Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 4

Another Straw Poll
Fred Karger won the St. Anselm College Republicans straw poll in New Hampshire. As this potential source points out, his campaign is specifically targeting college students, a demographic among which he appears to be quite popular. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

George Pataki
Pataki needs to be added back to prospective candidates according to recent news sources. This article says he's "mulling a bid": http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52645.html This article does as well: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/private_politics_IPOeFNGEGClh7zpEhRoUnM?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

✅--JayJasper (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Alabama flavor
A recent source mentioning Riley, Moore, And that crazy Dale Peterson guy as potential candidates: http://blog.al.com/archiblog/2011/03/roy_moore_dale_peterson_add_nu.html Peterson again: http://blog.al.com/live/2011/02/dale_peterson_internet_sensati.html Yet another source listing Riley as a potential candidate:

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/rick-santorum-launches-presidential-exploratory-bid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Rand Paul still considering bid?
Most sources such as this one have claimed that Rand Paul would make a 2012 bid if his father, Ron Paul, wasn't going to, but Ron Paul is listed as Formed an Exploratory Committee. It seems very unlikely that he will challenge his father for the nomination, so should he be moved to Denied Interest of Previously Reported? --User:Redstate1995 (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Probability is not a substitute for reliable sourcing.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's possible that Ron Paul could still decide not to run, causing Rand Paul to run. If Ron Paul announces he is running then I think we can move Rand Paul down.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad (talk • contribs) 14:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is too soon to move Rand Paul down. The article saying he filed for reelection also very clearly says he is considering the prez race, even the article that says Ron Paul formed a "testing the waters" ctte. says he won't make a final decision until May and that Rand may still run. Both Paul's are still "prespective candidates" at this point! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

These are the last two paragraphs of the Politico article cited as he source for Rand Paul:

Since arriving in Washington, Paul has not shied from media attention and has flirted with a presidential bid, saying that if his father decides to run for president in 2012, he won't. The elder Paul has launched a “testing the waters” account to begin raising money toward a presidential bid and has said he will make a final decision on whether to run in May.

But even after the younger Paul filed for reelection last month, he’s shown signs of looking toward the White House. Just as his reelection papers were filed, he visited with Republicans in the key primary state of South Carolina and, two weeks ago, he met with top Iowa Republicans.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53404.html#ixzz1KAtnacgd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Pataki is not running
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53508.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.198.99 (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul has NOT formed a formal exploratory committee. Fred Karger has NOT announced, he ONLY has an exploratory committee.
Source for statement one: Paul's political aide Jesse Benton confirmed Thursday that a so-called "testing the waters" account has been created for the potential candidate. The organization is not a full exploratory committee, but money from the account could be transferred into a campaign war chest should Paul officially choose to enter the fray.

from the Hill http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/156039-ron-paul-forms-testing-the-waters-account

The source for statement two is the actual link linked in this article, read it. It says he was the "second candidate" but they're using a liberal definition for candidate, it makes clear he has only created an exploratory committee.


 * The article does not state that Paul formed an exploratory committee, but rather specifically says he "announced the formation of a 'Testing-the-waters' account." Note in the heading for that section, it says that those listed have formed an exploratory committee or other similarly purposed organization, which is what a "testing the waters" account is (the same applies to Newt Gingrich).
 * As for Karger, you're obviously looking at the first three citations which confirm that he formed an exploratory committee in 2010. The last two citations -, - confirm that he made his candidacy official in March of 2011. (Here's a few other sources - ,  - as well as his FEC filing report that confirm it as well).--JayJasper (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Every candidate listed in that section has a formal exploratory committee except one, Ron Paul. He should not be included with the others. Wikipedia should recognize some new informal stage just for the sake of Ron Paul fanboys who want him to be more prominent.

New Gingrich most certain has a formal exploratory committee, that's why he's website is called Newt Explore 2012.

As to Karger, those articles you provided say he announced his candidacy but they are in fact from the exact same day that he formed his exploratory committee. Obviously the articles are referring to that event, not the event of a formal declaration of candidacy (which hasn't happened). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.74.188 (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Come again? The same day he formed exploratory committee? The links Jayjasper provided are from March 2011. Karger formed the committe several months before that, as the first sentence clearly says he did so in August 2010. The second sentence goes on to say he then filed papers and officially declared his candidacy on March 23, 2011. You mention "an actual link in the article" which "makes clear he has only created an exploratory committee". The only one that says that is this one: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/fred-karger-the-gay-rights-bogeyman-of-the-gop-presidential-race/61279/ and it is dated August 11, 2010, about 7 months prior to the official announcement in March 2011, and it is linked as a source for the first sentence which says he started the committee in August. You can also go through the edit history and see earlier versions of the article and see for yourself that Karger was listed as far back as mid-August of last year (with sources) as having formed an exploratory committee, before being moved to the Declared list in March when he made the candidacy official. He is indeed a declared candidate.

Also, Newt Gingrich does NOT yet have a formal exploratory committee. See http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpps/news/gingrich-admits-confusion-over-2012-dpgonc-20110307-gc_12210573# (2nd and 4th-to-last paragraph),  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53476.html (3rd paragraph),   and http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/03/gingrich-dips-toe-in-2012-waterswith-a-website/ (2nd paragraph). That's why it says in the "2012 presidential candidacy" of the Newt Gingrich article "Gingrich officially announced that he had created a website entitled "Newt Exploratory 2012" in lieu of a formal exploratory committee for exploration of a potential presidential run".--216.12.35.52 (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a more articulate response than the one I previously made. I've pruned the wording of Karger's entry to make it more concise. It was rather verbose, and maybe a little confusing, in previous form.--JayJasper (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We use this to determine who actually has opened an exploratory committee. Yes, Karger is listed, but Gingrich and Paul are not; however, they are listed on this wikipedia page because both made announcements that they were moving toward seeking the presidency.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

New Format
The new format looks nice, but I think it is too big, the old size was better. I think the cells should be shrunk back down. Also, I think the phrase "Candidates believed possible" isn't the right one to use. I'd change it to "Candidates Speculated About" Thunderstone99 (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thunderstone99, thanks for the feedback. I went ahead and restored the 100px sizing, from the 140px I'd blown the pix up to. For the "Current Spec" table, How does "Speculated to run" sound for its heading?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds better. Thunderstone99 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thad McCotter
Should he even be included in the Prospective Candidates Section. I mean, both sources Here and here don't give an indication that he is looking at running, just either that he should be President or when he was listed as a Dark Horse Candidate, (Along with other Politicians who've already dismissed running). Neither article gives an indication that he wants to run. Can't we move him to Previously Speculated, since he hasn't shown an interest in running? --User:Redstate1995 (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This source states that he has not announced reelection plans for his house seat yet, and describes him as coy and not dismissing the idea of a prez run: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/05/riding_fox_news_bump_livonias.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That source has been added to his listing on the page.--I.C. Rivers (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A more up to date mccotter mention:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/may/9/picket-mccotter-president/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for that link. I used to update him in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NextUSprez (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Current candidates
Should we have a specific criteria to make the list of candidates? Currently we seem to allow anyone who says they are running onto the list. Such a rules would not have to become effective right away, maybe after the first debate. Would it make sense to limit this to something like:

Any candidate who: A) Files with the FEC, OR B) Says they are running AND A) Registers at 1% in any poll, OR B) Holds or has held high office or has held a significant non political position, OR C) Appears on the ballot in at least two states, OR D) Appears in a televised debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I vote yes also. Those are very reasonable terms.  If we don't limit it, we're going to have a mess of an article with a bunch of irrelevant fourth and fifth tier names cluttering up the page. --Ai.kefu (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have a specific criteria: FEC filing or formal declaration; Wikipedia article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Should the criteria be amended?AWatiker (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I vote for the terms you proposed above.--Ai.kefu (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand that there is a lot of perennial candidates (or candidates that dont run to get nominated but run to make a point in their local communities). I am not american, so could someone explain why Andy Martin, Jimmy McMillan and Jonathon Sharkley are the only ones that are on the list. I dont understand what that set them aside from all the other perennial candidates???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Bornholm (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All candidates notable by wikipedia standards are included in this article. See WP:N.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

88 Candidates
According to an article cited by this entry 88 candidates are running, not all of them are likely notable enough for inclusion. We really need a criteria to determine notability of these candidates.AWatiker (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If a candidate has a wikipedia page then they are included. Notability is ultimately decided by WP:AFD.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as a bad idea, there are better ways to do decide who is notable in the context of this election. For example, only candidates who have active stock on intrade could be listed in the main "candidates" section, or only candidates who have polled at least 1% in any national poll.141.158.38.11 (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry
I know he has said he is not running, but what is the threshold for ignoring that, considering he seems to be getting buzz again. real clear politics, cnn, and political wire all have mentions of him in the past week as a possible candidate:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/18/perrys_actions_suggest_a_serious_look_at_2012.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/17/rick_perry_presidential_push_quietly_gains_steam_109894-2.html http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/05/17/perry_quietly_feels_out_presidential_bid.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/17/perry-performance-fuels-talk-of-2012-draft/ http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/17/new-2012-buzz-rick-perry-thinking-of-jumping-in/ http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/gov-rick-perry-for-president/

Not sure what the "threshold for ignoring" is, I don't know if there was ever a discussion of such, but I think that once a potential candidate makes a shermanesque statement and is moved to "declined" section, they should stay there unless the candidate himself indicates a willingness to re-consider the decision not to run. So unless Perry himself says or strongly hints that he might re-think the possibility of a making a presidential bid in 2012, I think he should remain where he is. That's my thought. Other thoughts or ideas, anyone?--Rollins83 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking similarly, but I also understand the argument that with the generally uninspiring Republican field, people who earlier said no or haven't been talked about might emerge. I'd keep an eye on it and wait for something more direct (as in, from the candidate or candidate's surrogates). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree w/ Rollins & Muboshgu. I don't recall there being a discussion about "when do we move someone from declined to prospective", but several months ago, we discussed when to move a candidate from prospective to declined. The consensus we reached was that we would use the mid-term elections as a benchmark: prior to mid-term, when someone dubbed by the media as a potenital candidate denied any interest or intention of running - but speculation continued - we would err on the side of the speculation and keep them listed as a prospect. Following the mid-terms, we would err on the side on the (so-called) candidate's own words if they then flatly denied intentions of running, and list them as declined. To be consistent with the present standard, it would be best to keep those listed as declined in that section until they themselves (either directly or via a spokesperson) give an indication that they are reconsidering their earlier decision to stay out of the race.--JayJasper (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well put. I agree with Jay.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Good call, as Perry camp's most recent on-record Shermanism is here!--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This most recent article describes Perry as considering a run. It is decidedly NOT shermanesque, and it quotes a senior advisor of Perry's as conceding a run is possible: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/texas-governor-wont-rule-out-2012-run/

Perry said on Fox news he is "tempted" to enter the race. He is getting way to much buzz right now not to be added back to the list of potential candidates, and he is clearly backing off his "i am not running" statements from earlier: http://gop12.thehill.com/2011/05/rick-perry-tempted-to-run.html


 * Found 2 sources that say he is considering jumping into the race, so I moved from declined to prospective candidates.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Congressman Peter King Considering Bid
Please add Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to list of potential candidates.

www.theatlanticwire.com%2Fpolitics%2F2011%2F05%2Fpeter-king-doesnt-rule-out-presidential-run%2F37873%2F&ei=vRDUTaLQK8Th0QGJvtXjCw&usg=AFQjCNG7uoRyZ5RvBiLMda740xJSON_vpA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jro660 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

✅--JayJasper (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There are articles less than a month old that still speculate on King as a candidate--with the caveat that he only considers it if Rudy takes a pass. I will post the links if anyone thinks they would care to add him back... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themostcasualobserver (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Olympia Snowe
Olympia Snowe is also said to be one of the possible candidates for the Republican party. She is the senior United States Senator from Maine and a member of the Republican Party. Snowe has become widely known for her ability to influence the outcome of close votes, including whether to end filibusters. Senator Olympia Snowe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Said by who?Ratemonth (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Jim DeMint
DeMint is now saying he is thinking about it, sort in the Rick Perry mode based on what I've read:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/164095-sen-demint-mulls-2012-bid-for-the-white-house — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/newt-gingrich-assessing-the-damage-done/2011/05/31/AGeVoBGH_blog.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Pataki re-considering a bid
Geez, no sooner does Rick Perry re-emerge from the declined-to-run column back to the potential candidate section, then it's reported that George Pataki is also re-thinking his earlier decision not to run:

http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-24/news/29580796_1_york-governor-george-pataki-congressional-candidate-budget-plan http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20066105-503544.html

So, who's next?--Rollins83 (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Fringe candidates
I think we should re-examine whether to include fringe candidates in the list (or actually implement the suggestion that only candidates with at least 1% support in an opinion poll be included - see above). Including them detracts from those that are widely reported in reliable sources as running.

There are plenty of reliable sources that have 'comprehensive' lists of declared candidates that don't include Karger and especially McMillan. They aren't invited to debates and they aren't included in polls (although CNN/Opinion Research includes Karger: and noted that he received no votes). There are lots of sources that say Gary Johnson was the 'first to formally declare' (ie ignoring Karger, McMillan, and the other fringe candidates).

So as much as it pains me to say that McMillan shouldn't be included as a declared candidate, I don't think he should. The case is less strong to remove Karger, because his candidacy does receive at least some ongoing coverage, but I think it should be considered. Either fringe candidates should be deleted or they should be removed from the 'gallery' section and included, say, as a list below it. Bastin 19:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why? They have a wikipedia article and are not taking up too much space. I don't see an issue here. This just shows that wikipedia is more accurate and consistent than the mainstream media. You know the main difference between wikipedia and the mainstream media? NPOV.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policy of NPOV is based on providing for verifiability by citing reliable sources. The 'mainstream media' are reliable sources, whether you like it or not. So if they don't mention Andy Martin - or make statements (as they do) that imply that Jimmy McMillan is not in the race - then we shouldn't mention them.  That's Wikipedia's NPOV. Bastin 22:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Silence in no way "implies" anything. If the candidates were not notable they would not have wikipedia articles. Plus, these articles are not based on the mainstream media but rather reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say silence. I said that there are a great many sources that say that Gary Johnson was the first candidate to officially declare.  That means that those sources do not consider McMillan, Karger, or Martin to be in the race.  There is a problem if Wikipedia presents them as candidates when newspapers don't.
 * The issue is not notability. It's whether the majority of reliable sources treat them as candidates in this election on the same basis as Paul, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Johnson, and Cain.  If they do, they ought to be included.  But they don't, so we have to address that to preserve NPOV. Bastin 23:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That just means the sources calling Johnson the first candidate to officially declare probably aren't unaware of the existence of McMillan, Karger, or Martin. That's not the same thing as being aware of their existence and not considering them to be candidates. A fringe candidate is, by definition, not going to get noticed much, including by the media. But just being a fringe candidate does not make them non-candidates.Ratemonth (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say they weren't candidates. Did I not suggest above that they be made less prominent than people that are universally recognised as running?  You are somewhat assuming that newspapers' political correspondents haven't heard of Fred Karger or Jimmy McMillan - which is highly unlikely.  The odds are that they have heard of them but that they don't deserve recognition as candidates, as they'll make no impact on the race.  But, of course, that'd just be speculation as much as yours is.  If reliable sources do not rank them alongside major candidates, then Wikipedia shouldn't, either.  Clearly, McMillan and Martin fall into that category. Bastin 23:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * However, reliable sources such as the FEC, do rank them alongside "major" candidates. Are you proposing we simply follow the mainstream media and discount other reliable sources? What it comes down to is very simple, if these candidates are not notable and should not be listed, then why do they have an article on wikipedia? If you claim that are notable for other things, then you are also wrong because anyone can run for office in the United States, there is no political professional class.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The FEC is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Wikipedia has a policy of not allowing original research, which means to be reliable, a reference should usually be to a third-party secondary or tertiary sources.  The FEC is a primary source.  To be usable, data from primary sources should be presented in the same way that secondary sources choose to present the same data ("Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.").  Secondary sources choose to demote minor candidates - which means Wikipedia should, too. Bastin 00:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of this article, the FEC is a third-party source (look at the first sentence in the article linked). Additionally, primary sources (which the FEC may be otherwise) are very much reliable and may be used as long as there is no synthesis: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge will be able to verify are supported by the source". It seems your disagreement here stems from a misunderstanding of policy. I'm glad we cleared that up.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, labeling a candidate, "fringe" or otherwise without a reliable source, is original research.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you're the one that's got policy incorrect. The fact that it's independent of political parties does not mean it's not a primary source.
 * You've arbitrarily chosen these candidates to be the ones you're promoting. But there are 138 people that have filed for candidacy, most of whom are Republicans.  So this article does not use the FEC in the correct way: it picks and chooses which candidates it likes.  Which, of course, is appropriate, but the question is which to pick and choose.  Hence me raising the issue.
 * Furthermore, after distorting policy, you've managed to distort my proposal. I didn't ask to label them as fringe candidates.  I suggested moving them to a list below the gallery of significant candidates (ie those whose candidacies are backed up by a significant corpus of retrospective news articles that claim to include authoritative lists, not just by a single headline in a local newspaper when they announce).  Alternatively or additionally, we could create a new article of all the Republicans in that list of 138 candidates. Bastin 10:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The candidates are not "arbitrarily chosen", that is what you are proposing. The candidates are chosen based on notability from the list independent of the candidates. Discussion cannot continue unless you realize your error in interpretation of policy. Despite your assertion, primary sources can be used on wikipedia. However, for the purposes of this article, primary sources encompass the websites of the candidates themselves since that is the subject.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course they're currently arbitrarily chosen. You've excluded dozens of formally filed candidates - including some that have Wikipedia articles.  The great majority or reliable sources that claim to list all the candidates in the race do not list Martin or McMillan.  That is evidence that those candidates should be given greater prominence than candidates that are not mentioned even in references that claim to be comprehensive.  Your suggestion that candidates' websites can be used to verify their own candidacies is an indication of how hopelessly little grasp you have on the policy. Bastin 22:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not excluded any candidates, notability has. The only candidate missing from this page that has a wikipedia article is Sharkey, but he should be listed. No, I never made such a claim about candidate websites. I said that for this article, the candidate websites would be considered primary sources, however, they are not being used in this article for verification. Unfortunately, I can't go into your mind and help you understand guidelines, so if you continue to "not hear it", discussion cannot continue.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I did point out that several candidates that have Wikipedia articles have formally filed and are left off the list. You're just too lazy to read what I write.  But because no reliable sources have covered their candidacies (or are still only reporting them as being at the exploratory stage, they can't be included.  That's the policy that you're trampling on in a very selective manner. Bastin 19:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a list of names?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Karger actually gets a modest amount of "mainstream press" as a novelty if nothing else. He's been in Huffington in the past week and he went overseas and was covered there by the BBC and others


 * Which is why I said that the line could plausibly be drawn between notable candidate (ie someone whose candidacy is notable) and novelty candidate after Karger. It's certainly before McMillan.  Unless, that is, a news outlet provides us with a list of candidates that includes his name. Bastin 19:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry et al goose to Huckabee gander...?
What's good for the man in the Austin governor's mansion in the Lonestar State and others oughtta be good as well for the man in his reasonably comfortable bungalow on Blue Mountain Beach in the Palmetto State, no?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think the "declined bids" section was created too early. Regardless of what they say, politicians are never clear when it comes to presidential ambitions.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's never too early to categorize Shermanesque statements. I get a read on Huckabee that he might go for it in 2016. As for Perry, he did decline, but the weakness of the field might tempt him to change his mind. That doesn't mean he hasn't declined. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I moved Huckabee up to prospective candidates.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Observation
I think the prospective section will soon need to be renamed along the lines of "Possible late candidacy"--with mention made, and sourced, of whether or not s/he'd "shermaned" during the more traditional campaign launching season.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Fringe Candidates
I and several other people feel that candidates who have failed to poll over 1% should be removed from the active candidacy section. If you'd like to improve this article please vote on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.38.11 (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I vote no. I think it's way to early to start limiting who is listed. There is no actual voting for several more months, the field is not set and you would be forced to eliminate reasonably resume'd folks from the list (Buddy Roemer was a governor, for instance) before they need to be...I know folks are itching to dump folks like Karger and McMillan but the aren't hurting anything for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone ever looked at how politics1 lists candidates? They have a picture gallery, like this article has for "serious" candidates (Romney, Paul, et al). Underneath that it also lists minor and fringe candidates (Sharkey, McMillan, etc...)so that they are still included but clearly demarcated as being of a different stature.Themostcasualobserver (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I like your idea of a "third way" list policy. See my comments on the presidential election talk page--Rollins83 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems like the natural way to do it, and the criterion for gallery inclusion should be whether they're polling consistently at a significant level nationally. Right now, candidates are included on a much more random criterion: whether or not they have Wikipedia articles. While notability is a prerequisite for articles, notability cannot be determined simply based on the existence of an article. Furthermore, it's a confused reading of NPOV to assume that everything that meets WP:N should be given equal importance. Lampman (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Is size an issue?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Presentation is an issue. Lampman (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the current list is cluttered, confusing and misleading. Just the way scientific articles distinguish between the mainstream view and fringe views, this article should distinguish between mainstream and fringe candidates. This can be done while upholding perfect NPOV, by basing selection on reliable sources. Gallup, for instance, lists ten candidates: Romney, Palin, Paul, Gingrich, Cain, Pawlenty, Bachmann, Huntsman, Johnson and Santorum. Real Clear Politics has a list that is almost identical, as does Quinnipiac, CNN, ABC, PPP, etc.


 * What we have now is practically every reliable source following one line, while Wikipedia follows another. That not only makes the page look ridiculous, it raises questions about neutrality, since fringe candidates are included on a random basis (all I have to do to give my marginally notable candidate exposure is to create an article on him/her?) I fail to understand the opposing view of NPOV, which seems to be that everything that's on Wikipedia is of equal significance? Lampman (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to make a distinction between reliable sources and the mainstream media. Reliable sources such as the FEC, do not separate the candidates based on their personal opinion. Furthermore, the mainstream media must exclude some candidates for the purpose of space, which is not a problem on this article. If two reliable sources determine that an individual is a candidate (per consensus), and the article for the individual is notable enough to survive AFD, who's to ignore the reliable sources and claim the individual does not belong on the list? As for organization, your claims of the list being "cluttered, confusing and misleading" are unfounded. This is a list, not prose, and at this point, there's no need to limit the already limited number of candidates. As for your last point, if you were to add a non-notable individual to the list based on an article you created, the article would be prompted speedy deleted, prodded or brought to AFD. The non-notable individual would then be removed. It's as simple and straightforward as it can get. Don't complicate it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to read before you write; it saves time: I wrote "marginally notable", not "non-notable". You do understand the difference between being notable and having a Wikipedia article, don't you? Your interpretation of NPOV as to mean ignoring reliable sources' (where WP:RS includes mainstream news reporting, even if you don't) distinction between mainstream and fringe is interesting, but fortunately you seem to be the only one here subscribing to it. Lampman (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but exclusion in mainstream sources does not mean non-existence. You are discounting reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They do exist, that's why they should be mentioned in list form. Lampman (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The other problem is that someone ignorant of the US prez race can infer from this article that the candidacy of McMillan or Sharkey is on par with that of Romney or Paul. That is easily avoided with my suggestion, but still allows for completeness of encyclopedic contentThemostcasualobserver (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That could be clarified in the candidate summaries on the page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well as of right now that is not clarified. Business executive and radio host sounds no more impressive to me than political consultant and gay rights activist, or professional wrestler for that matter, and yet one appears at this point to actually be a player in the race.Themostcasualobserver (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd really need to read the whole biography to get a full picture. So a person coming to this page for an introduction to the subject should read through several hundred kilobytes of text because you don't want to split the article up into gallery and list? Lampman (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because these are arbitrary distinctions.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What is arbitrary, polling? It's the only meaningful distinction we have between mainstream and fringe candidates. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 already makes this distinction, along the lines I've described above. It's this page that's an outlier, by its insistence on a false comprehensiveness. Lampman (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Your categorizations are arbitrary. There is no definitive agreement on who is fringe and who is not. Plus, your failing to realize how skewed your definition is of an actual candidate. You are relying on the lists of the mainstream media, which have to be conscious of size. However, any candidate is an actual candidate. Wikipedia's notability requirement makes exclusion and inclusion very simple.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am in opposition to the removal of any candidates who have wikipedia articles from this page because it is too hard to determine who is a fringe candidate or not. For example, Fred Karger, although he has barely appeared, and performed horrible in national polls, did win one Straw Poll. Buddy Roemer, although currently at the levels of a minor candidate in support, did once hold a significant public office. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson has been excluded from the next debate due to low poll numbers, so if that is the only indication of seriousness, then he should be removed, which is ridiculous. To Lampman: the poll page puts some candidates as "other" because they have not appeared in many polls. They currently have Rudy Guiliani as other, if he declared his candidacy, would you move him next to McMillan and Sharkey? Anyways, my vote is to keep the page as it is. Thunderstone99 (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The policy is not to create some supposedly 'objective' polling threshold. The setting of any such threshold would be the opinion of Wikipedia editors, and that would be unacceptable.  The policy is to treat as noteworthy candidates those persons that reliable sources treat as noteworthy candidates.
 * That is, to support the inclusion of any candidate in that section, you have to do more than just provide a reference to a one-off novelty news article about a vampire running for President. You have to provide multiple references from major news sources that, when providing an overview of the race (as this article does), names that person in the race in a list of candidates.
 * If you do not do that, inclusion is not NPOV, as it is a position not shared by reliable sources. I have seen the odd piece that includes Roemer or Karger (they're so few and far between that Karger lists them on his website, but they do exist).  However, I have never seen a Reuters or AP briefing that lists this vampire guy or Jimmy McMillan as candidates.  Problem. Bastin 14:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All candidates listed on this page are sourced as candidates by at least two reliable sources and have either survived the AFD process for notability or do not have their notability questioned. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Declined but Speculation Continues?
I think there should be a section for candidates that have declined bids but are still the subject of speculation - Huckabee, Pataki, Christie, Perry, Paul Ryan and a few others still generate speculation as potential candidates in reliable secondary sources after having issued Shermanesque or near-Shermanesque statements.Pcsmith (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Another distinction to consider, Pcsmith, is that some of the names you mentioned (that is, Huckabee, Pataki, and Perry--but there's also DeMint) have only declined their entrance into the field for now but have kept the option open for later (I dunno, this fall or next year or whenever); whereas others (Christie, Ryan--once upon a time, Jebb Bush) are being actively lobbied but haven't hinted much yet at the possibility of a later entry. Also, Palin hints (by means of her actions, if nothing else) at a "later" entry.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Trump may run, but not as Republican (Joining whom? Nader? Bloomberg? Lou Dobbs? ...)
WaTimes: Trump keeps his options open (although he says due to TV contractual obligations, couldn't throw hat into ring till 14 months (was it?) hence). He indicates that this would be as an independent, so the possibility's not within purview here.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. He could still deserve a mention at the main USPe, 2012 page as a potential indie candidate. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to run but just not have to deal with those pesky primaries. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Jonathon Sharkey
Jonathan Sharky should be removed as he is only registered as a candidate in one state and thus is not a national candidate for president of the United States. It would have been comparable to the inclusion of Stephen Colbert in the Democratic primary in 2008, which wikipedia did not do because Mr. Colbert was only registered in one state and was not a serious candidate. The run, though, was included on Colbert's article, as it related to him. This precedent should be followed in relation to Sharky. We should also apply this standard to Mcmillan, who is only registered in New York. NikolaiHood (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't register with the FEC in only one state, the FEC is nationwide. Colbert never filed with the FEC.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Sharkey and Mcmillan will only appear on the ballot in their home state (like Colbert) and thus are not technically running a nationwide campaign and thus should not be included. NikolaiHood (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source for that assertion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Text has been removed as a possible libel and breach of policy on biographies -- Lampman (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Did I say anything that's not in his bio? Lampman (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't think he's notable, you can nominate his article for deletion. It's been kept four times already, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Come on, this Sharkey guy is a joke. You gotta take him down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.26.248.128 (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Format
Please fix the format of the declared candidacy section, I messed it up, sorry. NikolaiHood (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Schedule of the primaries?
Could somebody add the actual dates of the primaries, state-by-state?  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  15:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving candidates up list
Maybe the "Speculated" candidates should just be alphabetical at this point. Ordering them made sense when the range was six months, but it seems like an exercise in futility now with such a short range. We have three citations from yesterday alone. John Bolton's not really a more speculated contender than Sarah Palin, is he? —Designate (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be okay with making the list alphabetical. The new format you tried would work with that, but not with the current list-by-most-recent-citation policy, as it makes it too complicated to move candidates around. Making the list alphabetical would make it easier to update prospective candidates as well, and your "short range" argument makes sense. I support your proposal.--JayJasper (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also support the idea of making the prospective list alphabetical.--70.169.40.248 (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Revised Declared Section
I know the layout of the Declared section is because of what we needed to do with the Speculated section, but I think now that the declared list is set for the most part and since we have necessary links, I would like to suggest that the Declared section be revised as follows:

--Diamond Dave (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the general idea. Maybe we should have the date they declared and put the footnotes after that. —Designate (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, Designate, but I blew up by few pixels some of your chart's pix and equalized column widths.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that will work. I will put in and then we can add the dates.--Diamond Dave (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work. It's much easier to read now.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One problem: it's not clear to the reader what the dates mean. I thought they indicated the date they declared, but it wasn't until I came to this page and read this discussion that I knew for sure. It needs to be made clear either in the boxes or in the sentences preceding them. Also, can we post the dates they declared exploratory commitees (though not applicable to some, like Johnson and Bachmann), as well as when they formally announced candidacies? Since this was done earlier, it might prevent confusion for some readers. Thanks.--70.169.40.248 (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Huntsman's going to declare in a day or two. Why don't we wait to fix it until he declares?  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  15:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bolton
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55153.html

Going to NH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

✅--JayJasper (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Bolton is mentioned here as a potential candidate and quoted about the Obama Israel thing going on right now: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/politics/26policy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A more recent mention of Bolton as a possible candidate:
 * http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55571.htmlThemostcasualobserver (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources on Bolton are aging, new ones lised below: http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/Video/Article.aspx?id=229077 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/bolling-supports-romney-but-what-about-mcdonnell/2011/06/30/AGzG5TtH_blog.html68.51.172.204 (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Lock this page?
This page has been receiving lots of vandalism by anonymous users/users with no account deleting stuff, usually candidates that they do not think are important enough to be included, and I have noticed that this has happened many times recently with many anonymous users, so I suggest making it so only users with accounts can edit this page. Thunderstone99 (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Debate Date Change
The July 10 Nevada date has been postponed. A good link with references to the different debates and info on them is at: http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2011-2012-primary-debate-schedule/ C. Lupton (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed that debate from the article, we can always add it back when it get re-scheduled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NextUSprez (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Endorsements
What is the criteria for someone to be notable enough to be included on the endorsement list? There are thousands of state legislatures and tracking that many people seems quite onerous. ObieTalk (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My question is, do we really need that section in this article? Endorsement listings are fine on candidate campaign articles, where they are typically found. But the primary focus of this page is the primaries, not campaign details for each candidate, there are other articles to deal with that. Undoubtedly, the section was added by an editor acting in good faith with the intent to improve the article, but in an article like this one that is not exactly wanting for content, an "endorsements" section is a bit overkill, IMO.--JayJasper (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Jay. The lists can be (or should be) found elsewhere.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Endorsements belong on individual campaign articles, not on this page.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

David Duke
Sadly, he needs ot be added as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/david-duke-president_n_890755.html http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/david-duke-on-a-presidential-bid-yes-i-am-considering-it/241469/Themostcasualobserver (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * According to this article, he is barred from seeking public office due to a felony conviction. Wouldn't this take him out? (Sorta if Arnold Schwarzenegger claimed he was considering a run, yet he couldn't do so legally) - RedState1995 (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Leonard Peltier (a convicted murderer) has run for president from jail before. Roger Calero was also the nominee of a minor party in the US despite the fact that he was not native-born. David Duke, if he does run, will probably claim that what the court did was unconstitutional or that he was framed, and I doubt he'll let a little felony conviction stop him (snark).


 * Wikipedia's policy is to list all candidates for office, even those who might not actually be eligible for office. This is partly because many states in the US allow candidates, such as Calero, Duke and Peltier, to appear on the ballot if nominated by an eligible party even if the candidates themselves aren't qualified. Difluoroethene (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a newer article about Duke if and when anyone wants to add it: http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/political_insider/david_duke_president — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.172.204 (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)