Talk:2012 United States presidential election/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Minnesota missing

In Electoral College changes, Minnesota's losing of 1 elector is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.132.109.217 (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Use the Polidata source at http://www.polidata.org/news.htm#20091223 instead. Almost the same result (except for TX+4, AZ+1 instead of TX+3, AZ+2, overall result is the same), and they've been doing this for years. Their source is used by the Wikipedia page for the Census 2010. Ambi Valent (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Electors are chosen

The first paragraph implies that the electors will be chosen on election day, not the actual office race. I know the president will be elected on this date, but the wording to me anyway implies otherwise. Robert Beck (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The president is actually elected in December by the electors, whom the voters had chosen on Election Day. The electors' votes are then counted in Congress in January after Election Day. Timmeh 23:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Joe Shriner?

How do people here determine who is a "serious candidate"? I don't think Shriner could get enough support to get on the ballot on enough states to theoretically get 270 electoral votes. Last time he wasn't on the ballot in any state and received less than 100 popular (write-in) votes. Ambi Valent (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He is listed because because his 2012 candidacy is the subject of articles in two media sources that seemingly meet WP:RS criteria, and because he is a declared candidate with an FEC filing. True, based on his past campaigns, it is difficult to view him as a solid contender for the White House. But, this is a brand new election cycle and at this point we don't know with certainty who all the "major" players will be in 2012, and he meets the standards - per consensus - for inclusion on the page.--JayJasper (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible Reform party candidates

Wowsers, we forgot about the Reform Party. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone announced their candidacy? FallenMorgan (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Reform Party has collapsed.67.247.1.107 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of the American Reform Party which, according its article "is not a political party in the conventional sense. It does not have ballot access in any state, and it does not run candidates. It supports third party candidates and independents." The Reform Party of the United States of America, however, is apparently still active and running candidates. It is also the party most commonly referred to when "The Reform Party" is mentioned.--JayJasper (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Map update? (adds up to 539 now)

The map that is still used was based on a source that forgot that Minnesota would lose an electoral vote in the projection. The new source that is used on the page is different from the old in that Minnesota gets 1 vote less than currently, Texas 1 more, and Arizona 1 less. 92.77.30.60 (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Speculated Democratic Party candidates - Obama compromised on single-payer?

The wording gives me the idea that once Obama was in office, he compromised on a single-payer system with the Republicans, but Obama opposed it on the campaign trail. Although, it could be said that he compromised before his campaign started, but it's still a little misleading.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/16/barack-obama/obama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/ Vegetarianist (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording so as not to suggest "compromise". I hope this satisfies your concern.--JayJasper (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

He supported it as a Senator, and some Senators (Feingold, Sanders) and many Representatives (Kucinich, Weiner, etc., etc.) wanted single payer. Weiner wanted, and got, a vote on single payer. You're right though that he didn't run on it in the campaign. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing potential Republican candidates

Mark Sanford and John Ensign are both listed as speculated candidates for the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012, but not on this page.... why??? 01:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC) 82.46.172.25 (talk)

It may have been a mere oversight, or it might have had something to do with the controversies over the listing of Sanford and Ensign on the Republican primary page (see the article's talk page). In any event, I've added those two for symmetry with the primary article. We'll see whether or not it sets off any fireworks. --JayJasper (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Speculation

Per #3 in WP:Crystal, {{quotation|"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." I have removed the section on speculated candidates. Even though they're sourced, that section fails that portion of the policy. Toddst1 (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe this has been discussed before and the discussion is probably somewhere in the archives. Consensus was that although the potential candidates list is speculation, the speculation is not done by us. It was published by reliable sources and is therefore not original research. Timmeh 18:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the archives and the best I could find was Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012/Archive_2#Another_proposal. That doesn't negate that someone's speculation, while reported with reliable sources is not encyclopedic per Per #3 in WP:Crystal. See infotainment. Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote from the introductory paragraph of WP:CRYSTAL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." The speculated candidates section certainly falls into the category of discussion of "whether some development will occur" and the "discussion is properly referenced". Plus, there is a longstanding consensus that the list belongs in the article. Until a clear consensus to contrary emerges, the section should stay.--JayJasper (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Map appears to be irrelevant

Unclear what colors are, they don't match the census changes and the footnote link is currently to something about displacemnt of Katrina victims. A legend for the colors or maybe just removal are needed. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Author of the map communicated reason for above, I've added to the caption, see my talk page for his or her reply. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's what appears to be the case with the current coloring. If you have a good monitor or look at a higher resolution you should see that it's colored so that the contiguous states are distinct. This neither "usual" or "normal". No coloring at all would have been less confusing although I understand that that would make more work for editors when the colors are made significant. 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.177.92 (talk)

There is a mathematical sense ( e.g. the four color map theorem) in which this coloring is usual but that can hardly be expected for a general audience. Also the two shades of red are almost indistinct on my main monitor. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

people who have said they won't run

several potential candidates here have said they won't run, like jindal and petraeus. i'm not sure we should believe them, but should we include a statement like the one Adamc714 has added to jindal? or should they be in a separate category, something like Speculated Candidates Who Have Denied Interest in Running? or should we leave people like jindal and petraeus on with no such statement or category? Ratemonth (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I like the idea of a subsection for speculated candidates who have denied interest in running. Adamc714 (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I like the subsection idea as well.--JayJasper (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Lycurgus (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree too. I could set it up, but I think there's others that edit this page who'd do a better job than me. Ratemonth (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

David Petreus is one that has so declared. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Whilst I can understand the reasoning for a separate heading, most candidates when asked will deny that they or running or give one of those answers where they don't answer the question. There's a very good reason for this - if they announce they are running, their PAC can no longer raise money for them. They are instead limited by the donations to their campaign, which have a lower upper-limit than donations to PACs. As such, is it really necessary? If it is, perhaps the heading should be "Speculated candidates who have denied interest in running"? Tiller54 (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Announcing candidacy may restrict the PAC, but is it necessary to declare non-candidacy, to positively lie until the right time? If so that process should perhaps be sourced and written up somewhere if not here. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Also, to bring the "speculated candidate" list in line with the list on the 2012 Republican primary page, a column of "Previously speculated candidates" for Sanford, Ensign etc? Tiller54 (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think the record will show that when speculated candidates make a definite statement of non-candidacy for a given election year, as opposed to equivocating, they are generally taken at their word and generally in fact don't run. In view of the increasing time needed to select and market candidates, there are practical time constraints that come into play as well, assuming campaign politics as usual/as has been developing. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It might also be added that Obama has said he would rather be a good 1 term president than a mediocre 2 term one. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

states requiring birth certificate

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/politics/state_politics/house-oks-birther-bill-4-19-2010

Arizona became the first state to pass a provision that requires any candidate for 2012 elections to produce a birth certificate.Since it is a first i think it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The measure has not been officially passed. In the 2nd paragraph of the article you cite, it states "The measure still faces a formal vote."--JayJasper (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The measure hasn't even passed one house, much less both. Don't get so excited, as it may well be killed in the Senate, or in committee; or vetoed. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

so when it passes then will it be allowed to be posted?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 16:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Only if it passes (which seems highly unlikely); and then the consensus is that it is notable enough to be included. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

NPV Compact

In reference to this edit, since when has the New York Times not been a reliable source? Anyway, another reliable source is this article, in which supporters state that a debate on the proposal "will inevitably lead to a nationwide decision to embrace national popular election of the President in time for the 2012 Presidential election." Tisane ^talk/_stalk 20:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

New birther laws

The story states Obama will be qualified to run. but this is not true we do not know if he is going to comply with new state laws requiring him to produce proof of both his U.S. birth and citizenship to get on the ballot. If he does not comply he may not be on the ballot in those states. This needs to be in the article. Sattmaster (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

*laugh* Right. Please see Full Faith and Credit Clause. Thank you and good night. Henrymrx (t·c) 01:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Birther nonsense is of course laughable; but I don't see how the Full Faith and Credit Clause applies to presidential ballots. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I would think it could be seen as relevant in that if the state of Hawaii says they have issued the proof of birth required under their laws, FF&C could be interpreted to preclude another state from questioning that finding and documentation. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr

Apparently, there are some satirical "Roseanne Announces For President" videos out there which some sources have taken seriously. Until it shows up in actual news coverage, we must reject any effort to insert these as if they were real. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Remember also that a minimum of two reliable sources is needed.--JayJasper (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

If an individual announces their candidacy, only one source is necessary. The two source rule was only meant for speculated candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been told otherwise in the past. Where is this "rule" to be found anyway? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of one source in this manner derives from WP:V. One should understand that an actual announcement is much different than speculation. The rule in question developed from consensus at Talk:Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 to narrow the number of speculated candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading that talk page, it looks like all people talk about for that article is that there be 2 reputable sources. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please understand the difference between speculative candidates and announced candidates. --William S. Saturn (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Speculated candidates"

Is "speculated candidates" grammatically correct? I'd think "speculated-on candidates" would be more correct, but awkward. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Would "speculative" be better?--JayJasper (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn candidates

I know it's a bit earlier, but Jimenez' withdrawl made me think of adding such a section (with him in it). What does anyone else think? Ratemonth (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should wait until some more notable candidates (like those with a WP bio) have withdrawn after declaring a candidacy.--JayJasper (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

New Census Redistricting Projections!

It seems that some of the projections have changed. The article should be updated accordingly. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42741.html 128.101.88.250 (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)