Talk:Presumptive nominee/Archive 1

Accurate?
Is that last paragraph accurate? Carter wasn't presumptive nominee in 1980 (in fact, for a long time Kennedy was!). Gore wasn't really called presumptive nominee until after several successes against Bradley, was he? Hmmm. Jwrosenzweig 21:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * My term for such a position had been "nominee-elect", feeling that was the natural term, since a candidate who had been elected President but not yet sworn in was the President-elect. Some folks protested my term, so... Rickyrab 18:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete?
"Presumptive nominee" is the standard usage in the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and other major news organizations. Here's the Google search for " 'presumptive nominee' John Kerry" Basically you can't call someone the nominee until they are, in fact, nominated. "Nominee-elect" is not really appropriate, since the nominating process is not, in fact, an election. Rather, strictly speaking delegates are selected, sometimes by direction election, sometimes by party selection, and seniority. Delegates then choose the nominee by a ballot, which when finished, produces the nomination. "Presumptive nominee" is basically when a candidate has enough delegates, according to party rules, that the candidate will presumably be the nominee. It may not be a pretty term, but its what the news organizations use.-- Decumanus 18:17, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee is just some made up term. This does not deserve an article. If it does, then it should be in Wikidictionary, not Wikiencyclopedia. This article needs to be eliminated.Presumptive (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you're making up your own facts. Google with quotes "Presumptive Nominee". It's a term that exists. Also, every term is some made up term. Someone made up "Hamburger". It didn't have to already exist in nature (How is that possible?).Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Presumptive nominee" is a political jargon term commonly recognized by the US press. I don't know how people in other Anglophone nations feel about its use. Maybe this should be moved to the Wikitionary. Heff01 (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's just silly that people are deciding they want an article deleted NOW after it's been around since 2004. The person who put the tag should be banned because the user is obviously not experienced in politics and shouldn't be looking at these articles.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Incumbant 'Invariability'?

 * "A sitting President of the United States who is running for re-election will almost invariably be the presumptive nominee..."


 * Can we define "almost invariably"? I see two examples, and three counter-examples. So, "almost invariably" = 40% chance??? Unregistered User, 30 April 2008


 * The vast majority of times, a president eligible for re-election (and seeking it) is given the nomination by his party. There's only a handful of examples where this didn't happen in US history. 65.2.204.144 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And I would argue that 1992 wasn't one of those times, the article text to the contrary. Both Reagan and Kennedy had realistic chances of unseating the sitting president; Buchanan's bid was more an attempt to make it clear to the GOP how important the right wing of the party was, but I don't think anybody (including Buchanan) thought he would ever win. I'm removing it from the text. --Jfruh (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)