Talk:Perennial candidate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ralph Nader

Listing someone who has run for office three times sets a very low standard for the status of "perennial candidate". Can Khanartist please provide a justification for his desire to list Nader? By this standard Nelson Rockefeller would also be a perennial candidate as would Adlai Stevenson (who had an abortive run in 1960 along with is 1952 and 1956 attempts).AndyL 14:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Three times seems quite low to me as well to be described as "perennial". Jayjg 14:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We would have to add Joe Clark and John Diefenbaker, who each ran for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada on three occasions, and that would just be the start. What about Strom Thurmond and people like him who are re-elected many, many times? Kevintoronto 14:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And why not add them? There is a very clear bias here against major party candidates, and towards third-party/little-chance candidates. I'm not condemning that, as "perennial candidate" does carry connotations of a candidate who doesn't have a prayer of winning, yet runs anyway. Nader fits this criteria.

Just for perspective.. John McCain and Bob Dole have campaigned for President 3 times each, albeit within the primary system. As stated above there have been some Republican and Democratic candidates who ran nationally 3 times also. One thing to note is when Bob Dole was on his 3rd campaign, and running against Clinton and Perot, some people were making snide remarks about Ross Perot (on his 2nd campaign) becoming a perennial candidate. It is a moniker used to put down and deride third party candidates who are supported by their parties in more than one election because they have the best chance to lead their party. The 'doesn't have a prayer of winning' is a connotation, because its used as a derisive moniker towards third party candidates, who aren't, as the term literally suggests "perennial" any more than a lot of Republican or Democratic candidates are. One should note that Ralph Nader uses his run not only to raise his political issues, but to bring up legal challenges when he has problems on ballot access or is excluded from debates (which he thinks harms his electoral chances). Why are we putting up a Wikipedia article up that affirms this use of the word? Brianshapiro

Please establish a quantitative criteria for number of failed elections so that you are not deleting something arbitrarily. Ezra Anderson has only run three times by this page's count, but has not been removed. What isn't too low? Three runs for local office is not enough in my opinion, but three runs for the national office of President of the United States is certainly sufficient. Khanartist 18:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Harold Stassen was not a minor party candidate. Anyway, I'd tend to agree that Enza is more a fringe candidate than a perennial candidate. As for Nader, I have never seen him described as a perennial candidate outside of blogs where the others have been. How many mainstream media sources can you find that describe Nader (or any three time candidate) as a perennial candidate?AndyL 19:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And why not add them?

Because no credible sources describe Rockefeller or Stevenson as perennial candidates, that's why. For us to call Nader one is POV as a result since three time candidates are generally not referred to by the perennial label. AndyL 19:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re-reading the article, I can see that the examples I cited do not fit within the current description. I agree that it would make sense to agree on a standard definition here. I think that restriting this to people who run and lose a great deal, for the purpose of promoting their views, is a good starting point. Losing three times still does not seem like very much. I think that this list would grow very long. Take Tony Clement for example -- he is a fairly mainstream fellow who sat in the Ontario, Canada legislature for a while, and was a prominent minister in the Cabinet, but then lost the Ontario PC leadership, the federal Conservative leadership, his seat in the Legislature, and a bid to get elected to the House of Commons. But perennial candidate? I don't really think so, because he did have reason to believe that he might win, unlike the people listed on the page. Kevintoronto 19:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would say Nader is on the cusp of being a perennial candidate. If he runs a fourth time (and loses) I'd be more comfortable with listing him. Listing him now strikes me as POV. As for Tony Clement, given his past success it would be premature to list him as a perennial candidate though his past success is not a barrier to perennial candidate-dom (see Harold Stassen). I think Paul Hellyer who was a longtime Liberal MP but has launched numerous unsuccessful attempts at a comemback since then might be considered a perennial candidate, I'd have to check and see how many unsuccessful runs he's had since 1970. Diefenbaker one one leadership contest and lost two while Clark won two and lost one so given their batting averages we really couldn't consider them perennials. As for Strom Thurmond, he's the opposite of a perennial candidate since he kept winning (perennial candidate implies perennially losing candidate:) It's not number of elections you've run in but number of elections you've run in and lost.AndyL 21:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree; four times should be enough, especially since that's four in a row. On another note, if people think three times is enough, Harry Browne, Libertarian candidate for President from '92 till 2000, should qualify as well. Johnleemk | Talk 06:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some would say that Nader's activities in the 1992 Democratic primaries constituted a presidential campaign, although the Wikipedia article implies otherwise. By the way, Harry Browne only ran for president twice -- the Libertarian candidate in 1992 was Andre Marrou. - Nat Krause 07:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As much as I am a fan of Enza Anderson, I think she has to go. Three times really is not enough. How about this as a first stab at a definition (please feel free to make changes):

A perennial candidate is a person who has run frequently (for the purposes of this article, at least four times) for public office in order to promote his or her own views despite having little or no expectation of winning. Kevintoronto 22:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Al Hamburg and Edward T. "Ed" O'Donnell Jr.?

How about these guys, 14 bids and 6 bids for the presidency respectively?: http://www.politics1.com/dems04.htm Not clear if they were actually on a ballot for a primary or what. Esquizombi 04:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Alan Keyes

Keyes got 40%+ for Senate in Maryland (where he really was living at the time, unlike his Illinois race) in at least one race (1992, I think) and is, as a former United States Ambassador, not quite the joke portrayed here, although he is, as another editor said of another person, "on the cusp" of being a perennial candidate. Rlquall 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Very true. In light of this definition: "They run not with any serious hope of gaining office, but in order to promote their views or themselves.", I don't think Alan Keyes belongs on the list. It's also questionable whether Al Sharpton or Eugene Debs belong. The obvious ones: Pat Paulsen, Harold Stassen, Lyndon LaRouche, are definitely perennial candidates. One thing which makes a perennial candidate a perennial candidate is their campaigns are widely perceived as jokes even by people who may share some or all of their political outlook. Harold Stassen is the quintessential example here. Keyes may be treated that way by the left and Sharpton that way by the right but they aren't treated that way otherwise. Puppy Mill 11:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I never thought Keyes had much of a chance of winning his Presidential campaigns, but at the same time I always viewed him as a serious candidate, and I believe most people did. LaRouche clearly belongs on this list, and after 1952, Stassen was never taken seriously either. Debs and Sharpton are/were highly polarizing people, but I can't see either as a perennial candidate. Debs was taken quite seriously (which is part of the reason he was jailed on questionable charges) and Sharpton hasn't run often enough.Jsc1973 03:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the description of Keyes as a perennial candidate in the first paragraph of this article.

According to wiki article on the topic,

A perennial candidate is one who frequently runs for public office with a record of success that is either infrequent or non-existent. Perennial candidates are often either members of minority political parties or have political opinions that are not mainstream. They run not with any serious hope of gaining office, but in order to promote their views or themselves.

This description does not fit Keyes. He is a member of the Republican Party. He has held office, though not elected office. He was an assistant secretary of state and ambassador. In his 2000 run for the GOP presidential nomination, he received a considerable showing. He also ran as the GOP Illinois U.S. Senate candidate against Barack Obama in 2004.

JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alan_Keyes"

Henry Clay

Henry Clay is NOT a perennial candidate, and listing him with the likes of some of the people on here is plain silly. Clay was a candidate for President several times without ever winning the office, but he was always a serious candidate. Clay was one of the most influential politicians of his era, who had more long-term influence over the country than a lot of Presidents did. A perennial candidate is someone who runs repeatedly with little or no chance of winning, not a powerful and highly respected U.S. Senator who for 40-plus years was considered by his contemporaries as a very serious Presidential candidate. Jsc1973 (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's dangerous to make those decisions. "Perennial" refers to the frequency of running, not the viability of the candidacies. McCarthy (on the list) had a good chance on his first run, while Clay had little chance in some of his early campaigns. ("Henry Clay lost his first two presidential bids by wide margins..."). I suggest that we keep the criteria to frequency of running, not to our perception of the chances the candidates had of winning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with you on that. I don't know how the term is used outside the United States, but in the U.S., a "perennial candidate" is someone who repeatedly runs for elected office without any chance of success. The term doesn't apply to someone who made repeated runs for high elected office and was often successful; Henry Clay won every election he ever contested other than his Presidential campaigns. There has to be an element of common sense here. Henry Clay is not a perennial candidate, neither is Thomas Dewey (four runs for President, never won) and neither is William Jennings Bryan, who lost three times as a nominee and put his name out there in two other elections. Jsc1973 (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, as did the earlier editors of this article who added to the intro:

• They run not with any serious hope of gaining office, but in order to promote their views or themselves. These candidates include Harold Stassen, Nelson Rockefeller, and John C. Turmel,...

Nelson Rockefeller won several major elections, including Governor of New York. I'm not sure why Dewey isn't on the list either. This dispute could be settled if we can find a relaible source with a definition of "perennial candidate". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many sites that describe Bryan as a perennial candidate, including this one:

• Before the 1920 Presidential election, perennial candidate William Jennings Bryan announced he did not desire the Democratic Presidential nomination. But, as a three-time party nominee with two additional attempts seeking his party’s nomination, his announcement was received with skepticism. [1]

See also: [2] Bryan should certainly be on the list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And see this book that calls Clay a perennial candidate.[3] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Since we have a source for Clay I'm going to restore the entry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Three-time Losers

If people are looking for a standard for number of runs, I'd suggest three-time losers who have run in three consecutive elections. In a US Presidential campaign that covers eight consecutive years. I tried looking up the definition of "perennial candidate" but only came up with the Wikipedia entry. Looking up Perennial at AlphaDictionary.com, which uses OneLook, gave this entry in its Quick Definitions section (http://www.onelook.com/?w=perennial&ls=a):

"Quick definitions (perennial)

▸ noun: a plant lasting for three seasons or more

▸ adjective: lasting an indefinitely long time; suggesting self-renewal ("Perennial happiness")

▸ adjective: recurring again and again ("Perennial efforts to stipulate the requirements")

▸ adjective: lasting three seasons or more ("The common buttercup is a popular perennial plant")"

I think three of the four definitions (1, 3, and 4) fit our defnition of perennial. Stargzer (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)