Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2008/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lost info

Could someone involved in removing the list of potential candidates to Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2008/Lists of potential candidates and then pruning the list of people who may be pursuing an active candidacy, put the information on those deleted from that list (such as Hilary Clinton) on the potentials list?

Here is a pruned list of potential candidates. They should be reintroduced into the main article with citations to media articles.
Democrats
Republicans
-- (unsigned contribution by 170.35.208.20 20:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC))
Sir, you are missing the point of the original question. The poster of that question was looking at the descriptions of the candidates, saw that some had pointers to the active candidates list, went to the active candidates list on the main page, and found that the person in question was no longer on the active list and (thanks to the mass move to the talk subpage), the information wasn't transferred to the potentials list. In short, she was looking for somebody to clean up the subpage. I suspect that in the current editorial climate, people will look rather negatively upon your attempt to restore the potential candidates list. — DLJessup 21:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

from Vfd

On 8 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/U.S. presidential election, 2008 for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 17:17, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • I am glad this article is being kept. The article looks great with some of the trimming of the candidates. Zscout370 18:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Politicians who do not have an active candidacy

Condi Rice
She publicly declared on the March 13, 2005, "Meet the Press" that she was not running. — DLJessup 20:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I also posted a link from the BBC that she rules out a White House bid in 2008. Zscout370 21:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lance Brown

Rather than get into an edit war with BM, I thought we should discuss it here. I didn't add Brown to the list but he has been there for a long time without complaint. I had never heard of him before he appeared on the list but I had never heard of Michael Badnarik before the throws of the 2004 campaign. You cannot expect candidates for a minor third party to meet the same notability test as candidates for one of the two major parties. If we include the Libertarian candidates at all Brown deserves to be there. It is notable that Badarnik was only added to Wikipedia on February 4, 2004 with an article about the same size as Brown's [5]... it is also notbale that BM has marked the page on Brown for deletion. - Jord 22:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well look him up. A California Liberarian Party activist in his early thirties. Never held public office, so far as I can tell. He has an "I'm running for president" blog. I nominated the article about him for deletion because the guy isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, never mind to be listed in this article as a presidential candidate. In 2001, I might have said the same thing about Badnarik, too, but he got the nomination and actually got votes in 2004. Incidentally, the Libertarian party is minor, but not so minor that there shouldn't be some kind of filter on the people listed as candidates. By the way, I have no axes to grind about the Libertarian party or this guy. --BM 22:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My withdraw

I just wanted to give everyone a head's up that I am taking this page off of my watchlist and will no longer be editing it regularly. The revert wars and apparent impossibility of reaching consensus have been killed in recent weeks. I don't mean to sound like I am "taking my toys and going home" - though maybe that is a good description of what I am doing - but this page used to be fun and that is why I use wikipedia is for fun. The adversarial nature of things as of late have made this a frustrating experience. Thanks for the fun the past few months and I'll see you around on other pages I'm sure. - Jord 23:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Take care Jord, we will miss ya on here. Do not worry, the page will be in good hands. Zscout370 03:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Haven't been here long, but I've gotta agree. When the 4 top candidates for the Republican nomination aren't even on the list, the pages lose more credibility than they would gain.

Jesse Ventura

I am removing Jesse Ventura again. He has been added on the basis of a single USA Today citation in which it was reported that he is thinking about running. At present, our list is of people who seem to be actively pursuing candidacies. While there is disagreement about whether there should be a "potentials" list, and at present there is no such list, there seems to be some consensus that the "active" lists should include people who (1) have stated they are running; (2) are raising money or have formed exploratory committees under the election laws; (3) have hired staff; OR (4) have made more than a few appearances with voters. Ventura meets none of these criteria. He was added on the basis of "media buzz". One citation does not prove "buzz", and even if it did, "buzz" is not a criterion for our current list.

If we have a potentials list again, then Ventura would be on it. Along with dozens of other people. When we had it before, it had dozens of people, many extremely marginal. That is why I sincerely hope that we can prevent the creation of a 'potentials' list. One pitfall of not having a potentials list is that editors will put people who are no more than potentials onto the active list. And when that happens we are going to have to take them off. Like Jesse Ventura. --BM 12:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One of the few things which I think is clear at this point is that everyone except you believes candidates attracting significant national media buzz belong in the article, provided it's sourced. An Associated Press story devoted exclusively to a possible Ventura candidacy, published in a national paper, with him on the record, unquestionably constitutes such buzz. For that reason, I am restoring Ventura. RadicalSubversiv E 15:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So your criterion for "buzz" is one article in a national newspaper, saying he appears to be seriously thinking about it? That guarantees that this list is going to be very long. Shouldn't there be an upper limit on how many people Wikipedia describes as "active" candidates. --BM 15:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article linked to is a lengthy piece by a wire service, which was picked up in at least one national newspaper. That's far more attention than most candidates are getting at this stage of the game, and it includes direct quotes from him indicating that he's interested. If that doesn't qualify, then neither do most of the candidates presently included; I understand that you don't want the list to exist at all, but the consensus is to keep it, and it's not reasonable for you to simply reject all new additions.
That having been said, I've just run some quick searches and found a more recent article quoting him calling a run "unlikely" [6]. More research is needed to find out exactly what he's been saying lately, although the simple fact that he's traveling around the country giving speeches like this could be taken as an indication that he's exploring his options.
RadicalSubversiv E 15:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is true that I've made my opinion pretty clear that I am strongly against these lists. First I don't think we should be speculating as to who is an active candidate at this stage. It is entertaining and apparently irresistible, but encyclopedias don't have to contain all interesting information, and political horse-race gossip is one of the categories to which that applies. Second, if we are going to have information about prospective candidates it should not be in the form of a list, which inherently violates NPOV. My POV that someone is not yet a candidate cannot be reflected in this format except by my deleting an entry -- which will be criticized as not complying with "consensus". The Wikipedia point of view is not the "consensus-of-editors point of view"; it is "NEUTRAL" point of view, and an article format that only permits the point of view brooked by the consensus is not an acceptable format. Third, if we are going to have lists despite these objections, we should have reasonable criteria for inclusion. "Buzz" is a too low a threshold, and is not sufficiently objective. If "buzz" means one article in a "national newspaper", it will make the list like the long list of "potential" candidates that I removed. There was "buzz" about Jesse Ventura and the 2004 Presidential elections. In fact there are 50,000 Google hits on "Jesse Ventura presidential election 2004". He hinted that he would run in 2004. He didn't. The man likes "buzz" about himself, like most politicians. They have staffs of people whose job is to generate buzz about their bosses. If we let JV fans put him on the list based on one newspaper article, we can't stop anybody from being put on the list, and it will be nonsense. By the way, what are the consensus criteria for being removed from the list once one is on it? --BM 16:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hutchison

Do you think that Geraldine Ferraro's remark about Kay Bailey Hutchison is acceptable? I believe this remark is not enough to put Hutchison on the list. I recommend to remove her. Anyone agree? --Sina 19:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The list

I think the list of candidates who someone has speculated might run should be removed. Does anyone actually think Al D'Amato is going to run for president? Are we being serious here? Hell, why not list James Traficant and John Rowland? Rhobite 22:53, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2008/Archive 4. I suggest that the anonymous posters who keep putting this list in read the lively debate we had last month before diluting the article.
In other words, I agree with Rhobite. So-called "potential" candidates should not be listed without sources showing that there is widespread belief in the national media that they will run and/or the candidate himself has made concrete moves towards running. --BaronLarf 23:30, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, as you know. I removed the list twice and the anon editor reinstated it twice calling the removal "vandalism". I'm glad someone else agrees with me because I wasn't prepared to do it three times, at least not in a short period. --BM 01:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't read the old archives. Good to see that some people agree about this. Rhobite 01:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think there's actually a pretty decent consensus that the long unsourced list doesn't belong, even if we haven't been able to come to an agreement on the criteria for inclusion in a sourced candidates-who-may-be-pursuing list. RadicalSubversiv E 03:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

other election guidelines apply

Also follow other Wikipedia:election guidelines and best practices, and update that page if necessary. It mostly lists good examples. If this page is a good example of anything, then, make sure it is linked.

Russ Feingold

I think that 3 is too many draft Russ Feingold links. The other two possible canidates only ahve one link. --Benna 03:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question

Hey,

Shouldn't Guiliani and Pataki be on the list? After all, it seems as if they are planning on running. And why is Ventura on here? That article is sooooooooo old!

Sincerely,

Casey

Links to websites with more possible candidates

I deleted the links to lists of the Dems and GOP contenders as that website was clearly biased to the left. Y'all need to find a neutral list of candidates. --Justy329 04:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have restored the links to the Democratic Agenda's list of Democratic and Republican contenders. I have also added on a set of additional links, at least a few of which are conservatively biased. It's good to link to sites with a mixture of different biases. — DLJessup 20:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

George Allen

George Allen (politician) might run for President too in 2008. What about the potential candidates who haven't announced a decision either way? 24.54.208.177 03:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

See /Lists of potential candidates — DLJessup 04:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


Speculation

Could we add a speculation section. Candidates like Hilary Clinton(should be placed here), Condalizza Rice, Jeb Bush, McCaine, ect could be included. While all of the above have denied running, I believe it is really too early to tell and so they deserve mention. Any thoughts? Falphin 22:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps a link to potnential candidates on the main article?Falphin 22:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome to tilt at this particular windmill. However, there once was a speculation section in this article, and it has since been shot down as non-encylopedic and irredeemably POV, so you're going to run up against considerable resistance. In particular, look at /Archive 4 for previous discussion of this topic. — DLJessup 06:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The new list is becoming larger and larger. Sooner or later people will be adding obscure or pov candidates again. But then again, what can be done about it? Until at least 2007, when we will have a clearer view of the candidates, a regular "cleaning" will be needed, because people will always want to add one particular candidate they feel strongly about. But for now I think the list is still okay. saturnight 12:05, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect Info?

"the 2008 race will be the first time since 1952 and only the second time since 1928 that neither the sitting president nor the sitting vice-president is a candidate for president if Cheney does not run." What about 1968? DKK

Humphrey was Johnson's VP. See Hubert Humphrey. Meelar (talk) 20:39, May 31, 2005 (UTC)




You misunderstood the statement

Mark Warner

Governor Mark R. Warner of Virginia is definitly preparing to run; He has been to SOuth Carolina and New Hampshire, and in February at the Democrat dinner in Richmond, with Joe Biden the featured guest, Biden repeatedly made comments like "I'm Joe Biden and I'm auditioning to be Mark Warner's vice president." Go to: http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/


People always do stuff like that. Don't use this site as a promotion for your website please.


Thanks, Casey Reese 01:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not my website. Go to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48211-2004Nov13.html or http://www.salon.com/news/lotp/2005/06/13/virginia_governor/index_np.html and then re-add Warner to the list, as he is basically an active candidate.

--That was quick. Appreciate it. But yes I would put Mark Warner in the first tier of candidates in 2008. He's kind of like Bill Clinton--likable, southern, moderate--and no scandals..

Tom Tancredo

This is from Politics1.com: Conservative maverick Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is preparing to take his rabidly anti-immigrant message nationwide in the form of a Presidential run. Tancredo warns audiences that mass-immigration is destroying the US with the "cult of multiculturalism" and demands a "militarization of the border" to fight it. According to the Denver Post, Tancredo is planning a series of visits to early Presidential primary states. "If there is no other person [making tougher immigraton controls their central issue] ... then we have no choice" but to enter the '08 Presidential contest, he told the newspaper.


2008 Draft Movement Article

I am planning on writing an article on 2008 Draft movements and websites. If any body has any websites, it would help.

Thanks, Casey Reese 01:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Viable vs silly candidates

Let's be serious about some of these. There are names on that list that are there simply because the person in question is well-known and not because they are a viable or likely candidate for the presidency. Specifically, I mention names like Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry. These people aren't seriously going to run and even if they tried, they'd have no chance to be nominated. There may be certain Republicans who would love for Hillary to run for President because they see her as an easy person to beat, but that doesn't mean she's going to commit career-suicide by either refusing to run for relection to the Senate next year or, worse, running for the Senate and then, if she wins, stepping down after a year in order to run for president.

Clinton

What are you on about that Hillary has no chance of being nominated or won't run. Most democrats are almost certain she will run and win nomination. Just look at the latest poll. She got 44% of democrats. Much much higher than nearest other

Hugh Cort

Dr. Hugh Cort, an author, as announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president. My question is whether or not I should actually include him on here as he isn't a very big name. http://www.cortforpresident.com. What do you think?

If he says he's running for President, I'd say go for it. His announcement is a sign that he's interested in running in 2008, and therefore would probably be qualify for the article. Give it a try, at least. I may be just skimming for loopholes.

A VP running for President, but not Cheney

While rife with speculation about names, this article actually overlooks a highly possible scenario considering the shape of the 2008 presidential battle. In the section "The shape of presidential battles" the article currently says:

"Furthermore, the 2008 race will be the first time since 1952 and only the second time since 1928 that neither the sitting president nor the sitting vice-president is a candidate for president if Cheney does not run."

A similar sentence can be found in the "Republicans" section:

"It will be the first time that the incumbent party has put forth a candidate for President who is not currently President or Vice President since the U.S. presidential election of 1952."

This wording takes for a fact that Dick Cheney will remain in office until the 2008 election. But obviously, this is no certainty. A Vice President can resign, like Spiro Agnew did in 1973 (or possibly be impeached, or even die in office). If that should happen, the Bush administration has the possibility to select a younger and more likely "crown prince" that probably instantly will become the frontrunner in the Republican race. I think I've seen this mentioned somewhere as a scenario that might even be pre-planned. Such speculation aside, I definitely think the possibility that Cheney steps down ought to be mentioned. At least, the wording should not exclude it. / Alarm 20:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there's plenty of speculation in the article as it is. Short of adding the words "Assuming Cheney serves his full term..." I'd be opposed to adding a section speculating Cheney's resignation unless something can be cited indicating that he has publicly stated he may not serve the fuill term. --Aranae 20:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I bet Cheney will resign in early 2006 and Bill Frist will replace with him and preparing him for 2008 Republican nomination.--Sina 21:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of Frist, it'd be pretty weird if he didn't run at this point. Why doesn't he have a spot on the list?

Does Biden's Petition Really Belong Here?

I have to question why there is a link to a petition to draft Joe Biden for president in the list of declared candidates. The fact that people want someone to be president does not indicate that he or she wants to be. I would suggest that the link either be eliminated entirely, moved to the article moved to the article on Biden, or at least given some sort of context.

Theshibboleth

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._presidential_election,_2008/Archive_5&oldid=63033415"