Talk:2012 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Can we recreate?

Can we recreate this page once the election results are final? Look at the Article on United States Presidential Election, 2008. It was created a year before the 2004 election.--Kanata Kid (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - We can provide a general schedule of the election. We can assume that Barack Obama will seek reelection and provide a list of the Republican heavyweights who are going to try to make him a one-term president. Hektor (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirected

This page has been redirected to United States presidential election.—Markles 14:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• That we know, we are asking that to be changed now. Hektor (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As stated in the tag above, the redirect was put in place as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (2nd nomination). Therefore, you need to demonstrate that you have verifiable, cited content (and not original research) to get past the WP:CRYSTAL rules. If "you want to provide a list of the Republican heavyweights", they too need to be cited, and not mere speculation from blogs. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there must come a point where we can reasonably create this article. Even now, it seems very likely that either Obama or McCain will be considering whether to seek re-election, it is very likely than in a few hours we can be more specific. PatGallacher (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya, but it would be stupid to have a page that says "President elect (name) will likely seek reelection in 2012". That is pointless to list. CTJF83Talk 19:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

By blocking it you prevent anybody to provide a useful content. I think this should deserve a chance, unblock it and if you don't like what you read you can always go for another Afd three weeks later. Hektor (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That is why we have talk pages! If someone has enough reliably sourced information, they can add it here, and we can discuss unprotecting the page. CTJF83Talk 19:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. Hektor (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would allow re-creation of the article at this time. We do have a president-elect now who automatically becomes the favorite for the 2012 Democratic nomination, and Newsweek has already conducted its first poll for the 2012 Republican nomination. What I object to is rank speculation, like people saying that Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jennifer Granholm could run for president, if the Constitution were amended to allow non-native born citizens to run. That would be a leap into crystal ballery. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I really care about is if there is enough verifiable content so it is sufficiently to those who previously objected in the previous AFD. I do not think anything that says might run or a poll asking somebody else's predictions will fly by, IMO. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A Wikipedian's guess as to who might run is forbidden. Actual polling data or news media reports saying that a certain GOPer is "considering" a run or that someone is "expected" to run is not a crystal ball. As long as we can have an intelligent, coherent article (which we can - there's plenty out there), I say recreate it. --B (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the first revision of United States Presidential Election, 2008. That was in 2003! If that wasn't deleted or redirected have to stay deleted or redirected?--Kanata Kid (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think the consensus now is that 2003 was too early to create the 2008 election article. Wikipedia was smaller back then and precedents from 2003 would not necessarily be upheld now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The rules that became WP:CRYSTAL were also not set in stone back in 2003.[1] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Look at this sandbox page. Wouldn't that be enough for an article here?--Kanata Kid (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We can use articles such as Cillizza, Chris, Palin-ology: the image reclamation tour begins, Washington Post, November 11, 2008 [2] which says "The goal of Palin's busy week is clear: for her to remain a national player in the Republican party and a legitimate contender in 2012, she must beat back the various negative stories about her being peddled to the media." There is also "Palin Leaves Door Open For 2012 Campaign" at CBS News, Nov. 11, 2008, an AP story. Palin says she "wouldn't hesitate to run for the presidency in four years if it's God's will." ""And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door." Edison (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Electoral Votes

Are the number of electoral votes per state going to be the same in 2012 as they were in 2008? 206.47.141.21 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not. Each state has a number of electors in the Electoral College (United States), equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. Before 2012, the 2010 United States Census will take place in two years, which (among others) will result in another congressional apportionment of seats in Congress. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Puerto rico

How will the placing of Puerto Rico as a state decide the matter of Electoral Votes?--205.215.119.97 (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends on when a 51st state would be admitted to the union. Each state has a number of electors in the Electoral College (United States), equal to the number of its Senators and House Representatives in the United States Congress. If a 51st state is added to the union, they would automatically get two Senators (and thus at least two electoral votes).

As for the number of House Representatives a new 51st state might get, I'm not clear on what might happen. If I read Public Law 62-5 right, a new 51st state would temporarily get only one House seat before the next United States Census and subsequent congressional apportionment. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So assuming my reason is correct: If Puerto Rico becomes a state right now before the 2010 United States Census, their number of House Representatives, and thus their electoral votes in the 2012 election, would be based on those Census results. If they achieve statehood in 2011 or later, they would probably only have 3 electoral votes (1 House seat and 2 Senate seats), until the 2020 Census. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue for this page, as the odds of Puerto Rico achieving statehood before 2012 are very remote. Put it on a Puerto Rico politics page if you must. Remember that what holds this stuff up are that neither party wants to lose a seat here. My understanding is that Puerto Rico leans Republican, which will mean that Democrats will want something in return. They might ask for DC to become a state, but that might end up netting them more safe seats than Republicans, so the Republicans won't agree. It's a total mess, and it's not at the top of anybody's agenda right now, so I just don't see how it's remotely possible that this will happen before the 2012 election. It should not be on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.165.109 (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that PR becoming a state before 2012 is exceedingly unlikely, it's equally unlikely that it would only get 1 representative in that case, even temporarily. Puerto Rico currently has just under 4 million residents -- a little bit more than Oregon (which has 5 representatives) and a little less than Kentucky (which has 6). A single PR rep would be a gross undercount. The provisions in Public Law 62-5 for single representatives for Arizona and New Mexico were specific to those states (which had low population at the time), not meant to be generally applied to any and all new states admitted to the union; the number of representatives that Puerto Rico would receive before the next census would be determined by the law that admitted it to the union.

As for partisan balance, it's difficult to predict, but I have a hard time believing that PR would be a solid Republican state. Right now territorial politics are balanced pretty equally between the pro-Commonwealth PPD, which is affiliated with the Democrats, and the pro-statehood PNP, which is affiliated with the Republicans; but since the statehood debate so defines those parties, it's not at all clear how actual admission as a state would change their dynamic. --Jfruh (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• New states get representatives as provided in the Act of Congress which admits the state to the union. Some new states in the past got 1, some got more. It's an ad hoc process.—Markles 00:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Puerto Rico would be "solid Republican." What I'm simply saying is that it leans Republican, which is what is holding things up. Democrats will say "If Puerto Rico becomes a state, then obviously D.C. has to become a state also." But DC is 90% Democrat, so Republicans would never agree on DC + Puerto Rico, since that would be a net loss for them. Adding states is extremely political, and it's just really, really hard to do because of that. And as I said before, this is not on the top of anybody's priority list in Washington right now, so there's really no chance of this happening before 2012. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.165.109 (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a stone tablet, things can be edited as information changes. As of now, Puerto Rico is not a state and doesn't seem likely in the next four years. If things develop, then the article can be changed. Until then, its fine. Ocexpo (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Republican Heavyweights

• John H. Cox
• Sarah Palin
• Jeb Bush

[14:47, November 5, 2008 205.215.119.97]

Interesting list up to now, but again under WP:CRYSTAL, do you have any sources to back this up? Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I think Bobby Jindal is an early name out there and, if there can be such a thing at this point, probably the frontrunner. [3][4][5] Palin is getting plenty of mention just by default. There is zero chance Jeb Bush gets the nomination and I would be shocked if he even runs - nominating him would be a certain guarantee that Obama gets reelected. Tim Pawlenty has already put his name out there and he is well liked and would be a serious contender.[6] That last link gives a handful of names that could be added to the list of potentials. From your list, I would be shocked if either Cox or Bush are serious candidates and, while Palin will probably run, she won't be touched with a 10' poll. --B (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that Pawlenty hasn't said anything himself one way or the other. He said that he hasn't made up his mind whether to run for reelection in 2010. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Some bookmakers are already taking bets on the 2012 election, including e.g. Betfair, see http://www.betfair.com . At present Obama is the clear favourite on 1.54 (they use decimal odds) followed by Lindsey Graham on 16, Condoleezza Rice on 18, Sarah Palin on 20, Mitt Romney on 23, and Hillary Clinton on 26. PatGallacher (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be keeping an eye on Michael Steele. 74.94.21.101 (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

from someone not living in the states, sarah palin and rice are the only heavyweights on that list - the others are really international unknowns, or known for teritary reasons. palin vs rice for the nomination, then one vs obama will be fun - but none of them should be added into any article, very crystal-balling! any which way, think 2012 will be far more interesting than 2008! 81.96.248.32 (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For somebody who knows how to properly edit Wiki pages, can somebody please add Mark Sanford to the list of candidates. As a source, you can use the same AOL News article that is being used for Barbour. Sanford is very popular among the base and GOP insiders, and has to be considered a very possible candidate (certainly more likely than somebody like Eric Cantor, who is probably another cycle or two away from being a serious contender). And Sanford is term-limited in 2010, which means that 2012 is the perfect time for him to run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.165.109 (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

New Page

I created a "sandbox" page for a launching point for this presidential election. Now that it is officially the "next" presidential election, I think it is time for its own page. Plus, there are a few things that have already happened in regards to the next election. Here is the page I have created User:Ocexpo/United States presidential election, 2012 (sandbox) Edit this page, add stories, etc. Please ensure it is verified. Ocexpo (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Glory Editors

Seems like some powerful person on Wikipedia wants to be the first to create this for the glory. Stop having such a huge ego and create it already. People are *already* talking about this election. You know when the 2008 article was created? 2003. So WHAT is the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.15.244 (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• What ? there are powerful persons on wikipedia ? Hektor (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already created the starting point to this page, and plan to transfer it over when this page is unlocked (User:Ocexpo/United States presidential election, 2012 (sandbox)). Unfortunately, some admins just like to create conflict for the sake of it, and regular editors just have to wait it out. In the meantime, edit my sandbox page because for now, that is what is acting as the 2012 Election page.Ocexpo (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note that Ocexpo's sandbox page has been moved to the mainspace page, so people can edit United States presidential election, 2012 directly now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

2012 us presidential election

2012 us presidential election was redirect here by AfD. A merge of some of the content might be in order. 76.66.192.6 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Virgil Goode

I took out the pic of Virgil Goode... the cite was to a brief blog entry which said there were rumors Goode might join the Constitution Party and might run for President. He hasn't even left the Republican Party yet. Also, even though none of the other potential third party candidates have much of a chance, they are credible national figures with small but real national constituencies (and one of them, Michael Bloomberg, is also the mayor of the nation's largest city.) Goode is an obscure Congressman with extremist views who just lost his race for re-election. If he actually goes to the trouble of laying the groundwork for an actual campaign and if he actually makes some headway and if there are some cites to that effect, then of course he should be included... but not now. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Why does someone keep adding Hillary to this list?--Kanata Kid (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't answer for said user, but I keep deleting her. CTJF83Talk 03:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not the user adding her before, but I am now. She is absolutely a POTENTIAL candidate, as there is speculation regarding a potential primary challenge to Obama - there is even a source for it. If that is not enough, just google "Hillary primary challenge to obama 2012" and you'll find plenty more speculation. After all, no candidate has announced their intention to run yet and so if you delete Hillary Clinton, you should delete all the potential Republican candidates too. And please, don't let partisanship get in the way. I personally am not aligned with any of the major parties, but I've noticed that a lot of people who keep deleting Hillary have lots of praise for on their talk page or seem to enjoy editing articles about Obama and making sure every county he won over McCain is listed.--Roms85 (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The currently cited source for Clinton primarily considers the possibility of a Clinton campaign in 2012 if she did not accept the Secretary of State nomination. She has now accepted that nomination, rendering that article's speculation redundant. — Hysteria18 • Talk • Contributions 18:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It acknowledges the possibility of a Hillary challenge to Obama; it says Obama wished to neutralize the threat of a primary challenge, but only Hillary can make that determination. In other words, just because she is Secretary of State does not mean she cannot run against Obama. The article does not say if she takes the job as Secretary that she cannot run; therefore Hillary deserves to remain based on the source.--Roms85 (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

From the NewsBusters source:

“ ...couldn't Hillary if she stayed in the Senate mount a campaign to win the Democrat presidential nomination in 2012?...If so, wouldn't it be in Obama's best interest to take her out of the 2012 competition by making her part of his administration? ”

...and from the Guardian source:

“ Giving Hillary the state department most certainly keeps her inside the tent. And it would make it very hard for her to run in 2012 – unless she'd want to run against her own record, at least on foreign policy. ”

(Emphasis all mine.) Surely both of these state quite clearly that the fact that she is Secretary of State does in fact mean that she cannot run against Obama? — Hysteria18 • Talk • Contributions 19:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup. That is exactly correct. Articles from a month and a half ago that speculate based on a future scenario that did not come to exist tend to be fairly difficult to accept. By the way, Roms, making accusations about the biases of editors who oppose your addition might serve contrary to your interests of getting your voice heard and of having a reasonable discussion toward a consensus. That said, although I feel Sen. Clinton should be removed unless a better source is found, I will not do so until ample discussion has been had here. -Seidenstud (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would make it harder, but far from impossible or highly unlikely. She is a potential candidate, especially since the economy is not likely to make a serious comeback for a while. Those articles still leave the possibility open. And by this logic, Bobby Jindal should be removed from potential Republican candidates, because he said he wasn't going to run - but will anybody really hold him to that if he does? And Seidenstud, I had a particular editor in mind who removed Hillary but also had a user page with Obama plastered all over, and whose edits were all to articles involving Obama and pointing out his wins. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that user is a fan of Obama and might have a bias.--Roms85 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea that these articles leave the possibility open is effectively completely false. The NewsBusters article states (albeit in a roundabout sort of way) that by making Clinton a part of his administration, Obama has elimininated the chance of a primary challenge from her. The Guardian article is perhaps less definite on that, but a source that says it will be "very hard" for someone to run (and equates "very hard" with "very unlikely") is not the sort of source we should be using on this page to prove that someone is a potential candidate. — Hysteria18 • Talk • Contributions 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not completely false at all. The NewsBusters article implies that by picking Hillary for State, Obama might be trying to take her out of the running for 2012. The person who is writing that article might think it makes it impossible for her to run, but all that matters is what Hillary thinks. Since we do not know what Hillary thinks, we should err towards keeping her as a potential candidate. Likewise, the Guardian article - which does not equate "very hard" with "very unlikely" - implies Obama might be attempting to take her out of the running for 2012, not that she is necessarily out of the running. And since Hillary hasn't ruled it out, she should be included since she is known to have presidential aspirations. Similarly, I would not object to including other Democratic presidential aspirants, but I'm not going to add them.--Roms85 (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hysteria, I just noticed you added Jeb Bush to potential Republicans. The source says that "it's fair to assume [Bush] would be open to a presidential run in 2012 or 2016." The two Hillary sources imply the same thing about her, and do not say that being Secretary of State would necessarily rule it out. There is still the potential that she might run, and since a source acknowledges that potential - no matter how small it may be from that source's perspective now that she's accepted SoS - it is appropriate to include her. And besides, do you really think that Jeb Bush is going to run in 2012? If he runs for Senate and wins, he would have to start a presidential campaign immediately after the election. But I still think it is appropriate to include him because there is the potential that he may run.--Roms85 (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I didn't add Bush. He was added, unformatted and in the wrong place, by the anonymous editor 76.214.203.108. I checked that the source discussed, in some capacity, the likelihood of a 2012 presidential campaign, and when I found that it did, I added Bush correctly to the gallery. Back on the topic of Clinton, however, I've stated my opinion regularly, and I'm not sure there's too much more to say. Would you agree to making a request for comment? — Hysteria18 • Talk • Contributions 21:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. -- [User:Roms85|Roms85]] (talk)

re-election of Obama

Correct me if I'm wrong but is Obama not automatically elegible for reelection in 2012? Another editor asserted that he had to go through the nomination process again and "work for it like everybody else." I reverted that edit because I'm pretty sure it's simply not true (I don't remember Bush doing it in 2004) but I wanted to ask here in case I'm mistaken. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 21:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Obama does have to run through the primaries again. And Bush ran through the primaries in 2004. The reason that most of us don't realize it is that in recent years it's been generally accepted that nobody serious is going to damage a sitting president's re-election chances by challenging him in a primary. So Hillary Clinton isn't going to challenge Obama unless there is some HUGE scandal that causes him to become massively unpopular. The last time a sitting President has faced a serious challenge in the primaries was in 1976 when Gerald Ford received a very strong challenge from Ronald Reagan. But even that was an extraordinary situation, as Gerald Ford had not been elected to be President or Vice President, and had taken office only about a year before Reagan jumped into the race. If you go back and look at primary results from 2004, though, you will see George W Bush on the Republican ballot, along with a bunch of gadflies. Nobody goes out just to vote for Bush, but they vote for him if they're already voting in the Republican primary for another office. Long story short: Obama DOES have to go through the primaries. But we can safely assume that an extraordinary turn of events would have to happen for any serious challenge and for anybody to have to pay attention to what should just be a formality for him. Hillary Clinton should NOT be on this page at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.171.127 (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama, as winner of the presidency is the leader of the Democratic party, and will likely be unchallenged by his own party in 2012. Hillary in 2012 is an anachronism, Hillary in 2016 is more like it.Synchronism (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1976 was not the last time someone from their own party presented a serious challenge to a sitting President - in 1980, Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter, and in 1992, Pat Buchanan challenged G.H.W. Bush. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right about Ted Kennedy in 1980, I forgot about him. But I don't count Pat Buchanan in 1992. He didn't win any primaries, and he was never a serious politician. The point is that in the modern era, unless a president does something to become wildly unpopular (Jimmy Carter's approval ratings were in the 20s back in 1979, far below any modern president about to seek re-election), no serious politician with any plans for the future would challenge them from within their own party. Pat Buchanan wasn't planning to ever hold a political office, so it didn't matter if he burned his bridges with the Republican Party. Hillary Clinton wouldn't burn bridges like that. She might try for something like Senate Majority Leader, or even maybe try for President in 2016 (although she will probably be too old by then). But there's no chance (barring some crazy set of circumstances) that she would challenge Obama in 2012. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.171.127 (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked. I still think I was right to revert those edits because there was a fair amount of POV pushing and the editor gave undue weight to the fact that Obama could lose. Thanks for correcting me. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 09:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless he doesn't complete his term, Obama will unquestionably be eligible for reëlection. Even if he did something so drastically against his party's wishes that he was kicked out of the party (like John Tyler), he could still run for reëlection. If he were kicked out and didn't become a Republican, he'd have to be third-party or independent, but there's nothing that says you have to be D or R to be eligible to be elected president. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He has to be nominated by some party. In recent cycles it has been rare for a sitting President to be seriously challenged in his own party. The last time was 1980, when Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter and came close to being nominated (and then Carter was defeated by Ronald Reagan in the general election.) Since then, Reagan, George H. W. Bush (who like Carter lost the general election) and Bill Clinton were all nominated with no major opposition. At the moment, Obama is very popular within his own party and no one is openly preparing to run against him. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the section lists POSSIBLE candidates and Hillary is indeed a possible candidate, it makes sense to list her. If unemployment hit 10% or 14% - not such a far-out possibility - then Obama would be very vulnerable and probably lose reelection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roms85 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul's party

I really dont think Ron Paul should be listed as a possible third party/independent candidate. The artice that backs this up says he would aprobably run as a Republican again. 4.175.36.204 (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, he should be listed under potential Republican candidates.--JayJasper (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul refused to endorse John McCain in the general election. However, he is still a member of the House Republican caucus, and he was re-elected to his House seat as a Republican. So, until further notice, he is still a Republican. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Independent/third party candidates

Mary Ruwart is listed as "2008 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate". Ruwart was a candidate for the Libertarian nomination, but the actual Presidential candidate was Bob Barr. I think this should be changed/clarified. Jah77 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Candidate" is meant to distinguish from "nominee" in articles like this one. You have a point, though. It could be misleading for some readers. Would "presidential contender" work? We could say "candidate for the presidential nomination", but that seems a bit wordy. Any suggestions?--JayJasper (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Presidential contender" works for me, but come to think of it, is such a title necessary at all? Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney aren't referred to as "Presidential candidates" (or contenders), even though they all sought the Republican nomination in 2008. Couldn't we simply call Ruwart a "best-selling author"? Jah77 (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Consistency is needed throughout the article. I've made the suggested change with Ruwart, as well as Jello Biafra.--JayJasper (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It lists Jesse Ventura but I believe he would be ineligible as he has been officially living in Mexico and therefore fails the qualification of living in the US for 14 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenW (talk • contribs) 09:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC) BenW (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Might not hurt to source the election date

Especially for the benefit of those who are not familiar with how the election date is chosen, perhaps a source could be added to verify the date of the election. 23skidoo (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

How about this?--JayJasper (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

AFD heads up

An AFD regarding the 2012 New York Senate race is currently underway here and looks headed for a snowball delete; the question has been floated about whether this article is similar. Given the amount of non-trivial coverage being given to speculation about the federal election of 2012, I doubt it'd would fail an AFD challenge, but just a heads up that there might be one. 23skidoo (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloomberg?

The source for Bloomberg is what appears to be a reliable source, but it goes to a page with nothing but comments and advertisements. Given that this source doesn't currently say anything (aside from the comments) about a Bloomberg run, and given that he's repeatedly denied that he wants to run for president, shouldn't he be removed? Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hillary promised she would never run for President, or the Senate. Obama called running for President ' crazy ' when he was elected to the Senate.--67.246.62.233 (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Date of election and speculative candidates

There is a conversation occurring on my talk page and on User talk:76.214.217.103 that may benefit from input from the editors of this article. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 01:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Giuliani?

I am removing Rudy Giuliani from the list. The given source ([7]) is a blog without editorial oversight (not a RS), furthermore, it does not say that he is a candidate, just speculation based on the existence of the mainly empty JoinRudy2012.com. This speculation, also is highly suspect as the JoinRudy2012.com domain is registered to "G Boehm," (apparently Geoff Boehm [8]) a suspicious entity, with no assertion of affiliation with the alleged campaign committee. -Seidenstud (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well they are all speculation, and if he were to win an office in 2010 he would probably test the primaries. I looked at a few other candidates' sources and they did not appear legit either. I think he should be in the article because he is more likely than a few of the people on there. I added Rudy again with a legit source. Rockyobody (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Article setup

I don't edit this article frequently; right now I'm focused on the 2008 article. So, would everyone here who contributes a substantial amount to this article please try to set it up similarly to the previous election articles, other than 2008, as that's still being rearranged? I'm requesting this so we don't run into problems after the election occurs and have to rearrange, reword, and rephrase the entire article to make it conform to previous election articles (that's what I'm doing to the 2008 article now). So, if some editor(s) could take charge and make sure the article setup is at least somewhat similar to previous election articles (again, other than 2008) and keep it that way through the election, I'd really appreciate it, and it would save a huge amount of work that would have to be done if this developed like the 2008 election article did. Thanks. Timmeh! 01:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fix the electoral section

Ive read threw the source given and nowhere does it mention electoral votes, just congressional seats(i could be wrong though) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but electoral votes are determined by the number of congressional seats. One for every seat, plus two for the two senators. There's more info at Electoral College (United States)#Original plan. Hysteria18 (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, this is all so confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC) ok98.149.127.13 (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Other" Candidates

I created a new section specifically for the Libertarian Party. It's not self-promotion or anything. I don't like the third parties considered as the "other" guys. The fact that only the Republicans and Democrats are considered is part of the reason why the political system is so polarized towards one of two sides. FallenMorgan (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... while I'm all for more power going to the third parties, I think a better way to do this would be to have the 'Potential independent and third party candidates' section as it was, with subsections for Libertarian candidates, Green candidates and Independent candidates. The way the article currently sands makes it seem like third party candidates don't include Libertarians, who at the moment definitely are a third party on the national level. I'm going to make that change now. Hysteria18 (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that, as long as they're not all lopped up into one "Other" section like they did on that "forum" on CNN. Atleast the Libertarians and Greens (and other parties when they come around) are/will getting/get some name recognition on the article. FallenMorgan (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Barring resignation...

The article says "Barring resignation (...) President elect Obama will be eligible for re-election" . I know this is very unlikely, but from a strict legal/constitutional standpoint, is there really any legal reason which would prevent a president who has resigned during his/her mandate to seek election at the next presidential election. Hektor (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd never considered that before, but I'm pretty sure you're actually right. Of course, it's completely absurd to think that Obama could resign and then run again, but as far as I know there's no law to stop him from doing so. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll change it now. Hysteria18 (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The only realistic case I could think of would be a president whose spouse would be terminally ill and who would judge that spending remaining time together would not be compatible with the Presidency. Hektor (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

But that situation would only affect the likelihood of the person running, not his/her eligibility. The sentence as it stands now is about eligibility. Whether that sentence should be in there at all is another question. I am not even sure that this article should be here at all, and this sentence is one of the main examples of why. This kind of article just promotes speculation and contains nothing that is really "encyclopedic." However, I know that proposing deletion would be a waste of time because too many people think Wikipedia needs an article on every idea that everybody can think of. I am surprised there is no article about the 2016 election yet. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think reasonable to have an article about the next presidential election. Likewise, I think that an article about the 2016 election will be reasonable four years from now, in December 2012. Hektor (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul?

I don't think Ron Paul will run in 2012, he'll be 77. If he's listed a a pontential candiate then John McCain may as well be, as he's a year younger than Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.48.111 (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Age isn't really an issue. A reliable source says that Ron Paul might run, there's no source saying McCain might. Mike Gravel ran this year, aged 77. Harold Stassen kept on running for President until 1992, by which time he was 85 years old. There's no reason to believe that age will stop him from running. Hysteria18 (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeb Bush

I remember during the Rupublican primaries I read some article somewhere that said Jeb was considering a 2012 run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.175.36.3 (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Hillary Clinton as a potential candidate for 2012

Should Hillary Clinton be listed as a potential candidate for the 2012 election, in which she would have to challenge Obama?

The dispute is between Hysteria18 and I. I think she should be listed, because the sources provided do leave open the possibility that she could run even though she has accepted nomination as Secretary of State. Even though she will be SoS, there is still the potential that she may run, and since we know she has presidential aspirations she should be listed here as a potential candidate.--Roms85 talk Addenda: I chose the sources because they do leave open the possibility that she will run. In my opinion, the bottom line is: sources acknowledge the possibility of a Hillary 2012 primary challenge as Secretary of State; the sources do not rule out that possibility. This is not about the sources' thoughts on whether or not she will do it; all that matters is that the sources acknowledge the possibility of a Hillary run for President against Obama in 2012 as Secretary of State.--Roms85 talk 23:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The two sources provided were written prior to Clinton's acceptance of President-elect Obama's nomination for Secretary of State. Both sources fairly clearly explain that, if Clinton does not become Secretary of State, she may run for President in 2012. However, she is going to become Secretary of State, and I strongly agree with the sources that, as a result of this, she will at the very least wait until 2016, or else abandon her presidential ambitions altogether. A more detailed (and more repetitive) explanation of my views on this issue can be seen under the Hillary Clinton heading. — Hysteria18 • Talk • Contributions 23:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This section is primarily for a neutral editor to give a comment. If you want to contue debating this, it'd be better to do that in the original section. However, if you choose to do that, I doubt I'll reply; we've undeniably reached a point where neither of us is likely to concede any ground before the request for comment is fulfilled. Thanks.— Hysteria18 • Talk • Contributions 23:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Hysteria hasn't been the only one to revert Roms/24.198, as both me and Blubberboy have done it. Parler Vous (edits) 04:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support keeping Hillary. Although I personally feel that the article is premature in some ways (Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet), it's reasonable to include Hilary Clinton as a possible, albeit unlikely, challenger especially since her name has been mentioned. Chances are that we'll have Obama vs some Republican who's not on the list anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngchen (talk • contribs) 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support removing Hillary: I don't think this is cited to reliable sources, and even the idea of "potential candidates" is dubious when Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. But it's so unlikely that she'll do so in the sense that it requires a lot of intervening events. If we're going to include anyone who has even the most remote chance of running, then we have to start including a *lot* of other Democrats who could "potentially" run. And that would just start to get into WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Randomran (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If a source provides that somebody might run, no matter how remote that source deems the possibility, then that person should be included. This isn't crystal balling because a legitimate source states it is a fact that Hillary Clinton might run in 2012. Even though the source deems it a remote possibility as she has accepted nomination as Secretary of State, it still says she might run. And yes, we should include any reputable Democrat who might run, even if the chance of them running is only one percent - if there is a source to back it up. And since when isn't the Guardian a reliable source? --Roms85 (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I think that we should wait for a formal announcement before we start speculating. For example, the Libertarian candidates section only has people who have announced they will run. So, we should definately wait, because wikipedia is not a crystal ball, of course. FallenMorgan (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • But then all the potential Republican candidates should also be removed, because none of them have made a formal announcement. Come to think of it, Obama hasn't made a formal announcement either, so by that logic we should get rid of Obama, too.--Roms85 (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am taking it out. There is no basis for Hillary Clinton to be listed as a potential candidate in 2012. Neither of the sources supports her inclusion, for the reasons stated by Hysteria above. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • What authority do you have to remove her? Everybody else was fine with keeping her there until the RfC has been closed. The point of the note was not so you could delete her afterwards; I put it there so people would see it and make a comment on the RfC. Roms85 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have the same authority as every other editor. Facts have to be sourced to be in Wikipedia articles, and this one isn't, and the fact that it is completely illogical seals the deal. Your RFC can't change the Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. 6SJ7 (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support removing Hillary: per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:CRYSTAL as above. Plenty of reliable sources provide that it's unprecedented for a SoS to run against her president, and that HRC is exceedingly unlikely to change this. Articles that list Hillary as a potential candidate are from before she was nominated to Foggy Bottom. Agree with 6SJ7 that if nothing else, sourcing requirements settle this matter.--hemi (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • But the thing is, a source provides that there still is a small chance of her running. It is sourced material. Therefore it should be listed. And also, it is not unprecedented for a President's cabinet to actively undermine a presidency. That's what happened with Lincoln's Team of Rivals. Also, this does not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:CRYSTAL. How is this any more crystal balling then listing potential candidates for the Republicans, or even listing Obama as a potential candidate for that matter? List Hillary as a potential candidate or delete potential candidates altogether. Otherwise, the fact that she may run is notable enough to include. Roms85 (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity what source are you referring to? The two in the article are from before she accepted the cabinet post and predicate her candidacy on Obama not officially offering the post or Hillary not accepting it. Do you have a reliable source dated after 21 November (The day NYT reported she was to accept the post) referring to her as a potential candidate? --hemi (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support removing Hillary: The notion that Senator Clinton would even think about running against a sitting Democratic president is simply ignorant. She has been appointed Secretary of State, why would she abandon this position to run an another unsuccesful bid for the presidency? A small chance of a person running in a dubious source does not override common sense. Clinton should be removed immediately, and a hidden comment should be placed after Obama stating that she should not be added. Jason (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There is an inherent lack of thought in your comment. Nothing personal, but since we do not know what is going to happen in the next four years, Hillary Clinton is a potential candidate. No matter what, she could challenge him for the nomination. That's why we live in a democracy. Obama would be especially vulnerable if the economy continues on this path through 2010 and 2011, but that would be getting into WP:Crystal. And The Guardian is not exactly a "dubious source." Roms85 (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Did Charles Curtis run in the 1932 election? Jason (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
      • What does that have to do with anything? Just because Curtis didn't run doesn't mean that Clinton - or any other current or former cabinet member of a sitting president, for that matter - won't run. Hillary is going to be Secy of State anyway, not VP like Curtis. And she wouldn't have to challenge her own record on foreign policy, only on economics which she would have nothing to do with as Secretary of State. Roms85 (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
      • There is a precedent of a Secretary of State challenging a sitting President for the nomination. In 1892, Secretary of State James Blaine challenged President Benjamin Harrison for the Republican nomination for President. So if you want to talk about precedent - and not just you, Blubberboy, but everybody - then Hillary should be included. Roms85 (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
        • We've had 43 (soon 44 Presidents) and only one was challenged by a Sec of State? Not much of a precedent. Parler Vous (edits) 05:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stick to the facts, don't make lists like these, and this kind of dispute will not be necessary. ⟳ausa کui ^× 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Lindsey Graham

• Does anyone know why Senator Graham's information isn't displaying under his picture? I can't tell the difference format-wise.Bjones (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I fixed it by moving it all to one line. Guess and check usually works. Parler Vous (edits) 15:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Somehow I just couldn't get the hang of it.Bjones (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

John McCain

Why is McCain not listed among potential Republican presidential candidates? Though it's highly unlikely he'll run again, he still could. Defeated presidential nominees are not barred from seeking their party's presidential nominaton again. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

McCain isn't listed because there are currently no reliable sources listing him as a potential candidate. — Hysteria18 • Talk • Contributions 15:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What's So Wrong?

What's so wrong with the "third parties" getting their own sections? I think that all the notable national parties with candidates should receive their own sections. It's biased if the Republicans and Democrats get their names in bold, while the "other" parties do not. I see no terrible problem with the "third parties" getting sub-sections. FallenMorgan (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with third parties, you guys are acting like I'm biased. For one thing they may not run for the party they are listed, and another is each party should not have less than 2 candidates unless that party is the incumbent. It would not be fair if I said OTHER, but this is fair Rockyobody (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not fair because the Republicans and Democrats get their own sections. What would be "fair" is putting them all in one unitary section. Wikipedia is dynamic, and this article can be changed if a candidate changes party. The Libertarians, Greens, and others will not change parties like they change underwear, also. In the unitary "independent and third party" section, there was no indication of if they were Libertarian, Green, independent, or something else. Also, more candidates will pop up over the next three years. FallenMorgan (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not personally all that concerned with what constitutes 'fair', I just think it's clearly necessary for it to be clear which party a candidate is running for, or may be running for the nomination of. As this article solely uses the gallery tag rather than lists of candidates, it's easier to list the candidates under their parties, rather than list the parties under their candidates. — Hysteria18 • Talk • Contributions 15:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My position on the issue is this: When people see "Independent and Third party candidates" they think "vluh! who cares? ," if the Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists (they will be added when a candidate decides to run for them) are listed alongside the Democratic and Republican Parties, that's treating them as legitimate, which they are. In a nutshell, Wikipedia is for the high school student, the bored internet geek, and so on. When they see this article, they should be reading from a neutral position. A neutral position is one that treats the parties as equal in their merit and legitimacy. To lop a whole bunch of people into one group is biased and politically prejudiced. Knapp and Nader might not exactly want to be placed in the same general group together. Would you put the conservative Republicans in a group together with the liberal Democrats? No. "Third party" and "independent" candidates disagree with eachother just as much as anyone else. FallenMorgan (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Giving each party its own section is the only way to be un-biased. However, the Republicans and Democrats clearly should be on top. Therefore, I think that giving them all their own sections, and organizing those sections based on their placement in the 2008 election, is the best way to do it. Exactly as we had it before this debate started.SaltedCracker (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Republicans and Democrats should be listed first, but the Libertarians and others shouldn't be under a subsection. Also, judging by this it is listed in the correct order. The order is, Republicans, Democrats, independants, Libertarians, and Greens. FallenMorgan (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Third Party Compromise

I don't think listing the Libertarians, Greens, and Independents under "potential independent and third party candidates" as sub-sub sections is a fair compromise. There is nothing that makes these candidates any less "candidates" than Mike Huckabee or Obama. To put them in a sub-sub section is to basically call them children playing dress-up while the big boys play real politics. There was no problem before. FallenMorgan (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What about listing them all together, and keeping Third party presidential primaries, 2012 seperated. Rockyobody (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why that's necessary. And for future note, it's not going to be just the Greens, Libertarians, and independents. When a party gets candidates, they'll be added. People should be able to know who is running, and I see no reason for treating the "third parties" as one group. They're not. FallenMorgan (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)