Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:United States presidential election, 2008 page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2006 December 31. The result of the discussion was keep.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


Contents

[edit] Ron Paul

I think that Ron Paul has officially announced his withdrawal. DiligentTerrier and friends 00:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. See this. He is, however, eliminated from the Repub. Party nomination race in terms of delegate count, and this is reflected on the template.--JayJasper (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually he won the primary for his congressional seat in Texas, so that means that since he cannot run for both offices at once, his campaign has been suspended, despite the fact he never made a succession speech. DiligentTerrier and friends 19:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, he can for both offices in the state of Texas, one of the few states that allows such. So technically, his presidential campaign is still active.--JayJasper (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, here is a source for the above assertion. You have to scroll down to "Texas" to find it.--JayJasper (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematically eliminated candidates

Hope noboby minds that I moved Gravel behind Clintion and Obama on the list because he is a techinally-still-active-but-mathematically-eliminated candidate. I would have done the same for the Repub. candidate listings, but Keyes and Paul (the other active-but-eliminated candidates) were already listed behind McCain. This is for consistency with the de facto policy of the template of listing "viable" candidates ahead of the others (i.e. listing active candidates ahead of ones who have withdrawn).--JayJasper (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Hillary now mathematically unable to secure enough delegates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.114.159 (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No candidate is mathematically eliminated from the race until the convention selects their candidates. This should be rephrased or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.252.121 (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A proposed text for discussion is invited. It's true that the delegates can do whatever they want, and that it is just about impossible (whether a via a state party rule or a state law, or perhaps even national party rule) to compel particular delegate actions, excepting the rather significant social influences of the delegate's standing (and future aspirations) and present relationships with their community, party, and candidates' state committees--and their electorate. The Democratic Party rules allow for the judgement of the individual delegate, which would be required perhaps on the first ballot, and most definitely starting with the second ballot (citation needed). -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it can be accurately said that Clinton is mathematically eliminated because of how much the nominee requires superdelegates, who can change their mind at any given time. Mathematically eliminated should be eliminated as in even if they somehow got all the unpledged delegates they still could not win, since unpledged delegates can change their decision at any time. SkepticBanner (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. It is possible for her to campaign through the start of the convention, and so far, she has declined to state that her campaiagn is over. Given the potentially malleable and changeable nature of the pool of superdelegates, the asterisk should be removed from Clinton...when the template is released from wikipedia:cascading protection provided at User:Nakon/p and at User:East718/PTT; these editing-protection connections can be observed at the time and date of this posting, by trying to edit the template. Clinton is not mathematically eliminated until the convention.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if she recieved 100% of all of the remaining delegates that are uncommited, she still would not have enough delegates to clinch the nomination, and seeing as there is now no incentive to endorse a candidate who has announced that are going to suspend there campaign by the weekend, then she should have the asterisk next to her name until she finally decides to suspend her campaign reportedly on Saturday and endorses Obama. CoolKid1993 (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This topic is the cuase of needless edits. Although the superdelegates may have pledged to one candidate or another, they can change their decision. Should some Obama scandal be discovered during the summer, we would all see that the mathematical elimination was no elimination at all. I have taken the asterisked notation off of the template. This disputabale content belongs on an article about the nomination process, not a navigation template. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The asterisk should correspond with the current situation of whether or not there is the possibility of Clinton being able to surpass the number of delgates needed to correspond with recieving the nomination. If the number of superdelegates that are currently uncommited are not enough for Clinton to recieve the nomination, then she should recieve an asterisk because she is mathematically eliminated from the possibility of having enough delegates to recieve a nomination during the Democratic National Convention. We don't need to try to predict the future possibility of an occurance that would dramatically shift the superdelegates from Obama to Clinton, since it is unlikely to happen. The term "mathematically eliminated" should stay, as it is largely used in the mainstream media in referring to the absence of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. CoolKid1993 (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As demonstrted by the changing commitments of more than a few superdelegates, they are not mathematical entities. As such, there's no such thing as "eliminated" in Clinton's case, untill the party convention completes its process. Witness the words "suspend" as opposed to "ending" the Clinton campaign. "Presumptive Nominee" sufficiently covers the situation, and "mathematically eliminated" is unsupported and inaccurate speculation.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If one chooses to believe so, there is no such thing as a presumptive nominee or mathematically elimated candidate since even pledged delegates can choose to switch just as easily as supers. Just saying. WTStoffs (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The difference between presumptive and mathematical is that presumptive includes all oportunity for the presumption to be shown wrong. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am again taking the asterisk entitled "mathematically eliminated" from the template: There is at this moment only one person with the mark; that person is is not the presumptive nominee. Presumtive Nominee covers the case sufficiently, for Ron Paul, and the reader may look futher into the relevant articles if they wish for more. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Keyes is now Constitution Party candidate

It is rather evident that Keyes is now running third party Constitution. He has been at Constitution Party conventions in states, and is drawing support. His site seems to show his new stance for the Constitution party and not the Republican party. Casey14 (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point, Keyes has indeed dropped some not-so-subtle hints that he is bolting the GOP for the CP, but there has yet to be an official announcement of such a move (none that I could find, anyway). Until it's confirmed by a credible media source, I think we should leave Keyes listed as a Rep.--JayJasper (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
His website states that he is running for the Constitution Party. So, I am re adding this. The media nver really took up on Keyes' campaign. Editorofthewiki 10:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There's also this: Alan Keyes to announce break with GOP in Hazleton, PA, which makes it look official that Keyes is leaving the GOP. creativename (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Barr, potential candidate

As of this date, Robert Barr does not appear in the FEC database of candidates that have filed a statement of candidacy, or designated a principal campaign committee. His press release is careful to announce only the formation of the exploratory committee, and also says "MAY seek Libertarian Party Nomination"

The The Atlanta Journal-Constitution quotes him in the following manner:

"[H]e has formed an exploratory committee to gauge voter interest in his candidacy as Libertarian. If there are "sufficient numbers" of people behind a Bob Barr presidential race, he's running, the former Republican said."
Cook, Rhonda. "Barr forms presidential exploratory committee", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 5, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-04-08. 

This has all of the characteristics of a "testing the waters" committee for a person who has not yet taken action to become a candidate under the FEC's terms, which we generally follow on this template. See, for details: Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008/Archive 6#FEC filing standards, again. A "testing the waters" non-candidate fails to undertake a number of FEC-registerable actions: these individuals do not yet state that they are a candidate, or do not yet undertake efforts to become a candidate (such as taking actions to qualify for the ballot), or do not advertise. Such a person does not have to disclose his committee's receipts and expenditures (yet) because he is not yet a candidate.

For those reasons, I have taken Bob Barr off of the template, pending definitive action on his part demonstrating he is a candidate, either via the FEC and or via reliable sources.

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to toss this out there, Bob Barr finished second in the Libertarian Party's Kansas City debate. Results. Not sure if he actually participated as a candidate, but he does have support. I know that doesn't qualify him as an actual candidate, since there are no FEC records, just wanted to make sure it was noted. CoolKid1993 (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems he still isn't an "official" candidate. A post on his blog just yesterday ([1]) says "...Barr 2008 is still in exploratory committee mode." Even so, at least one major pollster is acting as if he's the most likely nominee and is including him in their general election polls, so perhaps he should be included in the template despite the fact that he hasn't decided to deal with the FEC bureaucracy yet. Etphonehome (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That does not change the fact that Barr has himself failed to register with the FEC, and declare a principal campaign committee, or indicate he will actually run (see my initial comment above). His status remains potential candidate, until he acts to change his status. This has been the standard for this template for some time now. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears he has finally indicated he is an actual candidate, as of May 12, announcing his candidacy for the Libertarian Party nomination. Here is a cite. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Colbert

I think he should be listed. I realize that his campaign was by no means extensive, but I believe it was of note considering the vast outpouring of support he received initially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myspace69 (talk • contribs) 22:46, April 22, 2008

He never actually filed with the FEC so he does not meet the criteria for inclusion here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evan Bayh

Why is Evan Bayh listed? --Aranae (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

From the talk archives:

[edit] VP section

I'd like to propose a section which would list the Vice presidential candidates/nominees. This list would currently include, Stewart Alexander (Liberty Union Party and Socialist Party USA), Darrell Castle (Constitution Party) and Matt Gonzalez (Independent). --Philip Stevens (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Barr presidential campaign, 2008

Robert Barr presidential campaign, 2008 has been created but I cannot add it to this page because it is protected.--William Saturn (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.--William Saturn (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibition Party

Where are the candidates for the Prohibition Party, particularly Gene Amondson? --William Saturn (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, but do any of them meet the standard for inclusion, as defined in the archived discussion? If so and there are reliable sources to demonstrate such, then feel free to add them to the template. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say Amondson meets the criteria for listing here. He was kept off previously because he had not filed his candidacy with the FEC (he still hasn't). However, he has a WP bio and is the confirmed nominee of a notable party, which I feel justifies his listing.--JayJasper (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I won't interfere for the moment, but this is a case of a pipsqueak candidate that cannot get a filing to the FEC or $5,000 into campaign committee coffers (which would require an FEC filing), even if backed by a so-called national party. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gravel should show up twice

IMO, Mike Gravel should be listed in both the Democratic and Libertarian sections of the template, as he did contest both nominations. — crism (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I will add him to the Democratic candidates column.--William Saturn (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I also added Wayne Allyn Root to the candidates section of the Libertarian Party since he ran but is only listed as the running mate of Bob Barr.--William Saturn (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed Root from the "also ran" section because he is still an active candidate on the LP ticket as the VP candidate. However, I am open to discussion as to how the candidates should be listed. --JayJasper (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
He was a presidential candidate as well before being eliminated and named as the VP Candidate. Right now it appears as though he was only ever a VP candidate. I believe this should reflect that he was also a presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party nomination.--William Saturn (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You make a good point. It just seems to me it might be confusing to readers to have him listed twice under the same section header. Until someone comes up with a better idea, however, I guess we'll do it that way.--JayJasper (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should have separate sections for the VP candidates.--William Saturn (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a thought. If it can be done without cluttering up the box or confusing the readers, I'm all for it.--JayJasper (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried two different things now on the template: I added two separate sections for VP and presidential candidates; I also added Ralph Nader (campaign, running mate) to Independent candidates and perhaps if this style is favored it could be done for the rest of the candidates.--William Saturn (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the former of the changes you made. Although I can see the problem in using that approach in the Ind. section. Well done (see my comments below).--JayJasper (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New VP candidate section

Bravo to William Saturn on a fine job of adding a VP candidate section to the navbox. IMO, this is a great improvement!--JayJasper (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--William Saturn (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keyes

Could someone put Keyes in the Republican section as well like Gravel? Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton or Rodham Clinton?

I'd prefer Rodham Clinton because it's what the article thinks to. Anyone else? Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter that much? It should stay Hillary Clinton because that is how she is referred to almost 100% of the time in almost all mainstream media. CoolKid1993 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No, but it is a accuracy point. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming

I really think we sure start some trimming based on notability. I know that they're official national candidates, but do we really need them? This is a pretty big template as is and the only notable third parties right now are the Constitution, Green and Libertarian parties. And among the independents, Ralph Nader is the only notable person there. Even among the Republicans--Hugh Cort, John Cox, Dan Gilbert and Ray McKinney with nothing more than people who paid $5,000 to get on some ballots. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The standard to date: Candidate filed with the FEC, has a wikipedia article. Exception: Draft campaigns.
The method for success on your effort is to propose that the standard be changed, so that a proper conversation that includes a comprehensive perspective is undertaken. My views are narrower than the current standard, which a review of the talk archives reveal. See the talk archive for the most recently agreed general standard:
Archive 6, Proposal: A return to the old standards.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well how to initiate a proper conversation? Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The link to the archive shows one successful method. In a new section, propose an explicit new standard, anticipate criticism in the explanation which persuasively indicates why the recent status quo and standard for the template is inadequate and request comment (and agreement). -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)