Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 2

Proposal for new formatting of Speculated candidates section
This is actually a revisiting of an idea that was suggested several months earlier by editor Ai.kefu that was apparently overlooked at the time, but which still merits consideration, IMO. Under the proposed change, the list of Speculated candidates would look either like this:

Advantages

 * The page would be more reader-friendly. There are presently 24 possible candidates listed. With the current setup, the reader has to scroll down 24 columns to see the complete list. Under the 4-per-line gallery format, there would be only 6 columns and only 8 in the 3-per-line format ( Personally, I lean toward the 3-per-line for a less cluttered look ). Of course that will increase if more names are added, but it will still be much easier than scrolling 24 columns.


 * The page would be more editor-friendly. Listing the candidates alphabetically would eliminate the need to move candidates around whenever new sources become available, and doing away with the mini-paragraph for each citation would make editing more "low-maintentence" and might encourage participation from good editors who may have an interest in editing the page but are possibly discouraged from doing so because of the "work" that is involved in editing the page under the current guidelines.
 * Also, instead of being limited to three footnotes per candidate, we could probably work in four of five without much clutter, and thus eliminate the need to always eliminate one citation when another becomes available. As Ai.kefu pointed out when he originally proposed the idea, readers can always click on the footnotes if they want to know what the sources say, so no need really for the mini-paragraphs.


 * The listing order would be consistent with that of the '12 election page and template.

I would suggest we use the single column-per-candidate format presently used with those who actually become candidates, or at least file for exploratory commitees, and used the proposed formatting only for the "speculated" list. So, fellow editors, what say you?--JayJasper (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * I believe it would be beneficial to use the four column photo choice. Staying in line with the 2008 election article, which used, and still uses this similar format to display candidates, or possible candidates in this case, I think the four column should be used in place of what is currently being used. Gage (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Change the format when people actually begin to form exploratory committees, etc. I still completely disagree with the inclusion of the absolutely no chance candidates (Ensign, Cheney, SANFORD, etc.), so there must be the explanatory comments. Reywas92 Talk 21:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If this new format includes the 2 source paragraphs it has now I would strongly support it. But I am strongly against doing away with the paragraphs.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer Jay's simplified version with references rather than paragraphs, using the 4 column choice per the reasons of GageSkidmore. However, I believe the current criteria (2 sources younger than 6 months and a separate section for the candidates whose sources expired) should remain in place. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Reywas92 here. Some of these people are definitely not going to run, and the current paragraph structure provides more explanation and justification than a simple gallery. A gallery, even with references, implies a level of equal likeliness that isn't justified by actual facts. -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with LtNOWIS. Ratemonth (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I maintain the simplified gallery version would be beneficial for readers and editors alike. Per GageSkidmore and William S. Saturn, we could go with the 4 column format and maintain the minimum 2 sources younger than 6 months rule. I can understand the objection to "no chance" candidates being included on equal footing with the obstensibly viable ones. I had earlier floated the idea of putting these candidates in the "expired" column with the explanation that there is a clear consensus among media sources that these persons are no longer considered potential candidates, as they once were. Perhaps we could revisit that idea. That being said, Jerzeykydd's idea about using the 2 source paragraphs within the new format should also be considered. If we decide to go that route, we should limit to 2 paragraphs instead of 3 for spacing purposes.--JayJasper (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I still stand by that it's too early for us to make assumptions whether or not Sanford, Cheney, or Ensign will run. They are being talked about in conjunction to 2012 and still should remain for that reasons.  They can be eliminate when they primary begins, when it's confirmed they will or will not run.  As for changing the layout.  I agree it will be much easier to read if it was simplified as described, but the paragraphs contain good information that explains why they are being listed.  I know it's more work, which is why I haven't updated in a while admittedly, but I feel it still is good way to gauge who is running.  If someone is being talking about or they talking about running this implies they will could or would be running.  If the discussion about them and 2012 ceases, it implies they are not likely to run without us specifically saying.  If we specifically say it then it's Original Work.  By saying that they haven't been talked about in 6 months is a great way to gauge the likelihood of them running without saying it and allows the read to make their opinions as they should because we wont know who is running until the parimaries.  The moving around based upon date of source is helpful is because if someone is being talked about more regularly than someone else this implies the greater likelihood of them running without saying it.  You'll notice it was assumed Gingrich wasn't gonna run because the news stopped discussing him.  One of articles pointed its funny when people stop talking about him he needs to through his name out there.  It was long after we took him down for that reason that low and be hold he says he thinking of running.  Romney, Pawlenty, Palin keep coming back for more pretty regularly, it pretty likely they will run.  Others like Daniels, Cheney, Giuliani had been talked about more regularly, but discussion is ceasing, they may not be running.  I just think this is system great because it's a legitimate of implying who is more likely to run without our right saying it.  It is too early to outright say who will run, all we can do is mentioned who is being discussed and express who is being talked about most. Thats my 2 cents --Diamond Dave (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave, I appreciate your concerns about Original research, but contend that we are not guilty of doing so by merely stating that there is a consensus about prominent media sources that Ensign and Sanford are no longer considered potential candidates for 2012. One merely needs to do Google News searches for John Ensign 2012 or Mark Sanford 2012 to see that this is the case. The news articles that surface more or less uniformly discuss their presidential propects in the past tense. By placing them in the "previously speculated", with the explanation suggested in my earlier comments in this thread, we are not definitively stating they will not run, but rather acknowledging an obvious consensus within the media.--JayJasper (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jasper. It's common sense: the sources only say that Ensign/Sanford were (in the past tense) potential candidates. For example, I can say that Alf Landon was once a presidential candidate (but obviously he can't run again because he's dead). It's only meaningful if the source says that someone is currently a presidential candidate.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider too that Wikipedia is a secondary or tertiary source of information, and its purpose is to reflect what is written or reported in reliable media sources. One would be hard pressed to find a prominent news publication or outlet - that is reasonably updated - that includes Ensign and Sanford on the same list with Romney, Palin, Pawlenty, Gingrich, et al. as potential 2012 candidates. Yet, we have them listed as such in this article and - for consistency - on the US election 2012 article and 2012 template. One could reasonably argue that that is a violation of WP:OR. The point, simply put: It is not original research or pov to state that Ensign and Sandford are considered (this is the key word) to be former potential candidates by a media consensus if we have the citations to support that statement, which we clearly do. So I maintain that we can simplify the format of the candidates section and solve the Ensign & Sandford problem by placing them in a "previous speculated" section with a disclaimer that the media no longer regards them as prospective candidates.


 * BTW, I now agree that the 4-per-column listing would be the best choice and I've revised it to be consistent with the captioning and wikilinking format used in the article:

--JayJasper (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am willing to concede that Ensign and Sanford can be taken down because discussion is clearly dying. The others are all still being discussed.  I like 4 column idea, however, that only seems like it would work after the people have actually announced their candidacy.  The 2 sources work, but how likely is someone to run, if they were discussed a year ago and no new discussion has arised.  The current format explains why they are here and gives a better representation of their likelihood of running without original work.  I know I heard it argued that this page could contain millions of people if we dont have specific criteria.  I remember a discussion a while back we agreed to remove all sources prior to the 2008 election.  Also, by having them listed in columns as described it kind of implies that these people are in fact running, when we have no evidence of that.  The paragraphs clarify the defintion of this section and go into further detail why they are listed and allow the reader to decide for themselves how likely they are to run.  I agree though the section is lengthy.  I would be for maybe adding requirement that each source but be less than 1 paragraph each.  Also, maybe we should keep it to a strict limit of sources. So no more and no less than 2 sources.  To expand that idea anyway we can make it a two column list with 2 sources one paragraph each and sorted by date.  I have no idea how to code it but as an example Romney and Thune are the 2 most recent.  So they would sit side by side with their sources to the right of each of them.  Maybe put their titles and names underneath their photos in the same column.  This is rough, but would look something like this.  This was rough coded and only the first 4, but should give you idea.  What do you think? --Diamond Dave (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts
 * March 22, 2010: The Associated Press reported that Romney "says he will make a decision on a 2012 [presidential] campaign after this fall's midterm elections."

March 30, 2010: The headline from an article by Robert Schmuhl in Politics Daily read: "Mitt Romney, Looking to 2012 but Running From the Past".


 * John Thune official photo.jpg Senator John Thune of South Dakota
 * March 20, 2010 : John Fund, writing in the Wall Street Journal, referred to Thune as a potential "Dark Horse for 2012"

March 30, 2010: Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post noted that recent events have triggered "the start of serious talk about Sen. John Thune's potential presidential campaign in 2012."
 * Gov. Sarah Palin in Dover cropped 2, NH.jpg Former Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska
 * February 24, 2010: Peter A. Brown commented in the Wall Street Journal: "A Washington Post/ABC News poll earlier this month found....37% of Republicans have a 'strongly favorable' view of [Palin], an indication of the strength she has with the GOP grass roots and her potential for being able to win the 2012 presidential nomination."
 * February 24, 2010: Peter A. Brown commented in the Wall Street Journal: "A Washington Post/ABC News poll earlier this month found....37% of Republicans have a 'strongly favorable' view of [Palin], an indication of the strength she has with the GOP grass roots and her potential for being able to win the 2012 presidential nomination."

March 29, 2010: Liz Halloran of NPR commented: "Republican politicos in Iowa and New Hampshire say that Palin could be the top GOP contender in those key early primary states in 2012."
 * Tim Pawlenty official photo.jpg Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota
 * March 15, 2010: John Yang of NBC described Pawlenty as "a potential 2012 presidential candidate eager to burnish his reputation as a get-tough-with-Democrats fiscal conservative."

March 25, 2010: Andrew Fone of FOX News commented: "Tim Pawlenty made his initial foray last December to the first-in-the-nation primary state. Thursday night he returned for a second time, fueling speculation that he'll run for president in 2012."


 * I actually like Diamond Dave's proposal. I support it.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I kinda like it too. If we can make the formatting a little tidier, which should be doable, I say let's do it.--JayJasper (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am also for the gallery idea, but I think we should the gallery for the candidates that speculation has ceased over 6 months ago. That way in effect it will becoming the formerly speculated candidates section when the primaries begin.  Then we can do a gallery for all candidates actually running.  --Diamond Dave (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. I support that idea.--JayJasper (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I know I agreed to removing Sanford and Ensign, but it would have been nice if someone moved them to the formerly speculated candidates category, instead of deleting them outright. --Diamond Dave (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You have a valid point. The proposal was to move them to the formerly speculated section. In the absence of a concensus for outright deletion, Ensign & Sanford have been moved to the aforementioned section.--JayJasper (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I support having a small gallery for the formerly speculated.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as there are no objections, I will give this a go this weekend. --Diamond Dave (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Map
The map within the infobox is showing how things would have worked out had the Ohio Plan been adopoted by the GOP - this isn't going to be the case. We should figure out some new map to put in its place before we get much closer to the actual voting. 141.217.197.227 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be in the infobox, but rather on the side of the article.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Herman Cain
i would recommend adding herman cain as a potential candidate. i have seen it mentioned in several places http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/91481-black-republican-radio-host-suggests-he-will-run-for-president —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

He can be added if you have 2 reputable sources that are both less than 6 months old. --Diamond Dave (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I found a second source and added him to the article. However, there is no photo for him. There was none on the Herman Cain article. Can someone more "wiki-savvy" than I am please find and add a pic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.119.245 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris Christie
Speculated in Salon.com, but seems premature at best, with no sources cited for a possible presidential run. Any other chatter about Christie (not to be confused with Charlie Crist) for president? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Marco Rubio
I don't have time, but if somebody want to check: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,26637,27403&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=%22Marco+Rubio%22+presidential+election+2012+&cp=40&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Marco+Rubio%22+presidential+election+2012+&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=eeb05746d54f919c I think have more that two sources and less that six months. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.191.217 (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeb Bush
He clearly needs an update, I tried to do it myself but I embarrassingly can't format it in the table for some reason. Here are some sources though that can be used:


 * 
 * 
 * 

Thanks - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 21:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Add Tom McClintock?
Just came across a couple site's that are saying that Representative Tom McClintock from California is being drafted for President. couple Links. They've been raising some money with their pac too.

http://www.drafttom.com http://redcounty.com/breaking-news-tom-mcclintockfor-president/40664 http://www.flashreport.org/blog0a.php?postID=2010060417245824&authID=2008012914170167 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevemacias (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Those appear to be blogs. If you can get articles from reputable sources by all means, please add him. --Diamond Dave (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

David Petraeus can't run
If you think about it, Petraeus can't run for president. Obama nominated him for a higher office, and if he succeeds both of them would take credit. In addition, Petraeus can't criticize the administration because he's not a civilian and that he's a part of the administration.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be best to put him in the Formerly column.--Polly Ticker (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 2012 is a long time away, and he can run since he is over 35, American born, and has been a resident for over 14 years. Whether or not he will run depends on what reliable sources say. In the past 6 months, reliable sources have speculated, therefore he must be included.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with William. While it seems unlikely Petraeus will run in '12 - in light of Jerzeykydd's reasoned arguments - he is not prohibited from doing so. There is always the possibility (though seemingly improbable) that he could resign from his present position and start a campaign. Let's let the 6-month/ 2-source rule run its course. He will likely drop from the "currently" section in late September, given his current listing status on the page and the developments Jerzeykydd referred to.--JayJasper (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this go into the argument I have been making all along. This article cannot be about people believed to be running, it's about people being talked about running in reputable sources.  If Petraeus being discussed in 2 reputable sources less than 6 months old, he should remain until sources talking about him running cease or when the primaries begin and he does not run.  Also, just because Obama appointed him doesn't mean can't run.  Hillary Clinton can't run then for that reason, however, she is being speculated as possibly considering it.  I believe Jon Huntsman should be considered as potential as well, however, he speculation has ceased for more than 6 months. --Diamond Dave (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Steele in 2012?
Politico is speculating that Steele, former Lt. Gov. of Maryland and current RNC chair (as of July 7, 2010), may be planning a run for the White House. Here's the reference: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39469.html 143.231.249.141 (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Two reliable sources are needed before anyone can be listed. If another credible source surfaces within the next six months, Steele can be added.--JayJasper (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, if you can find a reputable source that is over 6 months older, but newer than November 2008, Steele can be added to Previously Speculated Candidates section.--Diamond Dave (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cantor/Pence
Six months is the time frame. So when would Eric Cantor and Mike Pence be put into the previously speculated column?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If we're going by exact dates, it would the 12th of this month for Cantor and the 26th for Pence.--JayJasper (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Cain
For anyone interested, here is a free use photo of Cain. I would upload it myself, but the Flickr tool is not currently working.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fred Karger
Honestly? I know it's sourced and everything, but Karger's not a serious candidate - not only has he never held office, but he doesn't even have any bit of a national profile, except among Washington insiders. He's not a media personality. He's not a billionaire Fortune 500 businessman. There's no reason to mention him. It'd be as if Nancy-Ann DeParle decided to mount a primary challenge to President Obama, and you decided to include her in a list of potential 2012 challengers. 217.35.89.71 (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is not about serious candidate. This article is strictly about names that are being mentioned in conjunction to the 2012 primary.  It is too soon to name candidates that will seriously run.  That won't come until closer to the primaries.  These are just names that are being mentioned.  If Karger will not run, he will eventually be moved to the category of previously speculated candidates. --Diamond Dave (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * He has been cited in reliable sources as having formed an exploratory committee. So he meets the article's criteria.--JayJasper (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Jindal
Why is Bobby Jindal in the formerly speculated category? His sources weren't expired.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, they were. You need 2 sources that are less than 6 months old. The older of his 2 sources was dated February 16, which if you do the math, is over six months.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawal of Gabriel A. Jimenez
I'm not sure enough of myself technically, to edit an article like this, but Gabriel A. Jimenez has withdrawn from the race.

http://jimenezforpresident2012.wordpress.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.253.51 (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

ABC News quote
There is a quote that appears next to multiple potential candidates that says "ABC News reported 'Democrats Ask Pentagon for Info on Potential Obama Challengers.... The nine Republicans that Democrats are seeking information on are former Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska; former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.; Gov. Haley Barbour, R-Miss.; Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn.; former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.; Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.; Gov. Mitch Daniels, R-Ind.; Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La.'"

Having this long list repeated in full for each of the nine people is kind of tiresome. Is there anything that can or should be done to edit it? Or should we just wait and see if this quote "ages out" because soon some or all of these people will have more recent articles identifying them as potential candidates, and this ABC News quote will be bypassed? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the "wait and let it age it out" option. At the rate these people are getting new citations about 2012 (almost daily, it seems like), that shouldn't take very long at all.--Rollins83 (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

More Candidates?
With the recent mid term election there was been rumors of several new Senators and Governors to run such as Senator-Elect Rob Portman and Governor-Elect John Kasich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.130.69 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can find two reliable sources (that are less than 6 mo. old) that discuss the possibility of these individuals running for president in 2012, then feel free to add them.--JayJasper (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The 6 months rule
It seems to me that there are a few different categories of candidate:


 * The main group of candidates, that is, those who have all but launched their campaign and are simply waiting until early 2011 - Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, John Thune and Gary Johnson
 * The ones who will consider a run in early 2011 and maybe half of these will give it a shot - Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, John Bolton, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich
 * The ones who are never clear about their intentions - Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence, Rick Perry and Jeb Bush
 * The ones who aren't running (this time) but for whatever reason journalists like to speculate - Ron Paul, Chris Christie, Jim DeMint, Bob McDonnell, and indeed the rest of the candidates featured on the Current section of the article page.

As referred to in other questions/answers, the serious candidates are written about daily. So I was thinking, perhaps we could shorten the amount of time for references about Presidential speculation. If it was shortened to, say, three months, admittedly, only Jeb Bush would be removed from the Current list, but in a couple of months, people like Jim DeMint, who were speculated about twice in a week or so, but not before or since, will gradually leave the top list of candidates. What do people think? SE7 T alk/C ontribs 03:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The 6 month rule seems to be working fine. I would oppose any new plan unless there are some serious flaws in the current plan. Additionally, we may hope to prevent any confusion the implementation of a new rule would cause for the IPs and others who generally respect and understand the 6 month rule.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the 6 month rule has worked very well thus far and see no point in tinkering with it now. Simply put, "if ain't broke, don't fix it".--Polly Ticker (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A "six month rule" makes much more sense before the midterms than it does after. It's too long a window when you consider that the campaign is about to begin. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The 6 month rule is working as candidates being actively campaigning we will see 6 month rule come into effect. As more and more actually announce themselves, others will be less and less discussed.  A few new comers may join the fray, but essentially there will be 2 more 6 month periods before the primaries.  The first period January to June, will see many on the current list stay and go, and some newcomers come into play.  June through December, some will stay, some will go, I doubt any newcomers will be coming, small possibility.  I wouldn't be opposed to lowering to 3 months.  --Diamond Dave (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Phil Davison
I have found a few sources speculating that Phil Davison is running for President in 2012. Additionally, I found a campaign website started by supporters.


 * 
 * 
 * 

Should we include him on this list?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in the PBS citation that mentions the possibility of him running for president in 2012. The Vanity Fair article makes a seemingly tongue-in-cheek suggestion, at the end of the article (which otherwise makes no mention of Davison) about him being a vice presidential candidate. The Gawker citation clearly expresses the idea of him running for president, but in a satirical manner. Based on these particular sources, I would say no to including him. However, given the surprisingly vast amount of media attention he seems to be getting and the enourmous amount of ambition the man obviously possesses, perhaps we should keep him on the radar screen and be on the lookout for better citations. Quite honestly, it seems like a bit of a longshot (to me anyway) that he'll make the list, but then Joe Arpaio seemed to have come out of nowhere.....so you never know.--JayJasper (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the correct PBS link. How should we interpret satire when it comes to this?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that is a credible citation. Only one more is needed. I would rule out the Vanity Fair article because it does not specifically refer to him as a potential presidential candidate. The Gawker post, on the other hand, just might pass the muster. After a second look, it dosen't strike me as being blantantly satirical as it did upon the first reading. Of course, Gawker is a blog, although it appears to be a "credible" one like The Huffington Post and Instapundit, so it probably meets WP:RS standards, particularly as a source of "speculation". And the line "Can Davison unseat Barack Obama in 2012? Probably" is definitely a money quote. So if you decide to take the bold move of adding Davison with those two citations, I have no objection and will not revert it. I do, however, recommend getting more feedback from other editors before doing so.--JayJasper (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose this. It seems like a joke to me.  This guy is the definition of WP:BLP1E. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Two sources in the past six months is the criteria for inclusion on this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty weak and vague criterion. Again, I think that PBS source is purely tongue in cheek. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No it's a very strong and clear criterion that has worked extremely well for the past year or so.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As the election draws near (and the first Republican debate is being set for six months from now), that six month window will be too big. Also, random pundits can claim anyone is a potential candidate for president without having anything more than pure speculation behind it, which makes it meaningless.  Soon enough you'll need to look to their actions.  Trips to IA and NH, PAC's, and then exploratory committees are far more meaningful. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That has been determined to be OR, which is not allowed unless covered in a reliable source as a visit pertaining to a potential presidential run. Your point about random pundits has been solved by the two sources minimum.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Points taken. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that, technically, he does have two credible sources, but where does it end? The internet was also full of stories about the obviously troubled man who ran as the Dem candidate in South Carolina, Alvin Greene, wanting to run for the Republican nomination in 2012! So on balance, I think we should wait until Davison starts touring Iowa or something, otherwise it's a slippery slope that leads us to including obvious no-hopers. SE7 T alk/C ontribs 01:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The "no-hopers" is my concern here. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Let's please avoid obvious joke candidates. Reywas92 Talk 03:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Please discuss the issue at hand. What is a joke? What is not a joke? We can't just exclude some individuals because we hold the opinion that they are a "joke". To SE7, the issue of touring Iowa has already been dealt with, it's original research and has no place here unless it is documented in a source as relating to a presidential run. I don't know what the definition is of "no-hopers" but it sounds like original research and should not take away from the fact of speculation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The context of the inclusion criteria refers to "prominent public figures" of which Phil Davison is not. If we need to change "list of individuals" to "list of prominent individuals" to make this crystal clear, then I am OK with it. As usual, community consensus determines who is "prominent" via the notability guidelines and the Afd process, so there is nothing OR about this. In my opinion, Jon Greenspon should be removed from the "Declared candidates" section for the same reason. Location (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything about prominence in the criteria for this page. Perhaps I missed it. As far as I know, for the purposes of this page, two sources in the last six months is the threshold for prominence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you missed it. Re-read the sentence before the "two sources" sentence. Location (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I see now. In this case, prominence should be determined by two reliable sources in the past 6 months.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the inclusion of "prominent public figures" (of which Phil Davison is not) is determined by discussion in two reliable over the past six months. Location (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone is prominent or not because you say so? This is not a constructive mindset.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to re-read the beginning of this thread: "As usual, community consensus determines who is 'prominent' via the notability guidelines and the Afd process." Location (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The PBS link is a serious and perfectly acceptable citation; if another is found, he should be added, regardless of how little chance he has of actually winning the nomination Tiller54 (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the PBS link is an acceptable source. I am not sure about the other two. The VF link dosen't seem to be serious at all. And, as mentioned above, dosen't talk about Davison possibly running for President. The Gawker link seems iffy, it dosen't appear to be serious but it's hard to tell. I agree with Tiller54 that another source needs to be found that is not so ambiguous in its sincerity before Davison should be added.--Rollins83 (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Gawker is definitely not a reliable source. It's a blog that pokes fun.  They're the ones that ran with that "I had a one-night stand with Christine O'Donnell (even though we didn't have sex)" story. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently looking for another source to go with the PBS source.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Vanity Fair source is almost certainly tongue in cheek, and I don't think the Gawker link qualifies as a "reputable source". I'll have a look to see if I can find another source as well Tiller54 (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the PBS link is good, but the Gawker link is not reputable enough.  If another more reputable source comes along, I think he should be added. --Diamond Dave (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal
Bobby Jindal now says he won't run. Why hasn't he been removed? Stonemason89 (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's my question. I removed him, but I got the standard two-idiot-pudits-speculating-and-he's-on-here-no-matter-what BS. Other people who have denied they're running are here because apparently politicians change their minds, but this is the time that candidates form committees, not lie about their intentions. Jindal said "I'm not being coy at all. I'm not running for president in 2012. Period. No ifs, ands or buts, no caveats. We have made great progress in Louisiana, but we've got a lot more work to do." This isn't another nebulous politician; he gave a clear Shermanesque statement and should be removed from the list. Reywas92 Talk 19:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a point. It seems the time has come to revisit the policy about potential candidates who make Shermanesque statements, especially this close to the campaign season. At one point, we had a separate section for such "candidates". That didn't seem to stick for some reason, but it seems a good time to consider reinstating that policy, or coming up with a better one.--JayJasper (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Any pundit can throw out any name.  The idea that Dick Cheney's name was ever thrown around is just absurd.  I tried suggesting earlier that there had to be some signs that the candidate was considering a run, like operating a PAC, frequently donating to and endorsing candidates, traveling to the early primary states, writing a book, etc., which pundits could then interpret as candidacy behaviors, rather than just saying "Oh these guys could run". --Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "that there had to be some signs that the candidate was considering a run" Unfortunately that would be original research. I am not opposed to a separate section for speculated candidates that make a Shermanesque statement, but we need a clear definition of what a Shermanesque statement is.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, with William.--JayJasper (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think flat out denials at this point should be pretty close to Shermanesque. At this point in the game, the season is about to start. Actual candidates wont be denying now because thats idiotic. "Governor, you just said three months ago..." I think we can take Jindals and Christies statements and also look at their context: youth and time in office to say they arent running. Also, I think if we get two denials, that should counter two pundit suggestions.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't there some original research in adding some pundit's speculation about candidates intentions? It's their OR that we're regurgitating. If we set up some criteria, like the ones I suggested, and list them as such on the page, then it's objective. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I definitely think a new section for those who are speculated about but who have publicly denied any interest in running is necessary. The candidates who could immediately be put there: Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Jim DeMint, Chris Christie and Rick Perry are enough in number to warrant such a section. SE7 T alk/C ontribs 15:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I reiterate my earlier suggestion of reinstating a separate section for such individuals. A good standard for such a section would be to include only those who have made Shermanesque statements after the mid-term elections, since it is generally agreed upon by pundits and political observers that the ending of the mid-terms signals the unofficial beginning of campaign season for the next presidential election. We could have an intro sentence which says something like "The following individuals are, or have been, the subject of recent media speculation as potential candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, who - following the 2010 mid-term election - have made definitive and unequivocal statements declaring that they will not seek the presidency in 2012". That way, we acknowledge the speculation (still ongoing in some cases) as well as the Shermanesque statement, and leave it to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.--JayJasper (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to agree as well. That is only because it seems more and more people are actually stating they will run.  Sarah Palin has and a few others.  I would consider taking down anyone GOING FORWARD that makes an absolutely clear Shermanesque response.  Next year is the start of the campaigns for the primaries, so it's unlikely that anyone will bow out now and then just show up at the primaries.  --Diamond Dave (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Updating the calendar section
I am going to take a run at rewriting the calendar section. As the Ohio plan and the 2008 RNC calendar are no longer in effect, it is misleading to lead with those and particularly so to have a picture of the Ohio plan which the casual reader could easily construe as reflecting what will actually happen. I also think we should add the dates of the Nevada caucus, the Ames straw poll and the debates that have been scheduled. - Pictureprovince (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

David Duke
David Duke should be added to this list. He is running or considering running. See his wikipedia page which has sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke Wanting to have him on this page is not an attempt to slander the Republican Party. He is a notable person who is running. Not only that, he is a former office holder, LA state rep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.254.154 (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the sources on Duke's page are either self-published or do not meet WP:RS standards, at least for the purposes of this article. If two independent reliable sources can be found that are less than 6 months old, than Duke can be added.--Rollins83 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom Coburn
I've found 1 link within six months: http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/x1742862256/Sen-Coburn-for-president And 1 older link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/lists/gop_dark_horses/tom_coburn.html?state=stop And will see if I can find a second recent link later Tiller54 (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Move Jimmy McMillan to declared candidates
There are 4 sources stating that he has announced that he will be running, not just speculation. Therefore, I think he ought to be moved up to declared candidates/ 99.174.92.174 (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I have (had, until someone removed him again) him listed under "prospective" is because McMillan hasn't officially filed with the FEC. Considering McMillan NEVER files with the FEC because he spends so little on his campaigns, I would tend to agree with you that, because he's made a public statement, he is officially "in" the race. However, the standard on the page is the one that's set, so until (unless) he's filed with the FEC he'll have to be listed under "prospective."J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way... I don't appreciate the removal. Yes, the word of McMillan's candidacy is from himself, but I am following WP:RS here with multiple references to legitimate news coverage for all of McMillan's declarations. He should be included.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that he should be listed as a declared candidate. Given that a candidate is not required to file a disclosure report until having raised a minimum of $5,000 in campaign contributions, the standard for inclusion should be revised to "filed with the FEC and/or has had declaration of candidacy verified by a minimum of 2 reliable media sources". That's my take.--JayJasper (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)