Talk:2000 Republican Party presidential primaries

Untitled

This page is a part of series of pages named "Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, XXXX". All democratic primaries and all republican primaries, except 2000, are already have corresponded pages from from 1964 to 2008. I think we need to move information from republican part of United States presidential primaries, 2000 to Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2000 --Alex Welens (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Campaign contributions:

I am a strong believer in the concept of “follow the money” Is there a way we can add the top contributors to the campaigns? Thank you --OxAO (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

George P. Shultz's central role in supporting Bush

On 25 February 2011, I added the following at the beginning of the article. In my opinion, the deletion by Fat&Happy is unwarranted:

George P. Shultz played a central role among establishment Republicans in supporting Bush as their 2000 presidential candidate. On October 12, 2004, 9-11 PM EDT, the PBS Frontline program "The Choice 2004" examined the presidential candidates Bush and John F. Kerry. One of the fascinating revelations was made by Shultz. In April 1998, while Bush was visiting California, Shultz asked him: Why don't you come over to my house, and I'll gather the usual suspects to discuss policy issues. Schultz and the others were so impressed by Bush that they urged him to run for president because, as Shultz said: It seems to me that you have a good seat-of-the-pants for it. According to the program's narrator: By the end of 1998, the money was rolling in. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/

1998 April: Bush travels to Palo Alto, Calif., and the Hoover institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University. While in California, he is invited by George Shultz to a meeting at Shultz's home to talk with various policy experts, including Michael Boskin, John Taylor and Condoleeza Rice. They are looking for a presidential candidate for 2000 with good political instincts -- someone they can work with. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/bush/cron.html

Italus (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed the problems with your edit at the other article. You should craft a different mention if you are referencing the data point to another article. I support Fat&Happy's revert of the edit that was here, but I'd point out that a slight expansion of the article would not be a bad thing, and that this aspect is both notably sourced and relevant. The winner of a primary has generally not been merely the person who outlasts all others in the campaigns' ups and downs (as are highlighted here) or gets the most votes, but the person who garners the most notable early supporters and the big money that follows that, as (as is true in this case) it suggests these supporters are in step with, and may play a role in, the prospective administration. Abrazame (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I would add that of the four articles where identical content was pasted, this one would seem to be the most appropriate for some mention beyond the shortened version I edited into the George Shultz article. And while PBS is an RS, the first ref supplied, to the main page of the program, seems inadequate, similar to citing a quote to a large book without supplying a page number. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I just found the full transcript of the Frontline program at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/etc/script.html , where the Shultz quotations in my first ref can be found. Italus (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Delegates

Why is there no totals of the delegates won? It shows which state they won, but not the delegate values of those states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.10.90.15 (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Keyes in infobox

Alan Keyes does not belong in the infobox. I'm not familiar with a wiki policy on including candidates in the infobox if they passed the 5% threshold, but I'm sure there are exceptions to it. Even if we did go off of it, in most states with three candidates, he did not cross the 5% threshold. He basically racked up arbitrary votes by just being the last person to withdraw, and the only other person besides Bush on the ballot. Regardless, his campaign had no traction and barely any coverage. If you read the race summary here, it even says the race was essentially between Bush and McCain and only mentions Keyes with the other "minor" candidates. MavsFan28 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

5% is the threshold. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it one that you made up? MavsFan28 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

That is consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus where? You're the only one saying that. MavsFan28 (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see [1]. Discussion should continue there.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the discussion has not yet received a third opinion and/or consensus on what to do. Without any guideline as to what format these articles should follow, we'll have to try and establish the best way to present this article. As stated above, Alan Keyes does not belong in the infobox for those reasons. Thus, he should be removed. MavsFan28 (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to let the discussion happen. It's only been a few days.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say close the discussion. Just said we could come to a consensus for this article in the meantime. MavsFan28 (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe 5% should remain the threshold. You believe it shouldn't. Currently that is a stalemate and the status quo prevails.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I stated why in this particular article, Keyes has no reason in the infobox over other candidates with specified reasons. You keep citing a non-existent policy. MavsFan28 (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We need a mod83.86.208.191 (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus as to who to include and not include in these primary elections. The 5% is only applicable in general elections. Without a consensus rule or guideline to follow, we approach these on a case-by-case article. Keyes, as stated above, has no significant relevance to the election, thus is not included. MavsFan28 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The 5% standard is used across all election articles. That is consensus. You need to change consensus and you have not done so. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You have not referenced anything that shows that as the guideline to follow. Long-standing flawed edits are not consensus. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You're making up policy. Long-standing edits presume consensus. If you want to change consensus then you need to do so.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You're making up policy, I have not yet cited any policy. In fact, I've repeatedly said there is not one. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You said "Long-standing . . . edits are not consensus." Where did you find that policy? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Same place you found "Long-standing edits presume consensus." MavsFan28 (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:Consensus: "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change." Nobody objected for over five years (or more) to the five percent threshold until you decided to change it unilaterally. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

So there is an editor objecting? Thus, no consensus. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Several years after it has already been established. Therefore, you have the burden to change consensus otherwise it remains in place. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Please cite the timeline in which long-standing edits become consensus. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Please establish a consensus and stop editing tendentiously.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to produce anything as long as you keep citing one that does not exist. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a presumed consensus. That is a matter of policy. You have nothing at all on which to base your tendentious edits.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

How about the fact that you can produce no actual consensus outside of "that's how we do it around here?" MavsFan28 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

There is presumed consensus. How many times do I have to repeat it before you get it? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You can repeat it as many times as you'd like. You saying something a bunch of times does not make it fact. There is no consensus on what to do. If another article has the same flaws that this does, I would be happy to look into it and help make it better. MavsFan28 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It is fact. Status quo remains until you find a consensus. Please revert your last edit. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No. MavsFan28 (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

If you look at most of the primaries from 1972 back, they feature candidates with under 5% of the vote included. I understand the difference in how they nominated candidates then, but is this 'consensus' just applied in some cases and not others? MavsFan28 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Popular vote did not matter much then. Please revert to the status quo on this article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

How does popular vote matter more now than back then? MavsFan28 (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Because delegates were not beholden to primary votes back then. Humphrey didn't win any in '68. Now, you are obviously evading the question because you realize you are wrong. Again, please restore the status quo. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What question am I evading? I will keep the article in its current way, which is best. So can you please state what you believe the consensus is? Earlier you stated that the consensus is for election articles to universally across the board include candidates that received over 5% of votes, but now it seems you're saying that there are exceptions. MavsFan28 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not talking about historical election articles. I am talking about recent elections: gubernatorial, senatorial, presidential by state etc. The question now is: What is the status quo and why are you being intellectually dishonest in not admitting that the article should be reverted to the status quo? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright alright, settle down you two. Mavs, the 5% rule is derived from an old debate that was had, don't remember where, where we were trying to determine when a third party candidate in a general election could be displayed in the infobox given they rarely made first or second place, but could still arguably influence the election as Nader did for example in 2000 or Javits in his Senate race in '80. It was brought up that a majority of political scientists seemed to set 5% as the benchmark for notability in an election and, lacking any other clear benchmark, it was decided that would become the cutoff; there has never been a unified consensus on that issue however due to varying opinions, such as requiring electoral votes in the case of Presidential Elections (people have removed Perot and Anderson for example citing this), demanding higher vote percentages such as 10% or even 20% and so on.

In implementing the 5% rule it essentially became uniform across all American elections when it came to the infobox since it was such a simple guideline to follow, but when it comes to Presidential Conventions or Primaries before 1972, the matter does get a little muddied. Much of it has to do with how little the primaries actually mattered when it came accruing the delegates required to earn the nomination, the Democratic race in '52 being an example, and you also end up with favorite-son candidates that distort these numbers further by running in their primaries unopposed, the Californian favorite-sons like Pat Brown and Reagan for example. In these cases, and lacking any data whatsoever on the results of caucuses in detail, if any, we simply include those that won a primary during that season OR achieved 5% of the national primary votes. Its not as clean as even I would like, but its the best we could come up.

And so under the existing unwritten guidelines Keyes stays, though I can also understand why you'd be opposed given the disparity between him and McCain, let alone Bush. --Ariostos (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I think its a flawed guideline to follow, but I suppose there isn't really a better alternative. Thanks for your input. MavsFan28 (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Its about as close we have to the middle-ground I believe. Still, if you have a proposal to rework it somehow, polish it, I'm all ears. Something more concrete would certainly circumvent future occurrences of matters like this. --Ariostos (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I proposed at WP:USPE, but it did not receive any input. Unfortunately, there is nothing of note I can find of a concrete guideline anywhere online, whereas like you said, there is with third parties in general elections. Very well, I'll leave it at that unless something comes up that would better define a guideline we can follow. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)