempts a level of punditry that even the professional pundits aren't punditing yet. They won't be predicting who might swing until they know who the nominees are, because so much depends on the geography of the candidates and the issues of the candidates vs. state issues. Once professionals start defining battleground states and campaigns ramp up into general election campaigning and spending this section might be valid. Until then, this is just unsupportable ramblings of one or two editors, stuff that belongs on their political blogs and not here. --Aranae 23:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Some language appears to be biased in the whole thing. When Guilliani leads Hillary by 1 point its a "statistical dead heat" but when Hillary leads Guilliani it's established to be a lead. Can we have consistency. Article does not need to be become biased, so quickly. Ainttalkin 22:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to a neutral viewpoint ("Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are about tied ..."). --The Pollster 13:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Need clarification on Missouri

The Missouri "battleground state" piece needs some editing for clarification. It is not inaccurate in saying the McCaskill is the first woman elected to the Senate from Missouri, but she is not the first woman senator from Missouri. Jean Carnahan was appointed to the seat for two years after her husband Mel was posthumously elected. She lost the following special election to Jim Talent. Kslogic 18:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


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

Thinking ahead by looking back

There's a lot of great work going into making this article a useful resource for people coming here today. However, there's going to have to be a pretty big shift in the way the article looks after the election is over with. It was fun watching the pre-election evolution of the United States presidential election, 2004 article, but looking back, there was a lot of work that we could have done to ultimately make it easier:

  • Citing sources. Going back and retroactively finding and citing a source is really hard work. One of the biggest obstacles for the 2004 article becoming a featured article is the lack of well-cited sources. Fortunately, there's already a lot of good work going on at United States presidential election, 2008 timeline which will be useful.
  • Try to capture information that will be useful in writing a narrative. I know this is hard to anticipate, but once again, I'm going to point at the 2008 timeline article. When candidates debate, don't just capture the date of the debate and who debated (which, five years ago, won't matter that much), but capture at least the positions they took. I did that for the April 28 debate listed on the timeline page, but there's a lot of other debates that also need that treatment. The risk is that some of the information will turn out to be utterly insignificant, but that's a better problem to have in 2009 than it is to retroactively try to find a citation for a debate that happened years ago.
  • Check out Wikipedia:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy as well as articles about past elections, and think about gathering information that will be important for each section.
  • Think about where the information in certain sections will ultimately go. Right now, since we can't know what the results of the election will be, it's important to give each candidate equal(ish) coverage. After the election, it's entirely fair to weight coverage by vote, and relegate fringe candidates to minimal coverage. A sloppy solution I came up with for the 2004 election was move a lot of that information to United States presidential election, 2004 (detail), but that admittedly was a copout.

One thing that may help in understanding how to (eventually) make this article featured article material is to go through the process of making one of the historical articles a FA. I thought about doing that for [[United States presidential election, 2004, but realize I don't have the time to do that anymore. Anyone interested in leading the charge? -- RobLa 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two parts to the story. The first is the on-going article as it is taking place. That is what we currently have. The second is the article in the past tense. In my opinion, I feel that the article on election day should be archived as is without any modifications. That would mean that there would be two articles on the 2008 election. One would be the "newspaper" historical snapshot in time article. The second would be the 2008 as one would expect from an election that would be in the past. Maybe: United States presidential election, 2008, Election day snapshot"; and "United States presidential election, 2008". 69.120.135.108

Removed infobox

While I'm generally supportive of developing an infobox to put on 2008 elections, the infobox here as designed forces a bias toward defining and reenforcing "frontrunner" status, which is a subjective term. The current Democratic race is easier to pick three, but the Republican race is messier (e.g. why was McCain picked over Romney?). These questions don't get easier over time; when the actual primaries/caucuses start, this box will become unmaintainable. So, I removed the infobox in my last edit. -- RobLa 18:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though I like the look of the infobox they are completely unmaintainable and very pov in nature. Turtlescrubber 18:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean about pov. The infobox works with upcoming parliamentary elections, like the next UK election, where the Leaders are selected years before an election, but I understand why it's a problem here. However, I think the template should be returned once the nominees have been selected. --Philip Stevens 20:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that's fine. I can imagine there's even a way of constructing an NPOV infobox, either by just listing candidates, or by just including a little generic information about key dates. If that ends up being the approach taken, be careful not to bias it toward the major parties. Even though it's 99% certain that it'll be a horserace between the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee, that's not our call to make. -- RobLa 21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


First paragraph

Someoen needs to edit the first paragraph where it talk about Obama being a "stupid nigger."

I can't find a way to edit it for some reason.

Potential Libertarian Candidates

The 'Potential Candidates' section under the Libertarian Party should have Ron Paul removed as he is now running as a Republican. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.53.209.181 (talk) 03:11, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson

He's not an official candidate yet, is he? Why is he listed in the same category as the official FEC-registered candidates? john k 13:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Straw Polls?

Is there any info on the straw poll results? For example a section or specific page tracking all the straw polls? -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  03:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Whowouldtheworldelect.com , people from over the world are given their vote for the candidate that they consider will advance an agenda that it is beneficial for the US and the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldier23 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Im refering to real Straw Polls such as the Iowa Straw Poll and the Texas Straw Poll. -  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  11:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Potential Candidate to Draft Movement Change

Okay, this whole "Draft Movement" section alteration is complete crap, I have to say. First of all, there is no active nationwide draft movement that I've seen to draft people like Wesley Clark (the website referenced next to Clark's name even explicitly says 'We are not drafting anyone for 2008') or Chuck Hagel. Under this new stupid "Draft Movement" style, we've got people who actually may become candidates (Clark and Hagel) but who still don't qualify for listing on this page because there is no draft movement pushing them to run. Also, we've got people who there is absolutely no chance they will run because they have been that clear and adamant in interviews that they are not running (Condoleezza Rice) who get listed because there happens to be a small draft movement around them. This new setup is inane. I'm changing it back to Potential Candidates. Potential candidates means candidates who have said they haven't ruled out running for President in 2008. Forget this ambiguous draft movement crap. --Ai.kefu 19:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember to remain WP:CIVIL. It is a good idea as was decided on the template. Remember that wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The fact is that there are Draft Movements but saying "potential candidates" is speculatory. Nobody is being left out, the only difference is that the name has changed to be in line with policy and websites have been linked that promote the drafting of the candidate. I'm afraid your argument is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, this is not acceptable--Southern Texas 21:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"Potential candidates" isn't speculatory. Potential candidates includes candidates who have said they are interested in running for President but haven't made up their minds. That's not speculatory. There are actual news articles where people like Newt Gingrich, Chuck Hagel, and Wesley Clark have stated that they are interested in running in 2008 but are still undecided. There are no such sources (in fact, quite the opposite) for people like Condoleezza Rice. "Draft Movement" is too ambiguous. What constitutes a draft movement? Three people and a website? If that's the case, then I'll get a couple of my buddies together and we'll make a website seeking to draft Mark Foley for President in 2008. Then we'll put Mark Foley up as a listed potential Republican candidate on this Wikipedia page because there's a "draft movement" seeking to get him into the race. Do you see what I mean? It's a very slippery slope. I think we should retain the precedent that this page has had for MONTHS before someone just snuck in here and changed it without debating it on the Discussion section here. If we continue this inane "Draft movement" categorization, then we'll have to remove Wesley Clark, even though he's expressed interesting in running, because there is technically no draft movement trying to get him to run (even the 'draft movement' website cited next to Clark's name explicitly says on its frontpage: 'We are not seeking to draft anyone in 2008'). I'm reverting it back to the tested and proven precedent of this page for the last year. Candidates who express interest get listed as potential candidates. Candidates who file with the FEC get listed as actual candidates. It's that simple. --Ai.kefu 21:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you calmed down. I see you won't accept the changes and I don't want an edit war. For those who expressed interest I put "Self-declared potenital candidates". Who is to say who just a "Potential candidate"? Stating that there is a draft movement however is a fact. It's working on the template and I would've hoped that this could be in line with that. However I see that there are ownership issues with this page and I've dealt with that in the past. Good bye.--Southern Texas 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I used overly provocative language in my first comment, but no one has answered what constitutes a mention-worthy "draft movement" candidate. I suppose this is, in part, because there is, and can be, no real standard. Like I said, does three people and a website constitute a draft movement? Does 100 people constitute a draft movement? Does one person saying in passing "I think So-and-So should be drafted for President" constitute a draft movement? Does one million people constitute a draft movement? There are no standards under this new measure, whereas you CAN measure and cite those politicians who say, in an interview or a news article or a press conference or something cite-able, that they are legitimately interested in running for President in 2008 or haven't ruled it out. That would include people like Clark, Gingrich, Hagel, etc. Under this current system, everything becomes ambiguous and subjective. I just feel the precedent that this Wikipage has set for itself over the past year has proven its own ability to work and be serious and objective. --Ai.kefu 22:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

can somebody who knows how please fix the date in the first paragraph

The 2008 Presidential election is on Tuesday November 4. It is not on November 6!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffarp (talk • contribs) 15:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this page as Steve Colbert is constantly being added when he has not filed with the Federal Election Commission. Shawn W 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Television Debate Ratings

Could someone explain or fix the dates? They're not in chronological order. Was this intential? In not, please someone fix this. Thank you. (Ilikerad 21:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

Umh why is there a picture of shaved balls on the page? 147.144.66.152 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC) James P.

I did not add the data but I created the table and I noticed that it was not presented in chronological order but instead by the number of viewers. I see no problem with this.--Southern Texas 21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

New Jersey

A recent poll (that can found easily when searching for "New Jersey general election polling") showed Giuliani leading Clinton by 1%. Thus, it very much merits to be shown as a swing state, especially considering it hasn't gone GOP since 1988 and Kerry won there by 6%. Giuliani has clearly improved GOP prospects in that state, and it is not unfair to say so in the article.-John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.253.51 (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If Giuliani gets the nomination, a lot of previously Blue States would be competitive. I'm not sure how many people in Red States would bother to vote though. A whole host of assumptions would be challenged.--Appraiser 18:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The poll you mentioned (Giuliani ahead of Clinton by 1%) was conducted by Quinnipiac University. Link: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1106 If you scroll down the poll you´ll see that Clinton has substantially closed the gap with Giuliani. In the beginning of 2007 she was trailing by about 10% and even managed to pull ahead in a recent Rutgers University poll. Link: http://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/polls/release_08_09_07.pdf While Giuliani obviously has a certain appeal to NJ voters, polls this far out are of limited significance. Remember that Bush was tied with Kerry in NJ polls during summer of 2004, yet Kerry won the state by 6%. Link: http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/polls.php?fips=34 Nevertheless: all other Democrats though are trailing Rudy Giuliani in NJ right now, suggesting that NJ might be added to the "Potential Battleground Section" ... --The Pollster 13:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There's still a whole lotta people in red states that would vote for Giuliani in the end because of the "anybody but Clinton" factor,... Dr. Cash 06:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
That is, unless there's a conservative third-party alternative. In that case, red states would turn blue and purple states would turn red. The map would be wacko.--Appraiser 06:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Battlegrounds- NY?

The Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 page says this:

"The prospect of a Republican candidate with the potential to win New York State's electoral votes would be a strategic victory for the Republican Party, although the prospect is perhaps less likely with New York Senator Hillary Clinton running on the Democratic ticket and the possibility of Mayor Michael Bloomberg running as an Independent."

If there are any political commentators or polls backing up that theory, despite the obvious counter about Clinton/Bloomberg, is it maybe worth including New York State in the potential battleground state list? EJB341 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

@ EJB341: This is just plain campaign propaganda. Campaigns simply have to say they are competetive everywhere, even if it´s not the case. A Democrat for example will say he will do well in Utah even if the state´s going 70-30 for the Republican in the General Election. The same here: Rudy Giuliani´s campiagn pretends it will win NY, allthough I can city numerous recent opinion polls showing Clinton ahead of Giuliani by huge margins: Rasmussen NY poll - Clinton 58%, Giuliani 33% - SurveyUSA poll - Clinton 59%, Giuliani 37% - Quinnipiac University - Clinton 52%, Giuliani 37% and so on. You see that currently NY is no swing state whatsoever. --The Pollster 05:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Arizona be a battle ground state. It has been in the past 2 elections. Someone who knows more about this, look into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwishbonetoy (talk • contribs) 02:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Arizona is currently "Lean Republican". Take a look at the latest Rasmussen AZ poll: Giuliani leads Clinton by 11, Thompson leads her by 17, McCain by 10 and Romney by 7 points. Even in 2004 it wasn´t close. Bush won by about 10%. It may get closer by election day, but I wouldn´t bet on Clinton winning the state. --The Pollster 06:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

John Cox

He should be on the major candidate page, as is in the template. It has been discussed. He is running a national campaign, was in the Iowa Straw Poll. He is included in many national polls but polls at 0%. He should get equal coverage, not as the media portrays him and other candidates (Gravel, Paul), who have been not invited to debates. Casey14 02:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

1) If he consistently polls at 0%, then he's not really a major candidate. 2) I saw Gravel at a televised debate (The first one, actually). -- 12.116.162.162 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

There is enough evidence to support that Stepehn Colbert is a potential candidate for the 2008 Election. A great many people think that he should run, therefore that makes him a potential. Apollo 82

Seeing as every time he is asked he laughs in the reporters face kinda means he's not going to run Gang14 05:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Or it could just mean he's a professional comedian. Whether he campaigns or not, if the Unity '08 crowd pick him & put him on the ballot, he would then be a candidate; since many in Unity '08 seem to be pushing to select him, that seems to me to mean that he's a potential candidate. Perhaps not a serious threat to the duopoly, but a potential candidate nonetheless. Sketch051 18:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

By that argument every person in the United States who meets the Constitutional requirements is a "potential candidate," since anybody could be nominated by a minor party or even just written in on the ballot. Should limit this to people that have seriously and unambiguosly announced their intention to run, and are actively campaigning for president.

For that matter, what is even the relevance for including "potential candidates"? I have a hard time seeing any justification for calling a list of people who may or may not run, as either being relevant or noteworthy. Citing that someone "might run" is just citing someone's speculation, even if it comes from the person itself. Seems very un-encyclopedic to me... anyone have a compelling argument to the contrary? Just seems to me that inclusion of speculation about "potential candidates" is arguably a violation of this Wikipedia policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CRYSTAL#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball 75.70.123.215 23:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It would help to have clear guidelines as to what constitutes a "potential candidate" on these pages. As I understand it, the term is limited (for our puposes) to persons for whom there is a strong and active draft movement to persuade them to run, or those who have openly discussed the possibility of running. If either can be credibly sourced, then I would argue it is relevant to the subject of the '08 campaign and should be included in the article.--JayJasper 15:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC

Stephen Colbert just announced his candidacy for President on his show. The page should be updated to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.89.171.198 (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This may warrant a subpage if it gets too long upon Colbert's return to air (T-minus 10 days). But I wanted to say that I found the disagreement in the edit history of the lamest edit wars page humorous. Perhaps there will eventually be an entry on that page about whether the edit war is considered lame or not. (Not to give anyone any ideas...). Narco 08:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's almost a troll-like comment. Pupununu 08:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Stephen Colbert Candidacy

Fix RFCxxx template - added a new section head and matched it to template section param as by convention RFCxxx templates are placed at start of a (sub)section. Also cleaned up reason in template - neutrality required. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


IMO, it's a tough call, but I would err on the side of including more information rather than excluding it. Definitely no more than one sentence though, to avoid weight issues. Ngchen 13:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One cannot run for two political party seats at the same time. This is a joke, and should be removed from all of the election pages!!! Shawn W 19:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the US has a long tradition of multi-party endorsments, espcially by minor parties, which was mosty killed off by the major parties around late 1800s, after the states only permitted "official" ballots to be used. It used to be the voter would bring their own ballot, printed by the parties. New York State allows multiple party endorsments, explicitly. In general, it is still possible for major parties to accept the same candidate, but it would be a state-by state thing. -- Yellowdesk 15:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because no one has before doesn't mean it's not possible. Yes, this is a joke, but it's also for real. I.e., he's running as a candidate (for real) as part of a large joke. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
He has not filed with the FEC, therefore he is not an official candidate. If we put Steve on the site for running for president without filing, then you may as well as add me or anyone who only says "I'm running for President" Shawn W 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that all that's needed? I haven't found anything that says filing with the FEC is requried. 70.109.106.170 00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, Bill Clinton has, as have several other people not listed here. In support of your argument, however, everyone else listed under the Democratic candidates has filed (except for Gore). This is also true for the Republican candidates listed here, as well as most of the Libertarian candidates (Link and Root have not filed with the FEC). It is not true of any of the Constitution or Green party candidates (except for Nader who has not officially declared). So, if this is the criteria, more than just Colbert's name needs to be removed from the list. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 00:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's even only about the filing as much as where to put him. He's not an independent but as I said below its not fair to the "third-tier" guys to list him - twice - with the big boys. If we include him at all he'd have to be relegated to his own section to conform to NPOV i think. Except then we have a weight issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupununu (talk • contribs) 07:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't Colbert listed under Self-declared potential candidates ? Is Michael Moriarty more worthy of being listed? If so, I don't see it. 70.55.84.13 06:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course he should be included. He's a real candidate who's really running. It's not his fault his national campaign network isn't fully mobilized yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.240.82 (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would actually suggest a couple of sentences on this - one to state that he is running (which can obviously be sourced), and a second the include the universal assumption that this is a joke and a publicity stunt (which can also be easily sourced). I think the amount of media coverage this has generated makes it clearly worthy of inclusion. Sarcasticidealist 08:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If Colbert gets on any states' ballots then he should certainly be included in the way that Pat Paulsen was in United States presidential election, 1968 - same exact situation. Don't we have some guidelines about exploratory committees, FEC filings, etc, about when someone is called a candidate and when not? I recall there being such discussions about Thompson - Colbert should be treated in the same way. And there's nothing wrong with including sourced comments about whether or not it is a joke candidacy. Tvoz |talk 09:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And I would agree that "self-declared candidates" could be a good place for him. Tvoz |talk 09:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Tvoz despite being one of the people who initially removed Colbert (although at the time he was listed under Republican, Democrat, and his own "Favorite Sons" section - definitely not the way to go). I watched today's show and he was filling out the forms, or at least pretending to do so. Either way, Colbert seems to have racked up enough publicity (and ostensibly his first campaign donor/sponsor) for a mention somewhere. As a side note, it's pretty clever that he's at least honest about taking money from the corporation. ;) Luatha 09:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Stephen Colbert should stay. Although this is most likely gne big joke, he seems to be serious about it. Last night he appeared to be filling out the filing forms. --Hobie Hunter 12:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He should still be in a separate section rather than under both of the major parties. Pupununu 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Colbert updated his website to http://colbert08.org/ [[17]]. Behun 04:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot I could update it after I logged in. Behun 04:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
At this time it appears that it is Stephen Colbert the character, and not the person, I have made the appropriate change. Arzel 00:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Err, no. Please refrain from creating piped links to the character. Ombudstheman 01:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Then what would be your suggestion? It is clear that it is SC the satirical character which is driving this faux campaign. I suggest we not make a mockery of the entire process by feeding this here. I like SC, and think it is funny as hell, but it doesn't belong here. Arzel 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
First, I should make it known that I know "Ombudstheman" outside of Wikipedia - just for future reference, in case allegations of sock puppetry, conflict of interest, whatever. I don't know, I'm paranoid. Anyway... It's already been decided that this candidacy merits inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm not sure I see where the mockery comes in other than what could very well qualify for WP:LAME some day if people start edit warring over whether it's the character or the person. Stephen Colbert is running for president; why can't we leave it at that? Luatha 02:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Well for one, he hasn't officially submitted papers for presidency. Additionally, he claims to only be running in SC, which is hardly the entire country. There already exists wikipedia pages for the character he created which is separate from his real persona. At this time he has only announced his canadicy through his alternate faux persona therefore it is quite logical that any relationship regarding his presidency be put through his character and not through him personally. Finally, this is all a huge charade and shouldn't even be here to begin with. Arzel 02:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm inclined to agree with you on the count of this not belonging on the main article. A point was made somewhere about the fact that listing him with the major candidates isn't fair to third tier candidates whose campaigns are completely serious. However, if we are going to list it here, linking to the character just seems silly. I'd be open to a straw poll to relegate him to an article about the SC race or wherever, FWIW. Luatha 02:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole thing seems silly. I suspect it will resolve itself completely over the next few weeks. He is off for the next two, so I don't think it will resolve before then, but my prediction is that when he comes back he has to cancel his campaign, and it will probably be the focus of the "Word" and he will branch off into some other tangent relating to the whole ordeal. He has such a large following within universities that to completely remove at this time would be begging for an edit war, and I don't have time to go that deeply into it right now. I agree that it is a little disingenious to those minor candidates that are truly serious about their campaign. The fact that he is only pretending to run in SC should be enough to remove him from this article all together. Arzel 03:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
A brief mention in the article, and a wikilink to the full article (which is clearly notable enough to justify being an article) should suffice. As for characterizing Colbert, saying that he hosts a half-hour show on the Comedy Central channel should suffice. But he clearly isn't a major candidate; self-declared minor candidate seems about right. And regardless of the split between the person and the television show host, the reality is that fictional characters can't file for office; if he has filed, it's for him in person, and if he hasn't, that should be noted (if only in the location in the article). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I'm a fan of the Colbert Report just as much as the next guy, but I have to be honest,... listing him as a candidate on this page, next to all the other "serious" candidates, is going a bit far. Especially when he's stated he's only running in the South Carolina primary. I'd compare his "candidacy" more to Pat Paulsen's than anyone else. Dr. Cash 03:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thresholds to meet to warrant listing
  • A Federal Elections Commission filing declaring candidacy, and
  • FEC filing declaring a principal campaign committee, plus
  • actual Filing for candidacy in a primary.
  • After that, the standard of noting the "kind" of candidate he is, and the notabiity (meaning coverage, and hence source-able ness of information about of the candidacy) must be assessed.

The FEC's threshold is $5,000 of expenditure or contributions received, plus activities leading to the nomination: advertising, campaigning, candidacy in a primary, and the like.
-- Yellowdesk 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Look guys, the precedent we've set on this page for the past year is that a candidate has to file with the FEC, be included in national polls, and be present in the major debates to warrant listing on this page. Colbert isn't included in the polls or debates. If we list Colbert here, we have to list all 300 of the jokers running "national" or "state-wide" presidential campaigns. We've already laid out a precedent--FEC filing, poll inclusion, debate inclusion, and it would be dumb to change it now. I love the Colbert Report as much as everyone else, but the Colbert listing has gotta go. Sorry. --Ai.kefu 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
In all fairness, according to Stephen Colbert presidential campaign, 2008, he has been included in some polls? But I agree completely. Pupununu 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Colbert was actually included in a Zogby poll or something not too long after I posted my comment about Colbert not being included in any national polls. I would still wait until he receives an invitation to participate in a major media-hosted multi-candidate debate (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, etc.) before listing him. --Ai.kefu 21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL, I wouldn't hold my breath for that one. :) Pupununu 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, who knew this was going to be such a divisive issue - I only came to the page because I wondered why he wasn't listed somewhere. It seems like an injustice not to at least mention Colbert somewhere... Time will have to be the judge, as has been stated above, because I concur that if he appears on the ballot in any state, he is definitely worthy of a mention. Narco 07:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if he's on the SC ballot, I can guarantee there will be a disagreement about whether it warrants listing him under the major parties, independents, his own section, or not at all. Perhaps a sentence or two in the overview of the election as a whole? Actually... that's a good idea. Why not just mention his campaign as one of the highlights of the election season so it gets a mention but no undue weight and the "seriousness" aspect is open to interpretation. Pupununu 08:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That works for me. Luatha 09:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that, although I don't have strong feelings about his inclusion, there are more than a dozen candidates (see my previous comment for a list of these) listed on this page that haven't filed with the FEC. If we want to impose those guidelines, some cleanup is required. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Colbert definitely should be included in some way or we're guilty of the opposite kind of bias people normally complain about, I.E. neglecting legitimate pop culture elements instead of being inundated with frivolous ones. Ombudstheman 21:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone pointed out on my talk page that they couldn't find the list I was alluding to above, so rather than just answer their question, I'll assume that other people would be similarly confused and repost it: Link and Root of the Libertarian Party have not filed with the FEC. None of the Constitution or Green party candidates have filed—except for Nader who has not officially declared that he is running. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we atleast get rid of Michael Moriarty? If Colbert is a joke, what is Michael Moriarty? 132.205.99.122 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
A bad joke? Ombudstheman 09:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait on this. The Stephen Colbert "candidacy" story is gathering steam, but right now I do not see it as being significant to the overall story of the 2008 US election. I mean, does the 2004 US election article have a description about the Daily Show's "Indecision '04" coverage? Cuz at this moment, Stephen Colbert's "candidacy" is about as relevant as that: it is satire regarding the election.

That said, I see more stories about this every day, and the situation could change rapidly. As per WP:CRYSTAL, I think we should leave it out for now. Consider: If Colbert's "candidacy" were to end today, would anyone even remember this by 2009, or even by November 2008? I don't think so. So, as per WP:CRYSTAL, it's not notable. Yet. Let's just wait and see. --Jaysweet 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless he's planning to run in all 50 states, I don't think he should be listed as a candidate. The difference between him and all other fringe candidates is that the fringe candidates take themselves seriously. His intent seems to be social commentary. Perhaps there should be a brief section on media coverage which could mention his "campaign." -- Macduff 16:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Draft movements

Does the various draft Colbert social networking efforts count as active draft movements in states outside of South Carolina? 132.205.99.122 19:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a fine line to make between Colbert's draft movements and those of the marginally notable candidates who are listed, but considering the current consensus not to include Colbert, I don't think it's worth pushing. Once you include the draft Colbert movements, it turns into a matter of common sense that he's accepted the draft and then we come back to the original question about his candidacy. At this time, it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. Pupununu 05:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected?

The tag at the top of the article says its protected, but I've just fixed two IP vandalisms. Has the protection run out? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the logs it was never protected in the first place. Maybe it should be until we can decide where if anywhere Colbert goes. I'm inclined toward a separate section given he's apparently semi-serious about filling out forms for both parties in South Carolina only. Except that's not really fair to the "third tier" candidates referred to in the Republican section considering in a real political poll he'd have 0.001% of serious likely voters. Pupununu 07:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I've requested semi-protection, since the vandalism and edit-warring seems to be exclusively from anonymous I.P.s. Sarcasticidealist 09:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Hopefully this will let the regulars sort this out and keep the history from filling with reversions.--chaser - t 09:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the edit history, this will probably inevitably be coming up again, and since it's related entirely to Colbert, I'm moving the section under his part of the talk page. Narco 07:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

I don't have strong feelings about his presence or absence on this list, but for those who feel like adding him, please make it look nice. Here's something you can copy & paste:

We definitely don't need red-links on an edit that won't last until the next revert happens. The dagger (†) indicates that he has not filed with the FEC—something that some editors have used as a justification for removing him though there are plenty of candidates listed here that have not filed with the FEC. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that people are continually re-inserting mention of Stephen Colbert, it may make sense to just include a sentence along the lines of "Comedian Stephen Colbert has announced his intention to be a candidate in one state only" with a link to the wikipedia campaign article only. I think this is better than no mention at all, given that he is apparently filing paperwork and his "campaign" is currently widely-known. -- Macduff 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a while now we've had "Additionally, comedian Stephen Colbert drew unprecedented levels of support on Facebook when he announced his bid for president" as the last sentence in the "2008 presidential election characteristics" section. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 20:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It's entirely appropriate to include him as a footnote in the Internet section if we're covering candidates' MySpace/Facebook/Meetup support (which is marginally encyclopedic although the Internet picture as a whole is important). Beyond that, it's over. Luatha 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's moot now

As of today, he is officially no longer either a Republican or Democratic candidate. Last night he announced he wasn't going to file for the Republican primary (the $25,000 filing fee, even if he ponied up, could potentially have put him in the sights of the FEC) and this afternoon the South Carolina Democratic Party executive committee voted to deny his application to appear on the Democratic primary ballot. There is no appeals process. Colbert could still conceivably run as an independent, but he has not announced plans to do so, so as per WP:CRYSTAL, there is no longer any argument to list him as a candidate. A prose mention of the Facebook thing is probably notable enough to include, and hey whadyaknow, it's already included. For now, the issue is pretty clearly decided. --Jaysweet 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here and here are the citations. I'm sure many more references will follow. It's pretty much over for Mr. Colbert now. Dr. Cash 22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thankfully. Arzel 22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that he definitely does not merit top billing now (I was kinda hoping he'd get on someone's ballot). I like the way it is currently set up where he is mentioned under effect of the Internet and nowhere else. He's a blip on the campaign trail worthy of a sentence, nothing more nothing less. Ombudstheman 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And you thought Colbert was nutty

I just removed a section called "Candidates proposing amendments to constitutional rights" which consisted of "* John Taylor Bowles of South Carolina (Campaign Site) proposes to eliminate freedom of religion, freedom of assembly to anyone other than Aryans. Also proposes unreasonable search and seizure and cruel and unusual punishment." Aside from the simple fact that he's a NN lunatic, do we also include Bush supporters and proponents of waterboarding in this section? Ombudstheman 22:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion under "withdrawn candidates"

Do we have a consensus against inclusion?

The editor who restored it said in the edit summary, "even if you don't like Colbert's profession." Actually, I was totally freakin' psyched about Colbert's campaign, and I'm disappointed that the denial of the Democratic Executive Committee combined with the WGA strike effectively ended what I thought had the potential to be a great satirical commentary on the nature of political candidacy, to pose serious questions about the sensibility and effectiveness of FEC regulations, and to make us really think hard about how we define a legitimate candidate.

That said, I just don't really feel like his two-week campaign was a notable enough part of the election, nor really serious enough, to warrant inclusion on that list. The mention of Colbert's wild Facebook success in the "Effects of Internet" section is plenty. --Jaysweet 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was amusing at first (especially the "no, it's the character that's running" arguments), but now it's just dumb. Luatha 00:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore V

Given the number of times Al Gore has stated that he has no plans to run, this should be reflected in the draft section. If you don't like the way it is currently worded, please try to adjust the wording instead of just removing it. Otherwise, it gives the impression that he hasn't said anything on the matter, when he has repeatedly (ad nauseum, even) stated that he has no plans to run. Yeah, I hear the difference between that and "not running", but anyone who thinks he'll run is fooling themselves. (I take his "no plan" comment to mean: well, if Hillary gets arrest for running a drug smuggling outfit, Obama is deported because his name sounds too much like Osama, Edwards goes bald, and Richardson gets convicted stealing candy from a child, then I'll consider running.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he is going to run either and I agree that his statements to that effect should be noted. However, if you are going to use his statements in the article, he should be quoted accurately. I like the newest version, it seems accurate to me.Turtlescrubber 20:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I apologize for getting a little hostile there. I was taking out frustration I've felt elsewhere, and it was out of line. You were also right that my original version was not as accurate as it could have been. That said, I've always favored editing over deleting, but I realize that's a matter of personal Wikipedia philosophy. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You are right about the philosophy part. I favor deleting over editing. That means I also have very thick skin. You weren't uncivil at all. Just glad it all worked out. Turtlescrubber 20:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to at least get rid of that ancient photo and replace it because young Gore no longer exists, only fatty Gore can run due to time-space continuum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.132.45 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If Gore never gives a Sherman statement, are we gonna leave him listed, right up to the 2008 Democratci Convention itself? GoodDay 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm hoping that after the first few caucuses/primaries we can eliminate the "draft" candidates—at least for the major parties. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.Turtlescrubber 03:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a cross behind his name? He's not dead, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.214.0 (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Party Symbols

Why are the Republican and Democratic parties' icons displayed at the top of the page? There are other parties fielding candidates. Gatherton 09:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative image suggestion? I think this amount of crystal ballery - the amount that says, based on current information, this is going to be a de facto contest between those two parties - is acceptable. But I'm certainly willing to listen to alternative suggestions. Sarcasticidealist 09:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the infobox's existence here seems to have originated from a bit of creative Uncyclopedia-style vandalism. I like the "He bombed them all" part.) I'm partial to removing it considering it can be summed up as "A Republican and a Democrat will face off and the Electoral College will decide the victor." Luatha 09:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moriarty

Please delete this person, I haven't seen any news reports saying he's running (not news from 3 or 4 years ago). We should use Stephen Colbert as the standard for inclusion, if his level of only just acceptable, then we can easily delete a ton of crackpots from the election page. 132.205.99.122 18:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Graphs on candidacy pages

There are graphs on the various candidacy pages showing hypothetical matchups and standing in primaries. There's an added line that was found with linear regression. Why should there be a line? Wouldn't a rolling average be better? Popularity isn't linear. 171.71.37.203 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone thinks we are all imbeciles

The tag at the top reads: This article or section contains information about an upcoming or ongoing election in the United States. Content may change as the election approaches. Is it even possible that someone could have the capacity to actually read this article yet not realize that an article about the 2008 election is about an "upcoming" election? And what about the sentence, "Content may change as the election approaches". May change? Is this serious? I'm sorry, but the Daily Show couldn't have written it better.

If we want to be taken seriously, then let's not treat the readers of this project/encyclopedia like total complete imbeciles. Unschool 05:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's kind of silly. But I think it's just standard wiki-policy to add these things to articles about future or upcoming events, probably as sort of a "cover your ass"/legal kind of thing. I don't think it's directed at wikipedia regulars, most of whom probably know better ... but rather the millions of people that ARE dumb enough not to realize that it is a future event,... Dr. Cash 06:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think part of the reason to keep the tag there is because some people use CD versions of the encyclopedia (I'm guessing in places where internet access is unavailable). So if a CD is burned today with this article, and someone reads it next summer, they will immediately realize that this article is probably no good anymore. Otherwise they may think Wikipedians are imbeciles, having missed the fact that 90% of the candidates dropped out long ago.--Appraiser 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Unschool is absolutely correct in that the tag is just plain silly. I make an effort to take these off the top of election articles. There is no cover your ass legal type argument for these tags only wishing thinking and policy wonking. Let take it off. Turtlescrubber 21:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

This section needs a source and information for what, if any, relevance it has. I realize it's legitimate information, which is why I'm not removing it - but we need to work on the section if we're going to keep it. Pupununu 05:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed it after I came here to see if anyone else had mentioned this and saw it was originally a list ordered by number of viewers. Sounds like Fox News trying to say "lol we pwn msnbc" again. Ombudstheman 23:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

voting rules

I want to ask you about some issues with counting Bush's votes from individuals (in one of the the previous elections), why do they matter since the president is chosen by the Electoral College? please redirect me to the article that describe the role of individual citizens in the election process --84.234.42.68 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Communist Party

Does the Communist Party no longer field a candidate? There's no entry for them.Bill 06:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they haven't run a presidential candidate since 1984. I believe they've endorsed the Democratic candidate in every election since, though I doubt the Democrats care. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 02:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt they'd want that endorsement anyway considering the kind of fodder it would give certain talking heads. Luatha 00:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow. That would be like Islamic terrorists endorsing Republicans as the family value party. Poisonous. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul One-day fund-raising Error

There is an error where it states that Ron Paul set a one-day fund-raising record. It should read something like: "Ron Paul raised approximately four million dollars in one day, close to the record set previously by Romney of six million dollars in one day." Somebody please fix this who has access to the protected page. I don't mean to push any particular candidate, but the blatant errors in Wikipedia should be corrected quickly to keep it useful. There's a huge potential for error when using superlatives like "the most ever" or "all-time record" and I think such superlatives should be generally avoided in Wikipedia unless thoroughly backed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.26.79 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 9 November 2007

Hi, sorry, Romney only raised $3,143,404 that day, the rest was in signed pledges, which are not funds raised, are they? [18]. The statement is correct as is, although Kerry had a higher non-Internet day when he was nominated (i.e. general not primary). John J. Bulten 21:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Battleground Map

I brought this up a while back and it didn't get changed, but it really needs updating now. West Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky are now all listed in the section and are missing from the map. I've made an updated map using uselectionatlas.org, but I'm trying to figure copyright and uploading. EJB341 16:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton Hostage Sitution

I added details to the time line but should this be added to main article? Samaster1991 18:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Error

The graph on the right side at the top of the article gives the date "4 November 2004" instead of 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.255.60 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed HoosierState 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The date should actually be written as "November 4, 2008" not "4 November 2008" as the article is about the United States. 4.235.114.202 (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is written as November 4, 2008 HoosierState 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tancredo

Just a heads up:

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/tancredo-to-abandon-presidential-bid/20071219230409990001

We should wait until the actual announcement to remove him, but keep it in mind. 82.152.200.188 (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani v Clinton?

In the above discussion over battlegrounds a few months back, there was this:

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

Sure it´s early and there are still 4 months until the primaries but as of now we only have Clinton vs. Giuliani polls which are updated on a regular basis in a number of states. That´s because major polling companies don´t waste their money on polls like Kucinich vs. Paul, candidates who are reaching 1% in national polls. Therefore I find it fine to update the state polls on the basis of Clinton vs. Giuliani until we know the candidates. To include polls from low-polling candidates would be ridiculous as they are not as well know as someone like Clinton, who´s been a polarizing figure for more about 20 years. They are still lagging behind in name recognition and would provide distorted state polls in favor of the well known Clinton. That´s why Giuliani is a good option until we know the nominees, because he too enjoys nearly 100% name recognition. --The Pollster 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

At the time, I agreed with the Pollster's point about keeping the Giuliani v Clinton mention, at this point I think we can begin questioning it. It's probably still fair to call Hillary the Democratic front-runner, since despite slight slips in support for her the set-up is still the same as it was a few months ago. She's leading nationally, in NH, in SC, in Feb 5th states, with Iowa (where she's tied with Obama and Edwards) as her only real weak spot where the other two could grab momentum. But at this point of the GOP side, Giuliani has slipped in the national polls and is now almost even with Romney and Huckabee. And he's lost even more ground in the early state polls, no longer solidly leading in Michigan, Nevada or Florida and still not pulling up his numbers in NH, let alone Iowa or SC. There's still probably no point changing it at the current time. but once the results start coming in in January, Giuliani is probably going to collapse and the battleground section is gonna need a restructure. 82.152.200.188 (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Encylcops do not predict the future, thus we use the conditional and not the future tense

He would win the triple crown for a man whose won two and is eligible to enter the third contest. Radio Guy (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)ay happen...