Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential candidates/Archive 1

gallery
The candidates that are listed as "receiving past speculation" and "not running" are one and the same. None of them are running. They all received past speculation, so it makes no sense why anyone would want to separate the two. The Not running category is absolutele garbage too: Chris Christie gave one of the most clear and definitive Shermanesque statements I've ever seen, and it still looked likely that he would enter the race just recently.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 06:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not the same. Just because the media ceased speculation does not mean that an individual has definitively ruled out a run. Even if they never rule out a run, they are still distinct from those who publicly stated that they are not running.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree Saturn. In the end, they are one and the same. The detail you cite is so miniscule that it is unimportant. I'm going to have to agree with Screwball here: both sections of candidates are in the same end result: they are not running for the nomination, and are no longer receiving speculation of any sort that they are running. To combine them would not change or obscure the facts about the manner at all. Kessy628 (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't see a clear and important difference between publicly stating that one is not running and for the media to end speculation, then I can only conclude that you are either as incompetent a user as Screwball or are his sockpuppet.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey man, you can be civil and productive here, or you can keep sucking away our time, energy, and blood :-).-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 06:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that made me think ; since, you're all buddy-buddy with Sharkey, maybe you can make yourself useful after all. Find out, does he wants to leave his photos up?-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 06:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Saturn, I'd happily submit to a checkuser test to throw that sockpuppet accusation back in your face. As for your other comment, that doesn't answer my question at all, violates (once again) WP:NPA, and frankly doesn't contribute to the discussion. Kessy628 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't disregard the case of Chris Christie. Christie said he was not running - definitively- and the media still speculated, and continued to fuel the speculation for a week or so until he said no again. Does that mean he can't ever receive new "media speculation"? Also, the idea that a person is "ruling out" a run is absolutely untrue - a person can be lukewarm to the idea, or can downplay their ambitions, or can even endorse someone, but that doesn't make them uneligible for the presidency.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 06:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Found my way here via links to the image...I have no opinion on section merging or whatever, but I have removed Sharkey's entry from the candidates list. Being a famous/infamous perennial candidate should not earn one a pot in a gallery of legitimate politicians IMO.  People who have been speculated on and withdrawn or whatever are certainly eligible to be listed here but IMO their inclusion should be supported by some reliable source coverage of their entry or exit, i.e. limit this to people who matter to national politics. Tarc (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed numerous times in the past. For purposes of NPOV, all candidates with a wikipedia article that have filed with the FEC (and with a two source minimum) are to be included on the list. It's irrelevant whether the candidate campaigns or not.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't merge them, the limit has been reached, there are too many names. They have to be broken up into multiple galleries for everyone to be included. Once more, the sourcing is different, with the sources for the first part being the last time they were speculated, and the sources for the second part being their denials. Once more, it breaks the alphabetical order. They really should be broken back up.Thunderstone99 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I give my consent to have it re-separated. If it were possible for a gallery to contain all candidates, I would reconsider. The argument that the sourcing is different doesn't matter. This is setting a very bad precedent for the encyclopedia. This "2 source minimum" is not a strict enough test to help these candidates survive historical notability. It also places more focus on these individuals than is due. In the future, debates will erupt on whether a candidate said "no" definitely or implicitly, when the entire field is being disregarded.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 23:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But how can we define who recieved enough speculation to be notable? Beyond the definite cases (Huckabee, Palin, Trump, Christie), how do we define the others?  Perhaps we should implement a policy that to be included in the speculated/declined section, they have to have been in multiples national polls for the republican nomination. Thunderstone99 (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you right now, you're wasting your time. If you make up a criteria, it has to be foolproof, and we've all seen how determined William S. Saturn is to reducing those limits. Nothing can possibly get between William S. Saturn and a poor decision on candidate inclusion, and I think it's a personal issue for him because of all the time that was spent on speculation for this page. I see two good options, but there might be more. First of all, the people in the "not running" category are more notable than the "received media speculation" ones. There is a good reason for this. It means a reporter had to invest the time and energy to actually meet, ask, or in some way research the intentions of an individual. The "received media speculation" crowd simply never had as much media attention to begin with, and did not have the publicity clout to pressure them to give a shermanesque statement. Now, that being said, it took a lot more energy for a reporter to learn that Palin wasn't running than it took for them to learn that McCain wasn't running (as if there was any doubt; the guy said no back in 2008). Anyway, the ones that are in some way speculated are not all the same. Chris Christie received lots of funds, grassroots support, etc. Most didn't. A lot of these individuals were speculated during armchair political discussions or "what ifs". Some of these candidates were speculated back in 2009 or 2010. The Arizona sheriff is a perfect example of a flavor of the month, who the media looked at and quickly forgot after his public profile shrank. They never bothered to ask him if he would run or not after the immigration debate was done, so we know for a fact that nobody really cared to know in 2011. McChrystal was never a candidate or speculated candidate either. He only received attention as a "what if" when he started going to the media to criticize the president. Ensign and Sanford both faced scandals long before 2011, making it impossible for them to be speculated. I personally think the speculation should have existed during the political primary season, meaning that if a typical campaign for prez is 2 yrs, the speculation should exist in January 1, 2011 or later. I also am against what ifs and would like it the speculation to appear in strong reliable mainstream news sources (NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, Boston Herald, LA Times). A political analyst on a website really shouldn't count. I've seen speculation in the Weekly Standard, NPR, RealClearPolitics, etc. that is well-reasoned, but would make for a poor encyclopedia entry. I'm also for lasting coverage or lasting speculation. If a candidate said no, and people still look to that candidate, like Trump or Palin or Huckabee as public figures whose political activities is somewhat important, they can be included. Under these criteria, the list of "speculated candidates" would be closer to 10-20 at most. I'm also in favor of another option, which is using candidates that appeared on straw polls. The straw polls have to be in-person, because online polls from blogs will be completely off. These are all good ideas, but again, nothing is foolproof.

In the end however, none of this really matters. A candidate that didn't run for president, but maybe 2 news sources speculated as a good candidate and never bothered to ask him/her, who is left off won't really matter. No one is going to care about a candidate with that level of notability.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 00:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Belated response to some stuff. First, the "wiki article + 2 RS == listing here" is way, way too low of a bar to set for inclusion.  The criteria should be similar to the respective parties' cutoffs for debate eligibility, which is (correct me if I'm wrong) polling in the %5 range.  This is an encyclopedia trying to present an article about the upcoming party primaries, and honestly, it should cover legitimate candidates only, not perennial gadflys who are more often than not just in it to promote some Out There(tm) cause.  That means Jon the Impaler gets shown the door, along with Jimmy McMillan and others.


 * Second, why galleries at all? Do we really need images of a whole slew of people who never got into the race in the first place?  Consider redoing some of this in list format, perhaps just keeping a gallery of the real candidates.  Just because an image is free and fair-use does not mean you have to use it. Tarc (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The second point I agree with. However, the point of this article's separate existence was to include all of the candidates with equal footing, while in the main article, those who were not invited to the debats are given lesser status.  BTW, the debate criteria tends to be 1-2%, not 5%Thunderstone99 (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When talking about the number of notable individuals running for president, space is not an issue. There is no reason to arbitrarily exclude candidates or to remove those that received speculation. Speculation itself is notable. Had strict guidelines been imposed, Cain likely would have been excluded early on, but now he's consistently number two in the polls.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely untrue. Herman Cain and Gary Johnson were in the first debate.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 03:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did the words "likely" or "early on" go over your head?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If Cain were excluded early on, then added when his popularity/notability increased, then that would have been a good thing and indicative that we're doing our job as an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not and should not be on the bleeding edge of the news of the hour. If users are coming here with that expectation, then honestly their expectations should be adjusted. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This isn't the news, so there's no reason to exclude individuals based on popularity. We exclude individuals based on notability as established by wikipedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is getting into the same argument we just finished on the campaign page. Tarc, while I agree with you, we did figure this out recently, and to change it now would just re-incite the same tensions. Considering how the last debate went, Saturn is not going to budge on this, and frankly after the work that went into figuring out a compromise proposal I really don't think we need to reopen this debate now. Just my 2 cents here.Kessy628 (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

sharkey
The sharkey photo is invalid ; he is refusing to participate with Wikipedia, and the photo is invalid until it has the subject's permission. In regards to the "candidacy", I want to know how much of a campaign it makes for a person to run for 2 months by running a blog and filing paperwork twice with the FEC. Even with a handful of youtube videos, it is not a candidacy, and it certainly does not merit the attention that we are not paying to hundreds of other FEC filing candidates every election cycle.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 06:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Other candidates: Miller, Synder, Wuensche and the New Hampshire ballot
This page does not mention several candaidates running for the Republican nomination whom I have read about on other websites. For example, this web page http://2012.republican-candidates.org/ lists as candidates Tom Miller, Matt Snyder and Vern Wuensche. Also, according to this web page http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67115.html the New Hampshire ballot includes as Republican candidates Vern Wuensche (again), Mark Callahan, Hugh Cort, L. John Davis, Joe Story, Linden Swift, James A. Vestermark, Jeff Lawman, Joe Robinson, Keith Drummond, Randy Crow, Michael J. Meehan, Benjamin Linn, Christopher V. Hill, Stewart J. Greenleaf, Timothy Brewer, Kevin Rubash, and Bear Betzler.

None of the people I mentioned above appear to be listed as candidates on this Wikipedia article. The criteria for being listed as a candidate on this Wikipedia article, according to the article itself, is as follows: "The following notable individuals filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and/or announced their intentions to seek the 2012 presidential nomination of the Republican Party." Presumably that applies to the people listed above, so they should be mentioned in this article. Even the following Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Other_candidates_2 lists Stewart J. Greenleaf as a Republican candidate, using as a citation the web page listing the New Hampshire ballot which I linked to just now. Matthew Fennell (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I explained this to you here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

 * In G.O.P. Field, Broad View of Presidential Power Prevails by Charlie Savage published New York Times December 29, 2011. A version of this article appeared in print on December 30, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Mostly in Echo, Rivals Discuss Reach of Power.    99.109.125.85 (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that it's started...
I figger that this article should have some clean-up. Bachmann, Johnson and Cain are on the ballot in most of the early states, so I put them in the "withdrew during the primary season" as being on the ballot means the race has already started. Some of the silly candidates I listed as withdrawn, as for example, Mr. "The Rent is too damn high!!!!" didn't even bother to pay the grand to get on the ballot in New Hampshire and isn't listed anywhere else. Greenleaf said that he was only running in NH and nowhere else. So he's not a candidate anymore.Ericl (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You added a bunch of unsourced or poorly sourced material and reorganized the page unnecessarily. This has been reverted. If you believe a candidate withdrew, please provide a source.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought I did....for EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!!!Ericl (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

the upcoming edit war, (sigh)
Mr. Saturn thinks that State Sen. Greenleaf, who has stated he's not a candidate and was on the ballot ONLY in New Hampshire, where he only got 21 votes, should be listed as a major candidate, even though almost of the other fringe/joke candidates are NOT. I put a source proving that Greenleaf SAID he wasn't a candidate, which Mr. Saturn removed and I had to put back.

Now as to the other edits. The official primary race began when states began receiving fees and/or petitions from candidates. Herman Cain and Gary Johnson qualified for ballot space in most of the pre-Super Tuesday primaries, hence they dropped out DURING the primaries, not before, as was the case of Tim Pawlenty, who dropped out out of the Iowa straw poll, which is by some considered to be an actual primary. So let's leave it that way.Ericl (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not leaving anything as it was. You're changing the article to reflect your own POV that the primaries start before January. Moreover, you're saying that candidates have withdrawn without sourcing it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is your point of view any better? What about Greenleaf? If you read the article on the link he said he wasn't running. If he said he wasn't running, he wasn't even a candidate. He got only 21 votes in NH, and didn't even try to get on the ballot anywhere else. There were something like 35 other candidates on the GOP ballot in NH (and something like 12 in Arizona), and except for him, and Rohmer, none of the candidates not invited to the debates are mentioned. Why? Lack of space, that's why. We're talking about the gallery section, it should be compact. Most of the picture of people who were mentioned once or twice by local pundits should go anyway.Ericl (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that candidates with a wikipedia article should be listed, no others. Greenleaf was on the ballot in New Hampshire and filed with the FEC.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I tried to put him in the suspended/withdrawn section. He announced he was ONLY running in NH. After that, he suspended his candidacy. He announced he was going to do that before the primary. If you read the article, he was only going to campaign in NH then go home. He's no longer an active candidate. Bachmann and Cain are still technically running.Ericl (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is your source that he suspended his candidacy?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you read the article I made the link for, he stated it clearly that he was running only in NHEricl (talk)
 * And no, Bachmann and Cain are not running. It is verified that they are not.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, de facto, they're not. Everyone agrees with that. But they're still technically candidates. It's an important point, as they're still allowed to raise money and collect delegates. Paul Tsongas had suspended his campaign, but his supporters kept on campiagning, and he came in a close second in several primaries anyway (check the article on the '92 primaries). Paul Simon (not the singer), and Howard Dean WON primaries after they suspended their campaigns.(see the 1988 and 2004 Dem primary articles). They still received delegates, and these delegates went to the convention.Ericl (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Son of the Upcoming edit war
With the early primary season heating up (there's a February break), I've decided to try again to revise this page. While I think that Buddy Roemer should be treated with more respect, I have placed him among the minor candidates, as he has not been invited to any of the debates (as Gary Johnson was) and received less than a thousand votes in New Hampshire. I've consolidated "Withdrew before the primaries" and "withdrew during the primaries" as the debates had been going on for some time, and then there was the Iowa summer straw poll, in which Tim Pawlenty withdrew AFTER finishing below expectations. That was to some extent as much of a primary as the "real" Iowa Caucuses. Despite what Mr. Saturn says, these candidates do NOT have the same status as the major candidates. Ericl (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Cobert?
Did he officially enter any of the contests? — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 14:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, nor did he appear on any primary ballot.--JayJasper (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What he did was to revive Herman Cain's campaign briefly. He got around six thousand votes.Ericl (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Call for Consensus
Okay folks, as it's the consensus everywhere else on Wikipedia that Republican candidates be divided into major and minor candidates (those who are on the ballot everywhere and have been in debates and those who are on the ballot in one or just a few states and have been excluded from the debates) or treat them equally? I vote divide themEricl (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If we divide them, they should listed as "Major" and "other" candidates, as "minor" could be perceived as perjorative.--JayJasper (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can live with that...Ericl (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)