Talk:2012 United States presidential election/Archive 8

Presidency of Ronald Reagan and Presidency of Barack Obama
Obama's jobs record looks a lot like -- Ronald Reagan's by Tim Mullaney, for USA Today 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No FEC papers
The following are not filed with the Federal Election Commission: Vermin Supreme (D) Stewart J. Greenleaf (R) Jill Stein (G) James Hedges (P) Stewart Alexander (SPUSA) Roseanne Barr (I) Robert "Naked Cowboy" Burck (I) Terry Jones (I) None of these people should be on the page. Hermanator1 (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you the same person as this editor, by any chance? Both of you have been obnoxiously, repeatedly urging certain candidates to be taken off the page, and [Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Hermanator1 you have a history of using multiple IPs at the same time as your user account]. Please read the sockpuppetry policy regarding using multiple accounts (or IPs). Difluoroethene (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry, Difluorthene, but that is definitely not me. I am not dumb enough to be a sockpuppet. Also, I do not swear like that person does. Hermanator1 (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh? How do you swear? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Steven J. Anderson, it is exactly that kind of sarcastic comment that needs to be purged from Wikipedia. This is a place of learning and teaching, not mocking. --Alexander C. Roller (talk 17:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource for Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012
Pipeline Protesters Form Human Chain Around White House by Tennille Tracy Wall Street Journal NOVEMBER 6, 2011, 6:01 P.M. ET; excerpt ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Off topic, both in this article, and the one you point to. Perhaps in Presidency of Barack Obama?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 6 November 2011
Lee Abramson has registered as an independent candidate under The Party of God for 2012.

Teeohhem (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

He needs to have a wikipedia article and at least 2 reliable sources (other than his own website).Ratemonth (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is his article: Lee Abramson, and here are 2 sources that seem reliable: http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=303527, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/musician-seeks-presidency-2011-11-17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green4liberty (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Candidates for republicans and democrats.
This is how it look likes now:


 * 3.1 Democratic Party
 * 3.1.1 Candidates gallery
 * 3.1.1.1 Other candidates
 * 3.1.1.2 Withdrawn Candidates


 * 3.2 Republican Party
 * 3.2.1 Withdrawn candidates
 * 3.2.2 Candidates gallery
 * 3.2.2.1 Other candidates

Why are withdrawn candidates under Candidates gallery for the Democratic party but not for the Republican party? Shouldn't it be the same categorization for both parties?

80.216.207.74 (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be the same categorization for both, and that "withdrawn candidates" should be at the bottom of both lists.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This would mean that the major and minor candidates would eventually all be combined under the Republican Party. This would violate the agreement. I support the removal of withdrawn for the Democrats for consistency.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Should we add that Herman Cain withdrew from the campaign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.221.237 (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It says he suspended his campaign.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

resource
Democrats See a Two-Horse G.O.P. Race, Adding a Whip by Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg published December 7, 2011 New York Times, excerpt ... 99.190.87.173 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Consistency of naming articles
At present, there is no consistency over whether the six articles for the Republican presidential race should have "(United States)" in them, with 3 of them having it:

Republican Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2012 Republican Party (United States) presidential debates, 2012 Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012

and three articles not having it in the title:

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2012 presidential primaries Straw polls for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012

Could we agree on whether to say "Republican Party" or "Republican Party (United States)" and apply that consistently across all articles? Personally, I'd be in favour of just saying "Republican Party", unless any other Republican Party has presidential primaries in 2012? Tiller54 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. They should be consistent and just say "republican party" if there are no other republican primaries or debates in 2012 in other nations. The same should go for the democratic party articles, too.--NextUSprez (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

✅ The candidates & debates articles have been moved to say "Republican Party" for consistency with the other aforementioned pages, as there was no apparent need for disambiguation from other 2012 Republican Party articles.--JayJasper (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You missed one - Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 - I tried to move it myself, but it wouldn't move! Tiller54 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I missed that one, but someone got it moved. Looks that we're consistent and up to speed now.--JayJasper (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

potential WSJ resource, regarding Twitter

 * Many Twitter Users Back President Obama, Poll Shows 14.December.2011

99.190.85.111 (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

potential source
Why the Greens Matter Less to Obama 2012 The President is doing little to woo the environmental vote. The bottom line: Greens have threatened to withhold support for Obama’s reelection. To date, oil industry types have donated triple what greens have.

Kate Andersen Brower November 10, 2011 BusinessWeek

141.218.36.56 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Keystone Pipeline and Talk:Keystone XL Pipeline (Risk to Ogallala Aquifer).  99.181.134.37 (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Delegate numbers don't match
Not sure why, but it should be fixed. The delegate numbers listed on the chart here, are not in sync with those found here. Gage (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Gary Johnson officially running as a Libertarian.
Gary Johnson is officially running as a Libertarian dropping out as a Republican. Someone needs to change the page. (source) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/gary-johnson-libertarian_n_1161760.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.130.241 (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not "officially running" as a Lib. just yet. He's expected to make the announcement on Dec. 28 (according to various sources, including the one cited above). The page will be changed to reflect Johnson's move once the formal announcement has been made.--JayJasper (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's official now: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57349326-503544/gary-johnson-launches-libertarian-presidential-bid/--NextUSprez (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource
Obama’s Re-Election Path May Be Written in Will St. Clair’s Code December 22, 2011, 12:42 PM EST by Julianna Goldman BusinessWeek Dec. 14 (Bloomberg), excerpt ... 99.190.86.5 (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich: "of" Georgia or Virginia?
Newt Gingrich is listed as "of Georgia". However, on the Newt Gingrich article, it says his residence has been in Virginia since 1999. What determines the "of" state if not their residence? --76.21.41.59 (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. He's associated with Georgia because that's where he was elected and served in Congress. But I think we list the candidates by the state they currently reside in. If that's the case, then it should be changed to Virginia. Does anyone know the exact rule about listing candidates by thier state?--NextUSprez (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See the responses to the same question on the Republican primaries talk page.--JayJasper (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mock candidates
User:Thatotherdude reverted my listing of Betty White as a mock candidate, because her announcement in a comedy skit did not meet the 'crtieria' (sic) of a real candidature. I can only find this list of what might be called 'criteria' for candidature. Are here others? Does Betty White's "candidature" not meet these criteria? Has White recanted her candidature since the announcement on The Late Late Show of 12 October 2011? If not, then even if it was a skit, and even if she were to do nothing more to back her candidacy then the declaration would have to stand, wouldn't it?

My entry:
 * Betty White (actress; registered Democrat) was introduced on The Late Late Show by Craig Ferguson on Columbus Day 2011 (12 October 2011) as being a candidate for the Republicans. White and Ferguson did a skit during which she declined to answer some simple 'platform' questions, then showed off a poster with the slogan "White Power".

The process is also discussed here, and does not seem to preclude White. Also, it is entirely possible for White to be selected by voters as a write-in candidate. Such obvious tongue-in-cheek "candidacies" have by and large not made the cut. Case in point: See the talk page archives from the 2008 election article regarding Stephen Colbert

Also, note that the process for selection of candidates for the debates does not preclude all candidates from proceeding to the election. CPD: 2012 Candidate Selection Criteria

Thanks for your comments, under.- Peter Ellis - Talk 03:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The criteria Thatotherdude was most likely referring to is the inclusion standards for this article established by consensus of this article's editors and readers. Such obvious tongue-in-cheek "candidacies" generally don't make the cut. Case in point: see this talk page archive search results from the 2008 election page of discussions regarding Stephen Colbert and his satirical campaign that year. You're certainly welcome to argue the case for including Betty White, but you might you want to first check out the discussion threads I've linked to in order to get an idea of the potential can of worms such a discussion may open before deciding whether it's worthwhile to pursue the issue further. Regards.--JayJasper (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please add this Democratic candidate
http://www.johnwolfeforamerica.com/ http://www.facebook.com/johnwolfelaw?sk=wall Also, see this event for other "lesser known" candidates: http://www.timothyhorrigan.com/videos/2012.lesser-known.presidential-candidates.html  CjrSellers (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Candidates need to have a wikipedia article and 2 reliable outside sources (sorry, but campaign sites, facebook pages and blogs don't count).--Newbreeder (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party
The current wording still lists Rocky Anderson as an independent, rather than a Justice Party presidential candidate. The Justice Party has now been formed. In fact, the party is already on Mississippi's ballot. I propose we move Anderson to a new Justice Party section, alongside the other minor party candidates. Natan2012 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I re-listed him as Justice Party candidate, and will do the same on the 3rd party/Indy candidates page and the 2012 template.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Status of Rick Perry campaign
The article says that Rick Perry's campaign is suspended. I find no evidence of that anywhere on my favorite news source of MSNBC.com and none of the pages related to this one say he has suspended. All I know about is that he is going home to think over his next move. His next move may be to suspended or withdraw, but he hasn't said so. I find it very likely he will suspend or withdraw in the next few days, but it is not yet a fact. 99.115.53.47 (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I made the correction. Perry has not suspended campaign yet.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Active vs. Inactive candidates
How about splitting the Gallary between active and inactive candidates. Wouldn't that be more accurate?

user:mnw2000 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This sounds a bit tabloid
The second paragraph of the lead tells me "The 2012 presidential election will coincide with the United States Senate elections where 33 races will be occurring..." The word "races" sounds like slang or jargon to me, but maybe I'm not close enough to the action. Should we be using more formal language? HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What wording would you suggest?--JayJasper (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh. I know I shouldn't raise a problem without having a suggested solution, but I'm wondering what the official term is. Maybe it's just election. How about "The 2012 presidential election will coincide with elections for 33 Senate vacancies..." ? HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My problem with this suggestion is that I'm not American and I've used the language that would be acceptable for elections to the Senate in Australia, my country. Can anyone advise whether it works for the US Senate too? HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe "race" is an appropriate term. It is certainly used by the press. —Diiscool (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which press? (See Section heading.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The New York Times, for one . —Diiscool (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And the Wall Street Journal . WSJ also has entire section called "Races" here: . —Diiscool (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'll go with the local usage. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Charlotte is located in United States"
Does anyone know why the words "Charlotte is located in United States" appear when the cursor is moved over the convention map? If so, please correct this.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a default supplied by the (locked) parent template Location map+ if no alt= parameter is specified. I changed it to "Map of United States showing Charlotte, Tampa, Nashville, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Cullman, and Baltimore" in the template invocation on this article's page; feel free to adjust my wording. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Gallery
More pictures in gallery please, especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vermin_Supreme.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.4.4.186 (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per consensus, only candidates that qualified to participate in major debates are to be included in the gallery.--JayJasper (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

American Third Postition Party
There's two sections that say "American Third Position Party" and it lists the same candidate. It needs to be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.130.241 (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Ratemonth (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Issue with Ron Paul prospective candidate listing
I do not think Ron Paul should be listed in the 'Prospective Candidates' section because he is already in the race and running for the Republican nomination. It seems very presumptive to list him as a prospective Independent and prospective Libertarian. I would like to know what thoughts people have on this issue. Thank you. Alexroller (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think it would make sense to remove the 'Prospective Candidates' section altogether. Only two different candidates are listed, and with the issue I expressed above, this section does not need to exist. Alexroller (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not presumptive to list him as potential Ind. or Lib. candidate if there are reliable sources saying he might run as one or the other if he dosen't win the Rep. nomination. However, the sources on the potential candidates are over a month old, which by consensus is the cut-off point for being listed as "prospective", so it's time to remove them for that reason.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Graphic Implies only Two Candidate Choices
The graphic in the top right of the page has a spot for a "TBD democrat" and a spot for a "TBD republican". As an open and neutral encyclopedia, I do not believe Wikipedia should reinforce the mentality that there are only two options when there are actually many other parties as well as independent candidates to choose from. The graphic should show **all** candidates or no candidates. Showing only two out of many serves as an endorsement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.234.133 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I removed the "TBD nominees" as it is premature to list any (even a "TBD") candidate in the infobox. This was an issue that was debated in the last election - what candidates should and shouldn't be listed in the infobox prior to the election. IMO, in order to maintain NPOV, there should either be a) no candidates listed in the box before the election or b) only the candidates that are on enough state ballots to theoretically win the minimum number of electoral votes needed to win the election in the box. In '08, there were six such candidates.--JayJasper (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does "Super Tuesday 2012" redirect here?
I was trying to find out which states vote on Super Tuesday, and I got redirected here. There is *zero* mention of Super Tuesday. I have no idea how to disable a redirect, but it's a pointless one, to be sure. 63.237.237.170 (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have revised the redirect. It now links to Super Tuesday.--JayJasper (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

International Observers
There is nothing about observers. For neutrality sake some words are required. [Here is art about observers allowed to observe election.
 * The article you link to says absolutely nothing about observations of US elections. —Diiscool (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats the problem, is hard to find anything on the subject, for example this International Republican Institute report. Closest mach about election observers in US there is this
 * Then I would say the subject is not notable enough for inclusion, nor are there adequate reliable sources to cover it. Perhaps other editors will weigh in. —Diiscool (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are not adequate reliable sources to cover it, then it does not merit inclusion in the article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * found a source "nominated for 23 National Magazine Awards" mentionig there is "Need International Observers". . The article need more neutral tone.
 * Thank you for digging up that article. It sounds speculative to me. Anyway, if we said something about this in the present WP article, would it not be giving undue weight to a non-significant issue? —Diiscool (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and one from twelve years ago, having no demonstrated relevance to this article. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It may mean the election is not monitored at all. The one sentence about it schould be put for sake of neutrality: "no information about election observers" If one transfer milions of dolars there are procedures to safeguard the proces. Here trylions of dolars may change hands and no info about safeguard procedures. Du the obvius absurdity urge the needs of it and undu the undue. Is theis ip only one per on planet wondering who and how will count the votes? 24.15.127.148 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just not going to happen here. This article, for one, is about a specific election. Maybe you can take this to Talk:United States presidential election. —Diiscool (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You might also take it to Talk:Election monitoring.--JayJasper (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Roseanne running as Green Party candidate?
This source says Roseanne Barr "filed with the Federal Election Commission on January 25, and she has fulfilled the requirements of the Green Party to seek the nomination." This is the only source I could find on it so far. Should we go ahead and list her as GP candidate, or hold out for more sources?--Green4liberty (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A minimum of two reliable sources is needed. If the report you linked to is accurate, there should be more sources coming forth very soon.--JayJasper (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

✅ Sources found. She is re-listed under Green Party.--JayJasper (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sharkey Perennial?
According to wikipedia's own definition of perennial, it "is one who runs for public office with a record of success that is infrequent, if existent at all." How can this apply to a guy who has only run once? I think he is just a failed candidate. Or maybe a joke; but not perennial. 98.217.50.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Please read his wiki bio. He ran for congress in 2000 and 2002; governor of Minnesota in 2006; and president in 2004, 2008, and 2012.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

James McMillan III (R) v. Vermin Love Supreme (D)
I hear Supreme and McMillan are going to debate. http://www.westernfreepress.com/2012/01/25/announcement-vermin-supreme-and-jimmy-mcmillan-to-debate/ FoundingFather76 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Who cares? Neither is on the ballot in ArizonaEricl (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Virgil Goode seeking CP nomination for prez
Former congressman Virgil Goode is seeking the Constitution Party presidential nomination: http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/first-read-dmv/Morning-Read-Virgil-Goode-Jr-Eyes-Presidency-139508238.html http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/16/former-va-republican-rep-virgil-goode-announces-presidential-bid/ Please add to the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.136.127 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Texas
Every time Texas is mentioned in a candidate's small under-text, it's not a link to the wikipedia state page of Texas. I am talking about the gallery of candidates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.255.242.137 (talk) 07:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC). . . ✅

Nomination Process
As discussed in Second Party System the Whig Party was not a third-party in 1848, and thus the statement "There are also several minor parties, usually called third parties, none of which has won a presidential election since 1848" is incorrect. As far as I know, a "third" party has never won an election in the United States, the statement should be revised to "... none of which have ever won a presidential election." (without "since 1848"). Andymadigan (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * good point--I dropped the whole section which tells us nothing about 2012. Rjensen (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 March 2012
Please add Tiffany Briscoe to the list of of independent candidates.

75.192.71.179 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, is she actually going to be on any state's ballot, or is she a write-in candidate? Looks like her home state is classifying her as a write-in candidate only.  I'm not sure this is a serious enough campaign to be included here.  Just a few days ago she was dropped by the Boston Tea Party as their nominee, perhaps we should wait a little while to see if her independent campaign actually has teeth.  Feel free to ask for another opinion if you disagree.  &mdash;SW&mdash; yak 18:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Waiting is good. On the other hand, giving it a second-look and a second-consideration, she seemed more serious than most of those on the current list, and this is (of course) an online encyclopedia of History. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Points in favor of listing her are: she meets the prerequisite of having a WP article (and one that has withstood an afd at that); she is registered with the FEC. While that is not a prerequisite for inclusion, it is preferred.; she was previously included on the page as the nominee of the Boston Tea Party prior to her removal from that post. The main point against listing her at this time is the minimum 2-reliable-secondary-sources standard, which she does not appear to meet as an independent candidate. I can find nothing other than the blog post from her campaign website, which is cited on her article, about her independent/write-in campaign. And that, of course is a primary source. So, while having no strong objection to including her on the page - given that she meets much of the inclusion criteria - I am hesitant to do so at this time given the apparent lack of secondary sources to verify her status as an indie candidate. If such sources can be found, then by all means add her.--JayJasper (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * the RS do not consider her worth their attention, and that is an ironclad Wiki requirement. leave her out until the Reliable Secondary Sources validate her. Rjensen (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

FSP Campaign
Stephen Durham is running as the presidential candidate of the Freedom Socialist Party. His vice presidential running mate is Christina López. I think it might be a write-in campaign but, seeing as how this article mentions the Socialist Equality Party's candidates (also a write-in campaign), I feel Durham and López should be mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.85.71 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per longstanding consensus, candidate listings on this page are limited to those who meet the general standards of WP:GNG and/or WP:POLITICIAN, and have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Durham does not presently have an article, but if one is created that meets the aforementioned criteria, he will be included. Traditionally, the WP community has determined that nominees of notable parties (however obscure) are notable enough to merit an article. The FSP has its own WP page, and is therefore presumably notable. So the odds of a reliably sourced article on Durham surving an Afd - in the event that notability is challenged - would seem to be favorable.--JayJasper (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Striking previous comments, I stand corrected - Durham does have a WP article, which for some reason didn't show the first time I searched for it. So yes, he can be included.--JayJasper (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅--JayJasper (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting ready for the general
Okay, as you can see I've done some housecleaning. As Obama has gotten enough delegates to win the nomination, I've tried to make the Democratic section look like the 2004 and '08 articles. The same with the GOP. With Santorum out, and Gingrich basiclly giving up, I've consolidated the gallery to have all the candidates who got on the ballot in at least three states plus Pawlenty, who was invited to the debates early on. "Commentary" looking like '04 and '08 will follow.Ericl (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think it is time to put some faces in the infobox, since we have two presumptive nominees. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As long they are clearly identified as "presumptive" nominees (as was done previously), I'd be okay with that. Although I'd add that, in the interest of neutrality and fairness, we should also list the other candidates who attain ballot status in enough states to theoretically win the minimum number of electoral votes needed to win the election. Typically, the Constitution, Green and Libertarian parties attain such status, and it appears that Americans Elect will too this time. The infobox can now hold as many as nine candidates, and likely there won't be that many attaining the aforementioned ballot status. Of course, the major party candidates would be listed at the top, per the policy of due weight.--JayJasper (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on who is still in the race
Wouldn't it be appropriate that the article is shaped by its status quo? As an example; Santorum and Gingrich is now both out of the race as well as many others. So 'Nominations -> Candidates' and then list them separately as they are either in or out. One section for each. That way its easier to distinguish who's in or not quickly. Jørgen88 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Previously, there was a distinction betweeen "active" and "inactive" candidates on the page. Not sure when or why that was changed, but I think it should be restored.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the parties mentioned: Constitution, Libertarian, Green and Americans Elect should be included if they get on enough ballots to theoretically win until the voting actually takes place.69.230.190.148 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think interest on this page follows the race, with a balance of history. Not everything needs to be on one page. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thad McCotter
Thad McCotter, a US congressman from Michigan was briefly in the race for the republican nomination before dropping out in late 2011. He's shown in the article listing candidates for the GOP nomination but not in the main article for the 2012 presidential election. It seems to me that while he was a minor candidate he deserves to have his name listed with the other candidates for the GOP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.152.5.236 (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, he should be included as he was earlier. Recently, some sweeping changes were made to the page and it seems the standard for listing the candidates was changed. Which begs the question: was there a consensus for these changes? Because I don't see a discussion about it on the talk page or in the archives, and there clearly was a consensus for the previous standards, and it was reached after rather lengthy discussions. Who decided that only candidates that were invited to debates and had ballot access in at least 3 primaries should be included on the republican candidate list? And why is there a different standard for the democrat candidates (minimum of 10,000 primary votes)? Shouldn't there be consistency? This needs to be discussed and a consensus established, because this all seems rather arbitrary and well, unencyclopedic.--Rollins83 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpfull to look at the United States presidential election, 2004. It was the same situation, an incumbent president and a contender. Why really have all the perennial democratic candidates at this page. It would be better to do as it was done in 2004. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2012 has all candidates. A more prominent link here could be explained. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama Clinches Nomination
By winning the primaries in D.C. and Maryland, Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination, so I think we should edit the box to list Obama as the official Democratic candidate and keep the Republican part of that box as TBD.Interstate373 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He doesn't become the official candidate until the convention actually votes for him to be the official candidate. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time around, he was listed in the infobox as the presumptive nominee prior to the convention after he had clinched the minimum number of delegates needed to secure the nomination.--JayJasper (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was premature then and it's premature now, though probably to a lesser extent. Just because a Magic 8-Ball was correct once in the past isn't a good reason to keep relying on it. Granted, recent political conventions haven't been as wild and wooly as they were in the old days – and Sirhan Sirhan is safely tucked away – but things can still change in five months. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't necessarily suggesting it be done that way this time, as there are reasonable arguments to be made for holding off on placing candidate photos in the infobox until the nomination is official, I was just putting it out there for discussion. That said, it would not be at all premature to refer to him as the "presumptive nominee" (whether in the infobox or elsewhere in the article), since the term - by definition - refers to the candidate who has acquired the minimum delegates needed to secure the eventual nomination.--JayJasper (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be completely reasonable. Certainly in the text; I'm not sure how gracefully it could be put into the infobox, and I'm still opposed to including one picture in the infobox without one of the opponent also (at least for any longer than the small gap between conventions). Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not put one candidate in the infobox without at least one opponent also placed, lest it give the appearance of favoritism by giving one candidate the "jump" on the competition.--JayJasper (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It should definitely be added to the article: --141.152.79.93 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/04/this-just-in-obama-clinches-democratic-nomination/1
 * http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/04/obama-clinches-democratic-nomination/
 * I've marked him as the presumptive nominee on the page, and added the sources provided by the IP user (thanks). I agree it's too soon to put him in the infobox. We should at least wait until Romney also gets the minimum # of delegates he needs to be the presumptive nominee as well, and we can put both of them in the box. Or maybe better still, we could wait until both are officially nominated at the conventions.--NextUSprez (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Once Romney gets to 1144 both should be put in the infobox, as I agree it can show both or neither. Fat&Happy, things can change even after the conventions too. I don't like this logic that because change is possible, a reasonable assumption can be discounted for crystal balling. It was a reasonable assumption to include Obama back in January when no one challenged him, and calling him the likely nominee wouldn't be an inappropriate prediction. Reywas92 Talk 04:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoever is not calling President Obama the Democratic Nominee is a silly goose. He's the Democratic nominee and has more than enough bound delegates to put him over at the convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.105.44 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He is acknowledged as the presumptive nominee in the Democratic candidates section.--JayJasper (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that it is premature to list Joe Biden as Obama's running mate for this election. As noted in Hillary Clinton's article on wikipedia, she is planning on leaving the position of Secretary of State, thus becoming a possible candidate as Obama's running mate. Dmcl404 (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that his own campaign website has "Obama - Biden" I would say it is safe enough. —Diiscool (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bidens own words: "“There’s no question about it. There’s no way out. I mean, they’ve already printed Obama-Biden. You are looking at a vice-presidential candidate for the United States of America.” source:  Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Overuse of the word "presumptive"
In the box at the top, Joe Biden is listed as the VP nominee (presumptive). Mr. Biden is very likely to be President Obama's VP choice but presumptive is just guessing. Even putting Obama and Romney as presumptive is guessing but the press does this occasionally. However, we should not do a 2nd generation presumption (presumption on top of a presumption) and list Biden in the box. If we do, then we just might as well list Obama as the Presumptive winner of the 2012 election. Seriously, Biden's name should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.235.15 (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Obamas campaign page is called Obama-Biden Jack Bornholm (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO, nobody should be in the infobox, unless they've actually been nominated by their respective party. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think everyone should just be removed until they are officially nominated. All this "presumptive" stuff is causing a lot of problems and being made as an excuse to bypass WP:CRYSTAL. TL565 (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * yea please keep well-sourced, readily available information out of the article  Hot Stop  07:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But there's no 100% guarentee that Obama & Romney will be their respective party's presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion about Romney above, but not to included Obama, he has secured a majority of delegates to his partys national convention. He will be the democratic candidate, that is why he is included. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He could die or suddenly choose to reject re-nomination between now & then. It's not 100% certain, he'll be the 2012 Democratic presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why he's marked as "presumptive", a term used widely in reliable sources. Wikipedia even has an article on it. The reliable sources say he's the presumptive nominee, so we do too. that's how Wiki works.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But he shouldn't be in the infobox. It's quite enough to have his 'presumptive' status, mentioned in the Democratic party's section of this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I see it, it is no different in principle than when we had him in the infobox as the "president elect" following the election and prior to the inauguration. He had not yet been sworn in as President and, theoretically speaking, it was not "100% certain" he would be. Yet I do not recall there being a big fuss about "crystal-balling" at that time. This is basically the same deal, he has clinched the nomination but not yet formally received it, and we are acknowledging that distinction just as we did (and almost certainly will do in the future) with "president elect".--JayJasper (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But why the panic? GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? He's secured the minimum number of delegates to clinch the nomination and earned the title of presumptive nominee. So how does placing him in the infobox constitute a "panic"?--JayJasper (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Obama hasn't been re-nominated for President, by the Democratic party. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See my remarks about "president elect". He had not yet been sworn in as President, were we panicking by putting him in the infobox?--JayJasper (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama should be marked as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, since he has the necessary amount of delegates pledged to him to be nominated at the convention floor (which is also why he shouldn't be marked as the official nominee until the convention nominates him– he has to be nominated at the convention first). Mitt Romney should not be marked as the presumptive nominee as he has not secured the necessary amount of delegates in the primary process in order to be nominated at the convention. As for the Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden, I don't think he should be marked down as the nominee until that is officially settled at the convention for the Democratic Party (unless he has delegates that are officially bound to vote for him at the convention). Mr. Kite ( Talk | Contributions ) 19:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that it does not say "vice presidential nominee" in infobox, but rather it says "running mate", and Biden is Obama's confirmed running mate in this election. Therefore, IMO, his name should remain in the infobox.--JayJasper (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Biden own words: "“There’s no question about it. There’s no way out. I mean, they’ve already printed Obama-Biden. You are looking at a vice-presidential candidate for the United States of America.” source:  Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did see those remarks & I would be happy to leave out the 'President-elect' & 'Prime Minister-designate' for all infoboxes. However, that scenerio occured after an election. In this situation, the primaries & caucauses haven't ended yet, let alone the conventions haven't been held yet. I see, that I'm not getting through to anyone here & so ya'll can do as you like. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Page vandalism - prison inmate running for president?
Please tell me this is a joke. There's a picture of a convict next to Obama. Vandalism surely? Davez621 (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weirdly enough not. Keith Russell Judd actually won 41% of the votes in the democratic primary in West Virginia. As far as I know he has only been on the ballot in one state, but he might get delegates from that state - So I dont know if he should be listed here or not. But you are right it does sound like a joke, but read the Wall Street Journals article here: Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well this has just proved that Wikipedia is a joke. How can someone in prison run for president - what's he going to do, run the country from his cell?  I don't even live in the USA and I know that it's impossible.Davez621 (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not Wikipedia's fault that this occurred. What you have to understand about the United States is that election laws can vary drastically between the states. In some ways, U.S. states have more autonomy than the member-states of the European Union. So you are correct, an inmate could not become president because he would be excluded from the ballot in most U.S. States. He managed to make a West Virginia primary ballot solely because the election laws in this state do not explicitly disqualify inmates from the ballot, and he performed well because Democrats in West Virginia (a large coal-producing region) were protesting Obama's energy policy which could hurt coal interests. Although not one for the history books, it received plenty of media attention, which means it merits some mention on the Wiki. 109.9.106.141 (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr. Dave I stated a reliable source to what totally correct at first seems to be a joke. It is good to read the whole comments in a discussion before starting to comment on them and especially when that comment is just acusations. What are explain above is also all in the source (Wall Street Journal). Intersting comment that us states have more autonomi than the sovereign states of Europa. I am not sure I agree, seeing how different the European elections are conducted from country to country - But still interesting as a sidenote. When understanding Europa it is alway good to remember even though it call itself an union (federation) it is actually more of a Confederation. But it is not always all mediea show that - Bias is not only a American thing :) :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as the autonomy, I only meant that U.S. states have more control over themselves in some aspects. For example, EU member-states would not be able to reinstate the death penalty even if 100% of that nation's legislature voted in favor of it---a U.S. state can change its criminal justice laws whenever it wants. Actually, the European Union is a lot like the United States was when it was first conceived. Different U.S. states could even print their own money at one time, just like the UK, Sweden and Denmark aren't obliged to use the euro. The parallels between the early US and the EU are actually very interesting. Sometimes I wonder if the European Union won't join together and become a single "Federation of Europe" sometime in the next century. 109.9.106.141 (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually didnt know that the any of the european treaties had a anti death penalty paragraf. (those treaties is the only thing binding for the european countries all other laws are volunterly incorperated by each parliement into the countrys laws) But I guess it is a safe thing to put in a treaty, not even to more neonazi parties would be stupid enough to support the death penalty, it would be political suiced in Europe. You are correct that the parallels are interesting, but you have to remember to be totally correct, Virginia and Masschuttets should be two emerging powers from the ruines of an ancient culture. Then be engaged in a 100 year religiouse war that would wipe out more than half their populations, only to rebuild have a few wars now and then. And of course make two World wars about where the state border should be. In the process enslaving most of the planet in a gigant colonial system, loosing it all again. Kill all the members of a annoying minority (lets just say all black people) in big deathcamps. Getting invaded from both sides after really having messed up the whole continent of North America themselve and then let half of the continent be living under occupation for 50 years. Then Europe today would be a bit like US before the Union. It might seem like the same, but no one understands Europe, especially not the europeans. In Denmark the same family have been sitting on the throne for 1.000 years. Europe is complicated and old. I guess I am starting to soapbox a bit, getting started on my favorite subject. All I wanted to ask was, would you might have some easy to read source on the whole thing that european countries are not free to make their own criminal laws, including death penalty? It could be a nice addit to the article on the European Union. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Keith judd.jpg
The file File:Keith judd.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Keith judd.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of Candidates
In my opinion, the pictures of President Obama and Governor Romney in the infobox are too informal. I suggest using these images instead: and. These would be more appropriate considering that this article is for a presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.242.113 (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Too informal? They're wearing ties, which is something probably 80% of the population hardly ever do. That's formal enough for me. It's an election of a person, not a staged image of one. Better to see them "informally" than in an artificial pose. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I really like the "informal" pictures because they are good together. Ad some point a official photo of Romney was used (the one from the primary article), but put at the right side it made him look away from Obama. Now it looks like the engage eachother. To look good in a infobox it is also very important that they have about ths same height and wide proportions. If not one of the pictures will be much bigger than the other or there will be a white gap at the bottom of one of them. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I also really like the pictures. No, they aren't official, staged photographs like the majority of those used on prior U.S. election pages, but they give an excellent physical impression of both candidates. I've always disliked that photo of Mitt Romney in the sun because you can't really see his eyes. And he also looks much too young in the photograph of him used for 2008. 109.9.106.141 (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I like them too. It looks like they're out campaigning, and not posing for photographs.  Hot Stop   20:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)