Talk:2012 United States presidential election/Archive 2

Problem sentence in "Electoral college changes" section
This one:

"Based on the 2008 results, this would give the Republican Party a net gain of 7 electoral votes, and the Democratic Party a net loss of 7 electoral votes."

This makes it seem as if every one of those states always goes either Republican or Democrat. I think it should be reworded. Thoughts? 67.135.49.198 (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Mitch Daniels
However much I would love it if Mitch Daniels were president, he will not run for president. My governor is one of the greatest we've ever had, but he will not run for anything, especially in 2012. I don't care what some columnist is WP:CRYSTALballing, Mitch has repeatedly said that he will never run for any other office. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC9WmB1PNVM. And I know my governor well enough that there is no way that he would leave Indiana for two years of his term to campaign. Reywas92 Talk 16:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a case of verifiability, not truth. Even if he probably won't run, there is a reliable source indicating that he may. If you'd like to dispute that source's reliability, that's another matter, but your personal convictions (which may or may not be proved correct) are no reason to discount the word of that source. Besides, I don't understand why people seem to take politicians' word as the absolute truth; why is Daniels saying he won't run any different from Barack Obama saying he won't run for president or any other politician's unkept promise? — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Daniels has been removed, as he himself has ended the speculation of a run in 2012.--JayJasper (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See thread below.--JayJasper (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not Relevant?
How are the "third parties" not relevant? They're politicians like any other, and everyone who reads this article should be able to see who is running. Really, who are we to judge who is a "relevant" candidate? To say that the Libertarian Party is irrelevant is to say that the votes of maybe around half a million people are irrelevant. To say that Ralph Nader is irrelevant or that someone else is irrelevant is the same thing. I don't see what the problem is. I don't see why although there is clearly nothing wrong with the article, it has to be swept clean of all direct mention of anybody who is not a Democrat or a Republican. Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Wayne Allyn Root, Gloria LaRiva, Jesse Ventura, and others are politicians and activists just like anybody else. If they were running for President as a Democrat or Republican they would be mentioned. FallenMorgan (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment for WP:WikiProject Barack Obama
As absurd as this article seems at the moment, it meets the six requirements for B-class articles and contains a substantial amount of well sourced information. The WP:crystal problems appear to be circumvented through strict reliance on sources, though I suspect the ordering of the images in the Republican rogues gallery may come to virtual bloodshed before 2010 is over. I've rated the importance of the article as Mid for now, since we don't actually have that many sources yet linking Obama to this election - this will change with future publications. Mike Serfas (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

mistake
By Obama's photo, it says that since 1972, no president has ever lost his party's nomination. This is wrong.

1968: Neither Humphrey nor Nixon was President. 1964: LBJ was renominated. 1960: Neither JFK nor Nixon was President. 1954: Eisenhower was renominated. 1950: Neither Eisenhower nor Stevenson was President. 1948: Truman was renominated. 1944: FDR was renominated 1940: FDR was renominated 1936: FDR was renominated

So Wikipedia is wrong. Ipromise (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're getting at here. In 1968, incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson briefly ran for the Democratic nomination, and did not receive it. So, in every presidential election since then, beginning with 1972's, no incumbent president has failed to receive his party's nomination. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hysteria18 is clearly correct. Please read the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_1968 and note that in New Hampshire "McCarthy won 42% of the primary vote to Johnson's 49%"- by running just in the primary, Johnson did seek the nomination that year.Ratemonth (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

LBJ did not seek re-nomination. At first he did but he changed his mind so he was not defeated.

I think what we mean to say is that since 1972, every one term president has sought re-election and has been renominated by their party.

I also think that we are making this stuff up ourselves. Should we strictly follow the WP original research ban? Or should we find a source that says that presidents typically seek re-election? Or should we say that there has been no speculation about other possible candidates? Or just state the facts...Obama is President. No other person has declared themselves to be a candidate for the Democratic nomination? Ipromise (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether Johnson "was defeated" or "changed his mind" is purely a matter of wording; the fact is that he ran in the New Hampshire primary, performed poorly, and decided to end his presidential campaign. I can't see any substantial differences between Johnson's actions and those of, for instance, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson in the 2008 primaries, all of whom ended their campaigns after disappointing early primary results. I think your suggestion of what we mean to say carries fundamentally exactly the same meaning as the text that's currently on the page.


 * As for making stuff up... again, I don't know what you're talking about. It is a fact that no president has failed to receive his party's nomination since 1968, there's no OR involved in stating that. If we were to add, unsourced, that presidents typically seek re-election, that would be OR; if we were to add that, sourced, it wouldn't be. Yes, we should just state the facts, and that's what both your current version and the earlier version do, though arguably your version does not contain some important information, which I'm about to restore. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura
Why was my statement removed. I only said that I thought Jesse Ventura was ineligible because he had been lving in Mexico and therefore fails to meet the living in US for 14 years requirement.BenW (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't removed, it was archived. I personally have no idea where Jesse Ventura's been living. Do you have a link to a reliable source mentioning this? Thanks. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is one, he mentions it about in about every interview he does now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/01/jesse-ventura-i-live-wit_n_94559.html
 * In that case, he may well be ineligible. However, though that may disqualify him from being President, it doesn't stop him from being a presidential candidate, which is arguably all he could hope for anyway given the long-shot nature of any independent run for the office. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliance on Politics1 for potential candidates?
Shouldn't we require statements from the actual person that s/he might become a candidate, rather than the opinions of Ron Gunzburger and his blog? Is he a reliable source for this speculation? -- Zim Zala Bim talk  02:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, relying on statements from the (potential) candidate himself would leave us with three independents nobody's ever heard of. Personally, I'd consider Politics1 a reliable source, however, I don't really have much in the way of policy to back that up, though a search would indicate that there are plenty of other pages using the site as a reference. Basically, seeing as a number of the minor independent candidates (i.e. those who'll probably end up on the ballot in one state and with about 500 votes) have already officially announced their campaigns (and their campaign sites are linked to on the Politics1 page), discounting Politics1 as a reliable source would leave this page bereft of Mitch Daniels, Alan Keyes, Gloria La Riva, Gene Amondson and no one else. So, if consensus is that Politics1 fails WP:RS, I won't object. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 17:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "relying on statements from the (potential) candidate himself would leave us with three independents nobody's ever heard of" Well, what's wrong with that? We shouldn't rely on potentially unreliable sources simply so the article has names you're familiar with. Note, too that attempts to create articles for Ron Gunzburger and Politics1.com were met with successful deletion nominations (here and here), bringing into question whether they are indeed reliable sources. If only a few candidates have thrown their hat into the ring, then that's all the article should reflect. (And, honestly, that's an inherent problem with creating an article for an event that is 4 years away). -- Zim Zala Bim  talk  18:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing's wrong with that. I guess it was a convoluted way of saying that there are plenty of reliable sources on other candidates that haven't announced their candidacy. And I've no idea where your idea that notability is related to reliability stems from; does the fact that The Onion has an article indicate that we should use it as a reliable source? Of course not, and the fact that Politics1 is not notable does not mean that it isn't reliable. As I say though, if consensus is that it isn't reliable, I'll be happy for the seven minor party candidates whose sole reference is Politics1 to be deleted. However, if that were to take place, a similar process should also take place on the numerous other articles which use it as a source. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

David Petraeus is not of New York
General Petraeus is a registered to vote in Springfield, New Hampshire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.32.75 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What is your evidence for this? Tim  meh  !  23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This article would seem to suggest that he lives in New Hampshire: "Petraeus is registered to vote as a Republican in New Hampshire...". I'll change it. Thanks. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"In recent history, all sitting presidents who have sought their party's nomination have been successful."
Not true. LBJ dropped out of the 1968 presidential race after he won the New Hampshire primary. Unless that doesn't count as "recent." THF (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC) `
 * He dropped out. Had he stayed in, he likely would have been successful. He ceased seeking the nomination when he dropped out. Tim  meh  !  02:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He dropped out because his internal polling showed he was going to lose. THF (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are his own words: "I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your President." Tim  meh  !  02:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement should be removed as original research (as is Timmeh's suggestion that "Had he stayed in, he likely would have been successful"). -- Zim Zala Bim talk  02:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How is it original research? Anyway, LBJ dropped out for several different reasons, not primarily because of internal polling results. Tim  meh  !  02:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding your logic above, you are making an evaluation that he "likely would have been successful". That is your opinion, not to mention unverifiable. The phrase in the article is imprecise (what is "recent history"), and as such, any decision to not include 1968 is arbitrary, and thus an editor's original research. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  03:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

LBJ ran in the 1968 New Hampshire primary, and therefore "sought their party's nomination" that year but was not succesful (it doesn't matter that he dropped out- he was not nominated). The text used to say "since 1972" not the rather vague "in recent history" and should be corrected to that version if we're going to include any of this.Ratemonth (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, LBJ never announced he was seeking the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination to begin with. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I was trying to say. However, the "recent history" part should be replaced with something more concrete and specific. Tim  meh  !  21:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Since the 1968 election, no incumbent president eligible for re-election has failed to receive his party's nomation." This avoids the issue of whether or not Johnson sought the nomination, and merely states that he did not receive it, despite his eligibility to serve another term. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously, Johnson either did or didn't seek the nomination and the presidency. We shouldn't just avoid the issue. This article cites a source saying that Johnson decided he would not run. Here are some more saying the same:, , . Unless someone can provide a source claiming Johnson announced his candidacy, there's just not evidence to show he actually sought the nomination. Tim  meh  !  22:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)'

I don't have a source saying he announced his candidacy, but one saying that in the New Hampshire primary, "Eugene McCarthy's startling showing of 42% as compared to Lyndon Johnson's 50% of the vote led President Johnson to the decision not to seek another term." http://www.politicallibrary.org/Past-Primary/History.aspx So that is an argument that he did intend to seek the nomination until he saw the results of that one primary. Also, as the Wikipedia article on the 1968 article points out, Bobby Kennedy announced he was running on March 16, four days after the New Hampshire primary and two weeks before LBJ dropped out, thus making it even harder for LBJ to win. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968#Enter_Eugene_McCarthy But I agree that if LBJ had already decided not to run regardless of the New Hampshire primary, then it is hard to argue that he was sought renomination and was denied it. But, in my opinion, that hinges on how important the New Hampshire primary and Kennedy's entrance were to his decision.Ratemonth (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * LBJ's health and public opinion of him were the main reasons he decided not to run. You can't just assume he was seeking the nomination simply because he won a primary. He specifically stated he would not seek or accept the nomination, but never (as far as I can tell) announced any type of candidacy. Tim  meh  !  02:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the same as the 1952 situation. Truman never declared his candidacy for 1952 Democratic prez nomination, but after Kefauver's strong showing in a primary, he declared he wasn't running. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then 1884 was the last time that an incumbent president truly did seek the nomination (campaigned and stayed in until the convention) and failed to achieve it, as according to this article and its sources, as well as this, Arthur was in the running and had hoped to win the nomination, but he did lose. Tim  meh  !  21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, only five presidents have lost their party's nomination while contesting it, according to |this, and the list provided doesn't include Johnson or Truman. Another interesting bit of info is that of these five, Pierce was the only one actually elected President. Tim  meh  !  22:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's correct. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So, am I understanding correctly that you agree that neither Johnson nor Truman actually sought the Democratic nomination? Tim  meh  !  00:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, Truman did not seek the 1952 Dem nomination & Johnson did not seek the 1968 Dem nomination. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I'll change the sentence so it says Pierce was the only elected president to seek and fail to receive his party's nomination. Tim  meh  !  21:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Eric Cantor
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881286,00.html

this article says that Cantor is a potential candidate in 2012 Mr. Met 13 (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

539 elector possibility
I know some smart people have claimed that an odd number of electors, as we'll have if that D.C. voting rights act passes and isn't dumped out by the Supreme Court, would render an EC tie impossible. However, in the unlikely event that a third-party candidate won a state with an odd number of electoral votes and the two major-party candidates split the rest, or in the slightly less unlikely event that a faithless elector chose to cast his vote for a non-party, there could still be a tie: 269-269-1, in case of a faithless elector voting astray from the otherwise victorious candidate's camp; 268-268-3, if a third-party candidate won, say, Alaska; 256-256-27, if a third-party player pulled an upset in, say, Florida. --Kudzu1 (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not think about it that way. Although those are unlikely scenarios, they are possible. Thanks for the explanation. Tim  meh  !  02:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

2012 poll
Hmm, where does this go? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Look under "See also" and you'll see the link to the nationwide polling article. That's where the table should be. Tim  meh  !  22:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Michael Steele listed?
Why isn't Michael Steele listed as a possible candidate for 2012?PokeHomsar (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable source or two speculating substantially (more than a passing "maybe...") on Steele running in 2012, you can go ahead and add him as a possible candidate. Tim  meh  !  05:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, that's kind of misleading. This is like the Hillary Clinton thing all over again; there are, I believe, sources (at least one, anyway) considering Steele a potential candidate, but they were all written before he became RNC Chairman (much like there was speculation about a Clinton primary challenge, but only before she became Secretary of State), which probably makes it much less likely that he'd consider running. So really, to merit inclusion here, there should probably be a reliable source published after January 30, 2009. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 13:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Of all people, Steele is probably the most likely to run. He has the full resources of the RNC on his side. Unless he can't legally run, I don't see why he wouldn't.PokeHomsar (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, provide a reliable source speculating on him running (published after he was chosen as RNC Chairman), and you can add him to the list. Tim  meh  !  17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it highly unlikely he'd run from the position of Chairman. The party organizations stay neutral during the primaries, so it would be very awkward for him to run from the inside. -Rrius (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul
I truly think he should be moved to frontrunner statues. In the latest CPAC poll he polled above both Palin and Jindal, both of whom are in the upper section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.49.227 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Different polls are going to show different "frontrunners". Also, public opinion polls have no effect on and add no informational value to the election unless they are giving options of candidates that have actually declared candidacies. Tim  meh  !  20:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

ron paul is tied with palin,He has to be in the fronrunners.dont remove his name and for proof http://www.cpac.org/strawpoll/2-09_CPAC_Straw_Poll.ppt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.120.168 (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Front Runners" Section
Please don't delete this section for the following reasons:


 * 1. People like Rick Perry or Jeb Bush have not even been conducted in a single poll. Most of these potential candidates aren't legit and are pure speculation.
 * 2. The early popular candidates and purely speculated candidates need to be distinguished!
 * 3. In order to run for president, you need support. If you're not even conducted in a single poll or gets very little support why waste your money running?

Please comment if you disagree. But please don't get rid of the section and continue this stupid war.

--Mapple001 (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Different polls are going to show different "front runners". These front runners are going to change many times as new political figures are introduced into the public view. Also, public opinion polls have no effect on and add no informational value to the election unless they are giving options of candidates that have actually declared candidacies. Tim meh  !  23:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

They may change over time but guys like Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney will continue to be popular. And it does have an effect on the public because polls continue to show consistent front runners. For example, Mitt Romney always polls over 10%. And do you really think someone like Jeb Bush would run for president? Really, its stupid.--Mapple001 (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, showing the current front runners in the polls adds no informational value to the article. There is no reason to believe that some politician who may be polling above 70% would actually decide to run. None of these candidates have declared candidacies, so as of now, none have any chance to win until they are official candidates. This information would only be appropriate for an article devoted to national opinion polling. It is not notable anywhere else, especially here. Tim  meh  !  23:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is in response to the post in the above section:

1. All the candidates are only listed in this article because reliable sources have speculated on them running, not because they are popular among Republicans.

2. Why? If a person is more popular, there will be more reliable sources speculating on the person. If there are more sources cited, the candidates should be higher on the list.

3. Barack Obama would have been lucky to get 1% in a poll at this time relative to the 2008 election. He still had almost no support when he entered the race. Most candidates build support over time. Tim meh  !  00:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that no one has declared their intention on becoming president yet and that more candidates may come out later on and thus gain popularity. Yes, Obama was a nobody 3 years prior to 2008. Its best to distinguish the candidates that are consistently showing support in polls and update the front runners status. Don't worry, it probably won't significantly change that much because 2012 polls only come out every once in a while... But the reason why I don't want one section of "potential Republican candidates" is because the current 5 listed as front runners have clear future ambitions and have strong support. I hate when I first went on this article and saw all these candidates like Eric Cantor or Fred Thompson or any other ridiculus candidates. Reliable sources? Most of these are by people or newspapers who are just throwing around ideas. People like Jeb Bush would never run for president. If you follow politics you would understand that there are some people like Huckabee and Gingrich who are always getting interviewed on TV, getting book deals, and always making comments on what President Obama is doing. How about Rick Perry? He is just a speculated candidate that never gets polled. The point is that unless if he starts putting himself on TV then he doesn't currently have ambition. Yes, he could decide to go on TV later on. We'll see. There probably will be more candidates that become more popular. But I feel its best to distinguish between the ones that are currently legit and the stupid ones. When someone actually declares their candidacy (probably in late 2011) then we will go from there. But I predict the early leaders in the polls such as Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee will definetly run again in 2012 based on their current ambitions.They could lose ambition on the way there. But based on early poll numbers and current ambitions, the 5 listed "front runners" are clearly ahead of the pack.--Mapple001 (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And seriously what do you think Mitt Romney is doing? He's out of politics, yet he's constantly on TV criticizing Obama and now he's coming out with a new book deal. Really. Not to mention he won the CPAC Straw Poll for the third straight year. Enough said. --Mapple001 (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think having a Wiki-selected "front-runners" section is silly and un-notable (as well as vainly self-serving for the editors deciding who is to be included/excluded). Rather than crafting a detailed argument for my position, I will simply say that my reasons are similar to those I would present to explain my utter disinterest in TV programming such as "reality shows" or "American Idol", magazines such as "People" or "Us", political "push-polls", and other contrived attention-getters. I'd have no objection to a list of ALL announced, seriously-promoted, or otherwise credible possibilities (in ALL parties, major and minor). Such a list would be reasonable (if properly maintained and updated), but I do think it would be grossly inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to anoint a chosen set of "front-runners" -- and to exclude other, equally-qualified potential candidates, merely on the basis of early polls or the pronouncement of pundits. Tripodics (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A 'front runners' section based on who Wikipedia editors consider to be front runners is a ridiculous idea. And looking at the sort of candidates who placed highly in polls four years ago, basing basing our front runners on who's polling well seems equally absurd in the long run. A possibility would be to only include people who've been actually described as a front runner by a reliable source, but all too often that would lead to us appearing to refer to the 'front runners' of early 2009 as likely front runners for the nomination three years hence, which would be misleading and probably a pretty bad idea. So (though I seem to be saying this worryingly often regarding this article), it's probably best to leave off the creation of such a section until the primaries begin to be more than a speck on the horizon and reliable statewide polling begins. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't be designating front runner status to anyone, until (at least) late 2011, when people have declared their candidacies for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Doing so now, is way premature. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys I'm not just putting up who I personally think are the front runners. I said a million times its simply based on EARLY polling, number of reliable sources, and current ambition by the candidate. And no its not American Idol. But I personally think its stupid to have all of these speculated candidates into one single gallery. Again most of these guys like General Patreus or Jeb Bush should not be in the same category as Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul, who are currently a lot more popular and clearly have future ambitions. Some of these other guys are equally as experienced, but may not have any support currently.--Mapple001 (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's wait until somebody declares their candidacy for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination (which likely won't occur, until 2011). GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no way we should be designating front runners right now, for several reasons;
 * 1. It's stupid. The front runners will definitely be completely different by the time we approach the election.
 * 2. Why do we even need to know who the front runners are? This point in the campaign is for learning about all the potential candidates. Most people have no idea who most of the candidates are.  Wikipedia should be about giving them as much information as possible, not narrowing down their choices and dictating what they read.
 * 3. It will lead to a bunch of stupid arguments and edit wars about who should and should not be included in the "front runner" category. See the section below.SaltedCracker (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Since there seems to be consensus on this, I went ahead and removed the "Front Runners" section. I plugged them back into the regular gallery. I left the text from the "Front Runners" section, although I rephrased it a bit. I don't know if we want to keep this, but it seemed comparatively harmless, so I'll leave that for further discussion.SaltedCracker (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

are you ****** joking me.cpac straw poll !
ron paul name is not in the front runner even though he i placing third tied with palin. way to go wikipedia or should i say censoropedia.I have added his ame,lets see what excuse you freedom haters have to remove his name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.120.168 (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The CPAC straw poll is an unscientific straw poll, and not a reliable source. We shouldn't be designating 'front runners' in the first place, but if we were to do so based on a poll which fails Wikipedia's criteria of what is a reliable source, that would violate Wikipedia's policies and potentially mislead this page's readers. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

are you jokin me.dont throw that crap.ron paul deserves to be in the front runners.The established media is scared.CPAC is a highly respectible org.I bet if someone other as there you would have added him. i am adding his name i will keep adding until the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.120.86 (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

read this line Early Frontrunners

According to recent early polling including the 2009 CPAC Straw Poll[9], former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee are among the frontrunners for the Republican nomination.

ron paul garnered 13% and wont be included then plz remove all the fronrunners who have scored high with CPAC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because the other candidates who scored highly at CPAC have also performed well in other polls. Ron Paul hasn't. However, this is completely academic anyway, as the front runners section will shortly be removed has been removed. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not alphabetical?
I'm curious as to why the candidates in the Early Frontrunners and Other speculated candidates sections are listed in the order that they are. I think alphabetical would make more sense; if they are in any other order then to many readers it might appear that they are ranked in order of popularity. For the Early Frontrunners section, it might be possible to actually rank them that way, but not right now for the Other speculated candidates section. I'm going to alphabetize that section; if anyone objects then can we please discuss it here.Ratemonth (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Listing them alphabetically makes perfect sense from the standpoint of neutrality, and is consistent with the standards used in related articles. So, yeah, let's do it that way. --JayJasper (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, since we basically have consensus to do so, we should remove the front runners section altogether and arrange the rest of the speculated candidates by alphabetical order. Tim  meh  !  02:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I went ahead and did that. I plugged the "front runners" in to the gallery in alphabetical order.  That's how we had it before this whole "front runners" debacleSaltedCracker (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Front Runners section still has a lot who haven't done well in polls
If the section saying, "according to recent early polling former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Representative Ron Paul of Texas, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee could be considered front runners should they choose to seek the Republican nomination" is to remain then shouldn't the candidates included there be based on actual polls? There is a page set up for 2012 polling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republican_candidate and it does not indicate that all 6 of those are doing well in the polls. The only ones who have actually won a poll are Palin, Huckabee, and Romney. They are also the ones who have come in second in a poll. I think they should be the only ones mentioned in this section, if it's going to be included. If we want to go to third place, then Jindal could be included.Ratemonth (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rationale(s) for removal of candidates
I just deleted the names of 6 potential candidates from the potential Republican candidates gallery. In the spirit of transparency, I'm just going to post a brief explanation of my reasoning for the ones I removed.
 * Haley Barbour (reference) - Reference 404's; I can't find any other ref for Barbour.
 * Rudy Giuliani (reference) - Reference only refers directly to an unreliable and non-notable gambling site's estimations of who might receive the nomination.
 * Lindsey Graham (reference) - Reference "is not available", I can't find any other source.
 * Gary E. Johnson (reference) - Though it purports to refer directly to remarks made by Johnson himself, Liberty Maven is an unreliable source, and the Facebook group it refers to equally so.
 * Mike Pence (reference) - Again, unreliable source, biased towards a pro-life viewpoint.
 * Rick Perry (reference) - Makes one brief mention of Perry in a three-page article. Not enough to justify inclusion, and I can't find another ref for him. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just re-added Gary Johnson with a new source. Here's the money quote;"I spent a fair amount of time chatting with Governor Johnson: mountain-climber, triathlete, vetoer of 750 bills.  He told me that he may take a shot at the Republican presidential nomination in 2012."(reference) -- SaltedCracker (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Question
No one has officially declared their intention to run for president in 2012 yet, so shouldn't anyone and everyone be listed and the list edited as necessary as the potential candidates make their intentions known? I see no reason to take anyone off the list yet when no one has said whether they plan to run or not. It is all idle speculation at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd landreth (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If at least one reliable source speculates in detail on the candidate running, he may be listed. Since nobody has declared their candidacy, if there is no speculation on a certain person, said person should not be listed in the article until and if he declares his candidacy. Tim  meh  !  00:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has a brain understands that some guys like General Patreas, Jeb Bush, or Gov. Rick Perry or aren't going to run for president. Tell me I'm wrong. I believe any candidate should have at least two sources.--Mapple001 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as the source provided goes into detail on speculating on a specific person and is a reliable, notable, third-party source, only one should be needed. Of course, if every other reliable source says that person will not run, we probably shouldn't list him. Tim  meh  !  20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's agreeable. Before any candidate is added to the list, it should be investigated carefully.--Mapple001 (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dwight Eisenhower had no desire to run, but after supporters and polls showed him in the lead, he then jumped in. Giuliani originally had no intention to run in 2008, but that soon changed as his popularity grew in the polls. More reason why people doing well in polls should be included. David1982m (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Effect of impeachment?
The section on Democratic candidates currently states that Obama "will be eligible for reelection in 2012 barring death, incapacitation, or conviction on articles of impeachment." Would impeachment actually bar a President from running for re-election, or would only removal from office? And even then, is a President who has been removed from office ineligible to run again for the office? Qqqqqq (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Along with removal from office, the Senate may choose to bar the removed official from holding any federal office in the future." That's from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_4:_Impeachment So it looks like it's possible for either to happen: a president is removed from office, and then the Senate would decide whether that person could ever run for the office again. This article could be edited to include those possibilities. Ratemonth (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Ratemonth. I'll take a stab at clarifying the text of this section a bit in light of this information. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the Rod Blagojevich article for an example of impeachment and being barred from holding a public office (applies in Illinois only and is for the governor). -  Nite Owl  II  03:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

remove editing
Please remove editing for election. People are just going to keep spreding ruomers that Ted Nugent will run for president.


 * Such rumors don't seem to have affected this article thus far. As course, any candidate speculation backed by reliable sources can be included here, those that are not can simply be reverted. Should a persistent problem or edit war ensue, the page can be temporarily locked, restricting editing privileges to established users only. So groundless rumors shouldn't be a problem in the long term.--JayJasper (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ensign/Guiliani
Ok: The article reference for Ensign said that he's seeking party leadership, such as Minority leader. Nothing says anything about 2012. He's also not a well-known figure. As far as Guiliani, first of all its not a reliable source and second of all it doesn't say he might run in 2012 it simply says his stance against gay marriage may help him in the future, mostly for the 2010 New York elections not the presidential election. For a candidate to be added to the list the candidate should have at least 1 reliable source giving legit reasons why he/she may run and not based on bullshitt. Eric Cantor is a prominent leader so I agree he should be on the list, as well as most of the others.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're half right about Ensign... There is indeed no specific mention of 2012 in the Cillizza article, but you must have missed the bit talking about his presidential ambitions. The following three paragraphs are near the end:

Combine Ensign's stepped-up national profile, his electoral successes -- four years in the House, two terms in the Senate -- in a swing state, his mix of political and policy expertise and his good looks (he looks a little like James Brolin) and you start to see why some people have begun to buzz about him as a possible candidate for national office down the line.

Ensign is doing little to quiet that talk, traveling to Iowa on June 1 as part of the American Future Fund's Conservative Lecture Series. (As we have said before in this space, NO politician goes to Iowa by accident. It just doesn't happen.)

When asked directly about his presidential ambitions, Ensign said that most children dream of being president one day (The Fix dreamed of being Julius Erving) and that it was "not something I would ever rule out."


 * Pretty clearly says something about running for president, right? There's also this CQ article, which I'll add as a ref now. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 12:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points on Ensign. I didn't realize he's going to Iowa and has dreams. He clearly has ambitions. But Guiliani should be taken off.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing?
When the election is tagged as ongoing, it has the effect of adding an explanatory banner across the top but removing the incumbent and president-elect notations from the infobox. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. We don't know for certain who the President will be on election day 2012 and the banner is their to remind editors that the election has not yet taken place. --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Makes sense; I just kinda wondered why adding that template had that effect on the infobox. I guess it's by design. Qqqqqq (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

possible Jeb Bush reference
I don't want to add it without putting it on the talk page first, but there is an article from the Hill that I think could be used as a source for listing Jeb Bush (as well as Cantor and Romney): http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/romney-cantor-jeb-bush-stump-for-gop-revival-2009-05-02.html Ratemonth (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly
I believe Colorado is more likely to gain an electorate instead of Oregon. Does anybody else agree with me.  South Bay  <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">  (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani
He should be in the pontential Republican candidates section. A Fox News poll from today i think showed him leading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.21.101 (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find the poll you're referring to. Do you have a link? Thanks. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/051409_release_web.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.21.101 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To be included as a potential candidate we need a source saying he is likely to run, and leading a poll is not enough. Ratemonth (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Giuliani's kind of awkward... there are a few refs, but each only mention him in passing, or else are focused on him but mostly on a gubernatorial/Senate bid next year, with a presidential campaign as a footnote. I'm sure if someone could collect all of these in addition to that poll, there'd be a credible case for including him. Thanks for the link, by the way, I've added it to Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential Candidates
At the moment this section contains nothing but speculation... and that is not appropriate per WP:CRYSTAL. I am going to delete the section. Once we start getting actual declared candidates then we can re-create it and list them. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speculation is fine as long as its in reliable sources and not done by us. I'm reverting the section removal. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 16:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential candidates should also be people that are being voted for early polls for the 2012 election. In the first poll referenced in this article Rudy Giuliani is one of the top contenders. That should give reason for him to appear on this list. If the people want him, that's pretty potential, especially at this point. David1982m (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, who cares? If these are "potential" candidates, then anyone who is leading in polls or said they are running should be included. If not, then this article should be taken down until we know who is definitely running when the primaries actually begin. Otherwise, this article is misleading because based upon polls, Rudy Giuliani should be considered a potential candidates. Dick Cheney may be more arguable, but recent stances against Obama have him appear as the first party leader since the November 2008 election. There are many sources that have voiced this, even though he has not publicly said. Giuliani also has not said he wouldn't run for President and has made it clear he would consider to run again. Also, if someone is leading in the polls it makes them more potential to be President, because the polls often sway them to decide whether or not to run. Again, Giuliani is one of the top contenders in the first poll mentioned in this article.- David1982m (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't want to read other people's random meaningless thoughts cares. Find an article stating that Giuliani might run because of these polls; otherwise we'll just keep deleting it. Ratemonth (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, this article is someone's random meaningless thought because no one is officially running because the primaries have not yet started. Therefore, unless this article can be open to include anyone has said they are running and doing well in polls, I say this article should be deleted. David1982m (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is based on cited sources. Your edits are not. Any information on Wikipedia should have a reliable source. That is the problem here. Your argument about polls is fine, you just need to back it up with a source. No candidate can stay here, or on any article about a future election, unless it has a source. This article has been nominated for deletion in the past, and has survived. Ratemonth (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This article states that he told CNN on November 16 that he will run in 2012. http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2428. I wish I could find a youtube video of him saying, but that should be proof enough, not to mention the link below shows him a leading candidate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012 David1982m (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source separate from Wikipedia. Youtube and blogs are not reliable sources. I would suggest citing the poll itself: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/051409_release_web.pdf though other editors here may think that a poll is not enough of a source. Ratemonth (talk)
 * I'm interested to see what the consensus is on whether a poll constitutes a reliable source... Obviously it shows that someone in the media thinks the person in question's a potential candidate, but as others have said when removing candidates cited only with polls, there's no indication given that the candidate is thinking of running. Still, if polls are taken as reliable, then that still leaves us with the question of whether Fox polls are reliable... (As an aside, I think a video of Giuliani saying he was going to run would constitute a reliable source. It's academic though, because no such video exists.) — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Hysteria18. I can see why a poll may not be valid, because anyone can make a poll. I did a poll, doesn't mean it's credible. I wonder if Gallup did a poll? Gallup is the leader in polls, if Gallup has a potential candidates poll, can those candidates be added? David1982m (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this Gallup poll http://www.gallup.com/poll/112252/GOP-Faithful-Like-Palin-Romney-Huckabee-2012.aspx, the following candidates should be added. Rudy Giuliani David Petraesus Lindsey Graham Jeb Bush Since these are the only candidates Gallup is polling (that aren't already listed), I would expect at least these candidates to be considered "potential". Any other polls I would be willing to consider irrelevant. If Gallup polls these candidates, I would be hard-pressed not to consider them potential. David1982m (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add them. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether someone has been included in a poll means nothing with regard to whether or not that person will run. If the person has formed an exploratory committee or stated some willingness to run or has been discussed extensively in the media as a likely candidate seem to me to be the only relevant factors. A poll can cover any number of hypothetical candidates, likelihood of running aside. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't care too much one way or the other, but there have been several articles recently which speculate about Hillary Clinton possibly positioning herself for a 2012 run, should Obama grow unpopular by then. This seems rather more noteworthy than some of the minor Republican figures, not to speak of the third-party candidates. Include or not? The criterion could be mention in the press, rather than inclusion in polls. Dawud (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe a section should be added for possible candidates that are doing well in polls. Past election articles have potential candidates that did not run. As long as these are categorized differently, I don't see how it would be a problem. The only question is do we want to limit it to certain polls like Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/112252/GOP-Faithful-Like-Palin-Romney-Huckabee-2012.aspx) or open it to other polls. For now, I have added it with strictly Gallup Poll as a source, not sure if it should be opened up to other polls. I have labeled the section Polls of potential candidates. Noting that these candidates may not run, but are being shown favorably well in polls. David1982m (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dawud: please see this discussion for consensus on including Hillary Clinton as a potential candidate. IP: I've removed the section, and in case you're reading this before you read the edit summary, I thought you might want to read this discussion. At this moment, it's a lot easier and more informative to simply list anyone considered a potential candidate in the media (as far as I'm concerned this can include polls, but a candidate shouldn't be sourced with only polls) than to try and determine who's going to be frontrunner in three years time. Thanks — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Guiliani/Cheney/Patreaus
Correct me if I am wrong, is this article for speculations or opinions. There are a lot of candidates with cited sources that only show speculations, the candidate never says they will run. I find sources speculating runs for Cheney and Giuliani and they get taken down because Jerzeykydd has reason to believe Cheney and Giuliani won't run. CLARIFY AGAIN FOR ME? Is this for candidates that have been speculated in articles or people we as individuals think or don't think are running. This is getting aggravating. I try to run with the rules, people tell me I am wrong, what I need to do, I do, it gets take down, what's the deal?- David1982m (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)David


 * This article should only list possible candidates if there is speculation in reliable sources or if the candidate has announced he is running. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 21:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheney has completely ruled out running for president many times, so it doesn't matter what people speculate, and he shouldn't be on the list. Most of the candidates on the list aren't just speculated about, there are legit references and reasons for each candidate to be on the list. For example, Mitt Romney is coming out with a new book and has been outspoken again Obama. As a result, there are many legit references like The Politico and Yahoo! News that give legit reasons why he would run. Haley Barbour has traveled to Iowa and New Hampshire, and that alone is a reason to be on the list. There are no legit references, nor legit arguments that have been made that Guiliani or Patreaus would run for president. Also, just as a side note, if you follow politics at all it would be understood that the chance of either of those 2 to run are slim. Of course, no one knew Obama would run for president, in 2005. But hints later on sparked a lot of speculation. If Rudy Guiliani thinks about running in 2012 then he would criticize Obama, go to Iowa, write a book, or simply go on TV a lot. But since he's not doing any of those things, no source like CNN are saying there is a fair chance Guiliani could run.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The below was written mostly before Jerzeykydd made his above post, and without having read it. The antecedent of the second person is David, though I think much of it applies to Jerzeykydd, who I think is wrong on a number of issues.
 * I'm truly sorry you feel that way, and though I wouldn't dream of apologising on anyone else's behalf, I don't think Jerseykydd's edit summaries were the best explanations of why that content wasn't acceptable. The best course of action you could take would be to fully read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. The most relevant aspect at the moment is that a blog is not a reliable source. All three of the references you gave for Giuliani are blogs, mostly with distinct and partisan political stances, or other issues which stop them from being used as a reliable source: Kesher Talk is an unprofessional blog with its political positions explained in the header, 2012 Obama is another unprofessional blog with its views put forth in the title and url, while Campaign Diaries could perhaps pass RS by virtue of the writer's previously having published in Huffington Post, but the one very brief mention that there is really isn't enough to warrant Giuliani's inclusion.
 * As for the Cheney sources, the question here becomes, in addition to the reliability of the sites as a whole, the seriousness of the posts. Though I understand it's meaningless to the article, my personal opinion is that Cheney '12 is an insane concept. I think AlterNet could feasibly be used, and I wouldn't revert you if you were to add Cheney back with that source. US News describes it as "very unlikely", so it isn't a good reference given that, by including Cheney in a list of potential candidates, we're saying the opposite, that his candidacy is likely. Power Line Blog... well, the clue's in the title, it's a blog. Finally, Socyberty seems a little too short and a little too amused by the idea to be used. A source calling the former Vice President a "Dictator Puppeteer" isn't something we need here.
 * I really hope that this wasn't too long and that you understand what I'm saying, and that the recent eruption of (mostly edit war-based) activity at this article hasn't put you off contributing to it (or anything else) in future. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. I hope that now we can all agree that Guiliani and Cheney shouldn't be on the list. As for Patraues, The Atlantic is a reliable source, my bad. It's acceptable.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether we can agree would depend on whether David feels strongly about Cheney; I think the Alternet source (linked above) would be sufficient, but I won't add him myself. For now, I agree with you on Giuliani. And the Petraeus ref was The American Prospect (not The Atlantic), but I'm glad we can agree on that. Either way, I'm going to bed now. :) — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I do appreciate it. I am new to editing wikipedia, which is why it didn't take me too long to get temporarily blocked for reverting, because I didn't know any better. Now, I understand. I can see how the Giuliani articles are not really credible, but the Cheney ones do make a good case giving reason that he should run, that might sway him to run. Giuliani said that he had no intention to run after September 11th when asked, but 2005 he has changed his mind, because so many had asked him about it. I would like to put Cheney back up, but I'm still figuring out coding, it was difficult for me to get the information up that I put up, and I really don't want to go through all that trouble, if someone is just going to take it down on me. Before I do, I would really like to know that I have support from enough Wikipedia users that if someone takes it down, you and/or other users will kindly revert it for me. Otherwise, I don't really want to put in the effort. David1982m (talk)

Well, generally if you've written something once and it's been removed, you don't have to write it again. You can jsut find your version of the page in the page history, click edit and copy the code from there, then go back to the current article, click edit, and paste it in. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, nothing's ever permanently removed. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 14:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is this protected?
I fail to see any reason why this has been protected. There's been a maximum of three incidents of minor vandalism by three different editors in over 24 hours, one of which was certainly conceivably good faith. Is this in any way related to this? Mifter, congrats on getting adminiship and all, but this isn't the best of starts. Please explain yourself. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 22:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey their, First off thanks for the congrats and I apologize because I am quiet new at all of this but, here's my reasoning :), I protected the article based on a request on WP:RPP, and although the editor made a bad report for United States presidential election in California, 2008 (which I un-protected upon being informed of), I looked at the history of this article again and as you said their were only 3 incidents of vandalism within the last day or so which if they were isolated incidents would probably not warrant protection, but I also looked at the days before that and I saw a trend of small vandalism by many different users and, that and the fact that the article has already had a long history of disputes/vandalism and has already been protected multiple times is what caused me to go with indef semi protection. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask :).  All the Best, Mifter (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the history of the article then you'll find that there is constantly edit wars and vandalism on this page, especially from people who don't have a wikipedia account.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Having re-read what I wrote last night, I could probably have expressed the whole thing a little bit better. I still don't think that it really needs to be protected (no sustained vandalism by a particular editor), but I'm prepared to accept your judgement. Apologies for failing to assume good faith. Jerzeykydd: what you said above could apply to just about any high-profile article on Wikipedia. In my experience, this particular article's probably had more valid, constructive IP edits than most, but hopefully any IP editors won't have any trouble making suggestions on the talk page. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually find the back and forth of deciding valid additions educational, but also very important to make this article good and accurate. So, this article needs that back and forth debate to really make it a good article. It's good to know a candidate is running, but it's also good to know the validity of the source, so we know can really strengthen the article and I'm sorry I haven't yet made an account and possibly contributed to this, but I meant well. Since this is an ongoing article it needs to be updated frequently until actual candidates are confirmed. That's what makes this article interesting and fun to follow, because it will keep changing, until further notice. David1982m (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Mitch Daniels again
Don't you think Mitch Daniels himself is a more reliable source than some political writers?! "Daniels Ends 2012 Speculation" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2009/06/daniels_says_current_job_is_hi.html says "I've only ever run for or held one office," Daniels said. "It's the last one I'm going to hold." That holds more weight than some writer just mentioning it. This source is from February and just has a few sentences about him, focusing more on many others. This one is from December and concentrates on his campaign, only saying "is already being touted in some circles as a 2012 presidential candidate for the GOP."

And how can there be a source that gives the opposite?? Although this starts with "The governor of Indiana has been mentioned as a possible 2012 contender," it clearly says "But Daniels believes a new crop of potential presidential candidates is on the way -- and he insists that he won't be one of them. "I've only ever run for and held one office," says Daniels, who was elected governor in 2004 and re-elected last year. "It's the last one I'm going to hold."" and "But press him all you like, and he'll swear he won't run for president. In Washington Wednesday, Daniels described staying out of the race as an almost moral obligation."

We can't have information in the article that is misleading because its sources are outdated, contradictory, insignificant, and flat-out not going to happen. Reywas92 <sup style="color:#45E03A;">Talk 17:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer to your first question: no, I don't. There are hundreds of situations in which what a reliable source has written about someone is more reliable than what that someone says about themselves. Politicians lie, or their intentions change. What Daniels is saying is perhaps slightly more forceful than what other politicians tend to say, but the fact is that he's a politician, and you can't really trust what he says. His denials haven't stopped other people from considering him a potential candidate, so they shouldn't stop him from being listed on this page. Wikipedia doesn't interpret what other sources publish, it merely reflects it, and in this case we need to reflect the fact that Mitch Daniels' denial isn't being taken as a definitive Shermanesque statement by reliable sources.


 * The one source you don't mention above is the one I'm mostly going on; this Washington Examiner article. It was written by Byron York earlier this month, long after Daniels had first started issuing denials, and so can't be described as outdated. I think it's certainly enough to justify including him.


 * Part of the problem here is that there's no particular way to give extra information on the candidates. I'm not sure if the gallery feature was actually available in 2005, but looking at early versions of United States presidential election, 2008, using a list format seems more condusive to actual explanation (rather than just saying "this guy's a potential candidate"). I'd like to propose an overall change to the way this article's formatted (maybe something like Democratic Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008). Would you, and/or anyone else reading this, be open to that idea? I think it's probably the best way forward, if anyone ever has time to implement it.


 * Hope all of the above makes sense and you can understand my viewpoint (I'm kinda tired). Thanks — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 21:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You said I didn't mention the Washington Examiner source, but it is linked in my third paragraph. I don't think the Obama article is even comparable. He had no significant experience and that was four full years before the election and two and a half before announcing his candidacy. Daniels has been governor for four and a half years and it's close enough to exploring it that he wouldn't be saying No way. He did only say it again a few days ago, but I think it's dumb that the media isn't taking the bait. They want him to run and mention that, but they know he won't. I agree that there should be more information about the people similar to Democratic Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008. I especially like the Declined to seek nomination section. Reywas92 <sup style="color:#45E03A;">Talk  22:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you did. My apologies - as I said, I was pretty tired last night. I'm kind of reluctant to just refute your points and get locked in a redundant cyclical argument here, to be honest. Can we agree to differ on this and work towards a constructive solution? Clearly there's a need for subdivisions of the potential Republican candidates. I was thinking it could be based on the candidates' actions, something like this (in a collapse box for space saving, this talk page needs archiving soon)


 * Potential candidates who have expressed interest in the race
 * Newt Gingrich
 * Gary Johnson
 * Ron Paul
 * Potential candidates who have denied interest in the race
 * Mitch Daniels
 * Bobby Jindal
 * David Petraeus
 * Potential candidates who have visited Iowa and/or New Hampshire
 * Haley Barbour
 * John Ensign
 * George Pataki
 * Potential candidates who have not issued statements
 * Eric Cantor
 * Dick Cheney
 * Charlie Crist
 * Rudy Giuliani
 * Mike Huckabee
 * Dirk Kempthorne
 * Sarah Palin
 * Tim Pawlenty
 * Mike Pence
 * Mitt Romney
 * Mark Sanford
 * Fred Thompson
 * John Thune


 * Would you agree with that classification of Mitch Daniels? I'm open to suggestions for moving any of them, especially if any of the 'not issued statements' folks actually have said something about it. If we can sort this out as a basis for reorganising this article, then I can work on it in my sandbox and hopefully implement it soon enough. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great. I think someone split them up before but it was later merged into a single gallery. I won't argue about them either, but there needs to be notes about their statuses. Reywas92 <sup style="color:#45E03A;">Talk  16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I support Hysteria18's proposal for reorganization. It would give the reader a much clearer picture of the potential candidates' statuses and possibly avert edit wars and/or neeedlessly long discussions about who belongs on the page and who dosen't. Thanks for the idea.--JayJasper (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started a first draft in my sandbox, currently only with the three potential candidates who've expressed interest. I'm not entirely sure that Ron Paul actually belongs with them, but that can be sorted later. Glad to see that people are enthusiastic about this. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but the only thing that I would say that's important to note is that I noticed that the article on the 2012 Republican Primary had conflicting information, so I updated it to match this page. SoHysteria18, I think you should add this update to that page as well, so these section match. Diamond Dave 14:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC) —comment added by (talk • contribs)

Move Gingrich to Conservative Party
The articles below state that he says he will run as a third party Conservative Candidate, if not elected as a Republican. I would add it myself but the article is protected.


 * http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20809.html
 * http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/gingrich-2012-might-see-a-third-party-movement-if-the-gop-doesnt-shape-up
 * http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/gingrich_third_party/2009/04/03/199346.html

David1982m (talk) 17:52, June 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind, but I've removed the ref tags so people can find the urls without having to edit the section. Though it might be worth including that Gingrich said these things, he doesn't say anywhere that he personally would run as a third-party candidate, merely that someone might. As neither we nor Gingrich know who that someone might be, nor do we know the name of the party, the best we can really say within the confines of WP:OR and WP:RS is that "someone might run as a conservative third party candidate", which is true enough and referencable, but more than a little vague and meaningless. The fact that Gingrich said that would probably be worth including on a hypothetical United States presidential election, 2012 timeline if/when created (it's currently a redirect), but I can't personally see anything worth including here now. — Hysteria18 Talk • Contributions) 20:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What if
What if the presidnet does not run? Should we have more Democrats on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.192.69 (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Gage (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, if a reliable source commented on the possibility of Obama not seeking re-election, it would be appropriate to mention this in the article, along with any potential Democratic candidates the source mentioned. However, this hasn't happened, and probably isn't going to. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say if a reliable source is speculating that some Democrat is advocating strongly against Obama, then I would say they should be added. At this time I don't believe there is a Democrat out there in enough opposition to Obama that they would run against him. I know some passing sources hint that if Obama fails Hillary Clinton may run again, but the odds of that are slim and I haven't seen any articles strongly endorsing that idea. So, I would say (unless anyone disagrees), if you can find a reliable source that shows a Democrat in very very strong opposition to Obama or more specifically stresses that they may run in opposition of Obama, then I would say add them. Otherwise, Obama should remain the only 2012 Democratic Candidate. —Preceding David1982m comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)

Jon Huntsman
Utah Governor Jon Huntsman is mentioned as a potential candidate for the Republican Party on his biography page. Add him here? He has been nominated as ambassador to China, but not confirmed, and he is still the acting governor of the State.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I have added him, with a source. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.--JayJasper (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is pre-nomination. It's speculation, of course, to say that his nomination is a dealbreaker, but I'd be wary of adding Huntsman as a potential candidate without a post-nomination source. Qqqqqq (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Qqqqqq. Hopefully when I make the changes I've outlined at, we can recognise that people like him and, to a lesser extent, Hillary Clinton were considered potential candidates before they took administration positions which ruled them out. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 23:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove Ensign
What do you all think about Senator Ensign staying listed as a possible candidate? Here is a media statement from today, "delivered a serious blow to any hopes he might have had of seeking the GOP presidential nomination in 2012."- http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090616/pl_politico/23813 I think that if we take out Hunstman than Ensign should also be removed. Events have made it unlikely either would seek the nomination, though that could of course change with either of them. Ratemonth (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I commented out Huntsman until a more recent source mentioning his possible candidacy is found. I'd say the same should be done for Ensign: if sources written post-scandal continue to mention him as a possible candidate, then include him again. In general, I think when consensus is that an event is a game-changer for one potential candidate, we comment him or her out until such time as that person is again mentioned as a possible candidate. The most recent Times article on the subject reports that Ensign "had been contemplating a run for president in 2012" (my emphasis). Qqqqqq (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with above; in lieu of any post-scandal sources we should use common sense and assume that this rules him out. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheney
Both sources on his possible run are opinion blogs. He's said explicitly he doesn't want to be president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.62.168 (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

They are both from credible sources which makes Cheney a potential candidate. David1982m (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed some minor party candidates
I was just looking through the potential candidates section (as I've said on this page numerous times before, I'm working on an entirely new and hopefully much better version of said section, which is taking much longer than I thought but should be finished soon), and noticed that a lot of the potential third party/independent candidates were only cited with unreliable sources. Because people on here sometimes get a little bit upset over unfair treatment of third party candidates, and also because I think it was me that added quite a few of these in the first place, I thought it best to briefly sum up my reasoning here. I removed: Basically, only Ralph Nader and Jesse Ventura, both of whom have reliable sources, remain. Hope that's all fine with everyone. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard H. Clark, Michael David Elder, Thaddaus Hill, Joe Schriner, Alan Keyes, Diane Beall Templin, Dave Hollist, Michael Jingozian, Gloria La Riva and Gene Amondson (reference); I'm no longer convinced that Politics1 is a reliable source; it's a self-published blog (though if anything written by Ron Gunzburger has ever been published by a reliable third party source then I think we could use it).
 * Robert Milnes (reference); another unreliable self-published blog.
 * Jello Biafra (reference); not a blog, but still self-published.
 * Thomas L. Knapp (reference); unreliable blog, and 404's anyway
 * Wayne Allyn Root (reference); self-published source. There may well be third party sources for this guy, though.
 * Fine by me, your reasoning is very sound. While I'm a fan of the Poltics1 site, I agree that it is not in itself a reliable source. Particularly suspect was Alan Keyes being listed as a potential 2012 Constitution Party candidate, given the rift that ensued between him and the party following his unsuccessful bid for the '08 CP presidential nomination. Reliable, third-party sources will surface soon enough for any of the aforementioned (or other) persons who are seriously mulling a run in '12. Until then, it would be best to err on the side of observing the RS guidelines.--JayJasper (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have re-added Root, with this New York Times article which contains the money quote: “In 2012 I expect to duplicate Ross Perot’s number of 19 million (votes)".--JayJasper (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is fine with me, so long as third party/independent candidates are added once they announce they will run, and such. And, I thank you for not completely removing the independents/third party candidates or lopping them together in one section. When I saw the edit I was shocked, thinking it was another one of those attempts to shut out the "alternative" candidates. FallenMorgan (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A new idea
So I've been sort of vaguely planning on making some major changes to this article for quite a while now, and the above discussion at made it pretty clear that this article, in its current state, is uninformative, lacking in clarity and condusive to disputes. So, after having worked on it for much longer than I predicted, I present to you my idea of what this article should look like. The main changes are in the potential candidates section; I've changed the gallery format to a table which tells the reader about the potential candidates' careers up to this point and any information relevant to their attitude to the 2012 race, and split the Republican and Democratic candidates sections into subsections. I'm pretty confident that everything's correct, but I thought it would be worth asking if there's anything that I've missed, and checking there's no opposition before I make the change. So, any questions? — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Directly after posting the above, I read this. There's a source explicitly stating that today's events rule Sanford out for 2012, so I'll move him down to 'Former potential candidates' with Ensign and Huntsman. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Great idea!!! The only thing is that the subsection titles should be cut down, by not repeating "potential candidates who...". I think you should implement it right now.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the ones who "neither expressed nor denied interest" and the ones who "haven't issued statement" should both be merged into the ones who "denied interest." It's basically the same thing.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice work, but has Dick Cheney denied interest for 2012? I'm asking because the quote refers to 2008.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see my mistake about Barbour's placement. I agree that having a lot of subsection titles is confusing, but right now many readers might have trouble figuring out that Barbour and Pataki are the ones who have informally expressed interest; they might, like me, first just see the section as being out of alphabetical order. Also, where'd the Libertarian section go? Ratemonth (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about posting here then buggering off, I was reading everything I could find on the Sanford story and then decided to take a break. William: I saw Cheney's use of the Shermanesque statement to be more of a "I'm never running" thing, but I'll have another look. Ratemonth: I'm going to restore the Iowa/New Hampshire section header (for Barbour and Pataki), because I feel it's borderline original research to link visiting IA/NH with presidential aspirations anyway, and saying they've been there is a better idea than saying the fact they've been there means they might run. Also, I think I messed up the header level for the Libertarian section in the sandbox so Jerzeykydd missed it, but I've added it now. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think then recent changes look awesome, but why was Mike Steele eliminated. I saw no references as to why he was removed. But, I'm now not sure which section he would best fit in. Your thoughts? The only other reason I mention it, is because I was going to update the Republican Primary 2012 page to match this, but I notice Steele is there and not here.Diamond Dave (talk)12:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about Steele. It seems from this that he said that he might run at some point, without ever specifically mentioning 2012. I think it might be best to wait until someone mentions him in specific regard to 2012 before adding him. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 14:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, but then I am also inclined to add him because he is mentioned as possible contender as far as some polls are concerned. If I add a poll from a reputable source along with the original source I put up, would that be enough to re-add him? Also, what section would he go under, Either denied interest or haven't issued any statement or Formally expressed interest. I'm at odds because he says he will run, but not specific about it.Diamond Dave (talk)12:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That might depend on the question asked in the poll... I've seen him mentioned in ones asking things like "who is the leader of the Republican party?", but not anything directly 2012-related. If it was something like "who would you support in a hypothetical 2012 presidential election" then that would be alright, but as far as I know, that hasn't happened. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say: I think Steele saying he "would think about" running would put him in the "expressed interest" category. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have to check for sure, but I believe he was included in an NPR survey, would NPR be considered reputable? .Diamond Dave (talk)12:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends. Was it this thing? If so, no, because it's an open access poll. Any other scientific opinion poll would be, though, I guess. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What if it was just Ken Rudin's poll of his choices, not the one we submitted? I'm not sure if he is reputable, but if makes a poll and shows his top choices, how does that differ from someone who wrote a news article talking about who they think are potential candidates? Thanks. .Diamond Dave (talk)12:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably doesn't. Can you give a link to that though? I can't seem to find it. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you go to that same link and click the tab that says Ken Rudin, that's his opinion of it.Diamond Dave (talk)12:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Biden?
There should be some mention here of whether Joe Biden is planning to run for a second term as Vice-President. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. Gage (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

John McCain 2012?
I know the odds are against him running, but I did find article below from Us News and Report.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/06/07/john-mccain-for-president-in-2012-he-says-no.html

I was going to put it in, but since it's a blog from a reliable source, I wasn't sure if that was enough reason to add him, especially since I know the odds are against him running in 2012? The truth is, you never really know. I know he is old, but isn't Ralph Nader older? Your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't bother! No one is considering him, including himself! I'm not sure why you ask; the blog isn't considering him: "He Says No", "that he is not considering a 2012 rerun...a key insider says 'Ridiculous.'" The anonomous person commenting below would support him, but nothing speculating.

I was considering it because the article states as follows:

"By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers

"No often means yes in Washington, but we hear from Sen. John McCain's posse that he is not considering a 2012 rerun of his failed 2008 presidential campaign. (W beat him in the 2000 primary, remember.)  Word came this week that he is mulling over another try , but a key insider says, "Ridiculous." —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't make him a serious potential candidate. ALL of the people listed should have multiple sources, and they should be in-depth, serious speculation, not just tossing names around and being self-contradictory. Reywas92 <sup style="color:#45E03A;">Talk  18:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, that we have a ruled out section, I wonder could John McCain be added there? comment added by Diamond Dave (User talk:Diamond Dave 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If McCain ruled out another run, then its good information.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well my question is not exactly sure if that's what that article is saying, it's hinting at it in both ways. I am more inclined to put as ruled out, but the author speculates a small possibility. Diamond Dave (User talk:Diamond Dave 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it doesn't matter what others speculate, if McCain said he's ruled it out than no matter what anyone else says he must be put into that column, just like Mitch Daniels, Dick Cheney, etc.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. That column should only be for those who have been speculated on by the media and then ruled out running. If nobody speculated on McCain running, he should not be listed in the article, regardless of whether he ruled out a run or not. Tim  meh  20:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Watch the video at this link; it appears to me that McCain has indeed ruled it out. Ratemonth (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I just thought there a legit article speculating on McCain running. Nevermind then.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He may have said no on that video, but this, http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/06/07/john-mccain-for-president-in-2012-he-says-no.html, claims he may be trying again. So, doesn't that make him a ruled out or denying it? John McCain for President in 2012? He Says No June 07, 2009 11:27 AM ET | Paul Bedard | Permanent Link | Print By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers

No often means yes in Washington, but we hear from Sen. John McCain's posse that he is not considering a 2012 rerun of his failed 2008 presidential campaign. (W beat him in the 2000 primary, remember.) Word came this week that he is mulling over another try, but a key insider says, "Ridiculous."

Diamond Dave (User talk:Diamond Dave 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom Ridge?
Ridge says a 2012 run for president is “unlikely,” but hinted that he “learned a long time ago never to say never.” http://washingtonindependent.com/48624/tom-ridge-2012-presidential-campaign
 * ✅ Added him, thanks. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 23:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeb Bush
All the following articles speculate Jeb Bush running in 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/washington/29letter.html http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell/2009/06/26/jeb-bush-for-president-in-2012-after-sanford-ensign-etc-its-not-impossible.html http://washingtonindependent.com/42634/jeb-bush-has-already-lost-the-2012-presidential-election http://current.com/items/89683531_jeb-bush-2012.htm http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/TapscottsCopyDesk/jeb_bush_in_20122007-11-09T11_15_37.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22433.html

This article, however, says he will not. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/fl-senate-jeb-bush-decision-im.html

Can he be added and to what section? DiamondDave (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think he could be added to the "Either denied interest or haven't made a statement" section. The last article listed has him denying plans to run for the Senate in 2010, rather than for President in 2012. Given the reliability of the sources speculating on a presidential run, I'd say he merits inclusion.--JayJasper (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton?
What's the point of listing a former contender? GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess, it's interesting know that she may have gone against Obama. May also show be good to know if Obama were to fail in a way not to her liking, she could end up like Ted Kennedy in 1980 and run against Obama in the 2012 primary. Also, techinically LBJ was a contender until the Iowa Primary and then chose not to run for re-election in 1968. --)Diamond Dave18:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a News website. We don't remove information because it no longer seems possible. It did seem possible a few months ago. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia also isn't a complete exposition of all possible details. Tim  meh  20:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to be consistent it must be included. You can't just remove a candidate because the chances of a run don't seem possible, when sources said otherwise at one time. It's the same way Mark Sanford should be categorized. Are you proposing all the potential candidates be removed? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, William S. Saturn. If we went by that logic that would mean that Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Tancredo, Sam and Brownback all should not be considered candidates for president in 2008, because they dropped out before the end of the race and became former contenders. --Diamond Dave 22:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC) (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)
 * Clarification: How can Secy. of State Clinton, be a former potential candidate for the 2012 Democratic prez nomination? She would be a potential candidate. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * She was formerly considered a potential candidate, but isn't anymore. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Since becoming Secretary of State, Clinton is obviously out of the running for 2012, and a possible run certainly hasn't been speculated on since then. I don't see the reason for including her here. We should be careful to stay away from listing every possible detail here. If we showed every candidate whom the media was speculating about, we'd have hundreds of candidates, and that certainly isn't practical or appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Tim meh  01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It really depends on the amount and type of coverage. You can't just include some and not others. You need a standard. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I like standard that I have understood to be that standard and that is anyone can be added as long as it's reputable source making the speculation of candidacy and not blog. Diamond Dave (Talk• Contributions) 20:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon Kyl?
Politico speculating him.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17850.html

Former GOP presidential nominee John McCain on Thursday named fellow Arizona Senator Jon Kyl as a potential 2012 presidential candidate.

Asked on CNN's "Larry King Live" if he plans to support Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the Republican presidential primaries, McCain said it would be "improper" to commit now because "I don't know who's running, for one thing, because, for example, my friend Jon Kyl, my colleague from Arizona."

McCain then trailed off, appearing as if he had accidentally floated Kyl's name.

When King followed up to ask if Kyl, the Senate's minority whip, plans to run, McCain responded: "Now, wait a minute. Jon would be astonished to hear that I said that."

"He's a great leader for the Republicans in the Senate," he said. "But let me just say, I don't know who's running and all that, but I will always be grateful to Sarah Palin for her friendship and her strong principles and leadership." Do you think he is worth adding?

Diamond Dave 16:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Book Deals?
I thought heard this mentioned before, but if a article from a reputable source is talking about a politician signing book deals, does that make them a potential candidate? I ask because I found Condoleeza Rice in the following articles about her book deals she signed for release in 2012.

Condi Rice

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061902967.html There are many qualified messengers. TOM C. KOROLOGOS

http://www.theinsider.com/news/1719116_Three_book_deal_for_Condoleezza_Rice http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,499165,00.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-22-rice_N.htm http://www.examiner.com/x-2509-NY-Books-Examiner~y2009m2d27-High-profile-book-deals--the-ladies

book deals

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/us_election_2012/ 3rd place poll

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/obama_vs_antiobama_in_2012.html

Diamond Dave 16:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Kay Bailey Hutchison?
I know I added her to the Either Denied Interest or Hasn't Issued statement, but looking at her again, the article that says, "The danger is that her moderately pro-choice position - she favors a number of abortion restrictions, including parental notification laws, but she is also in favor of Roe v. Wade - will undermine her candidacy." Because she says it will "undermine her candidacy", would that actually make her Ruled Out? Your thoughts? Diamond Dave 16:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "Ruled out" means that the candidate him or herself has personally ruled out the possibility of running. Also, "undermine" is not necessarily synonomous with "ruling out" and those are not Hutchison's words but rather those of the cited article's author. So I think "Either denied...." is the appropriate section for her to be listed under.--JayJasper (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ages of Candidates
I suggest adding under 'Potential Republican Party candidates' 'Newt Gingrich' the following 'If nominated and elected, he would be 69 on Inauguration Day 2013, and 73 on leaving office after a full term in 2017. Only Ronald Reagan has been older when first inaugurated'

'Fred Thompson' the following 'If nominated and elected, he would be 71 on Inauguration Day 2013, and 75 on leaving office after a full term in 2017. He would thus be older than any President has been when first inaugurated (a record held by Ronald Reagan, who was just short of 70)'

'Rudy Giuliani' the following 'If nominated and elected, he would be 68 on Inauguration Day 2013, and 72 on leaving office after a full term in 2017. Only Ronald Reagan has been older when first inaugurated'

'Kay Bailey Hutchison' the following 'If nominated and elected, she would be 69 on Inauguration Day 2013, and 73 on leaving office after a full term in 2017. Only Ronald Reagan has been older when first inaugurated'

'Bobby Jindal' the following 'If nominated and elected, he would be 41 on Inauguration Day 2013. He would thus be more than a year younger than any President has been when first inaugurated (a record held by Theodore Roosevelt, who was 42 when inaugurated after the assassination of his predecessor) and more than 2 years younger than any President has been when first inaugurated after being elected (a record held by John F Kennedy, who was 43).'

'Jon Kyl' the following 'If nominated and elected, he would be 70 on Inauguration Day 2013, and 74 on leaving office after a full term in 2017. He would thus be older than any President has been when first inaugurated (a record held by Ronald Reagan, who was just short of 70)'

'John McCain' the following 'If nominated and elected, he would be 76 on Inauguration Day 2013, and 80 on leaving office after a full term in 2017. He would thus be more than 6 years older than any President has been when first inaugurated (a record held by Ronald Reagan, who was just short of 70) and more than 2 years older than any President has been at any inauguration (Reagan was just short of 74 at his second inauguration).'

'Ron Paul' the following 'If nominated and elected, he would be 77 on Inauguration Day 2013, and 81 on leaving office after a full term in 2017. He would thus be more than 7 years older than any President has been when first inaugurated (a record held by Ronald Reagan, who was just short of 70) and more than 3 years older than any President has been at any inauguration (Reagan was just short of 74 at his second inauguration).'

'Paul Ryan' the following 'If nominated and elected, he would be just over 42 on Inauguration Day 2013. He would thus be younger than any President has been when first inaugurated (a record held by Theodore Roosevelt, who was aged 42 years and 10 months when inaugurated after the assassination of his predecessor) and more than a year younger than any President has been when first inaugurated after being elected (a record held by John F Kennedy, who was 43).' Alekksandr (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, if you would like to add that to each candidate, please do! Diamond Dave 16:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I approve of the idea, just try to cut down the wordiness.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jerzeykydd. Instead of "after leaving office after a full term in ....", it would be better to say "at the completion of the first term" or something to that effect, to acknowledge the possibility of re-election.--JayJasper (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitions NEEDED!!!!
There should be some definitions each section, because I'm having a tough understanding what qualifies as "Ruled Out". Why Jim DeMint Ruled Out, why is Michele Bachman Denying Interes and not Ruled Out, why is Cheney only Ruled Out. We need some hard definitions for these. Thanks. David1982m (talk)

Thanks for the additions of the definitions, however, I am having trouble seeing how Jon Huntsman fits the definition of Former Potential Candidate. The definition says death or scandal/controversy. Huntsman just says he took an appointment from Obama, that doesn't sound like a controversy scandal, or death. Thanks. David1982m (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.20.170 (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

When did Huntsman rule out running?
The information by his name does not say he has ruled it out. Ratemonth (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity and/or Merchandizing section
I was wondering if could add a section that shows potential candidates that are not likely to run or not gonna run at all, but they have a lot of public attention. The criteria I think would need to be very strict, but I can't believe how many not necessarily reputable sources claim Ted Nugent is running. Or how many different online companies are selling t-shirts and other merchandize for such not likely to run candidates like Ted Nugent and others. You got to admit it is kind of interesting to know that for whatever reason that a name is getting a lot of attention for something they may not even do. Again, it will have to depend how much attention they are getting, how many different articles or references.

Also, someone told me once that Chevy Chase was considering to run for president, like in the 80s, never happened, but I would like to have to known when or anything in connection to it. Obviously, we don't want or need every speculated candidate, but I think if we make this section require like 5 sources that either talk about someone in this context running or selling of merchandize for their run, it would be a great addition. I just think it would make an interesting side note, if we make the criterion clear and we stick to it and also clearly define it's purpose, I think it could be a very interesting addition to this article.

Ted Nugent is the only one I have noticed standing out, so I don't think I have enough candidates to make it yet. I have heard a few mentions of Gary Sinise, not sure enough to add him. I would be interested in finding more candidates, but I'm hoping we can agree on some criteria for this and then try to work with it. Let me know what you think? DiamondDave (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the criteria for celebrity candidates would be the same for any other candidate; being mentioned as a potential candidate by a reliable source. I can't remember for sure, but wasn't the Ted Nugent thing mostly in reference to him running for the hypothetical office of President of Texas? (Following Rick Perry's comments regarding secession.) By the way, why are you linking to someone else's contributions and talk page in your signature? – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to do that. They don't make it easier to add your signature with the tags. I do Diamond Dave thing but it just adds my info as plain text. Let me try again [Diamond Dave 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)-Diamond Dave 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)

Wording of "Former potential candidates"
I wish that section could have some statement indicating that it is still legal for these people to run, just incredibly unlikely that they would run. I can't think of how to put that; perhaps someone else here could. Right now it says that they "can't run for President" which is technically not true of the three men listed there. Ratemonth (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I simplified it: The following are politicians who were once considered potential candidates, but whose circumstances have changed so as to make a presidential campaign unlikely. I think it's better to give a broad criteria at the top of the section and explain individual people's circumstances rather than list anything and everything that could put someone in that section. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's much better. Thanks for the revision.--JayJasper (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't define anything, but I did list some things that may be included so wikipedia editors don't object to candidates who had sex scandals and the joining of Obama's admination, who clearly can't run for president.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This may be a bit off-topic, but why does this section even exist? If the candidates are extremely unlikely to run and the media isn't speculating about them, then what possible reason could we have to include them? They don't seem to have any relevance to the topic, and Wikipedia is not a directory or indiscriminate collection of information. Tim meh  21:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be list because they were speculated, but they have since become ruled out based upon particular circumstances. But with I really think this section should be combined with ruled out. A Former Potential candidate should be someone who was admittedly in but dropped just before the primary. Like a better example. Since Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback did not run in the primaries, but actively campaign before the 2008 primaries. I would have considered them Former Potential Candidates. If something happens that prevents someone from running before they run, that's more being ruled out as running. If they are a Former Potential Candidate, they are also ruled out then as well. David1982m (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any feedback? I really think for someone to be a Former Potential Candidate, they have to be someone who campaigned or was speculated in one of the 3 top categories (Formally, Informally, or Denied), but dropped out before Primary. A Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo category is what the Former Potential Candidate Section should be for. Ruled Out should be for anyone who has outright said No or certain situations have prevented them from running. Sanford's scandal has ruled out the possibility of him running. Jon Huntsman being appointed by Obama rules him out for running, Dick Cheney is ruled because he has stated he will absolutely not run. All ruled out potential nominees for different reasons. David1982m (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point, David. I think we should merge the the "Ruled out" and "Former" sections. They should be listed under "Former" because it is more of a umbrella term that encompasses both categories. That's my two-bits.--JayJasper (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JayJasper! If no one else has any feedback, I will change it over the weekend, unless I get some different feedback. With no objections, I will remove the Former Potential Candidates entirely and move all those former potential candidates into the Ruled Out category. Once the primaries start, however, we should bring back the Former Potential candidates section and all candidates in the Formally, Informally and Denied Interest candidates that haven't been ruled out and do not run in the primary, should be added to the Former Potential Candidate category. By rights that would more clearly constitute a Former Potential Candidate.David1982m (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually also think we should define these further. Because I really think if Michelle Bachmann says she has no interest, that should rule her out. Cheney said Hell no and is ruled out. What is the difference between hell no and having no interest? Also, Barbour and Huckabee have voiced interested and have made no definite indicate that they will and therefore fit within Informally. Giuliani is in denied interest and said that he would like to try again. For these I think the following revisions should be made.

1. Informally, should be any candidate that has expressed an interest without officially stating it. This category should include Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Rudy Giuliani, Bobby Jindal, and Tom Ridge. Because they have voiced a possible run.

2. Denied Interest Group, should be anyone who hasn't stated anything about running, but people are speculating a run. This should include George Pataki, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Sam Brownback, Richard Burr, Jeb Bush, Eric Cantor, Bob Corker, John Cornyn, Charlie Crist, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Dirk Kempthorne, Jon Kyl, John McCain, Rick Perry, Condi Rice, Paul Ryan, John Thune. This because they have not said anything yet about their running.

3. Ruled Out anyone who has said, stated no interest, or something preventing them from running. This would be Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, Cheney, Daniels, DeMint, Pence, Petraeus, Ensign, and Sanford. Your thoughts? David1982m (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Number one, the article is very good as it is right now. However, I'm OK with the merging the "Former Candidates" and "Ruled Out." Number two, I striked out how Pataki/Romney/Thompson should be in denied interest because they informally have interest. Number three, Dick Cheney didn't just say "hell no" he said "if elected won't serve" BS. Number four, their may be a conflict between the difference of denied interest and ruled out. Because Bobby Jindal denied interest, but didn't rule out. Solution: Seperate people who denied interest but are open to running, from people who flat out ruled it out. For example, T-Paw has no interest at the moment, but said it's too early. Number five, for what happens when for the first time someone announces their intent to run, we should have a seperate section in this talk page for what to do next.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I am still confused because nothing in the sections for Pataki, Romney, or Thompson saying anything about the stating they will consider or interested in running. Saying because they write a book or go to Iowa or New Hampshire, sounds too much like original work. For example Mike Pence went to Iowa but then said he will not run for president which is why he is now under Ruled Out. So, I just think informally should more be for someone who has said they are interested but haven't made definite plans, like Mike Huckabee. The definition for Informal sounds based too much on some's original opinion what they believe to be a reason someone is informally expressing interest. I really think that should for potential candidates who said they are interested, but haven't made definite plans and leave Denied Interest for those who only have people speculating about them running.

Formally Expressed- Have outright expressed interest

Informally Expressed- Have expressed an interest, but have definite plans of running at this time.

Denied Interest- Journalists and the like speculating who will run.

Ruled Out- Potential Candidates that said no, not interested, committed a scandal, or were appointed to the current administration.

I still think at the time of the primary it would be great to put everyone in the Denied Interest, Informal, and Formal that didn't run in the primaries into a Former Potential Candidate section.

In short verbal expression of interest is more reputable than assuming anyone who wrote a book or went to Iowa or New Hampshire is running. David1982m (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Future
When the first person announces their intent to run for the Republican party nomination, we need to fix up the article. I personally suggest creating a seperate article titled: Potential Republican candidates who didn't run for the 2012 Republican party presidential primaries instead of just a picture gallery like past presidential election articles.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that, as soon as one person announces a run, then everyone else should be considered not to be running. Also, perhaps we're referring to different things, but Democratic Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008 and its Republican counterpart both have substantially more than "just a picture gallery". Either way, I think we should probably cross that bridge when we come to it. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit War
I am not involved in the reverts and have no opinion on the matter, but I have noticed that there have been 6 rapid reverts in quick succession. After 3 reverts, please try and discuss disagreements. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

One side in this edit war (Jeffery Mall and Netalarm) did not engage in the discussion that preceded David1982m's edits. Netalaram has elsewhere claimed to be reverting vandalism, which clearly is not true because David1982m's edits were obviously based on the discussion here. Ratemonth (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ratemonth, I believe I may have misunderstood some of the discussion, which is why I stopped reverting. Diamond Dave 02:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)
 * Just wanted to look out for you and Netalarm. I wouldn't want an overzealous admin to block you for edit warring which it seemed like that was what was starting.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems someone already become someone decided to dispute my changes to another article, but luckily that has been cleared up as well. Thanks TParis. Diamond Dave 07:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)


 * I've provided a response on my talk page if you'd like to read it. I didn't copy it here to avoid 2 copies of it on Wikipedia. But the most important thing:
 * When removing large portions of cited content, please remember to add an edit summary that explains why it was done.

Thanks, and happy editing! <FONT COLOR ="#006600" SIZE="2PX">Netalarm</FONT> 13:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruled out running
I think the intro for this section ought to be completely rewritten. It is very awkwardly worded as it is now. Why are we making such an arbitrary distinction between "denying interest" and "completely ruling out" running? We can't really make any valid nonarbitrary distinction between these. What we should do is separate potential candidates into those that are currently being discussed and those that reliable sources have ruled out due to the circumstances already mentioned in the section in question. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Whether or not a candidate has ruled out running or denied interest or whatever should not have any weight on what category the candidate is placed in. We should only classify a candidate as potential or ruled out by reliable sources only.

As I've said before, I completely oppose a section that lists candidates that have been ruled out and aren't being talked about anymore, but since everybody else here seems to give WP:NOT much less weight than I do, I'll settle for the above proposal and nothing less. What is currently in the ruled out running section is way too much speculation and original research, and it has to be fixed. Tim meh  18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I basically agree. I believe it was my idea originally to make that distinction, and I don't think it's entirely unjustified (when it can be reliably referenced); the way the media spoke about Petraeus and Daniels after their denials was, I think, quite different from the way Jindal was treated after his sort-of denial, that is to say, who is and isn't "currently being discussed" more often than not directly relates to who has and hasn't ruled him or herself out. Still, though, I think there are problems with WP:OR and maybe WP:SYNTH in both that section, and the whole "informally expressed interest" jumble. I think we either need to return to the hopefully simpler categorisation system I outlined in the little green box above, or, as you say, essentially combine them all into people who are and people who aren't currently being discussed. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Really, I'd prefer just lumping them into one big list. If sources aren't discussing them, then what possible reason is there to include them? Candidates that sources have ruled out have no place on Wikipedia. We're supposed to publish information from reliable sources, not which candidates reliable sources were discussing and have ruled out. If we continue to do that up until the election, we'll have more than a hundred candidates in the "ruled out" section, and the page would become way too long and detailed. Tim  meh  16:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be curious to know what defines currently discussed? We could then be taking people down and adding them back. Also, how long should someone be listed before they are taken down. Is one month, two months, 6 months long enough before someone is taken down. Then who's to say one may suddenly jump back on the radar of people talking about them for some unforeseen reason. But, also I figure it's important to know who was considered, even if they never came to be. I suggest simplifying it simply Ruled Out based upon circumstance or out right saying NO, Speculated individuals who haven't made statements, and then formally stated an affirmative strong interest in running, and then one for candidates have said they are interested, but not sure at this time that actually will. The main difference between these two is that formally is for those who made pretty affirmative statements, the second part is for ones who have made statements but very passive about it. So, in short - Formally would include - Gingrich - Giuliani - Johnson - Palin -   - Then Formally, but no definite indication of a run: - Barbour - Huckabee - Jindal - Paul - Pawlenty - Ridge - Steele -   - Speculated with no actual statements (including those visiting IA and NH and putting aside money and PACs [I still believe it's original work to call that Informally expressing interest]): - Brownback - Burr - Bush - Cantor - Corker - Cornyn - Crist - Hutchison - Kempthorne - Kyl - McCain - Pataki - Perry - Rice - Romney - Ryan - Thompson - Thune -   - Ruled Out, I agree should just be list with a ref to sources.Diamond Dave 16:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that wouldn't work. We must base the list on reliable sources speculating on candidates, not what a candidate has said about a possible run. Right now, we're speculating based on candidates' circumstances or statements, and that violates WP:CRYSTAL. The only criteria for classifying candidates as not being discussed should be that reliable sources must have said themselves that the candidate won't run. If reliable sources have ruled out a candidate, only then can we remove them as potential candidates. Tim  meh  16:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats true, but if it must be sources ruling them out, then I would say that Sarah Palin and Kay Bailey Hutchison are ruled out because they have sources ruling them out. Palin, however, still has sources saying she is a potential candidate. We can't put her limbo obviously. Also, which is more reputate the candidate saying No or a source. Hutchison has not issued a statement, however, one of her sources rules her out. Then also what about Jon Huntsman, it's been assumed that because he was appointed by Obama he won't one, however, no source has yet really ruled him out since then. If that's the case by rights we should bring back Hillary Clinton as potential for the Democratic nomination, because I haven't seen a source rule her out since her appointment. The question is does a potential candidate lose potential if they are not spoken about for a period of time and how long of a period of time is considered enough? I think it's great to know who has been mentioned as potential, but like I recently added Sam Brownback, Richard Burr, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, Jon Kyl, Jeb Bush, Cantor, Corker, and Rice who only one source and I have not since heard any more speculation on them, I wonder if they should still be considered potential. Most of the "Haven't issued a statement" crowd don't have many sources and I wonder if some of them may be ruled because there hasn't been a lot of talk of them, at least not in connection the 2012 election. McCain I added, but now wondering if he should be ruled out, since no one else has since mentioned it.Diamond Dave 20:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)
 * I think we need a set standard for inclusion. Maybe a requirement of three articles for each potential candidate, all of which were published by reliable sources within the last six months. I know that's an arbitrary length of time, but I don't see any better way to do it. Tim  meh  21:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That works for me, except I would prefer making it at least 2 sources as opposed to 3. My only question then would be, if no new sources show up for someone within 6 months, do we take them down? I would suspect then we will need to start including the dates of sources. David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There should be no time limit, since this is not a news site. If speculation ends after a certain time period, then the individual should be placed in a "Former speculated candidates" section or similar. We should not entirely remove somebody from this article such as Sanford, because of recent developments, they should instead be placed in a section noting that speculation has ended. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then maybe should be moved to a separate listing and taken down from the gallery. Maybe after 6 months any potential candidate in the speculated category would be moved to a listed category called Exhausted Speculation.  So, I suggest a clean up as follows:

Formally Expressed Informally Expressed Verbally Expressed Speculated, but have not issued a statement All above categories will have a photo gallery.

All below categories will NOT have a photo gallery, just a listing. Speculation Exhausted: Candidates were speculated, but never issued a statement and no further speculation has occurred in 6 months from the time of the initial speculation.

Previously speculated candidates that are no longer speculated due to specific circumstances as expressed by pundits and journalists (scandals or otherwise circumstances that lead the sources to believe they will not run) and have not issued a statement.

Your thoughts? David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (double edit conflict) I don't think that a problem stemming from having too many arbitrary distinctions can be solved by making more arbitrary distinctions. The above proposals (Timmeh, David's second most recent post), fail to take into account the relative depth and/or detail of the sources given; I assume that a 1,000 word piece about a candidate is worth more than a brief mention in an article discussing something else altogether? I don't see any reason we can't come to a consensus regarding a candidate based on the individual merits of the sources given, rather than an arbitrary standard. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 21:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, I just wonder if someone speculates someone only once and no one else speculates them, how much of a potential candidate are they? We have a lot of Haven't issued a statement that at least as far as I know, haven't heard any recent speculation. So, it's tough to say how potential they are. Maybe every 6 months we put candidates in the Haven't issued a statement category under Discussion and determine whether or not they should be ruled out? David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should only include sources with full articles, or at least a paragraph or two, dedicated to a potential candidate. As long as more than one source speculated on a potential candidate in adequate detail, we can include that candidate. Maybe instead of having a separate category for candidates no longer being discussed, we can just arrange one comprehensive list in chronological order using the source with the latest publication date. Candidates whose circumstances have uncontroversially ruled out a run, or whom multiple reliable sources have specifically ruled out for whatever reason, can be removed from the list and the page completely. This way we eliminate arbitrary distinctions, speculation, and original research and keep all candidates in one list to keep it simple. Does anyone have any problems with that idea? Tim  meh  03:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that in order for a candidate to be on this page it needs one article to be dedicated to it. However, I believe the way the page is right now is OK. Yes, there is a problem between defining whether or a candidate is denying or ruling out. But we can't just get rid of everything. I believe we just have to make up our own definitions of a candidate who has ruled out or denyed it.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't do that. Right now, the ruled out section is full of original research and speculation. Making up our own definitions is not in line with Wikipedia's core policies and neither is distinguishing between a denial and "completely ruling out" a candidacy. Tim  meh  03:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I suggest keeping ruled out, but leaving it to the following: Michelle Bachman Dick Cheney Mitch Daniels Jim DeMint Mike Pence David Petraeus Mark Sanford. I suggest this because they have sources or they themselves have said No, without offering the possibility they might run. Jindal, Paul, some others have said "maybe" which is different, which is why they won't be included here.  Now, Huntsman and Ensign do not have any sources that Rule Them out nor have they issued a statement.  So, they should be included in the Haven't issued a statement column.  In truth just because Huntsman was appointed Obama does not mean he can't run.  It does seem unlikely, but he could decide the hell with Obama and run against him.  But if we move Huntsman for that reason, Hillary Clinton should be brought back as a potential Democratic Candidate. Your thoughts? :::::::Actually looking at your comments again TimmeH, it sounds we really shouldn't be putting them into categories at all, unless sources have them separated as such.  Come to think of it http://www.gop12.com (not sure how reliable they are) and many other don't differentiate their listings of potential candidates.  I guess it goes back to my way back theory that everyone is potential until someone formally announces they will run. Another thought, although it would mean categorizing, if we give a potential candidate more detail and attention depending upon the number of sources it has.  If it has one source, it's just listed without a photo.  If it has 2 sources it appears in a photo gallery.  If it has 3 or more it appears like that all do right now. Your thoughts?David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the simplest way to do this and the best way to comply with policies and guidelines would be to completely omit any categories and list the candidates as I said. We should give all the candidates equal precedence regardless of the number of sources discussing them. Really, I don't think any of them should have a photo, as it adds nothing to the article except something colorful to look at and takes up far too much space. Also, I don't think we should consider the candidates' comments at all. First, they lie, and often. Second, the only thing we should be doing here is recording well documented speculation by reliable sources and nothing else. Adhering to that idea, candidates don't belong in different categories because of something they said. I would oppose having anything more than a list like I proposed above; I can't see how we can do it any other way without violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, or WP:CRYSTAL. Tim  meh  15:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I kind of like the pictures, what if we brought back the picture gallery without the descriptions and the statements about them and then just included the cited sources?.David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) That may work and would really unclutter the article, but Wikipedia articles really should be text-based. I'd like to see what other editors think of my proposal and whether they'd prefer just a picture gallery or the full explanations without pictures. Do you think you could ask a few of the other frequent editors of this article to weigh in on this so we can attain consensus on a specific method of listing the candidates? Tim meh  15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I only really know a handful of edits and I never attempted to talk to someone on Wikipedia outside of discussion. I figure I just go to their talk pages?  Also, I wonder how much trouble would it be to do the gallery, but instead of including the text about them being a potential candidate in this article, why don't we add it to their own article.  Like instead of putting, for example, Rudy Giuliani's text here, just put his pic and then you can click him to read about on the article about him.  Your thoughts? David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, there should be no 'Potential candidates' section listed in the article, until the summer of 2011. There's no 100% guarentee that President Obama will seek re-election; nor that any 1-term former President or any living former Vice President won't choose to run in 2012. Let's be patient and leave the candidates stuff for a couple of years. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see your point GoodDay, but whats wrong with including names that have been mentioned as potential. People are already speculating it, it seems like that information should be included here.  Maybe if we kept it broad, like the following individuals are thought to be running based upon references in the media? David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say eliminate the entire 'Potential Candidiates' section. It's way too early for these speculations, the party primaries won't begin for another 29-30 months or so. We're getting as bad as CNN. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a new article could be created that lists all candidates speculated and categorized as necessary. Then on this page, we could tighten the requirements for inclusion, while providing a link to the new page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be multiple sources for everyone. If we can't find multiple saying the same thing, then leave the person out. I would say to remove the entire Ruled out running section. It's so early now that there's no reason why there should be so many people listed here. Just give the ones who maybe will, not won't. Even though there are links, some are even laughable to include, such as Bachmann, Cheney, and Petraeus, and even with the explanations I still have dissatisfaction with including Daniels. The same goes for the No statement - eight of them only have a single ref and including McCain is a joke. Again, it's so early that there's no need to have everyone. Also, why the heck is the exact same infomation on Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012? Since this was TLDR, if you want to know if we should go back to just pictures, I vehemently oppose: the likelihood of these people running are all so different that that would be useless. Better yet, I agree with GoodDay. If my cmt isn't exactly what you're asking for, please specify. Reywas92 <sup style="color:#45E03A;">Talk 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay's reasoning is wrong because most campaigns will begin in the latter part of 2010 as demonstrated by past elections. The fact that there has been speculation, should not be omitted. That is why I made the above proposal.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, eliminate the section until after 2010 congressional elections. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should facts be omitted until the time that campaigns begin, especially when most test the waters months beforehand? I don't understand the need for an arbitrary date. The speculation now is just as verifiable as it would be any time in the future. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My problem with that is they are being speculated, why shouldn't they be mentioned? Even if it's one source, if it's reputable, why not? Also, had an idea of showing gradually consideration. If they have one source they only get listed, 2 sources photo displayed. 3 or more photo display with an informative block of text. The other idea I had was just put up the picture gallery and adding the block of text to the individual's article itself. David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry ya'll, I'm in favour of deleting the entire section (or at least moving them to sister articles). I just don't see the urgency in adding them here 'now'. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * GoodDay when you said sister articles, were you agreeing with me in that was thinking could list the names as mentioned and add the text information to their own article. Like leave Rudy Giuliani with just name and put the text and sources on the Rudy Giuliani Article page. David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Potential United States presidential candidates, 2012, create it, and place in it all speculated candidates that are notable, and then tighten the limit on this page. To me, that makes the most sense. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is also acceptable. Both ideas should be implimenated. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to remove all the candidates being talked about. Speculated candidates are arguably an important part of this article; plenty of reliable sources are talking about them. Once we clean up all the potential candidates according to my criteria, there really won't be enough to warrant a separate article just for potential candidates. I'll paste my previous proposal below in case it was missed a ways back in the discussion:
 * I think we should only include sources with full articles, or at least a paragraph or two, dedicated to a potential candidate. As long as more than one source speculated on a potential candidate in adequate detail, we can include that candidate. Maybe instead of having a separate category for candidates no longer being discussed, we can just arrange one comprehensive list in chronological order using the source with the latest publication date. Candidates whose circumstances have uncontroversially ruled out a run, or whom multiple reliable sources have specifically ruled out for whatever reason, can be removed from the list and the page completely. This way we eliminate arbitrary distinctions, speculation, and original research and keep all candidates in one list to keep it simple. Does anyone have any problems with that idea? Tim  meh  18:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That idea is cool, but it should be implamented 'after' the 2010 congressional elections. Honestly, I don't see the urgency, folks. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What problems do you think documenting speculation by reliable sources could cause? Tim  meh  18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't foresee any problems, it's my personal preference to wait until November 2010. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In respect to GoodDay's comments, I think then it may be important to enforce that these candidates are just names that are being thrown around. Then after November 2010, we can make the article more elaborate with the different statuses of potential candiates. David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever ya'll can agree to, is fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds good, David. Tim  meh  19:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm basically with Timmeh. No new article, tighter but flexible requirements, no waiting until an arbitrary point before making dramatic changes to the article, no removing photos, one big alphabetical list/table. If we cut out all the people who've only been referred to once in passing (I make this Sam Brownback, Richard Burr, John Cornyn and Condi Rice), and maybe some others based on discussion that can occur after this is finished, there shouldn't be length issues. I'm neutral on the inclusion of people not currently being discussed; it seems like a WP:NOTNEWS issue to have no mention of them whatsoever, but I think if we can agree to only include in a "former potential candidates"/"ruled out" those who have ruled themselves out (either by having an affair or joining the Obama administration or saying "I'm not going to run" or whatever else) and who haven't been mentioned by any reliable sources since whatever they did, then I'll happily support that. What I'd favour would include two sections, "potential candidates", to include everyone currently under "expressed interest" and "no statement", as well as Bachmann, Cheney, Daniels, DeMint, Pence and Petraeus; and "former potential candidates", with (for the moment) Sanford, Thune and Huntsman. I think reorganising the article is currently a more pressing concern than setting inclusion criteria and/or removing candidates, but I'd be happy to focus on that some time in the near future. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I gotta leave and I'll be very busy this week. I had no time this afternoon to read the entire discussion. But here are my quick opinions: --Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that we should replace everything with one list of the most updated referenced candidates.
 * I want a section seperating the expressed interest and candidates without a statement.
 * I agree with Hysteria's statement of If we cut out all the people who've only been referred to once in passing (I make this Sam Brownback, Richard Burr, John Cornyn and Condi Rice), and maybe some others based on discussion that can occur after this is finished, there shouldn't be length issues.
 * I agree that we should keep the photos.
 * Michael Steele should not be in this article, as he expressed interest not specifically for 2012.
 * Cheney, Daniels, DeMint, and Petraeus have all ruled out running
 * I also agree with Timmeh that a reference should be a full page.
 * The future of this article is a seperate issue


 * Maybe a short paragraph just stating the following have been mentioned once, but speculation has since been exhausted within the last 6 months or more. I'm not even so sure, I buy into the ones without a statement, but again they can lie, and just because someone says they will doesn't mean anything. My suggestion which I believe compliment all the ideas mentioned.  Display the candidates as follows:


 * Names currently and regularly being thrown around.
 * Gallery or Gallery text boxes for each one.


 * Names that were being thrown around, but speculation has stopped within the last 6 months or more. Just a list of names.


 * I am opposed to putting a limit on the number of sources, but I am cool with a time frame like 6 months. If the source is reputable, why not?  If we just use the 6 month time frame, avoids making definitions for each category, for example speculation has virtually ended for Sanford.  So, if 6 months passes from the last source he has speculating him, he could then be moved to the smaller list as described above.  Sam Brownback would be down there on the smaller list because no one else has speculated since that source was published by the original source.  This way we cover all that have been mentioned, then we just take them down as the sources diminish over 6 months periods from the sources published date. Only the following have sources 6 months or older Crist February Perry February Kempthorne January Kyl January Thompson December 2008 Jindal December 2008 Petraeus October 2008 Thune July 2008 Corker No ref (his sources, I now can't find text about him)David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Section break
It seems like we've reached consensus on some of the issues raised. I'll list them here to give readers and newcomers to the discussion an easier way of understanding what we've discussed so far.
 * Consensus has been reached on these issues:
 * We should only include sources with full articles, or at least a paragraph or two, dedicated to a potential candidate.
 * As long as at least two reliable sources have speculated on a potential candidate in adequate detail, that candidate can be included.
 * Here's where we still have a bit of disagreement. Right now, I see two proposals brought up for the arrangement of the candidates:
 * Arrange one comprehensive list (for each party) in chronological order using the source with the latest publication date. Any potential candidate who has been uncontroversially ruled out due to circumstance or has been ruled out according to at least two reliable sources should be removed.
 * This is the simplest arrangement and in itself would be neutral and free of original research and speculation.
 * Same as above but with separate sections for "expressed interest" and "haven't issued a statement".
 * This would involve splitting each party's list into two separate sub-lists. A reason hasn't been provided for this proposal, and whether implemented or not, there would still be text under each candidate explaining whether or not the candidate has made a statement. Tim  meh  22:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on the second disputed proposal is that it is unnecessary and gives too much weight to the fact that a candidate has or hasn't made a statement. If text telling of a statement or lack of one would be under each candidate anyway, I see no need to further highlight the fact that some have made statements. It would just clutter up the article with several more unneeded subsections. Tim meh  22:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The only reason I think differentiating from those who have made a statement and those who haven't, is that making a statement is much different someone speculating. But I guess if we are tightening on who is and who is out based upon number of sources and reliable sources ruling, that should filter it down to mostly those who have made statements anyway.  I still wonder if an arbitrary time should be included to determine when someone is no longer speculated.  Either way, it sounds like the list would be cut down to the following: Gingrich, Palin, Pataki, Romney, Thompson (his sources are, however, over 6 months old), Barbour, Huckabee, Jindal (Has about 3 sources, but kind of brief), Paul, Pawlenty, Ridge, Bush, Cantor, Crist (his sources are, however, over 6 months old), Hutchison, Ryan (Has about 3 sources, but kind of brief), Thune (his sources are, however, over 6 months old), Bachmann only has one source, so I took off this list and the rest of ruled out, I'm confused as to who would be tossed. David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We'd of course mention for each candidate whether or not he/she has made a statement. Also, please try not to clutter up this discussion with vertical lists of names. I'm going to separate the names in your list by commas to save space; hopefully that's OK with you. I think we want to avoid arbitrary time lengths for "former potential candidates". If sources think a candidate isn't likely to run anymore, they'll say it themselves, and we can then remove the candidates according to the criteria outlined above. Tim  meh  23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That works for me but for the remaining Ruled Out Candidates, who would stay on that list? Cheney, Daniels, DeMint, Ensign, Huntsman, Pence, Petraeus, and Sanford there now. David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We'd leave in whoever has sources that satisfy the criteria agreed upon and have not experienced circumstances that uncontroversially ruled out a run (for example, being in the Obama administration). Tim  meh  23:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So they all stay except Huntsman. Then the remaining Ruled Out candidates get added to the list above and they all get sorted by the date of their most recent source? David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we also have to check each source to make sure it has at least a paragraph or two dedicated to that specific candidate.
 * I check removed all one sourcers and I checked Paul Ryan he seems to only have one of three sources that sound like they qualified. Something happened with Tom Krologos source, But I know thats a one liner and the last source is mostly about Palin.  Should Ryan be canned next?David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom Ridge has 3 sources the first 2 are about running for VP in 2008 and then the one that's supposedly about him ever running for President doesn't open. Should he be taken down? David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if we are going to make these changes to the Rep and Dem sections, I just notice Ralph Nader and Wayne Allyn Root each only have one source. Should we remove them from those sections as well? David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be better to look for more sources before removing them. Tim  meh  00:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with anything, so long as nobody tries lopping the "alternative" (third party and independent) candidates into one section, or removing them entirely. FallenMorgan (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)(posted on my talk page) David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Ridge source opens fine for me. The Korologos article thing is here, I think it got removed with Sam Brownback, but I removed it from Paul Ryan as it's really a very brief mention. Still, various parts of it could be useful for various other potential candidates, I guess. The other Ryan ref seems to be doing something strange, I think there are two refs named "msnbc"? I'll have a look at that now. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the Ryan thing; refs under him, Pence and Thune were all pointing to an article about Palin when they should have been going here. I can't really be bothered to check the history but I guess someone (maybe me) got their ref names confused somewhere down the line. I think that article might be justification to restore Bob Corker, but I'll let someone else decide. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Corker only had one source though David1982m (talk 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal
Something we failed to address in the above discussion is what to do about articles that were published before the 2008 election. I propose we rule them out automatically. We should keep the speculation focused within this election cycle. This election wasn't worth an article until after the 2008 election, and for good reason. Why should sources published during last year's election cycle be valid? Circumstances sure have changed since then, and I'm sure if sources still think someone might run, they would have published more than enough articles after all the chatter about the 2008 election died down. Tim meh  16:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, let's cut out all potential candidates with only sources dated prior to November 5, 2008. --Diamond Dave 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)

I agree with this as well.--JayJasper (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)