Talk:2012 Democratic Party presidential candidates/Archive 1

Archive 1

media vs. wikipedia?

All media I have watched and read in the past months say that as it stands today, there will be no democratic primary. Wikipedia, however, says there is a challenger to Obama (and thus there will be a primary).

So who is right? --boarders paradise (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Randall Terry is an official candidate for the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination, a fact verified by multiple media sources (such as those cited in the article) and his FEC filing report. So he is rightly listed as a candidate. It appears likely there will be a primary, though does not appear to be a certainty at this point. Given that Terry is currently the only notable challenger, there is the possibility that he will witdraw prior to the primary season, or that he may not qualify for ballot access in the proposed primaries - thereby negating the need for them. Of course, there is also the possibility that other candidates of some degree of viability will come forth to challege Obama for the nomination (Ralph Nader is reportedly making an all-out recruitment effort to make that happen), making a primary inevitable. Because there is still some question as to whether there will be a Democratic primary in 2012, no Wikipedia article on the 2012 Democratic primaries has yet been created, such as the one for the 2012 Republican primaries.--JayJasper (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Hightower

I recently removed Jim Hightower from the prospective candidate list because his 1 month listing (a standard reached by consensus of wp editors) had expired and no further media citations regarding a potential candidacy had surfaced. The protocol when removing someone from the Prospective list is to then move them to the Previous list. The reason I did not do so in this instance is that after looking over the two citations ([1] [2]), I realized both consisted of nothing more than a passing mention of his name being mentioned by Ralph Nader as saying he might be a potential candidate. I seemed to remember that a while back that it was agreed upon that there needed to be at least a paragraph concerning the potential candidate in question (to comply with WP:SIGCOV) in in each citation for the candidate to qualify for listing as a prospective candidate. After perusing the archives on the 2012 election talk page where the main discussion of listing standards took place, I found these two threads:

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012/Archive 2#Ruled out running:

"I think we should only include sources with full articles, or at least a paragraph or two, dedicated to a potential candidate. As long as more than one source speculated on a potential candidate in adequate detail, we can include that candidate."

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012/Archive 3#Proposal For The Candidate Section: "We also have to remember the agreed upon criteria: Two sources for each candidate published after November 4, 2008, with at least a paragraph or two of coverage in each. Right now there's only one source cited for each candidate. "

The above quotations are by User:Timmeh, and as you can see by reading the threads there was general agreement and there seems to be no record of any objection whatsoever to this criteria. Thus, it must be presumed to be the current standard, by which Hightower did not meet for inclusion to begin with (but which no one, myself included, previously caught). So I removed him altogether in correcting a previous error in upholding the criteria. I probably should have explained this at least in the edit summary, if not on the talk page, when I made the move but I wrongly assumed that the move would be uncontroversial given the apparent lack of hoopla about this candidate to begin with. However, another editor called me on it on my talk page, so I thought it would be best to clarify it here in case anyone else had any questions, or that matter disagreement, concerning the move.--JayJasper (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Alvin Greene

If we are going to have him included at all, he needs to be moved back to prospective candidates. He has been back in the news this week and is still said to be considering running:

http://www.heraldonline.com/2011/06/06/3126116/apnewsbreak-greene-could-see-end.html#ixzz1OaUZvXgC http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/06/hotline-sort-wh-1.php Themostcasualobserver (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Does Warren Mosler really belong here?

Warren Mosler is mentioned on this page as a former candidate for the nomination, which is accurate (his website still exists at Mosler2012.com), but his campaign only lasted from Feburary 2009 to April 2010. Given it was so brief, and he withdrew long before the primary season, is there really much point in listing him here? Or is it just for the sake of being complete? Robofish (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If he is not listed then the page is no longer accurate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Vermin Supreme and the New Hampshire ballot

After looking at edits recently made to the article United States presidential election, 2012 by User:Difluoroethene, I noticed that he added Vermin Supreme as a Democratic candidate, based on the following web sources:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/10/28/filing_period_to_get_on_nh_primary_ballot_ends/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67115.html

The second link above also mentions many other Democratic candidates not mentioned in this Wikipedia article as being Democratic candidates in the New Hampshire ballot: Darcy G. Richardson, Aldous C. Tyler, Robert B. Jordan, John D. Haywood, Bob Greene, Craig Freis, John Wolfe, Jr., Ed Cowan, Cornelius Edward O'Connor, Bob Ely, and Edward T. O'Donnell.

So should these candidates be mentioned as Democratic candidates on this article? Or do their places on the New Hampshire ballot not give them the statuses of Democratic candidates? The criteria stated on this article for being a candidate is "The following individuals have formally announced that they are running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012 and/or have filed as a candidate for such with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)." Presumably that applies to the people listed above? Matthew Fennell (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I explained this to you here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

IN other words, each and every person on the NH ballot should be on here, qualifies under the "rules" and was removed except Vermin because he was "cute." John Wolfe, Jr. is on the Ballot in two other states. and any mention of him has been removed. So If he's been "thrown out, ol Vermin should be thrown out too! All or nothing.Ericl (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be thrown out of wikipedia for illogical POV-pushing. We have a consensus on here, if the candidate passes wikipedia's notability requirements and an article is created then they are listed. If not, they are not listed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

we are not talking about "notability" here, we are talking about electability. NONE of the candidates running for the Democratic nomination besides Obama are the least bit notable. Not even Vermin Supreme. However, three UNserious fringe candidates have managed to get on the ballot in more than three states. Therefore they qualify as candidates. Not REAL candidates, but qualified for inclusion on a bloody list.Ericl (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTABILITY.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, you should understand that the ballots do not necessarily determine who a candidate is. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey was not on the primary ballot in any state, yet he won the nomination at the convention.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

IN 1968, the rules were different. The McGovern commission changed everything. Most of the so-called Caucuses were already over with by the the first of the year. Johnson had the nomination locked up. The Favorite sons who won the Ohio and Florida primaries had already endorsed Humphrey before they did. You know that damn well. Humphrey was on the ballot in a few of the later primaries AFAIK. Ballots do indeed matter. You cannot get elected in a presidential race if you're not on the ballot in the primaries, unless the front runner dies or winds up in jail before the convention. That's under today's rules, not those of fifty or a hundred years ago. Why are you so hot on having your two favorite fringe candidates listed as major? Ericl (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You can reason all you want, but WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. The only thing that matters is notability (please read the pages I link), that way consensus determines who can and cannot appear on this page. Any other system results in edit wars. Any other system is not fair and is open for interpretation. For example, was Pawlenty not a candidate since he did not appear on any ballots? You are trying to correct problems that don't exist.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "T-Paw" did indeed appear on at least one ballot. The Ames Straw Poll. Which while unofficial, was seriously taken into consideration by all the candidates.Ericl (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

John Wolf

I added mention of John Wolfe, jr in order to make him "notable", as if being on the ballot in three states isn't enoughEricl (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No. The AFD determined that he is not notable enough to have a wikipedia article, therefore he is not notable enough to appear on this list.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Jim Rogers

I added links to show the 2010 Democratic nominee for US Senator from Oklahoma is indeed notable.18:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if he was notable, there is no evidence he is running as a Democrat. His FEC form lists "Unknown" for party.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean the fact that he's on the 'Democratic ballot' this year, and was the 'Democratic NOMINEE for US Senate two years ago doesn't mean he's really running in the Oklahoma primary?Ericl (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no way for me to know that he was on the Oklahoma ballot since you did not provide a link in the article. If you want to list him here then create an article, and if necessary the community will determine if he is notable enough to be listed here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand...I GAVE You two of them. From major publications. Don't they Count?

Remove 'decline to run' section.

What's the point of the 'declined to run' section? Surely this list could include every theoretically eligible citizen of the U.S.? As the primary process has now started, this section seems irrelevant. LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

These are notable individuals that were speculated to run in reliable sources. To remove them would be to ignore those sources, and to see this page as some kind of scoreboard.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the section as useful for historical documentation about the election. The sections may need a little cleanup. For example, Alvin Greene is the only one that had announced he was considering to run and then decided not to. The others all were asked if they were considering and all flat out said "no." Maybe Greene should be in "Prospective candidates." We would also move Warren Mosler into "Prospective candidates" though he took the extra step of filing FEC paperwork to run. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Randall Terry

Should he really count? He's a republican pulling a stunt run to try and get pro life adverts on TV. 92.12.29.53 (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That may be true, but he is nevertheless a declared & registered candidate for the Democratic nomination who has attained ballot status (not to mention thousands of votes) in multiple primaries, and he meets Wikipedia's notability threshold. So, whatever his motivations and intentions may be, he does "count".--JayJasper (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)