Talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Rice
The Republican frontrunner section states that Dr. Rice was a "child prodigy." Including that completely destroys the neutrality of this article!

I changed "balancing" to "elimination," for grammar only. One doesn't "balance" debt. In fact, Stanford's budget turned from deficit to surplus.


 * Nice cleanup here, Rob. Man it is tempting to include the in graf about 9/11 that she was the one who delivered the intelligence report titled "bin Laden determined to attack in the US" to Bush.  Just to say she was in the office doesn't really balance her successes and failures.  I'm also very curious why we have such a detailed sections in both parties for candidates who aren't running yet (especially Rice who has stated it emphatically). -Jcbarr 14:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Obama
Though Obama has stated he will not run in 2008, Gore, Cheney, and Clinton have all done the same, yet they are on the list. The fact that Obama denied it at all means there is certainly a link between him and the 2008 election. Take a look at these articles for proof: Obama's name had been bandied about as a potential presidential candidate even before his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention this summer made him a household name. I said to myself, "You're looking at our first black president." We the people of the United States of America herby endorse a future candidacy of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois to be elected as the 44th President of the United States on Novemeber 4th, 2008. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0705/p09s01-cogs.html I'll ask: Why not now? He's already proved he can attract the votes of whites as well as blacks and other minorities.] Andre ( talk ) July 5, 2005 18:58 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken, Cheney is not on the list. Although Al Gore and Hillary Clinton probably will not run, they're viable candidates and there's been wide speculation about them. I think they belong on the list due to the amount of speculation. Obama, on the other hand, certainly won't run. I don't think he should be mentioned as a potential candidate. Rhobite 21:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well Cheney was on the list at the time that I wrote that message, with a thing about him being a possible "dark horse" candidate. Gore and Clinton have both denied running just as much as Obama, and both have as much speculation about them. What, exactly, is the distinction? Andre ( talk ) 22:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hillary Clinton is also far and away the lead Democratic candidate in the polls, the most talked about Democratic candidate. As far as many are concerned, the nomination is hers to lose or refuse. At this point, it would not even be that out of line to call her the "presumptive nominee". Al Gore and Dick Cheney probably don't belong as more than footnotes. --Tomhanna 00:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Feingold divorce
Anonymous editors have been removing mention of Feingold's divorce from this article. When it was last removed on Monday by 205.188.117.67, it was with the edit summary "corrected typos", which seems to me to be an attempt to remove it unnoticed. I believe that, if this article is truly to be about the election, events which adversely affect a candidates chances in the opinions of major media outlets and other respected sources should be at least briefly mentioned in a NPOV manner. --BaronLarf 17:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Giuliani
IMHO Giuliani should remain in the list. Although he hasn't formally announced, neither have many of the others in the list. What he has in common with the other members of the list: I'm not sure what evidence the person who deleted his name was seeking -- are we only including people who have formally announced, or are we including people who are considered possibles by a variety of sources? I could link to any number of sites that include him in speculation, but polls and announcements are the only things that could be considered hard facts. Nonetheless, it seems strange to list polls at the bottom of the page and not include someone who is winning a significant fraction of the polls. (Willhsmit; originally unsigned)
 * There exists widespread speculation that he intends to run (as seen from the fact that most of the major polls include him)
 * He has not acted to dampen such speculation (this is a negative assertion, so hard to give evidence for it)
 * His name recognition gives him significant support in early polls (he shows up in the top three in most of the early polls)
 * We've been down this road before; see the archives to this talk page. Giuliani hasn't either 1) announced or 2) made moves as though he were planning to run (making frequent visits to NH or Iowa, hiring veterans of presidential campaigns, etc). You don't see Jeb Bush listed on this page either, even though he's in the polls at the bottom of the page. --BaronLarf 17:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Giuliani has a federal PAC that is raising funds. "Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's PAC raised $292,857 and spent $120,428, leaving it with $366,980." A Gallup poll August 3 showed Guiliani or McCain beating Clinton or Kerry. Just food for thought. In fact, the federal PAC lists might be a place to start since it's too early for any of them to have actual campaign committees. --Tomhanna 00:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Clark and Santorum.
I think that Wesley Clark and Rick Santorum should be added, respectively, to the lists of Democrats and Republicans potentially running in 2008. While I don't have any solid information about either candidate, I do remember seeing Clark 2008 stickers already being available online. The justification I would cite is the fact that they have been included in a number of polls, and are therefore seen as having a significant chance of running. ~GMH 04:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur - I have seen both mentioned as potential candidates. john k 04:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Cheney
I withdrew from editting this article due to the infighting at the time over the criteria for who to include and not include in this article. There was fairly wide consensus that Cheney should not be included, however I thought I would share the below article which appeared today on the Drudge Report under the headline "Woodward Foresees Clinton-Cheney Race In 2008..."

Here is the link but I will also include the text of the article as you have to register to read it.

THE ASPEN TIMES

Woodward offers insight on Bush, Nixon, politics

By Catherine Lutz August 10, 2005

Noted journalist Bob Woodward offered his insights on topics ranging from Nixon to Bush, current political issues and the role of journalism during a speech to an overflow crowd at Paepcke Auditorium on Tuesday night.

Not once did he mention Mark Felt, the former FBI assistant director nicknamed "Deep Throat" who was Woodward's key anonymous source in uncovering the Watergate scandal. Woodward's latest book chronicles the story of "Deep Throat," but the audience members clearly had more current issues on their minds.

Using numerous anecdotes from his 35-year journalism career, Woodward didn't make definitive conclusions about issues but let facts speak for themselves.

Interviewing President George W. Bush for his book "Plan of Attack" was "not typical," said Woodward, who is assistant managing editor at the Washington Post. Answering 500 questions, the president was very direct and used weighty words like "duty" and "zeal" to describe "liberating people." Woodward spoke of Bush's intense belief that what he is doing is right and how overcoming obstacles made him even more determined.

"It was almost a mind trip on how he looks at things and what he values," Woodward said.

Woodward refrained from ultimately judging Bush, noting that, "If you go back into history you'll find many instances of presidents making unpopular decisions. History teaches you that the most important trait a president can have is simply courage, and courage often means walking the road alone."

Of Nixon's presidency, Woodward said, "The real chill goes down your spine when you see the smallness of Richard Nixon. Too often [he used] the power of the presidency to settle a score."

Nevertheless, Nixon was a very intelligent president, Woodward said. "He understood that the hating is what had done him in." Woodward quoted the president's farewell speech to his staff, in which he told them, "Always remember others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself."

Woodward's half-hour talk, punctuated several times by well-received jokes, was followed by 11 questions from the audience. He theorized that Hillary Clinton would earn the Democratic nomination in 2008 and would run against Dick Cheney, and he rejected the likelihood of a third party being a threat to Democrats and Republicans. He discounted the fear that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts would help overturn abortion rights if elected to the bench.

He spoke of his continuing faith in the press, which depends on owners who support their newsrooms and reporters who are driven to get to the truth. Decrying the impatience of today's journalism, with its fixation on up-to-the-minute updates, Woodward said that news services should stick to their responsibility of getting all the facts.

(end of article) - Jord 17:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

American Facist Party?
Who put the link to the AFP on here? I have a feeling that this is just a joke so I deleted it. --D-Day 19:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Walken Hoax
Should something be added about the http://www.walken2008.com hoax? His reps denied it, but people still believe it's true. I'm not 100% it's relevant, but I was just wondering. Morhange 22:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
I'm seriously considering putting the person who keeps vandalizing the Mark Warner section on the Clueless newbies section. Mark Warner is not a tax-raising Democrat. But before I do so, I want to know if anyone has tried reasoning with this person. And showed them that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you have anything to say about this, please let me know.--D-Day 10:46, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, just hours after I posted the orginal comment, the Ann Coulter-in-training distorted it for their own point of view! I'm not sure I'm going to wait for opinions on this. Let me know what you think any how though.(Except for the vandal with the Mark Warner fetish anyways.) --D-Day 20:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Warner did raise taxes liar. So did the Republican legislature....I'm not forgiving them either, but they aren't running for president. Grow up.


 * You've convinced me. You should know Wikipedia is not your personal opinion center. If you want that, get a blog. But until then, follow the rules like the rest of us. --D-Day 21:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

152.163.100.13: Benjamin Franklin once said that there would be two certainties in life--death and taxes. Try having a problem with death instead.

I'd also point out that experienced political commentators and scholars have (from what I've read) a consensus that Mark Warner is politically moderate and can be considered centrist.

Also, if you really have a problem with governments levying (reasonable) taxes, then you'd better have a problem with governments maintaining roadways, providing public schools, providing police forces, and maintaining the armed forces. If you're really mature enough to debate this, you should also be knowledgeable in economics, and therefore know that money doesn't just come out of nowhere.

Now, a country can go into debt, like the one the US is currently deep in, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Do you like to go into debt? Would you like yourself, or your family, or (if you own one) your business to go into debt? Going into debt is not a good feeling. It means that someone has to pay sooner or later. Would you like to pay any part of that debt?

And once again, I should make reference to my edit comments:
 * "If you have something to prove, try making the Republican Party produce a real conservative."

Oh, and last time I checked, fiscal responsibility is a conservative value. ~GMH 00:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

No one is more upset than me that the Republican Party has become the big-spending party. Don't change the subject.

Gee where do I say that we shouldn't have any taxes? Can you point me to where I said that? Because I don't recall saying it.

This is the typical liberal response: just because we complain that taxes are too high means we're against all taxes. Hey, do you know this country used to not have a federal income tax?

However, the tax increase Warner signed was completely unnecessary. Virginia's spending had gone up at a double-digit rate in the Gilmore years, and the state was just about to be awash in revenue when Warner signed the increase.

Both of you pseudointellectuals have failed to name a single issue that Warner is moderate/conservative on. You have also failed to name a single scholar who considers him a moderate. If Warner is a fiscal conservative, then why did the Cato Institute give him a D on its Fiscal Policy Report Card (which measures fiscal conservatism) hmm? They're not just anti-Democrat...they gave Bill Richardson and Phil Bredesen B's.


 * I was just about to fix that myself. As a Virginia Democrat, let me put this simply - Virginia doesn't elect liberals. And everyone worth his salt considers Warner a moderate or centrist. I'm so sorry he supported a tax increase that a powerful majority of the legislature and population also supported. So sorry he deprives us of Gilmore fiscal disasters. Grow up and keep your POV out. Warner is generally considered a moderate, and Wikipedia will speak of him as such. --BDD 13:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Chuck Hagel
I was curious as to why Chuck Hagel is included on the list of possible candidates. I can find nothing saying that he is pursuing the nomination. -- User:Mu Cow September 22
 * It may be due to his criticism of the Bush administration. It is reasoned by some politics scholars that such an action--a senator criticizing a commander-in-chief of the same party--may in some cases partly be an attempt of the senator to garner attention for himself/herself, and therefore would suggest intention to run for president in the upcoming election.  Whether Hagel is really planning on such a run, I do not know.~GMH ''talk to me 22:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * personally, i seriously question whether he is actuallly planning on running if this is his only action that says he is planning on running. --86.130.25.204 13:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * removed chuck hagel. everyone else either has set up a PAC or has a source which explicitly suggests they are running. Criticism of one's superiors does not always indicate that you want their job. If you want to keep him in, move him to the "other people mentioned" section--Smegpt86 13:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Al Gore
I recently moved Gore back to other potential candidates. As far as I know, Gore has barely taken any action as if he were preparing to run. Andros 1337 20:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

44Th President?
I was happy to see that someone corrected the line "44th President of the United States" to "Next President of the United States". After all, it's presumptious to say the 2008 election would decide the 44th Prez, after all President Bush (during his second term), could die, resign or be removed from office, thus making the next in-line (as of Oct 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney), the 44th President of the USA. Mightberight/wrong 15:55, 27 October 2005
 * But in this case, the Vice President Dick Cheney would also become the next president, as well as the 44th. So the 2008 election might not decide the next president either. Richard B 23:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Another President Adams?
Have you seen this one? http://www.PresidentAdams.com Doesn't look like a joke.

This is not a joke, I have spoken with this gentleman, he seems to be very serious. I added him under the potenials for independent. I'm sure this will probaly be removed, but to me it seems appropriate. He is an independent, and he IS running.

The Other President Bush
How come we don't have Jeb Bush as a pontential candidate even though he is includedin alot the polls? --kralahome 01:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jeb Bush is quoted as saying:
 * "You should never say never. But for the 2008 election, my answer is definitely no,"
 * --Aranae 05:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well didn't Dick Cheney say he will never run, but he's on the list? --kralahome 04:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Agreed that he should be included. Andre (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please add him to the Other people mentioned as possible candidates section. Andros 1337 22:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

More complete list
The bold names have announced they are running while the ittalics are speculation. I suggest merging it into this article. 12.220.47.145 00:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Convention stuff just added?
The convention text just added is full of opinion, not facts. What's the basis for calling Denver and New Orleans the front runners? The statement, "many, many cities are bidding for the convention" is false. No city has stated they're going to submit a bid, much less actually submitted a bid. The Democrats just sent out invitations to bid on the conventions, and the Republicans haven't even picked a date yet. Finally, we have an article, 2008 Democratic National Convention, which is already covering the Dem convention, including site selection. Whatever information, at least for the Dem convention, which makes sense, should go in that article, not this one. Matt 03:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed it.--Rob 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Rules of listings being ignored
Any addition or removal should be placed on the subpages first. Why are users ignoring this? Andros 1337 20:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Because the statements in the text are easily missed. For example, if you're editing the Dem Other Potential Candidate list, you can easily miss the note 20 lines above. Also, it was never stated on this talk page until now. I wasn't even aware of the rule until the 12/10 changes with the comment. Finally, its alot easier to just add a name to this list than to do a detailed addition to the subpage list, and hope someone else does the detailed addition. So there's a few reasons why it's been ignored! Matt 21:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm more interested in finding out why candidates who already have 2008 presidential websites up, like Webster Brooks, have been removed from the listings.

Potential candidates
This has gone from silly to absurd... Cindy Sheehan? Susan Sarandon? Anyone over 35 is potentially a candidate, is there a point to include this section? Shouldn't we stick with facts? -- Jbamb 19:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Jack Thompson
I removed Jack Thompson as a possible canidate for the republican party. I've checked multiple sources, and no where does he state he intends to run. Also, his name was added NOT in alphabetical order, which would lead to the assumption that it was vandalism. --Lightdarkness 18:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Similar case seemed to appear with Chuck Norris. That smelled of vandalism as well. --Charron 18:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

bloomberg/mccainn is definetly a possible matchup for a 2008 election campaign

Shouldn't the D/R candidates be even? How about a table that places them evenly on the page? --The_stuart 08:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC) I think the current format of alphabetical order is sufficient (DNC, RNC, Third Parties). 須藤 08:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Omar Epps, potential candidate
Riiiiiiight. Deleted pending sourcing. -- 18:54, 7 February 2006 (PST)

Bad Wording
"The 2008 race will therefore likely be a non-incumbent or "open seat" election in which a sitting President is not a candidate." Not only is it likely that a sitting President will not be a candidate, it is certain that a sitting President will not be a candidate. There is only one sitting President, George W. Bush. Barring a constitutional amendment, he is prohibited from being a candidate in the 2008 election. --Descendall 13:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Likely is correct, because the article is taking into account the (slim) possibility that Bush will not be the sitting President in 2008, due either to impeachment, incapacitation, or death. This used to be explicitly in the article; I'm not sure when it was removed. Jpers36 15:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I edited to clear this up. Jpers36 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have to admit that I didn't think of that.  --Descendall 18:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that I think about it, though, it's even more unlikely than it first seems, because even if Bush were to die, the sitting president would become Cheney, who almost certainly would not run as his health is bad and he is unpopular. I guess lightning could always hit the two of them, however, so you never know. --Descendall 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Although it wouldn't seem now that VP Cheney would run for President, if he were to actually assume office due to changing circumstances, then he might have a different perspective, particularly if the nation were seen to be in crisis. Albanaco 19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter. Even if it is extremely unlikely, it is possible that the sitting president will run.  You also must take into accout the (even less likely but still possible) chance that a new constitutional ammendment will allow a president to serve more than two terms.  --דניאל - Dantheman531 22:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. There is no way that the Constitution will be amended to allow for more than two terms, and even if it was amended the amendment would not be completed in time for the 2008 election cycle. Based on the Constitution, the President can not and will not run again in 2008. You can't advocate suggesting it is a possibility because you feel some extremely rare event will occur...maybe aliens will come down from space and take over the country and not even let us vote. The Vice President has expressed on several occasions that he has absolutely no intention of running for President, and he won't. Don't be an idiot. - 68.32.34.152 03:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the text of the actual amendment, though: "No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice." George W. Bush has been elected twice; therefore, he cannot constitutionally be elected again barring a repeal of the amendment.  There's nothing to say he can't [i]run[/i] for president, and for that matter there's nothing to say he can't run for vice president and then become president when the other guy dies, but he can't be elected twice.  Thus, while it's possible Bush will run, he can't win, and hence any mention of Bush as a potential candidate is silly. - [user:satyreyes]

Jimmy Carter
I have removed Jimmy Carter from the Other Possible Candidates section. He is explicitly barred by the Constitution from serving a third term, and there is no prospect that the Twenty-Second Amendment will be repealed, especially by the 2008 election.
 * But Carter only served one term. (I'm not arguing he's a serious candidate, though). --Aranae 20:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhh...it does? Explain. Frankg 01:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It certainly doesn't. All it does is prohibit someone from being elected president more than twice, or from being elected a second time if they've served for more than a term and a half. john k 01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that Carter is a plausible candidate, for other reasons. john k 01:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Carter only served one term.--216.7.254.254 19:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The term limit doesn't kick in till Carter runs for and gets elected to a second term. He was only elected ONCE: he did run TWICE, but he lost one of those times--User:TimothyHorrigan Timothy Horrigan 13:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice
She hasn't even said she is going to run, why is she listed as a frontrunner for the Republican nomination? Is it allowed for people who have no intentions of running to be listed as frontrunners? Opinion polling listed here should only be based on those who have stated they are pursuing a candidacy. --Revolución (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents: Whether she has announced or not... even if she has definitely said "no, no and hell no"... the fact that she still shows up well in polls *means* something. Republican primary voters going out of their way to woo blacks in the general? Disaffection with the other potential candidates? Deep affection for the Bush administration? Simple lack of interest among the general public, which leads to a big name polling well versus a less well-known name, albeit more likely candidate, like Frist or Allen? Who knows, probably nobody knows why she polls well, but as long as she does, we should keep her listed here. Nosimplehiway 02:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

She polls well because she has name recognition. I agree that she should be included in the list, because she is being talked about. And the polls are interesting because they are polls. But she is PRO-CHOICE. That kills her nomination. So I think the recent add that there is a "strong possibility" that we will have a female president is far, far from the martk. Still A Student 13:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, if the polls are placing her at the top then she is the frontrunner. A candidate could be drafted/pressured into the presidency. 12.220.94.199 16:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If Condoleezza Rice cannot be considered a "real" candidate for her party's nomination, then neither should have Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, Barry Goldwater in 1964, or Wesley Clark in 2004. All three of those candidates denied interest in running within several months of the primaries (Ike and Goldwater denied it even more fervently than Rice did). "Draft"/write-in candidates have been drafted into presidential races frequently throughout the past century. George Washington might even be considered an example. Also, Rice is not truly pro-choice. She said on one occasion that she was "reluctantly pro-choice", which, as she then went on to explain, means that she disagrees with abortion on a moral basis, but does not think a constitutional amendment banning all abortion is a realistic political option at this point in time, and therefore she believes some abortion must still be legal for the time being, thereby making her "reluctantly pro-choice." In the actual sense of the words, she is really "pro-life". Besides, even if she was actually pro-choice, wouldn't that also then disqualify Rudy Giuliani, who is on record as saying he supports even partial-birth abortion and "does not see [his] opinion on that ever changing" (my paraphrase). Also, George H.W. Bush was pro-choice before he campaigned for President in 1988, and Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney (even as a religious Mormon) used to be pro-choice, but has since changed his position. Rice says she has the same view on abortion as President Bush. Rice has polled consistently well, and the voting public has shown that they are welcoming of presidential draft campaigns as evidenced by the latest nation-wide, scientific poll taken on it by APRI (see http://www.apri.us), in which 1,001 respondents (all registered voters) overwhelmingly say that draft candidates can still possibly win an election, that they would consider supporting such a draft candidate, and that there is still plenty of time to convince Rice to run. Also note that, among registered Republicans, 29% said they are "likely" to support the Draft Rice movement, 53% said they will consider supporting the movement, and only 2% said they would never try to draft Rice into the 2008 race. Of the only three Republican candidates who can realistically beat any Democratic candidate, Rice appeals to conservatives the most. And if Republicans can only field three contenders who could win the general election, then they're not going to take any options off the table--even if they have to draft one of them. She also comes out on the top or near-top of every Republican nomination poll. I say keep her name on the page. --Ai.kefu 20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * She has repeatedly refused to run breitbart.com/news/2006/01/16/D8F5QUU81.html and she doesn't even have a PAC yet. While potential candidates have been scouring New Hampshire and Iowa, she's remained on the sidelines.  She should NOT be placed on this list without any other indication that she's running.

Once again, Rice reaffirmed her refusal to run today, reinforcing the decision to keep her off the main page. Zz414 00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Condi Rice could be "drafted" in the same way D.D. Eisenhower was. If enough people got her name on the ballot in the primary and got enough votes. She would not be legally obligated to run in such a circumstance but she might be persuaded to run which is what happened to Eisenhower.

Poll to remove "about frontrunner" sections
This section is ridiculous! If people want to learn about any of the frontrunners from any of the parties, they should read the articles written about them. Frontrunners can change with time, but having a section like this assumes it will set in stone that the person written about will be nominated. Otherwise we will have to write a million "about frontrunner" sections if they change. So I am proposing that they be removed. This is not merely a vote, this is to build consensus, so feel free to give your thoughts.

In favor of removal

 * Remove per my reasons above. --Revolución (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Rob 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove i don't mind a mention of the two main party frontrunners at any given moment, but much more than a wikilinked mention seems to be a bit overkill.  young  american  (talk) [[Image:Flag of West Virginia.svg|25px|  ]] [[Image:Flag of Wales 2.svg|25px|  ]] 19:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's way too early to be emphasising any particular candidate as a presumptive nominee. Neither of the two ladies concerned have expressed any intention to run at this stage. Ender 12:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove 2 more years? The upcoming midterm election can't even be accurately predicted at this pooint in time.
 * Remove This is opinion and not fact. Does not belong on a wikipedia page. Zzmonty 11:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In support of keeping
I think that they are useful sections since future versions of the article will certainly have equivalent information about the nominee. It is a large chunck to have to update though, perhaps they could be paired down a bit. 128.220.183.124 02:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, but clarify/move. See below Still A Student 23:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Question. Who is the Tony M. Sanders who is listed as a potential candidate in 2008? I did a Google search for him, and the closest thing I found to him as a candidate was this page. He is not listed at Politics1, either. Chronicler3 18:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but clarify I think the information on likely candidates should be available. As of the present (the momemnt someone is reading the encyclopedia), one important aspect of the 2008 election is speculation about who the nominees will be. However, the article should more clearly distinguish between a poll leader and a front-runner. The presidential nomination is not given to the candidate who gets the most votes across the country. Nominees have to collect delegates at the state-level, and the "frontrunner" is the subjective term we would use to describe the candidate who has the best chance at doing that. Poll standing is informative, but it's not the same thing, and the political insiders understand that. The article would be misleading if it doesn't acknowledge that experts know the limitations of polls. Condaleeza Rice is simply not the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, and not merely because she is not running. Her strength is based on name recognition, and that's going to change. The Republican "frontrunner" is probably Allen or (less likely) McCain. Similarly, HRC might be the Dem "frontrunner," but Warner is much closer to her than the polls indicate. I would suggest that instead of saying "Frontrunner" at all, we move the material to the section on "Speculated candidates" (which I would rename "Potential candidates" to discourage the wild speculation) and simply provide the polls as information to help organize those candidates. Still A Student 23:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * While we are at it, the section on "third party candidates" sure is long. A third party candidate is not going to win in 2008. They are interesting, especially if one is popular enough to be a spoiler, but couldn't all of that go on the separate page? The major party candidates deserve a mention here, because that's what the race is about. Still A Student 23:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it might be best to put only the parties mentioned on Template:USParty on here, and then put the remaining on a seperate page unless a popular independent pops up. 12.220.94.199 23:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the front-runner section, since the vote is 5 to 1 in favor of removal, and this vote has been here for several months already.151.205.101.62 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

removal
I've removed the following text, which seems to be rather inappropriate:
 * "In actual fact, the 'election' will very probably be fixed by the Republican Party and their allies by using rigged electronic voting machines and removing thousands of African American voters from the voting rolls in key swing states. Failing that, they might dispute the election results, stop recounts and simply get their candidate appointed to the Presidency."

-lethe talk [ +] 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The text does have a ring of truth in it, but it's definately unencylopedic. Wouter Lievens 19:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup. It was, at best, heavy POV and, at worst, vandalism.  young  american  (talk) [[Image:Flag of West Virginia.svg|25px|  ]] [[Image:Flag of Wales 2.svg|25px|  ]] 19:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You think it has a ring of truth? It's basically making a prediction of widescale voting fraud.  It's not even eligible to be true, since it's a prediction about the future, but if it were, say, about the 2004 election, it would have the ring of nutty left-wing conspiracy theory to me, not truth. -lethe talk [ +] 00:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Zzmonty I removed the polling data. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia of unbiased data. By giving polling data it will indirecty affect the outcome of the election by subconciously planting data into voters heads.

Zzmonty Removed Wyatt Chesney from the Reform party. He is a ficticious person who is suspected of being a teenager playing pranks. He is the one who keeps readding his name. Check with Rodney Martin of the http://www.reformpartyusa.org, the organization recognized by the FEC as the Reform party to verify this fact.

Zzmonty Removed button purchasing. It is polling data and it is an advertisement. Does not belong in an encyclopedia. Removed predictions. These are opinions, not facts, and they can indirectly affect the outcome of the elections, especially when only Republican and Democratic parties are talked about.

map colors
Will the map have the same blue = Dem, red = Repub colors or will they change? --Revolución hablar ver 18:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no single map -- each television network has its own. In 2000, and I believe even in 2004, many networks did not adhere to the red=Republican, blue=Democrat meme. Jpers36 19:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In 1992 and 1996, the Democrats were red and the Republicans were blue. Following this pattern, in 2008 the Democrats will be red again and the Republicans will be blue again. --Revolución hablar ver 19:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Which map are you referring to? There is not now, and never has been, any accepted standard coloration.  I believe the red state vs blue state idea comes completely from CBS's coverage, while other networks (NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, BBC) used their own coloring schemes. Jpers36 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Before 2000, there was no universal color-coding for election maps. There never was such an incumbancy convention.  For example, ABC used blue and yellow for the 1992 and 1996 elections.  Since the current colors used now are fixed in our minds, I am 85% sure that Republicans will continue to be red and Democrats will continue to be blue. Andros 1337 18:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Susan Sarandon
I know she has been involved in some left-wing causes, but a claim like she is a potential candidate for the Green nomination might need to be sourced with something. --Revolución hablar ver 23:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * NEWSMEAT Campaign Contributions. She does give a donation to the Green Party at one time, and the Nader campaign, but on the other hand, most of her contributions are to Democratic candidates. --Revolución hablar ver 23:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed her from the list of potential Green candidates. --Revolución hablar ver 02:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton
This is trivia I suppose, but in 2004 she received 34 write-in votes in the Massachusetts democratic primary, 52 write-in votes in the Rhode Island democratic primary, and 8 write-in votes for president in Rhode Island, according to the FEC. (PDF) Esquizombi 11:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I really would like for her to run, but I do not think she would win. I think she is a great person I really do just with how bad Bush messed things up for the united states...it would be impossible for her to fix it...
 * I agree that Bush messed things up pretty bad, but Hillary's not the one who will make things better. --דניאל - Dantheman531 22:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Third Parties, Conventions, Primaries
I removed this addition: "(the 3rd parties nominate by convention and do not use caucuses nor primaries)". It is inaccurate on two counts. First, the Dems and Reps also nominate by conventions. It's just that since the vast majority of delegates are elected through primaries and are loyal, we can determine who the nominee will be from primary outcomes. Second, many third parties do, in fact, use primaries, although most of those primaries probably serve a role more like the one primaries served in the major party races before the McGovern-Fraser reforms. Here are links to some third-party primary results from 2004. (PDF)
 * Some 3rd parties do appear on a few state primary ballots (sometimes against their will due to state election laws), but the delegates are actually chosen by state conventions. Anarchist42 22:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Some major party states also use state conventions in that way. And state election laws are why Dems and Reps have to hold primaries in most states. It's not as different as the line suggests. It remains true that both the major parties and these parties nominate by convention. And it's an odd thing to make such a blanket statement about all third parties. It's also a bit of a non sequitur where it is. But I'm not terribly particular about it. The whole article has too much on third parties for my tastes. Still A Student 22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefixed the word most until it can be confirmed that all 3rd parties don't use primaries to choose their nominee. The difference between how the main parties and the 3rd parties choose their niminee is indeed significant. Considering that most Americans don't vote, and that about a third of voters are 'independents', the inclusion of 3rd party information has some relevence (additionally, independent candidates have, on occasion, had a major impact on Presidential races). Anarchist42 23:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the prevalence of independents or non-voting has much to say about the relevance of third parties. The literature on this is extensive, and that's not the conclusion you would draw from it. The relationship is tenuous at best. Third party information should be included in the entry. And I do think you are really overstating the differences between how the parties choose their nominees. Is there an entry on third-party nominations that we could direct people to? It's just dropped in to the middle of the sentence, implying, falsely, that the major parties don't use conventions. They do. The entire paragraph is about the major party primaries. Maybe a separate paragraph? Still A Student 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in question discusses how the major parties use caucuses and primaries to choose convention delegates (unlike the 3rd parties) and how the major partiy's nomineees are "effectively chosen by the March primaries" (again unlike the 3rd parties). Thus, it is not false to imply that the major parties "don't use conventions" to actually choose their nominees (although they used to). I agree that a better-organized description of how the 3rd parties select their nominees (and how significant independent candidates enter the race) is needed - each 3rd party does so differently, and some have divisive battles over procedure (such as Reform and Green). Anarchist42 01:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But the paragraph is not about how the major parties differ from the Green or Reform parties. It's about the candidates will be selected. It would really bog down the article to add a parenthetical about how minor parties do things to every sentence. It is also not true that the Democrats or the Republicans do not use state conventions to select delegates -- at least in some states. And they argue over procedure too. All the time. I'm going to make a change. See if it satisfies you. Still A Student 01:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.Anarchist42 20:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest Poll?
I found this who claimed about a new poll leading by Edwards and McCain, shall we update polls?--Sina 23:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A poll from the 26-28 shows Condi as the leading candidate. One thing is Condi isn't included in all of the polls meaning that other candidates appear to be leading, but when she is included she seems to almost always be the leading Republican candidate. But this is all a bit crystal ballish, and so I don't think we should worry too much, about who is leading until late 2007. 12.220.94.199 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of polls, I notice that we always keep the latest poll and delete earlier ones. Does it make sense to simply retain all the polling data in a bigger table?  This both contains more data and is easier to maintain. -- Deville (Talk) 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How about making a new page called "2008 Presidential Election Polling Data" and then replace this section with a link to that page. Then those people who are interested in that data can go to that page and those who just want the facts and only the facts can just look here.  Zzmonty 12:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeb Bush
Looking at the Jeb Bush article, you see that:


 * However, on October 17, 2004, he denied interest in running in the 2008 election.

We should update this article to reflect that, somehow. -- Disavian 15:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Is this a new "expression of interest," or this too coy and Gore-like to count as serious interest? Zz414 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

section on Speculation on candidates
This has been bugging me for a while, but it sort of seems that this section violates WP:NOT, specifically crystal ballism. "Announced candidates" seems ok, but "likely potential candidates" seems to be inherently unverified. Any thoughts? --Deville (Talk) 05:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest only keeping candidates that have been cited by the media as potential. For example Condoleeza Rice would be included simply because she is cited in almost every major poll about the Republican nomination. Falphin 21:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The likely potential candidates needs to removed though, that is POV. They should be moved to potential candidates. Falphin 21:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree here. Some candidates, even ones who haven't actually announced that they are running, have been the subject of a lot of media scrutiny on this; Guiliani, Rice, Evan Bayh come to mind.  But Titus Nez and Roy Moore?  C'mon, now.  How about the following (loose) standard:  someone can be represented as a potential candidate if their name appears in a major poll.  Technically, anyone can run for President, so of course a list of people who may one day run for President is pretty open, but we really should be hewing to some objective standard here. --Deville (Talk) 13:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see much comments about this, but I still see some really unnotable and speculative candidates up there. Omar Epps? So I think a standard should be that if there isn't some sort of reference that someone will run by a quote here, or by something on that person's Wikipedia page, the entry should be removed. I'll start doing that sometime soon. --Deville (Talk) 03:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added Democrats who have exploratory committees/PACs or have been included consistently in polls. Not sure about Boxer, but she has a PAC so who knows. --Nick Catalano contrib talk

In "American Theocracy," Kevin Phillips, author of "American Dynasty" suggests that the Republican ticket in 2008 would be McCain-Jeb Bush.

Poll: Indicating if candidates are registered with the FEC
Should we indicate if a candidate is registered with the FEC by putting "FEC Registered" next to the name or indicate a candidate is not FEC registered by putting "NON-FEC Registered" next to the name. Then add a page called "2008 Presidential Election Non-FEC Registered Candidates" where it can be indicated exactly why the person is not FEC registered. This is not important now, since almost everyone on the list is not FEC registered, but as the election goes on it will become important. Zzmonty 13:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How notable are these candidates?
The George Allen page is a disambiguation page. Should this be the case, or should it link directly to the article about Senator Allen? When someone searches for George Allen, I would expect that most of the time this is the person they are looking for. NoSeptember  talk  00:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, my guess is that this discussion is probably more appropraite on the talk page of the dab page, not here. That being said, I'm not sure that we should change the disambiguation page yet.  I can say that personally when I hear "George Allen" I still think of the Skins coach.  And I would imagine that to Australians the name brings up other ideas altogether.  I'd say that right now in 2006 the Senator isn't that well known even in the States, and I'd dare say completely unknown outside of the U.S.  Now, of course, if he ends up winning the nomination, or even doing well in the primaries, then this is another story:  he'd be the one we should link to.   On the other hand, let's say that his nomination tanks, or he doesn't run becasue of a scandal, or any of a number of things.  Then 10, 100 years from now, he will be completely unknown, whereas the other George Allens have historical records.  In any case, my feeling is that we should leave it the way it is for now.


 * And in any case, should we cross-post, or move, this discussion to Talk:George Allen?--Deville (Talk) 13:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Allen has been mentioned by several major polls as a candidate, so compared to the great majority listed he appears notable enough. Falphin 22:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly he is far more notable than an Australian politician from the 1800s, a deceased American football coach and an American ambassador to Iran in the 1940s even just on the merits of being a current US Senator. I would support such a move. I've also copied this discussion to Talk:George Allen — Cuivi é  nen  , Tuesday, 2 May 2006 @ 21:06 UTC 

Hope I am putting this in the correct place. Kind of new to this. I am frustrated about the criteria used to list candidates.

I am a third party activist. We are all oppressed by the controls that the status-quo-two-party-controllers put on our lives and rules. The FEC has strict criteria to announce, which can intimidate citizen candidates. I think it is partly to make it initimidating to announce. Anyone should be able to say, "I am running for office." For any office, but if you say it for president and someone gives you some money, you could get in trouble (I think.)

So, I want a "people's page" for presidential contendors. Where there is nothing about having announced or the FEC, etc. I think that it would be freeing to at least have a side page where we can post about anyone who has expressed interest or anyone we dream would run for president.

Part of the reason is I have a candidate in mind I like. But, also, I think that Oprah Winfrey for President fans should be allowed to express their political wishes and that there should be a place for regular people to support each other and mention each other.

I am going to try and study how to start a page. But, I wish someone would start a new, "People's President 2008 Page" where we can list anyone who is being thought about or considered. I don't like the current criteria.

Third term for Bush?
Is it theoretically possible to electe him third and fourth time like Roosevelt? --User:TimothyHorrigan: No, unless the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution was amended. However, Bush has proposed many amendments in the past, so amending the Constitution is by no means unthinkable. And, this amendment would actually have bipartisan support: bills to do so have in fact been introduced in several recent sessions of Congress. Timothy Horrigan 13:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The two-term tradition had been an unwritten rule since the 1790s, but Roosevelt, after blocking the presidential ambitions of cabinet members... Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution is against it but with a war with Iran and North Corea would make him a war president, which changes alot in election attitude, and would make a change of the Amendment possible? --Stone 08:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is theoretically possible, but so are a lot of things. For what it's worth, such an occurence is so unlikely to happen that it's not worth mentioning. --Deville (Talk) 13:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Never thought about mentioning it, but the war president Roosevelt was always a thing I never got. But with the Amendment, this possibility has decreased significatly, and brother and father are still there run for president, but then the democracy looks more like a kingdom (Bush I, Bill (the easygoing), Bush II and Bush III).--Stone 14:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, what is it that you don't get? He was a president during a war, making him a war president, no?  And in any case, I wouldn't worry about the next president being any kind of Bush, if I were you.  The father is of course right out, and Jeb is not being taken seriously as a candidate right now.  I think he's got a vague outside chance at some point in the future, but not in 2008.  And in any case, I think Clinton is way more of a viable candidate this time than Jeb, so you're more likely to see Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, Clinton II than your scenario.  FWIW, Clinton has a steep uphill battle herself, but it's more resonable than Jeb.--Deville (Talk) 16:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes would also give a nice list with Clinton I and II (maybe a Bush after that?). War president, as the third and fourth time because of the war, which was a decision at that time, which was right.--Stone 16:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * George P. Bush will be 40 in 2016. That's only 1 two-term administration away. -Acjelen 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no way the Twenty-second Amendment could get repealed in time for 2008. Bush is not an eligible candidate. john k 15:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Deville (Talk) 16:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The world could explode and there would be no election but we don't have that in there. :) Btw, great article you have here, but I don't think it will pass FAC due to the highly unstable nature of it.  But keep it up! American Patriot 1776 13:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the 22nd Amendment allows for a third term if it is non-consecutive with the first two. So, if Bill Clinton ran and won, it'd be constitutional. --Disavian 16:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How sure are you? I'd suggest you read here:  Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The language of the amendment is pretty clear on this.  Clinton is ineligible, as will GW Bush be when his term ends in 2009. --Some Dude
 * You're right. What I remembered about the 22nd Amendment from Civics in 8th grade was apparently wrong ;p --Disavian 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But since he didn't really win the first election (2000), shouldn't he be able to run for re-election in 2008 having won only one election (2004) so far? ;-) Ground Zero | t 20:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I remember Bush winning the Electoral College vote to serve his first term. That's the only election that matters.  Anyway, the 22nd amendment refers to serving as president, not winning (or not winning) a certain number of "elections". -Acjelen 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong again.  The 22nd Amendment states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."  So theoretically one could be President for  10 years, if one took over with two years less one day to go in the current term and then was elected twice.  So if Cheney becomes President any time in the remaining term, he actually can run two more times. But we don't have to think about that now. Tvoz | talk 07:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Futurology
Can anyone REALLY know the future, especially in a nation, such as the United States? There are so many potential candidates (at this time) and citizens of this country that it is hard to tell who will even get nominated. Thus one should not really put too much stock in this web page. I mean after all predictions of the future are usuall wrong in some way or another.--216.7.248.254 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This page doesn't predict anything (if it did, it would be violating WP:NOT). All it does is present candidates currently perceived as frontrunners and other people mentioned by as possible candidates by reputable sources. — Cuivi é  nen  ( talk • contribs ) , Saturday, 6 May 2006 @ 23:36 UTC 


 * I don't know why you would think like that? A third turn for Bush? First, I think they should have a age limit for the oldest candidate, any one who is over 70 should not run at all, because of possible death. Second, since Bush's approval rating is not good right now, I don't think he would likely to want to run for a third term.  Thrid, Unless the Constituation can be change which means 2/3 or vote from both House and Senate and adopted from every state. I strongly thinks you guys are crazy Bush supporters that ignore the facts on his poor desicion to solve most problem on national and international affairs.

Previous presidents
I don't understand this note:


 * The person elected in 2008 will be the 44th President, provided that a President who has so far served only one term (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, or George H.W. Bush) does not win the 2008 Election.

Grover Cleveland is usually counted as both the 22nd and 24th president, so the person elected in 2008 would be the 44th, regardless of who it is. If we think we shouldn't count Cleveland twice, then Bush is the 42nd president, and the note still needs correction.

(It's also nearly impossible that Ford, Carter or GHW Bush will be president again, but that's another matter.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Still A Student (talk • contribs) 22:10, May 9, 2006


 * This is exactly right. Even in the unimaginably unlikely case that one of those three were elected president in 2008, they'd be counted as the 44th as per Grover Cleveland.  I'll fix the text. --Deville (Talk) 03:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Edwards
User:RIAUSA is keep removing John Edwards from Likely potential candidates of Democratic Party and claimed he will not run in 08 without any sources. Edwards has not stated anything about his decision for 08 but last week announced that he is thinking seriously about another run.--Sina 00:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore
Al Gore said at Middle Tennessee State University in 2006 that he would definitely not run for 2008. He should be removed as a "likely candidate." Likewise, Howard Dean (Democratic Chairman) and Condi Rice (Secretary of State) have also said they're not running, yet they are also listed as potential candidates due to their name recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * As of early 2006 Gore is no longer "counting out" the possibility of running.  He also appears to be positioning himself for a run.Sir hugo 20:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think by next year when the major contenders annouce their intentions, people like AlGore and Dean and Rice will be taken off the wikipedia pages as energy is spent on catching up with the actual condidates. For right now 2008 is a bunch of speculation and Wikipedia is a place people come to for answers.  For now, while they're all playing words games, they should be kept in an "Others" list to show how popular they were or americans during the 2004-08 era.  I dunno, thoughts? SargeAbernathy 01:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear, Gore has not closed the door to running, but that's a far cry from expressing interest in running. He should remain off the list. Zz414 18:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Considering that he is a former Vice President and Presidential candidate, it bears mentioning if there is any possibility he may run. He should stay on the list until he explicitly states he is not seeking the nomination.Trojanpony 16:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Average of All Major Polls
I'm removing the "Average of All Major Polls" sections. They are original research. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reinsert them and please discuss why here. -- Alan McBeth 21:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mitt Romney
Why no mention of Mitt Romney. It seems from articles and info on his site that his hat is flying toward the ring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.81.244 (talk • contribs) 19:28, June 13, 2006


 * Hm, I'm a bit confused by this comment. He is mentioned as a "likely potential candidate". --Deville (Talk) 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that Romney was added after the original suggestion, so all is well in the universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytebear (talk • contribs)


 * Aha, now I see... he was removed at some point and then readded in the last couple of days. My bad --Deville (Talk) 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A group of Harvard Students?
A group of Harvard government students has predicted that Senator Chuck Hagel will be the winner of the 2008 Presidential election.

Hardly seems notable. Doctofunk 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Should delete. Still A Student 21:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Woman probability
With current knowledge, what is the probability that a woman will become the nation's new President?? Georgia guy 19:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say that it is more likely that the following will happen: A) The Democrats win the 2006 elections (take both houses)  B) Nancy Pelosi is appointed Speaker of the House C) Cheney is impeached (and then booted)  D) Bush is impeached (and then booted) E) As Speaker of the House, Pelosi becomes President

If Cheney is removed, wouldn't Bush simply replace him with a new Vice President? As far as I know, the only possibility for the Speaker of the House to become President is if the sitting President and Vice President both die at the same time. I think that this scenario is more likely than Hillary winning the 2008 Democrat primaries (and this scenario is pretty far out there). My money is on Bill Richardson, with about 10% of me thinking that ol' Feingold will pull off something special. (Although I hope Feingold wins). The odds are that we will see Bill Frist v. Bill Richardson (and perhaps GOD will force McCain and Feingold to run on the same ticket as independants....:)

72.33.11.200 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Thoolie
 * I don't believe the punishment of booting is given in the constitution. Also, the question was on the probability of a woman being the next president, not of Senator Clinton being the next president.  If a woman who is conservative, over 60, and without a radical youth runs for the nomination of the Republican Party, she may get it and win the election. It depends on the other candidates.  I don't think a member of any demographic is totally excluded from having a good chance at winning the U.S. presidency.  -Acjelen 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, what about a black female Arabic homosexual atheist? I don't see that happening, or maybe that's just the cynic in me. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 03:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I definately don't see a liberal northeastern atheist winning any kind of nation office, irrespective of qualifications. 須藤 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Other potential Democrat or Republican candidates
What about other people medioned as potential Democrat or Republican candidates:
 * Gov. and former Sen., Billionaire Jon Corzine of New Jersey
 * Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma
 * Gov. Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming
 * Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois
 * Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota
 * Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware
 * Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
 * Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina

Are they said they won't running? 83.24.217.252 22:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why no mention of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a possible candidate? Perhaps I'm more exposed to media speculation of his candidacy because I live in New York, but I think, given that he's included in so many New Yorker polls (indeed, quite a few show he can hold his own against Hillary and Giuliani), he should be mentioned in the article. His close aide, Kevin Sheekey, has been spreading rumors of a third-party run (since neither Dems nor Reps would take him). --Pallas.athene 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind about that, by the way - I saw the rules for declaring a candidate. Pallas.athene 22:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How to classify a candidate
If someone has a PAC, is that enough to move them from the "other" to the more significant "involved" category? Do we distinguish the kinds of PACs, look to see if they're 2006 or 2008 oriented, etc.? I don't feel like there's a definitive source on this, but I feel like our list is pretty close to accurate right now. If people feel like throwing random names in the "other potential candidates" list, fine, but I wonder how we can distinguish just any old potential candidate from one actually exploring the possibility. --Zz414 14:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove possible candidates sections
These are just speculation and really anyone can be included here. Until a candidate forms a PAC or website documenting intention to run, I think they should be excluded from the article. Doctofunk 16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Can we get someone to make this official?Zz414 16:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that (notable) people who have made a declaration of intent to run should also be included in the article. --Tim4christ17 19:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidates who have not expressed interest, but for whom there is significant support
The "Possible Candidates" sections were removed, which specifically took out Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from the list of potential Republican presidential candidates. She has stated she does not intend to run, but she has consistently left the door open. When she's included in straw polls and scientific nation-wide opinion polls, she almost always comes out either #1 or at least in the top three. There's tons of buzz going on about drafting Rice into the race amongst GOP grassroots and half the time Rice's interviewers are asking her about 2008 possibilities. Regardless, she's being talked about a lot and needs to be discussed. I don't think Rice belongs in the same group as other undeclared candidates (i.e. Pawlenty, Santorum, etc.). While politicians like Pawlenty and Santorum, for instance, have also stated that they will not run for President, nobody's really opposing that. However, there is a rather massive Draft Rice for President movement going on right now. Has anyone else seen all the "Condi '08" bumper stickers, television/radio ads, and billboards? Go to http://www.4condi.com for an example of what I'm talking about. In any case, I think Rice needs to be mentioned as a candidate in spite of her current denials of interest. A lot can change, especially for such a widely known and widely supported person (remember the drafts of Eisenhower, Goldwater, Clark, etc.)

Rice is really the only one I can think of right now who fits this category for the Republicans. Al Gore might fit the ticket on the Democratic side, but I'm not sure about that one. --Ai.kefu 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * She has repeatedly refused to run breitbart.com/news/2006/01/16/D8F5QUU81.html and she doesn't even have a PAC yet. While potential candidates have been scouring New Hampshire and Iowa, she's remained on the sidelines.  She should NOT be placed on this list without any other indication that she's running.  Can I get some support from other folks on this one?  I think the two universal qualifications should be (1) whether the candidate has actually expressed interest (Rice has repeatedly denied interest, as linked above), or (2) whether the candidate has formed a leadership PAC (which Rice has not done).  I think that should close the case for Rice.  The entire country may want Bill Clinton to run again despite the Constitution, or Lance Armstrong, or Arnold Schwartzenegger, or Mickey Mouse, or Warren Buffet, but it doesn't mean they meet the requirements to list them here now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zz414 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 11 August 2006.


 * I think the issue to be resolved here is what the purpose of this article is. Is this article's purpose merely to list anybody who has an exploratory committee and have said that they want to be President?  In that case, why aren't we listing any and every joker who has registered their own PAC?  I know about a lot of average Joes who are basically the town dog-catcher and have "formed their own exploratory committee and expressed interest."  Why aren't we listing them there?  I think the reason we don't list these guys is because they're honestly not feasible, realistic candidates.  So, then what should the qualifications be for listing a potential candidate in this article?  I think in this case, the qualification should be: Is there a decent chance that this person could actually be elected President in 2008?  If this is the qualification for discussing potential candidates on this Wikipedia article, then Condoleezza Rice should definitely be included and discussed as a possibility.  Note that the section listing Republican candidates is for "potential candidates," because, realistically, at this time, there are no actual candidates for 2008 yet.  Except for a few exceptions like Gravel, Cox, etc., no real candidate has announced.  For example, everyone thought Rick Santorum and Haley Barbour were going to run just a few months ago, and then it turns out they weren't.  Chuck Hagel and Newt Gingrich gave incidations they weren't going to get involved in the 2008 race, but then it turns out they are seemingly moving toward doing so.  So the thing is, the field of candidates is so fluid at this point, that we can't really look for "official candidates," because there basically are none.  At this point, we have to look at -- who's being talked about in terms of a likely future President?  Who does the GOP want to be the nominee?  What names are grassroots voters floating around frequently?  This article should take a comprehensive look at all the major possibilities for 2008, and doing so necessitates that Condoleezza Rice be included.  Why?  Look at the Opinion polling for the 2008 United States presidential election article.  Look at all the Republican polls where Rice is included.  In virtually every one, she either comes out #1, #2, or #3.  I'm not sure if she's ever come out any lower than that in scientific, nation-wide public opinion polls.  And it's not just because she's got name recognition among the general public, either.  Look at the grassroots GOP straw polls amongst likely voters and party representatives.  Rice, the so-called "noncandidate", came out the frontrunner in the key California GOP State Convention straw poll, she came out in the upper tier of the D.C. Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll (the biggest gathering of conservative activists in the nation), and--as a writein candidate--Rice even bested the likes of Giuliani and Gingrich in the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll.  The fact is that in spite of Condoleezza Rice's claims of disinterest concerning 2008, she is a much-talked-about candidate who, despite the falling out of candidates like Santorum and Barbour, remains in the news, remains high in the polls, and continues to generate buzz amongst party insiders.  Usually, I would say, if a candidate says "No, I'm not going to run," then we shouldn't bother talking about them in an article like this.  But Rice is clearly an exception to this rule.  She has the name recognition, favorability, and electability of a non-candidate that hasn't been rivaled since Ike in 1952.  Did you know that Eisenhower himself was drafted as an unwilling candidate, a mere few weeks before the Republican National Convention of 1952?  His name was forced onto the primary ballots by draft supporters and he ended up winning New Hampshire and other big primaries, all the while he was saying that he "would not seek any political nomination."  Likewise, Barry Goldwater was saying things like "I'm not a candidate. And I'm not going to be. I have no intention of running for the Presidency" and "Draft, nothin'—I told you I'm not going to run" before he was drafted as the 1964 Republican nominee.  And the argument that candidates aren't drafted in this day and age is also a fallacy--consider Wesley Clark in 2004.  If the Internet and Wikipedia had been around in 1952, and Eisenhower had been kept off the list of potential Republican candidates just because he had not formed a PAC to raise money for his campaign and because he had denied interest in it, it would have been historically ridiculous.  Eisenhower was shown to have a clear popularity amongst voters and he was shown to have a clear electability in both the primary and general elections.  Therefore, in 1952, even while Eisenhower was denying he wanted to run, I would hope those hypothetical Wikipedians would have included Eisenhower as a "Candidate who has not expressed interest, but for whom there is significant support."  Goldwater and Clark are other examples.  So, really, what I'm saying is, just because Rice has said "It's not necessarily what I want to do with my life," she has always stopped short of giving the Sherman Oath (which many others, including Cheney, have freely given), which reads: "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve."  She has never been able to make that statement, and, as a result, she keeps coming out on top of polls--both nation-wide public opinion polls, and local insider straw polls alike.  Because of the large chance that she could very well be the nominee in spite of her denials of interest, I sincerely believe she must be included for the sake of comprehensive and accurate discussion of the topic at hand. --Ai.kefu 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * She's been added to the "Draft movements" section. That should be enough. Zz414 03:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And the entire "Draft movements" section is now missing. Per all of the extensive and logical reasons given in my above comments, Condoleezza Rice really needs to be given the same amount of examination as a candidate that probable "no-chancers" like Tom Tancredo and George Pataki are being given.  The odds are far more likely that Rice will be persuaded to enter the race and win than the odds that Pataki or Tancredo, even as active candidates, could ever make it past the primaries and win the general election.  Rice consistently polls high (and often on top) in all kinds of polls--from the scientific nation-wide public opinion polls down to the local county straw polls, and from the online/blogger oriented polls to the GOP insider straw votes, indicating that her polling success is NOT just name recognition.  From the general public to the informed democracy-nerd voters, Rice is very often touted as a serious presidential possibility.  Rice gets more press as a potential 2008 contender than half of the "announced" candidates listed (even though practically nobody has actually announced yet, AND Rice has never definitively closed the door on the option and has consistently refused to give the Sherman Oath).  Rice needs to be listed as one of the possibilities in some form or another.  It's ridiculous to have an objective article on the 2008 US Presidential Election and to not include Condoleezza Rice at this point.  --Ai.kefu 01:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, go ahead and call for a vote, try to convince people that a "draft movements" section should exist. But the political reality of Rice's situation is very different from Eisenhower.  Once again, Rice reaffirmed her refusal to run today, reinforcing the decision to keep her off the main page.  In the contemporary political era, Rice is nowhere in the same league as Eisenhower in terms of popular acclaim - he was the victorious general of World War II and a decorated bona fide American hero; he was sought actively by both political parties; and he was drafted in 1952 only after significant, unified, national consensus, only after he'd been placed on the New Hampshire primary ballot, and only after a series of unique personal circumstances intervened.  You think Rice is the next Eisenhower?  She's not a bona fide hero, she's not pursued by the Democrats, and she's not been placed on a primary ballot.  She has a draft movement, but so do dozens of others.  She's among the top candidates in polling when named, but that's not the criteria for the page.  The criteria are whether the person has formally announced, or whether candidates have formed exploratory committees or expressed serious interest.  Rice fits neither.  So lobby for a change, but the consensus now is to keep it as is.  Finally, this is 2008, not 1952.  Wikipedia standards would have conformed with 1952 expectations, not 2008.  The political realities of a candidate running for office are much different and require much more coordination.  I will continue to affirm keeping Rice, and any other "popular" candidates who don't fit the criteria, off the main page until she gives any inkling of considering running.
 * I'm weighing in because I think I was largely responsible for removing the 'potential canditates' section. I realized after I did so that along with all the junk that got removed were two very viable candidates, both of whom are trading solidly on tradesports--Rice (5.3% for Repub nomination, 294000$ wagered) and Gore (17.2 for Dem nomination, 445000$ wagered). I would supporting including both, as well as any candidate who's polling higher than 3%. Doctofunk 16:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I put both Gore and Rice in the "opinion polling" section with "draft movements" attached. I think that's sufficient. Zz414 16:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No need. Gore and Rice are both listed on their respective party potential candidates articles which are linked to this one.  Any further discussion of them or their status can take place there, where all candidates are given equal billing, instead of here, where they would be singled out for recognition and promoted above other candidates.151.205.101.62 02:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it is absolutely ridiculous to not include Condoleezza Rice in a Wikipedia article about the 2008 presidential election. At least 1/3 of the time, she comes out #1 as the Republican nominee.  It doesn't make a difference that she's said she doesn't intend to run.  This early on, NOBODY is officially announced.  Plus, Rice has consistently left the door open.  She has never given the Sherman Oath and she has never said she would never run under any circumstance.  She's merely said she doesn't see herself running and doesn't want to.  In spite of all of this, she's got as much '08 buzz as any other big-name presidential contender and she keeps coming out on the top of polls.  This has happened several times before in very recent history.  Eisenhower, Goldwater, and Clark were all drafted into their respective races--all within the last 50-some years.  In this day and age, to leave someone out of consideration just because they've said they "don't intend to" is ludicrous.  Newt Gingrich has said he will only run if nobody else champions the issues he wants the 08 election to address.  Therefore, should we leave Newt off this page until it becomes clear that nobody is talking about the things Newt wants talked about and that Newt will in fact run?  No... even though all the issues Newt wants to be addressed ARE being addressed, and therefore every indication is that Newt will not run, he's still on the page.  If this page is really about giving serious consideration to viable presidential candidates, why are jokes like Chuck Hagel, George Pataki, and Tom Tancredo given more attention than Condoleezza Rice, who ALWAYS beats everyone but Rudy and McCain, and, who, many times, beats even those two?  Rice needs to be listed among the candidates--she's not like Jeb Bush or Dick Cheney who basically said, "I'm not running--not just no, but hell no, etc."  Rice is not going away.  There's something huge in the American electorate that we can't just overlook.  She is such a pivotal factor in the 2008 race at this point that it would be insane not to include her on this page.  --Ai.kefu 22:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the way she's currently listed here?151.205.101.62 03:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton
What kind of a fool would vote for Hillary Clinton, when she is even more pro-war than Bush by her track-record, and yet has all the same bad ideas as he does? Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinion Republic
This site is clearly just another generic Internet polling station, with one of the relevant polls relating to 2008. It's unscientific, does not contain news stories, and is mostly unrelated to politics, let alone the 2008 election. It does not belong on the links list.Zz414 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Howard Stern
Per show summaries on MarksFriggin.com, "The caller had mentioned that Howard should run for President so Howard spent a short time talking about how he just doesn't have time to run but he thinks he could do a better job than Bush is doing." That's not an indication that he should be listed as a candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zz414 (talk • contribs)


 * Mark got it wrong. His exact quote was “I am considering running.” He talked about it twice. Once at the beginning of the show and the second at the end. The second time Robin asked him if he was serious and if he knew he had to submit his financial records. He said he knew and was considering it. Just another note marksfriggin.com is run by Mark who listens to the show and does a write up. He is not always accurate. Just because he has a big long archive of his wrap ups doesn’t mean he is a creditable source. I am not saying Mark makes things up, but he got it wrong. Maybe he was not listening fully. 550 talk 21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just figured that was the best source around to verify what happened on his show. If you can find a better source, I'd like that and put Stern back on the list.  Otherwise, without even a "Stern 2008" site or a news article detailing the possibility, it's probably best left off the list. Zz414 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark did get it wrong. The replay just ran the beginning segment. No caller suggested anything to Howard the caller said “impeach Bush.” Howard said “By the way, I am toying with the idea of running for president. I don’t have a lot of time to do it, but if people will vote for me… okay.” The cast then went on to talk about other potential candidates. After that his exact quote was “I think I might run. I am being serious.” Mark is wrong. You haven’t heard the show and I just wrote this as the replay was happening. I didn’t put him under confirmed; I put him under possible candidates. So a site confirming he is running is not needed. Mark does not provide a transcript. He is not a creditable source and this situation proves it. He is wrong. I just listened to the replay and provide exact quotes. 550 talk 22:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You nonetheless need a verifiable source in order to include this in the article, as per wikipedia policy. Otherwise, what's to stop me from saying I listened to some obscure radio program in New Jersey today where the host said he would run for president? Doctofunk 22:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you accusing me of lying? I will grab the audio and upload the clip of his quotes if it will make you feel better. It will take me few minutes to grab the full show and then some time to cut it up. I’ll have it on in a few hours or less. 550 talk 23:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the clip. I only included quotes about him running and cut out stuff like his views on Bush and Iraq. So you can tell when a quote is skipping ahead five – ten minutes in the conversation by a little “ping” I put in to separate the quotes. The final quote happened at the very end of the show, about four hours after the first two. Also here is one of the quotes from the one minute clip “I want to run for President. I am really giving it thought” http://www.geocities.com/username550/stern08.html  550 talk  00:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate Geocities. Okay, I have to host it on YouSendIt because GeoCities thinks 5 megs is too much space. Here it is: http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=ACCD9820187FD4B6  550 talk 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa whoa, I'm not accusing you of lying. Wikipedia is a secondary source, which means that all content should be verifiable through other sources. (This isn't always the case, but it is always the objective.) For now I would favor leaving Stern out of the article, not because I don't believe he said he's interested (which you've now provided a source for) but because his statement doesn't in my mind imply it's even likely that he'll run. He's a humorist, speaking freely on his show--that's a far way off from a formal declaration of intent to run. I'd hold off on including him in the article for now, but that's just my 2 cents. Doctofunk 15:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know. I was just mad that I had to cut a six hour show. I provided exact quotes and there was no reason for me to lie. I felt I was being told “He did not say that, you’re lying” from people who didn’t even hear the show. Those quotes where not made in a row and the conversation was not just one little conversation contained in an hour segment. Anyways never mind all that. I have listened to Stern for 10 years. When he is making a joke or just thinking freely he doesn’t bring it up throughout the show over and over again. The difference between the first two quotes and the last (from the clip) was three to four hours later. Also, he brought it up again today, but I am not going to cut another six hour show again. Right now I have provided a good enough source to back up my statement. Remember it does say “interested in candidacy” and my source does prove he is interested. I am not saying he is going to run because if I did, I would not have placed him under the “maybe” category. Let’s not forget he did run for Governor of New York once. 550 talk 20:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

State of New York poll
It seems like a New York State poll is pretty absurd to include in the polling results. Not only is it skewed because of candidates that would come from New York (e.g., Clinton and Guiliani), but it's also the results for only a single state, which at this point is much less helpful in "projecting" candidates or an ultimate results. While I agree that only 2 or 3 recent polls should be listed, I don't think this poll deserves a spot. Zz414 09:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Any nation-wide poll is more likely to be "skewed" about the result of presidential election than fifty state-wide polls. Since New York has a large number of electoral votes, it is a worthwhile poll.  Polling of people across the country in a single measure is an odd method for the U.S. presidential election, since that is not how the president is decided. -Acjelen 17:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that national polls aren't the best indicator, either, but to single out a poll from the State of New York, which contains only 5% of the total electoral votes in the country, and where two of the "leading candidates" indicated in the polls are New York natives, is just not that useful (a) this far out from the election, and (b) given the abundance of national polls that are surely more indicative of a "national consensus" or "leading candidate" than a single state's polling. Zz414 21:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that just one state-wide poll is inappropriate, but I'd argue for more state-wide polls, not none. Are Senator Clinton and Mr. Guiliani that much more popular in New York State than the rest of the nation? -Acjelen 22:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * More or less popular, this is a difficult question. But I think we'll all agree that Clinton and Guiliani are much better known in NY than elsewhere.  -- Deville (Talk) 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Contingencies and "ifs"
I removed a couple of the recent "ifs" and "assuming" language, because it's entirely superfluous to the article. The article assumes dozens of things are currently true but that may not be true in 2008: that the United States remains a sovereign nation; that it still has exactly 50 states; that some amendments are not enacted or repealed; and so forth. If Bush does not serve out his term, then this article will change and indicate that the 44th President may be re-elected or the 45th President would be elected (after all, couldn't we repeal the 22nd Amendment and let Bush be re-elected?). If the pending law that hasn't even been enacted yet is challenged in court, then the article will be changed to reflect that (after all, couldn't the court system be dissolved by aliens in the next two year?). It's clutter and doesn't belong at this stage. Zz414 02:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Further DC Fair Vote Act conditionals are unnecessary. It's already given an entire section.  Also, it would add only 1 electoral vote (applicable to Utah in this case), meaning a majority would still be 270-269.

The US presidential elections will have all candidates facing the enormous problem of immigration. This issue is affecting the country today and will go on day after day, probably reaching an upward surge as the elections get near. All the candidates. apart from party politics and reasonings, will be involved in personal problems, due to close relationships with immigrants or labor. The hispanic vote will be watching the immigrant problem closely, and politicians pursuing the hispanic vote have to be careful. What is the solution to the apparently unstoppable illegal immigration? Many answers have been mentioned back and forth, but you have to be in power to be able to take the necessary steps, and the risk. I, as a writer, have ventured forth a hero with possible upward mobility, the son of immigrant parents, raised in an immigrant community, who as an attorney claims to have a solution, but it is only fiction. And I write in a humourous vein. But the politics in Miami, Florida, where I live, do reflect the controversy and difficulty that awais the next presidential elections. Juan del Cerro, Sept.21,2006

Update on Cheney: Bush has asked him to stay through 2008, and it appears he will do so. I'm removing the speculation that Cheney will resign after the midterm elections. If something perks that interest again, then maybe it can be included. Until then, it's just more rampant speculation that takes up space. Zz414 03:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Lisa Weltman
Can we verify if she's a Socialist or a true Independent? Her website suggests she's a Communist or a Socialist, but it doesn't seem to indicate that she's seeking a party-affiliated nomination. Zz414 21:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * She previously campaigned as a "Red/Green" (SPUSA/Green Party), but her website makes clear that her possible presidential candidacy is independent: "We are a group of political activists who have come together to build a campaign support network that is large enough and serious enough to convince Lisa Weltman to declare her independent candidacy for President of the United States." —Sesel 21:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Significant drop-out candidates
I don't know that this is a meaningful category to have. It's not going to be significant in the future. Candidates who expressed interest, but then decided to back out and not pursue the nomination are not that significant. It's only when you actually enter the primary or official announce that it matters once you drop out. At this stage, it's so early and speculative that a drop out isn't really a worthy event because, after all, they've "dropped out" only from, what, exploring the possibility of running? I don't think it's a good category, but I look forward to hearing from others. Zz414 17:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't think any drop-out candidate can really be considered significant as drop-out candidates if they don't at least participate in a few primaries (or third-party nominating convention).  (And there's plenty of time before those will take place.)  At that point, of course, they'll be discussed in the primaries articles (like this).  There doesn't really seem to be much point to the category itself. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 21:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One could argue that Colin Powell's decision not to run in 2000 was a noteworthy dropout. These things can be noteworthy.  A slightly reworded section that would also those candidates (such as Cheney) whose forceful statements that they will decline the nomination may be useful.  Warner's announcement is certainly noteworthy, at least for the short-term future.  --Aranae 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that Colin Powell even ran for President in 2000 -- how can one drop out if one is never even in the race? Perhaps the title of the section is confusing me. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 22:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He never ran (but then neither did Warner). There was a lot of discussion of him running and (I believe) eventually a formal decision not to.  Polls all showed him walking away with the election assuming he received the Republican candidacy.  Similar to Warner, except that Warner made it further along the process and started with less name recognition.  Powell was used as an earlier McCain-like example where the moderate is desired by all, but getting past the primaries is always tough for centrists.  The same thing was true later when there were talks of him as Bush's running mate.  I can't find any of this info now, so don't trust me unless I can find something to back it up.  --Aranae 22:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Within the context of discussing a specific election the also-rans and notable didn't-quite-runs are significant. The speculation on who might run is part of an election.  Colin Powell is an excellent example of someone who never ran but was notable in the race.  Mark Warner never formally declared his candidacy but did in fact go down the pre-declare path of floating his candidacy.  Certainly Mark Warner's efforts are more notable than the efforts of the various third party candidates who get virtually no attention at all outside of Wikipedia. SnappingTurtle 17:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refreain from including Warner or Feingold, per discussion. Zz414 19:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Obama has repeatedly expressed that he is not interested in running in 2008. He has a PAC, but he has declined interest. While there's recent fueled speculation he may run, or greater public pressure, he's still in the Gore category of "possible but still not really exploring" candidates. Zz414 12:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And shortly after I write this, he does express interest.  So he's on the list. Zz414 21:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Formers
Since the 2006 election is now over, I added the word "former" to the titles of a whole bunch of people who are leaving office between January 1st and 2nd of next year. If they actuallly run,it'll be as a former governor or senator, not as an incumbent.Ericl 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please sign comments. They're currently still Senators and Governors.  Their titles should not be changed until after January 3.  Reverted. Zz414 17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Their titles should indicate titles they currently hold not what they will be in the future. Furthermore, just because the Virginia race has been called by the AP, the race hasn't been certified and could possibly be overturned with a recount. I say just wait until they are out of office to call them former. Alienmercy 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Allen conceded about five hours agoEricl 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and in the United States, your term does not expire until January 3, 2007. His concession means that he'll no longer serve as Senator on that date.  So update this page on January 3, but he's still a Senator for two more months. Zz414 03:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Duncan Hunter
This needs active policing. He's stated, "And remember, I haven't announced. What I said is, I'm making preparations to run. The second announcement comes later so you can get a second press conference, or course." Keep him in the latter category. Zz414 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Biden, Dodd, Hunter, and Media
Most media reports are wrong. Biden has announced. Scouring the news, Dodd has not. Hunter has not (see above). Zz414 21:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Biden has said that he INTENDS to seek the nomination if he has a shot at it by the end of last year. He hasn't actually started yet. John Edwards has basically moved to Iowa. Ericl 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Using the Hunter precedent, Biden gets moved to the "thinking about it" category. Calwatch 09:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Biden hasn't formed an exploratory committee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.42.190.239 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

The Invisible Primary
The term comes from a book by Arthur Hadley, who wrote about the 1974-75 phase of the 1976 election. It seems that the front runners at the time were Henry Jackson and Lloyd Bentsen.

During this year's invisible primary, you have three kinds of candiates: The wannabees, who really have no chance, the possibles, who might catch fire, like Gary Hart and Jimmy Carter, and then there's the elephants in the room, Al Gore and Hillery Clinton, for example.

I'm sorry that someone took off the "Iowa I" straw poll from the page. In 1999, it was pivital to several campaigns, and got George W. Bush on track to actually win. Iowa needs the money and so there's going to one--everyone's going to be there on the GOP side.

It's a really good term, which is why I used it. Ericl 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a term found widely, there isn't even a Wiki page on it, and you seem to be the only one using it from an archaic and obscure book on a single election. It shouldn't be used. Zz414 20:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Try a Google search - 23,000 hits. For people who closely watch the process, such as ABC's The Note, (see, for example), it is an often used term for the 12-24 months before the first real caucus/primary. And it probably does deserve a wiki page of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * 23,000 really isn't much in Google terms. Nevertheless, if there's a separate Wiki page for it, and if someone uses it better than the original writer did, it may appear.

John McCain
Just so we're clear, it appears that McCain is still just exploring and has not formally announced. I expect some folks to try to move McCain up, but he should remain where he is. Zz414 23:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Even clearer: "The senator has made no decision about running for president." Zz414 02:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bush/Clinton, Bush/Clinton
If Hillary Clinton were to win the 2008 Presidential Election, the Presidential line-up since 1989 would be (George)Bush, (Bill)Clinton, (George W.)Bush, (Hillary)Clinton. If she wins a second term, it would mean that from 1989 to 2016, the office of President of the United States was filled by either a Bush or a Clinton. Mirlin 05:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just being picky, if the aboved occured? the dates would be 1989 to 2017. GoodDay 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And just think - after Hillary we'll probably elect Jeb Bush so we can have Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush. And I'm sure that by the time he's served two terms Chelsea Clinton will be holding public office somewhere and we can just keep doing this forever.  And don't forget about George P. Bush.  Fine democracy we've got here...
 * What's wrong? This is a common practice in other fine examples of democracy... Singapore (well there it's just on dynasty), India, Pakistan... Nil Einne 15:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but what does this have to do with editing the page on the topic at hand?? Plus, as long as our leaders are elected by the public, you can't blame it on the Bush family or the Clinton family.  Simple as that.  ThePacMan 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom Tancredo
Just so we're clear, Tancredo's mostly ruled out a bid, so he's no longer "expressing interest." Zz414 19:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani has not announced yet; he has just formed an exploratory committee. Please do not move him to announced candidates. I placed a warning, keep him in Potential Candidates. Open poppyseed 22:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Boy, based on the number of rvs required in the past week, I feel like this article should go to semi-protected until Election Day 2008. Zz414 23:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Information for candidates
I think listing the candidates with a state is sufficient. Their Wiki page can give biographical information. If someone thinks otherwise, we can discuss it, but it seems unnecessary to include notable elements of a person (particularly 3rd party candidates) if they can have a Wiki page should that person be so notable. Zz414 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget wikilinks for important concepts
There are a lot of words which prop up a lot like Exploratory committee (which I believe is a legal requirement), Political action committee etc. Make sure these are wikilinked at least once as most non-American readers are unlikely to know what they are. Nil Einne 15:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Frist not running
According to Hotline, Frist will announce later today that he is not running. Just waiting for a good source before deleting. Simon12 15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

AP and CNN now reporting the same thing. I have removed him. Valadius 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Semi-unrelated, but thanks for finding that Gilmore article. Nice find. Zz414 18:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Potential Candidates
Would it hurt to remove the Potential Candidates sections and just leave the main article links to the potential candidates pages? It doesn't take much work for readers to click on another article. Open poppyseed 21:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Announced Candidates
It is silly to have a listing for "announced candidates" when there are none who have not also filed as official candidates. Editors have on several occasions moved candidates from "filed" to "announced" when the candidate has done both because the editors do not realize that "filed" is a higher category than "announced". I removed this category to avoid confusion. Why have both categories at this point? Alienmercy 22:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. I agree. "Announced" can be added on when a candidate has actually announced. Open poppyseed 22:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey GOP primary date
I moved New Jersey's GOP primary date to Feb 5 "Unofficial". See: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/16166181.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_local

The proposal to move NJ's primary to Feb 5, 2008, has passed the state Senate by an overwhelming margin and now just needs to be approved by the state Assembly. If the Assembly passed it, we can move it to the official Feb 5. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ai.kefu (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Don't you think it should be indicated somehow that this is not quite official yet? Regardless of its chances of being passed by the other half of the legislature (and one would presume signed by the Governor? - not sure how this works exactly in NJ), it is still speculative to change it on the schedule especially when the source you cite has the title "N.J. may move up primary again". Alienmercy 21:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Announced Candidates
Rather than bickering about who has "announced" and who hasn't, I say we get rid of the designation all together. Does anyone remember the 2004 election? Kerry, Edwards, Dean, etc. all announced in the summer of 2003 long after it was apparent that they were running. I think the other categories give enough indication about who is and who is not a candidate. The candidates themselves will always claim they haven't announced so that they can save it for an optimal time when the press will most benefit the campaign. Because of the vague definition of announced, I don't think it is a very encyclopedic criteria. Why not wait until they've either filed as official candidates or formed exploratory committees? I personally would prefer not to even have an "expressed serious interest" but I'm will to keep it as an umbrella for candidates who are clearly running but haven't done anything official yet. Then all the supposed announcements and non-announcements can fall in to that category. What do you all think? Alienmercy 03:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point and concur for the most part, since making a formal announcement means nothing if you haven't filed with the FEC as a candidate. And you're likely not going to announce if you haven't already formed an exploratory committee.  Either way, that would help solve the problem of those like Joe Biden who have "announced their intentions" but have not "announced" and others who might be stuck in the Seriously Considering category when they've already pretty much reached a decision.  In those cases, we just leave them in the Considering category until they make a formal move.  It's easier that way than creating an Announced category for any and every candidate who formally announces just a few days before the file with the FEC.  Since the term "announce" is so nebulous in this context and since candidates would likely only be in the "Announced but not filed" category for a few days before they got moved again, I think it's wise to simply do away with the Announcement category. --Ai.kefu 13:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidates not running
Just a suggestion: shouldn't there be a section of candidates who have publicly stated they will not run? (such as Dick Cheney) It could be added under list of parties as "Candidates who have denied serious interest" or something like that. For example:

Republican Party
 * Candidates who have filed with the FEC
 * (Candidates)

...


 * Candidates who have expressed serious interest
 * (Candidates)

...


 * Candidates who have denied serious interest
 * (Candidates)

Who's not running is just as important as who is. Bredd13 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't such a list have the potential to get very very long? What criteria does someone have to meet in order to be important enough to make the "not running" list? Every current and former Governor, Senator, House member, Cabinet member, etc? Wouldn't a reader just assume someone who is not on one of the "running" lists is by default "not running"? The case of Dick Cheney not running is likely notable, but that's already taken care of in the main part of the article. I personally would be against such a category. Alienmercy 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the problem, as discussed exhaustively in this thread. Perhaps once candidates have officially formed exploratory committees but dropped out of the race, then we might think about adding them to a "not running" category.  But foo much farther back past that is too ambiguous, lengthy, and unhelpful. Zz414 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But no one would have assumed "every current and former Governor, Senator, House member, [and] Cabinet member" to have been running. How about including only those individuals who have made a formal statement that they are not running?  For example, Mark Warner would be on this list since he had to make a statement to this effect, but North Dakota Governor John Hoeven, say, would not, because he never had to disavow interest because there was no great collective speculation that he would be a candidate. Seems like it would be valuable to know that there was a movement backing, say, Mark Warner for the job, and to now know that he's not running. Qqqqqq 03:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Something for all of you to keep in mind, I am not currently running for president, nor am I old enough too. --Kalmia 07:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

George Allen
I saw someone just re-added recently-ousted VA Sen. George Allen to the list of Republican candidates. What's the deal with him? Should he be kept on the list, since, technically he hasn't ever announced that he wouldn't run for President yet? I mean, yeah, it's basically inconceivable that he would be a serious contender for President anymore, but people seriously considered Tom Daschle as a prospect for the Democrats this season (up until he dropped out last week, that is) and he had just been ousted in 2004. I guess I'm leaning toward keeping Allen on the list until he officially gives some indication that he's not still wanting to run for President in 2008. As absurd as the idea of an '08 presidential run by Allen might be at this point, who knows, an ousted Allen might still have a better chance at bagging the nomination than a RINO like Hagel or an unknown like Hunter. Thoughts...? --Ai.kefu 20:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just this past weekend he announced he wasn't going to run. I'll take him off the list. Mattrcoulter 21:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Kucinich
Do we know he's filed FEC papers or just that he has announced candidacy?

Bayh out
The Indianapolis Star has the story, including a statement from Bayh. Simon12 05:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a big surprise. Now we have to have the discussion: Bayh had announced a plan to form an exploratory committee, but he never actually did so.  Does he warrant mention as a drop-out candidate?  We've been pretty strict so far in refusing to include such candidates, but no one had previously announced an intention to form an exploratory committee. Zz414 11:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why was he listed as having formed an exploratory committee when he actually hadn't? How many other candidates are mislabeled because they "announced" some intention that they have yet to follow up on? Shouldn't we be able to verify activity with the FEC? Certainly I don't think he qualifies as a dropout candidate when he was never actually a candidate. In fact, I think that once we're a couple of weeks into 2007, we should even get rid of the "expressed serious interest lists". The "Conditions for listing a candidate" section says "Private Official Campaign Web Site" which seems to me to imply that all candidates regardless of list are actively campaigning enough to have a web site, but we're only listing PAC websites which aren't even close to the same thing and this may mislead the reader. At the very least, we should get rid of the whole "Conditions for listing a candidate" part because it misinforms the reader that the following lists have some sort of rigid criteria when they do not. The individual "lists within a list" (i.e. Filed with FEC, expressed serious interest, etc.) actually give the conditions for listing a candidate. What do you all think? Alienmercy 11:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be valuable to keep lists of people who expressed interest or were talked about in the media. It would be interesting historical information. I wish this kind of thing was available for past campaigns. Frankg 15:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Bayh filed the necessary paperwork to form an Exploratory Committee. Regardless of whether he actually formed it, he took official steps towards running for President, and he deserves listing as a drop-out candidate. Simon12 03:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guess I was incorrect in my earlier post. So we should put him under Former Candidates?  Candidates Who Dropped Out Before the Primary?  I don't know a good way of making a category, or a way of making one distinguishing primary contenders with those who dropped out before. Zz414 12:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Edwards in
NBC News is reporting it through the AP, the campaign confirms

I've edited the page accordingly (although not signed in). iKato 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Biden and FEC
Biden's filed with FEC? I'm still under the impression he's waiting to file with FEC and is just "annouced" Carpet9 03:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani
Taken from the Rudy Giuliani article: The committee filed papers with the FEC on November 22, 2006. Does this mean he's an offical candidate? Carpet9 17:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think he's official until he announces. Federal election law allows an individual to travel and gauge the level of support without formally declaring his or her candidacy. Macduff 21:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I know. They didn't source it, though so I think that he is still Expected or not annouced or whatever. Carpet9 22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)