Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

new source for Hunstman

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/04/the-manchurian-candidate.html

Potential updates

• A January 4, 2011 AP report refers to the following as "13 potential presidential candidates": "Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Atlanta radio host Herman Cain, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and South Dakota Sen. John Thune." Location (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• A January 10, 2011 Gallup poll and report refers to "13 potential GOP candidates". Location (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Demint and angle both need to be put back in a "potential candidates" Demint, despite the denials has said he is "open to it" if no candidate he can get behind emerges and there are at lest 3 articles discussing Angle going to Iowa and saying "her options are open" one of them is titled "Angle won't rule out presidential bid" for goodness sakes.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/27/demint-open-to-2012-presidential-bid-advisers-say/ http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/27/demint_open_to_a_presidential_bid.html

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/01/26/angle-comes-to-iowa-doesnt-rule-out-presidential-bid/ http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/26/angle_will_not_rule_out_presidential_bid.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Buddy Roemer

There is an article on a Louisiana political website[1] noting that former governor Buddy Roemer has himself stated he is considering a campaign for president. There is only the one source, but if the man himself is saying he is considering a candidacy I think it should be included, though previous consensus says two sources. What say all of you? - Pictureprovince (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the two-sources minimum, it has worked very well thus far. Also, I'm not sure the the website referenced meets WP:RS.--JayJasper (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

More reputable sources have repeated this speculation since then. I'm adding Roemer as a prospective candidate. --Darkclass (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain

He has now formed an exploratory committee http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/01/12/cain_launches_exploratory_committee.html 82.36.211.254 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and he's been moved from Prospective to Declared.--Rollins83 (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation order

Is there any particular reason the two citations for the candidates have most recent at the bottom of the two given? It seems odd, given that they are listed by the most recent citation. Would anyone complain if I were to swap them all around? Tiller54 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I never really thought about that. I guess it wouldn't be any big deal if they were swapped aroung, except that it would take some getting used to for regular readers and/or editors of the page.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I, too, think it's a bit strange that the candidates are placed in order based upon what appears at the bottom of the citation/quote box. I like Tiller54's suggestion. Location (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and would prefer leaving as is. SE7^Talk/_Contribs 16:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SE7. The current system has worked well for nearly two years, no need to mess with it now. Besides, it is standard for items listed chronologically to be listed from earliest to most recent, top to bottom.--JayJasper (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps if I should have raised this point two years ago...Tiller54 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that some items are listed chronologically from earliest to most recent (i.e. the press reports), but others are listed from most recent to earliest (i.e. the candidates). It's not a big deal either way to me, especially since the people in favor of keeping it the way it is are the ones who are most active in maintaining the article anyway. Location (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

All these new candidates...

Do you think we should list all of these new people? I thought the rule was that you needed 2 reliable sources. Plus, it seems fishy that so many people declared their candidacies before Obama was inaugurated, and several registered all in the same week, as if they were fake. I think all of the random new "declared" candidates no one knows anything about should be removed from the page. 99.174.92.174 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Also, those FEC disclosure forms seem like primary sources, not the secondary sources Wikipedia should be citing. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all the above comments. The candidates not supported by secondary sources should be removed.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If there is no disagreement, I am going to remove all names listed that do not have less than 2 reputable sources for 2012. --Diamond Dave (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Time periods for candidates

It seems absurd to me that Meg Whitman is listed as a potential Presidential candidate due to speculation in October - she failed to win the Governorship in November, so she's clearly not a candidate anymore. Having a six-month rule means we have these candidates who are utterly irrelevant now, in Feb 2011, when actual candidates are only a few weeks from declaring whether they will run, but who got some minor speculation in a small-time newspaper on a slow news day, which then got blogged and re-blogged and so found itself here. I'm open to suggestions and obviously consensus should be reached on any new time limit, but my suggestion would be that anything before November 3rd 2010 (so a three month limit) should not be in the "current speculation" section. As I said before, we're only a few weeks away from the Romneys, Pawlentys, Thunes, et al, declaring their intentions, and yet we have Joe Arpaio and Meg Whitman in there. SE7^Talk/_Contribs 16:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was making a similar point at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012‎#There's too many "prospective candidates". I took particular exception to the addition of Bob Gates (who doesn't seem to think the "Draft Gates" movement is even worthy of a Shermanesque statement) and Arnold Schwarzenneger (seriously, there are two sources within the last six months speculating about somebody who isn't eligible). I agree about Whitman and Arpaio, and there's a few more like that who aren't credible we should remove (Scott Brown and Sharron Angle to name two off the top of my head). --Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support that. It would mean moving Arpaio, McChrystal, Whitman, Scarborough and Cornyn to the "previous" section, for the record. Tiller54 (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I support SE7's proposal as well. We're now at a point where speculations of presidential candidacies have become so frequent and voluminous that a 3 mo. time frame is a clearly more reasonable standard. The 6-month rule worked very well up to this point, but now that a handful of candidates have already declared and several more are expected to do so within the next several weeks, that rule has become antiquated.--JayJasper (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There are plenty that need to be removed. Also, when will we cut off inclusion for previous people? By the time the elections get into swing (or even now), there's absolutely no reason to keep the people speculated on two or more years before the election yet never had any intention whatsoever. Reywas92^Talk 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I like the three month time frame, too. Location (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but keep the previous in the previous section. This is not a news article, and therefore, content can never be "out-dated". Speculation deserves mention regardless of when it occurred, or regardless of whether the individual wants to run or not. "Two or more years" is not a very long time.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think we should make any mention of people who never showed interest, but had pundits mention them at some point. I hadn't looked at the "Previous" section carefully enough apparently, because I didn't realize until now that Clarence Thomas was listed. That WaPo piece in particular looks hackish, and the other two sources are simply quoting WaPo. There's absolutely nothing to suggest he's ever thought about running. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should change the standard to three months now, because anything older then that is woefully outdated. Arpaio's information has been sitting there, outdated, for months now, long after everyone else moved on. We can worry about the usefulness of the "previous" section later. -LtNOWIS (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Three months sounds perfectly reasonable. Should we, perhaps, also make a rule that the second source cannot just requote the first source? --Darkclass (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a great idea. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'm glad I proposed a three month rule, because the above is pleasing. I guess we can take it that consensus has been reached. SE7^Talk/_Contribs 21:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am in support of a 3 month rule and making sure that the 2 sources are different--Diamond Dave (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rand Paul

I have removed Rand Paul twice but have been twice reverted. Other than the common sense argument that he won't be running, this does NOT count as a source. It's just a blogger's two-line praise of his SOTU response, not a report as the article states. The other link is single paragraph published on election day (now ineligible if we adopt a three-month rule) hinting that Rand may someday follow his father in running. I do not think that he should even be listed in the section of previous people either. Reywas92^Talk 22:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. As stated above, one citation is not WP:RS, and the other dosen't specifically mention the 2012 race. The standard for inclusion is not met, and he should be de-listed.--JayJasper (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am going to add Rand Paul back - there are two recent sources I found quickly on a Google news search from Politico and Huffington post. - Pictureprovince (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/mar/22/sen-rand-paul-tests-presidential-waters/ this was in politico also--he is thinking about it. he should be added back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC) http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/23/rand_paul_president/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jim DeMint

Current or Declined to run? [2] I think latest sources state that after Pence declined to run he is open to a 2012 presidential bid but it is still more probable that he won´t run. --Dezidor (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

DeMint is very tricky. He's said "I'm not running," but he's still "not closing the door entirely". It's very nuanced, but it's definitely not an unequivocal denial. He should be listed. --Darkclass (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, “I would have to feel a strong pull from people all over the country,”... “Again, it’s not something that, right now, appears to be in my future.”... I’m not ruling anything out, but it’s not something I want to do. is not unequivocal denial. [3] --Dezidor (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeb Bush and Rick Perry

Why are Jeb Bush and Rick Perry listed as declined with Shermanesque Statements? That don't have sources with them stating this. Can someone add them? --Diamond Dave (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It says "clearly and unequivocally denied interest, or released Shermanesque statements." They have been clear and unequivocal. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be a source that shows them stating clear an unequivocally they will not run. You can't put them their without a source showing their Shermanesque statement, otherwise it appears as original work. Where is your evidence they have been clear and unequivocal, put a source up with them. As with every section, each person needs a source to make them fit in that category, no source, they can't be included.--Diamond Dave (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't notice they were unsourced. They must have been at some point. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. The sources were there, but a wikierror was preventing them from showing up. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Allen West

To any of you out there, does this meet the criteria of a reliable source that West may run? I don't think it does. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Per the intro to the section, "The following is a list of individuals who are being discussed – in two or more unique, reputable sources that are less than three months old – in regard to the 2012 primary." Ryan's and West's draft movements are actually more substantial than the case with some other candiates included, IMO.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

From dictionary.com:

pro·spec·tive
[pruh-spek-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of or in the future: prospective earnings.
2. potential, likely, or expected: a prospective partner.

po·ten·tial
[puh-ten-shuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2. capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.
3. Grammar . expressing possibility: the potential subjunctive in Latin; the potential use of can in I can go.
4. Archaic . potent1 .

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Expressing possibility" is vague. I'd say it should be the individual expressing the possibility (like Trump and others), as opposed to some pundit with no inside information (like Allen West). Technically it's "possible" that any natural born citizen over the age of 35 can run, and in fact many do file the papers to run, but we don't include them. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It all comes down to reliable sources vs. original research, IMO.

Reliable sources:

For example: Yesterday, a commentator at World Net Daily [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264901#ixzz1EREa6eIq pined for either the senior Doc Paul or for The Colonel]:

The one downer for me was that at least three of the best conservative prospects for president –Jim DeMint, Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie – did not attend the conference and have made it clear that they do not intend to run in 2012. That left two speakers who towered above the field – Ron Paul and Allen West.

Paul won the straw poll[...].

But the biggest surprise at CPAC was the keynote closing speaker[...].

Such stuff constitutes proof of current speculation.

Merely original research:

So...we got Congresspersons Paul, Ryan, West, Bachmann, getting such spec for various reasons. Then, we have potential native son Gregg's being said to have friends who've in turn said that maybe he was thinkin' about running.... <phew! lol> Well, and then, of course, we got perpetual campaigner Mitt. We got grassroots star Newt. We got celebrity mayor Rudy..... But Rudy doesn't really do pre-election year stuff, does he (if past is any guide. I mean, he hasn't really had his heart into campaigning for office, whethe the U.S. Senate or the presidency, since stepping down as mayor of NYC). We got media celebs Trump and former gov Palin who are possibly considering taking a page out of Thompson's playbook (not Tommy but Fred) but do it right this time. There are folks possibly able to take the baton from an age-weary Ron Paul, such as his son or the former NM governor.

But why in hell discriminate against the Congress people mentioned?

-Big time political website and opinion mag chatter? I don't see it for Rudy, Donald, or Judd Gregg. I do for said Congress people.
-Groundgame in either IA or NH? I see it, in potential, from former Governor and Senator Gregg's connex in NH, in the early (and other states') organizations run by grassroots star Newt, in those run by perpetual campaigner Mitt, in Huck's theo-network in IA. I see it, after a fashion, in Ron Paul's netfans. Maybe the Tea Party can step in for Bachmann or Ryan. But where is Rudy's?

[...... Blah blah blah blah. Just tell me to shut up! We rely ONLY on reliable sources here, period.]

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification in order

As to criteria for inclusion in "potential, undeclared candidates" section, Do draft movements--e/g Trump's perhaps astro-turf draft movement, spec about Bachmann, Ryan, Ron Paul, Col. West, etc.--qualify or not? Is visiting early states a sole criterion? Or are there additional barometers, and if so, what?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The last Republican Congressman to win was in 1881. Should we not count Congressmen/women as potential candidates? Of course we should, if there is speculation or draft movements about them (eg the webpage for West). The last Republican who was never elected to any public office before and who was not a general to become president was--well, never. Should we count out Ambassador Bolton or businessman Trump? Of course not. (There's never been a mayor and the only Republican U.S. Senator to become president was in 1920: bad news for Giuliani, Thune, Santorum, Rand Paul, and Judd?)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sort of going off what I was writing in the section above, I would consider someone like Trump possible because he's openly engaging in talk about running. Individuals like Ryan and West, though, have not given any inclination that they have an inkling of running. There's a draft movement for Bob Gates, but he's been pretty explicit (though not quite Shermanesque) about not running. Other Representatives expressing interest should count, like King and Bachmann, because whether or not they have a legitimate shot, they are legitimately talking about running. Someone like Rand Paul, though, is tough to categorize, because he's in the first third of his first term in any elected office and with his father so likely to run, I can't imagine he'd square off against him for the same portion of the electorate, though he's coy in a way that suggests that he might run, though it's likelier to be in a few cycles. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting take; but inevitably we end up trying to weigh things in a very wp:OR manner. Eg What make you think Ron Paul likely to run? Sure, the senior doctor Paul has addressed the issue but has done so in the same way Ryan has, in hypothetical terms, but never has indicated an interest in running---as I underetand, anyway. Rather than try to divine, I think we should count all people being actively bandied except those like Chris who say they feel like they gotta attempt suicide to get folks to stop.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your point, that we are tiptoeing the line of OR at times here, but I feel that going with everyone who's been speculated about at one point or another allows for the floodgates to be opened. In Ron Paul's case, there is evidence beyond just idle speculation and playing it coy (he bused in lots of people to CPAC to ensure he'd win the straw poll, that's fairly well sourced and can only mean he's at the least considering it and willing to put in some effort). I haven't seen anything like that on Allen West or Paul Ryan. Ryan in particular seems focused on his job as the top Republican budget guy in the House. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What floodgates? It's a pretty reasonable handful that get bandied about by current, multiple reliable sources, really, don't you think?

Case in point is the hypothetical language used by newly-minted budget chairman Ryan when regularly presented with the question. For example, just today in the Weekend WSJournal, Paul Gigot writes, quote--

All of which invites a question: If the stakes for the country are so large, and the 2012 election is so critical, why doesn't Mr. Ryan run for president himself? Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol has nudged Mr. Ryan to run, and emails arrive often in my inbox suggesting that Mr. Ryan do so.

"My head's just not there," he says. "I want to be at home for the weekend"[...]. If I could do it from Janesville" he quips. Later, after I press, he adds, "You've got to really, really, want to be president, and you've got to have the belief that no one else could do it. . . . I think there are other people who could do that."

--end of quote.

So--if I'm understanding your take-- we have three categories: One is for current speculation. One is for past speculation. And one is for folks who have unequivocally denied interest. We collectively don't nominate Ryan for the first or the third categories but for the category of folks who were talked about once upon a time, but no more? How can we do so without engaging in wp:OR? Better to either provide wp:RSes that say he is being talked about, and put him in category one or provide an unequivocal denial of interest and put him in category three, in my personal opinion. I don't think he'll be succussfully drafted, but Wikipedia simply doesn't depend on us contributors' successful prognostications. (See wp:CRYSTAL, of course.) Instead, if ya have got Kristol and tons of movement folks clamoring for somebody currently, ya cite the RSes that put the guy in the Currently Speculated About category (--no "crystal balling" necessary!) If some prospective candidate really and truly says, "No the hell way!," then ya file him or her down in column three. If some time goes by and there isn't any more chatter about a prospective candidate X who never so strongly demurs, ya put 'em in middle cat #2. All pretty straightforward and easy.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Move Scott Brown to Definitely Denied Interest

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/21/earlyshow/main20034415.shtml "Asked by co-anchor Erica Hill, 'Are we going to see you perhaps making a presidential bid in 2012?' Brown responded, 'No. I'm running for re-election to the United States Senate.'" I think this qualifies as definitely denied interest, as he has stated he will be running for reelection to the senate, not running for president. 99.174.92.174 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and  Done.--JayJasper (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Past spec cat

In the interest of completeness: Intrade also lists indie mayor Bloomberg, Sen. Corker, [Edited: indie] radio host Dobbs, businesswomen Fiorina, Sen. Graham, Gov. Kasich, indie Dem. Sen. LIeberman, Justice Thomas, and actor Thompson.[4] Did any of these guys receive multiple rs spec? bow out?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of them have, but I could be wrong about one or two of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg said he wouldn't run for president in 2012, which would cover his trying to be drafted as a Repulicans candidate somehow as well as his choosing to embark on an independent campaign.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's one for Dobbs.[5] Brb.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And another.[6]--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Corker bowed out.[7]--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Corker and Thomas are already listed in article mainspace.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Although a lot of Fiorina spec centered on pie-in-the-sky stuff about her eventually being a presidential candidate prospect should she win statewide office, this piece just says "2012"...meaning pres race or some other?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

From the end of Janurary: "Gingrich is weighing a presidential campaign himself, and says he would not be at all surprised to see Kasich on a national ticket. But Gingrich says Kasich likely wouldn’t be a vice presidential candidate, because he says Kasich has 'the ability to run for president at some point.'”--but he didn't mention 2012, per se, either.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's one for Thompson.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

DeMint

There was only one source saying Jim DeMint won't run so I moved him to Not Currently Being Speculated About along with a ref saying he hadn't counted it out.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44933.html Here is another source saying he won't run. Plus, many of the people saying they won't run only have one source, they only need two to be in the Prospective section. 99.174.92.174 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On January 26, DeMint told Wolf Blitzer he wasn't running.

The next day he told Mr. Blitzer's CNN colleague Peter Hamby that DeMint would (in the words of reporter Elspeth Reeve) "go for the presidency in 2012 if none of the other candidates were sufficiently conservative."

Jan. 29, The State (S.C.): "Sen. Jim DeMint reportedly open to run for president in 2012"

Feb. 10, The State: "DeMint is ahead of the presidential pack in his home state with 24 percent support, followed by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 20 percent, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 17 percent and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at 12 percent, according to a poll released last week by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-affiliated Raleigh, N.C., firm.

"David Hawkings, editor of a daily Congressional Quarterly politics newsletter with a wide following on Capitol Hill, this week bumped up the chances of DeMint seeking the White House to 10 percent.

"'It seems like there’s an outside chance that the Tea Party movement will be left high and dry by their top choice, Sarah Palin,' Hawkings said in an interview. 'If that happens, they would obviously turn to DeMint. He hasn’t quite ruled it out yet.'"

My interpretation of the above (and subsequent reports) is that a whole bunch of people around DeMint--and even those working for him--desparately want him to run. However, each and every time the senator is asked himself, he unequivocally denies interest. This results in the door in DeMint's case only being said on occasion to be ajar just a crack when in actuality it isn't, IMO.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Gregg

W/rgd to Gregg, reportedly entertaining the idea of a New Hampshire "favorite son" candidacy: Is mention of his inclusion in a straw poll sufficient as a recentsource--if no other secondary one is available, recently?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg mentioned Gregg here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC) It was from Dec. 21:

"Gregg, New Hampshire's retiring senator, acts likes he's not running but hasn't ruled it out (If he did run as a New Hampshire favorite son, it would complicate things for Romney)."

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaker

I changed Gingrich's designation to Speaker, a Constitutional office second in the line of succession to the Presidency in the case of the death or of officially declaration of incapacity. (Intereestingly the lede at Speaker of the House says "the Constitution does not require that the Speaker be an elected Member of Congress, but no non-member has ever been elected Speaker"--ahwhoa-ah, dinn know that!)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler has released a statement, clarifying that Gingrich will not be announcing Thursday that he is forming a presidential exploratory committee, as had been reported all day by numerous news agencies. 'Speaker Gingrich's long-standing visit to Georgia on Thursday has been on his schedule for months. ... To be clear, while Speaker Gingrich is in Georgia on Thursday, he will NOT announce the formation of an exploratory committee,' the statement says." I'm moving Gingrich back to potential candidate. --71.202.252.53 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Newt running or isn't he?

I see that Newt Gingrich was added to exploratory committee list following news reports that made it sound like a sure thing he was going to form a committee. There are new reports out today, however, that say the previous reports were premature, and that he hasn't yet decided to form a committee and won't making any announcement to that effect this week. Check it out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/newt-gingrich-2012-speculatron_n_830219.html

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/02/gingrich_clarification

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50430.html

I guess we re-list him as prospective candidate?--Newbreeder (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are more stories about his "mixed signals":

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50520.html

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/gingrich-advisers-explain-mixed-signals-on-exploratory-committee-announcement/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/02/newt-gingrich-reprises-his-role-as-mr-indecisive/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0311/Newts_detour.html

Looks like he's not a candidate. Not yet, anyway.--64.4.107.30 (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Check out the latest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/us/politics/04gingrich.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/03/gingrich-expected-to-announce-plans-for-2012-bid

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/comeback-kids-gingrich-roemer-set-to-announce-2012-bids-20110303

Now he says he is going to run after all. Sheesh!--Newbreeder (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Exploratory Committees

We should not have an Declared and Filed Exploratory Committee section.

Creating an exploratory committee does not mean someone is running. The committee means that the candidate is exploring the possibility of running. Some candidates explore and don't end up running. For example, Paul Wellstone formed an exploratory committee in 1998 but did not run for President. Other candidates don't form these types of committees at all. For example, John Edwards ran in 2008 with no committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWatiker (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why they are separated from the candidates who are actually running. 99.174.92.174 (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Measuring "current"

I think it is time for us to reevaluate our rule of six months to determine the cutoff between candidates that are the subject of "current" media coverage and previous candidates. This made sense in 2009 and much of 2010, but now that we are past the midterm elections and zeroing in on the first debates in May, the volume of coverage has increased dramatically. I think a figure like one or maybe two months would now be the more appropriate dividing line. What thinks others? - Pictureprovince (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks would even be better.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The six-month rule was revised to a three-month rule by consensus of editors last month. That being established, it might sense to revise it yet again to one month given the dramatically increased volume of coverage and frequency of media citations that Pictureprovince pointed out.--JayJasper (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think one month is the way to go. Bullshark44 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like their is a consensus around something in the neighbourhood of one month. Shall we make it official? - Pictureprovince (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to get a few more opinions before making it official, but for the record, the "one-month" rule has my endorsement.--JayJasper (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been a few days and there are no other comments. I am going to move them "candidates" to the other section, but feel free to move them back. Bullshark44 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally in agreement with a one month rule. SE7^Talk/_Contribs 01:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Why was Ron Paul removed from the list? There is still plenty of media going around that he may run in 2012. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.11.33 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

He has been restored to the prospective list, with 2 recent citations.--JayJasper (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul is being listed as a candidate with an exploratory committee, but all the sources say he merely has the papers filled out, but no mention of him actually having filed them yet. Isn't this the case? And if so, shouldn't Paul be kept in "potential candidates" for now? --71.202.252.53 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

He is back on the propective candidates list — Preceding unsigned comment added by NextUSprez (talk • contribs) 16:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Residencies

Since we're trying to assemble accurate info, where would Huckabee's current residence be mentioned? He was governor of one state but votes now in another. (Romney still votes in the state he governed.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Made this edit.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pawlenty

The Times reported that Pawlenty will announce his exploratory committee on Monday but he also made an announcement about his exploratory committee on a conference call with fund raisers: "He first disclosed his intentions in a morning conference call to contributors, whom he has been quietly courting for months in a series of events across the country that he calls “friend-raisers.” Raising enough money for a presidential bid is one of his biggest challenges, considering several other likely Republican rivals have established donor networks."

This would qualify him for "Announced Exploration of Potential Candidacy" right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWatiker (talk • contribs) 16:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh. I think we should wait for the "official announcement", which should be the Facebook message due at 3pm EDT. Until then, I moved him back from announced to prospective. I err on the side of caution as much as possible, as it's always possible the reports are wrong (though in this case it would be a bungling of epic proportions by Team Pawlenty to make a mistake like that). In two hours, this will likely be moot. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

^Y--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin

Andy Martin (American politician) is listed in the article United States presidential election, 2012 but not here. Why? --Dezidor (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just an oversight, probably. He's in this article now.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann

Should she listed in the "exploring candidacy" already? The citation given in the article (which, BTW, two are needed) says she plans to to start an exploratory committee. All the other articles on the subject found on Google search say the same thing. Should we wait until she officially forms the committee before moving her from "Propective candidate", or is her public acknowlegement of intent to do so enough to qualify her for "Exploring" status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollins83 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, since "plans to do so" and "doing so" are both indicated in that section's intro, currently.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see that now: "....or have indicated an intention to form, an exploratory committee". I missed that earlier. Thanks.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work. In an exclusive report, CNN credits "a source close to congresswoman" to report that "Bachmann will form a presidential exploratory committee" in early June.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the DesMoines Register, Bachman disputes this to be her already decided intention:

I asked Bachmann about the report on CNN that she plans to open a presidential exploratory committee in June. She didn’t dispute the timeline but said that’s when she’ll make a decision.

“Well, we’ll be making a decision by this summer if we will or not. We haven’t made a decision that we actually will. But our national timeline that we’re following will be this summer because I believe it’s important to be part of the Iowa Straw Poll going forward, so I think a decision would have to be made by then."

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Gary Johnson

Should we move Gary Johnson to the candidate category? He is not doing an exploratory committee but just jumping right into the fray. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51993.html Bullshark44 (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably should wait until April when he acutally announces his campaign before moving him to candidate category, but he's updated on current list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NextUSprez (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Roy Moore

the former Alabama Supreme court Chief Justice is looking at running according to this: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/23/ten-commandments-judge-eyes-iowa/

also saw it on politico.com and msnbc.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

At least two sources are required. You've provided one, but merely saying you've seen it on other sites isn't sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

here's more sources:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/28/6363016-roy-moore-the-next-to-jump-into-the-2012-gop-race http://www.kgan.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.ia/2e774d31-www.kgan.com.shtml I'll add him to the page when I have time if no one else does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NextUSprez (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The MSNBC link is not appropriate, as it's just rehashing the WSJ story, but the KGAN link is valid. I won't object if those are the two sources provided. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)