Template talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 5

Differentiate between nationwide and local candidates
There should be a differentiation between nationwide candidates and local candidates. Casey14 01:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But what do you define as nationwide or local? Is it worth it to create more complicated subsections that could prove to cause more edit warring? Its not the template's duty to categorize a candidate but instead to provide a link to the candidates and election articles. Perhaps you could create a Category:Local candidates and apply it to whom you see fit but I have fought to keep this template as simple as possible so that editing can go smoothly.-- Southern Texas  03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I see it running for president is always nationwide because of the very nature of the office. Lord Metroid 17:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's very easy to differentiate national and local, local candidates campaign in only one state, or a few surrounding states.

A good way to differntiate candidates, is based on the debates. It seems all the "major" candidates are at the nationally televised debates, where the minor ones aren't.Hoponpop69 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's too vague and complicated, leave it as it is. Listing all candidates doesn't hurt anybody, it only fulfills the duty of the template, to serve as a map to all articles pertaining to the election. And on a sidenote, Stephen Colbert has not been included because he hasn't filed with the FEC. Please read the note at the top of the template. Thank you.-- Southern Texas  01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As mentioned more than once, in further above sections, there is non-unanimity on the "duty" and purpose of this template. -- Yellowdesk 01:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Then what do you feel is its purpose?-- Southern Texas  01:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While a template is used to map articles on a large overall subject, it is not compelled to map all the articles on a subject. Template:TheBeatles, for example, lists only the major studio albums (leaves out the U.S. variants, for example), major compilations (leaves out the ones issued during the group's lifetime), major significant others (leaves out Jane Asher, for instance), and so on. I for one used to use this presidential election template to look over different candidates' articles for consistency in organization, relative length, etc., until all the minor candidates were added. Now I don't use the template. To me, the cutoff line is simple: the candidates who have been in the major, network-broadcast debates. That's been a large group, and has included candidates who've been at 1% in the national polls. If you can't even meet that low bar, you don't belong in the template. Wasted Time R 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That is too complicated because that data is constantly changing and open for wide interpretation leading to edit wars. Why did you stop using it when all the candidates are still listed? Its not adequate to say that it inhibits you because the template is doing its job and serving as a list to all candidates that have a page. You can now edit the pages for the candidates you have never heard of. They exist (There's not that many), have a page, and have filed with the FEC, so why leave them off?-- Southern Texas  02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that cut-off line has been very stable — Gravel got cut out of the last Dem debate, but he was in all the others, so I'd include him. Keyes got into one minor GOP debate, but he's been out of all the others (I think), so I'd exclude him.  The "Daniel Ayers Gilbert"s of the world haven't been anywhere in sight.  And I'm not interested in looking at the pages of the candidates I haven't heard of — I want to see if articles for second tier candidates like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are structured in a similar way to the first tier candidates, I don't care about the nowhere tier candidates.  As soon as the template started including Gilbert and "Sprankle" and "Cort", it became cluttered gibberish to me.   Wasted Time R 02:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree wholly with Southern Texas but don't have time to go into particulars. John J. Bulten 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you don't want to see the lower tiered candidates but others may. If you don't think they are notable bring them to AFD and that might get them off the template. Otherwise they should remain since they are offical candidates who have a wikipedia article, whether you like it or not.-- Southern Texas  03:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for not reading my argument. Sigh.  I don't want the articles on these candidates deleted, any more than I want the articles on less important Beatles albums deleted.  My argument was, templates are allowed to be selective, and in many cases are.  This seems to me a case where selectivity would benefit most readers.  Average Americans don't know who Duncan Hunter is, and also don't know who Daniel Ayers Gilbert is.  If they are surveying the field of GOP candidates, they really should know who Hunter is: he's a veteran politician with a meaningful Congressional career, even if his poll numbers are very low and his chance of winning is near zero.  On the other hand, they really don't need to know who Daniel Ayers Gilbert is: he's an absolute nobody, in terms of American politics and the presidential election process.  That's my argument.  You may disagree, but at least try to understand what I'm saying.  Wasted Time R 03:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Then what is the point of these candidates having a page? Its not like there is an overabundance of candidates on the list, just 14 Republicans. What is the point of leaving off 3 when they in fact have a page? This is the problem, and to avoid edit warring, to be accurate, and to fulfill the duty of the template the only possible solution is for them to be listed since the page exists.-- Southern Texas  04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles I just nominated for deletion: Kat Swift, Joe Schriner, and it looks as though Keith Sprankle will be deleted without a nomination.-- Southern Texas  05:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To Wasted and all, I think there is no need for this template to be selective like the Beatles. IMHO, there are lots of people interested generally in the extra candidates. I am certainly interested in anyone running for Pres who has filed and who has survived WP notability criteria. Most of the third-party candidates are just as unknown as the nondebate Republican candidates, but they are unquestionably needed in this template, because we decline duopoly bias. But then when we say how many Republicans should be listed, we should also decline MSM bias: MSM are the ones who set the debates and pick the candidates for us. The Values Voter Debate in Ft. Lauderdale was not broadcast on MSM, but it was broadcast on SkyAngel; attendance was Brownback, Cox, Huckabee, Hunter, Keyes, Paul, Tancredo. How can we say that debate was not serious because it wasn't MSM? It is probable that other disputed candidates have attended other debates. How can we say that Cort and McKinney, who attended the Texas Straw Poll, are undeserving? If one tries to propose a rule based on events like debates and polls, not only are these events biased toward their promoters, but they are also subjective because each debate or poll is different. However, the FEC is presumably much less biased and its criteria much less subjective. Then the notability issue can be settled at AFD.
 * It seems that in this whole discussion above, nobody has succeeded in proposing a rule that is as objective, clearly followed, and easy to build consensus around, as Southern Texas has. If anyone would like to make another go at it, feel free. Here's an idea: what would happen if we made the rule "nonstub WP article", and then marked the questionable candidates as stubs (presuming they were)? John J. Bulten 20:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My comments above on cuckoo-clock appearances on this template fit that proposal. Here again is the description: Whenever some also-ran candidate's volunteer puts up an article, it gets listed here for a few weeks until the article is expunged (and the bird goes back into the clock), until the next round of listing and delisting. -- Yellowdesk 03:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Starkly simple rule
There has been previously proposed a starkly simple rule. Has the candidate's committee raised $50,000 dollars, or the expectation of doing so, and hence listed by the Federal Elections Commission as filing electronically. Simple, no judgment required; non biased source. Uncomplicated. Changes less often than the comings and goings of the less-than-one-tenth-of-a-percenters that come and go on this template. It is no big deal for a challenged & contested election for state representative to the a state legislature to raise $25,000, and often a lot more than that. There are upwards of 5,000 of state senators and representatives. This presidential race is a very big contest. It takes a lot to be notable enough to have any influence. In condensed form, my previously stated views:
 * This template will never have all of the FEC registrants on it.
 * The electronic filers are stable. As of the last update of that FEC page, twenty two individuals: http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/pres_cf/2008filings.html.
 * My view continues to be that if any independent or party "candidate" cannot persuade approximately 2,000 people to give $25.00 to their campaign, they are not notable enough to have actual influence on this nation of millions of voters, as a candidate, and are not notable enough as a candidate to be on this template. -- Yellowdesk 03:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That is way too complicated, plus things are constantly changing, and will these requirements apply to third party candidates? I agree in principle with the idea put forth by John J. Bulten to maybe remove candidates with stub articles from the list but I don't know if this will completely work since many of the third party candidates have stub articles. We don't need to use outside gauges to decide who belongs on the template, use wikipedia. This isn't an article but a map to articles. The best thing to do for now is to leave the template as it is, listing candidates that have articles doesn't cause any harm. It strives for accuracy, not restraint.-- Southern Texas  04:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a navigational aid, not a comprehensive index. The place to list every candidate, stub or not is in the category:
 * Category:United States presidential candidates, 2008
 * I wish to call attention to the enforcement of an outside source by Southern Texas: the FEC, in the case of registration. Yet Southern Texas indicates that  We don't need to use outside gauges to decide who belongs on the template, while using such a source as a standard of significance. If we use for the template the same unbiased public source, for deminimus listing, one  that changes a lot less than the stub quashing that has occurred in the last month, we can save ourselves a lot of energy.  This template is a navigation aid, not a listing of the whole universe of candidates. Categories are for that kind of universal listing.
 * Yes, let the rule apply to third party candidates. If they're notable as presidential candidates, they have enough cash to answer their phones, and mail flyers, travel, hold rallies, keep an office open, and otherwise make their views known. $50,000 is miniscule in that race. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is just taking things I said out of context. Templates reflect articles and so the only standard for templates comes from the articles themselves. We have already determined who the candidates are, the gauge I am talking about is a "gauge for inclusion". The difference is that I believe wikipedia should be used as "gauge for inclusion" since this template reflects articles that are on wikipedia. Outside gauges shouldn't be used for inclusion since the template is not a map to any outside sources but is a map to wikipedia articles.-- Southern Texas  17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, the template ought to showcase the media-ignored candidates (a pro-ballot-access position). I can go nowhere else on the web to get such a comprehensive list of folks who are running, and biographies. There may be an obscure site somewhere of "look who's running", showing off this racist and that windbag and the other guy who filed from jail, that might have more candidates, but I haven't found it. The natural question "Who else is running notably besides the media-anointed?" is a real demand of a WP readership segment, a valid encyclopedic inclusion, and nobody else answers it. To narrow inclusion to the top 22, all anointeds, is too restrictive, and definitely POV against third parties; to list all 200+ is too yellow-pages. WP notability is the best and happiest medium. Now, having made my pitch, how do we intend to resolve this question, or to what shall we appeal to end the infighting? It seems the lines are drawn well enough, and STX and I can pretty well sit on the existing rule and claim consensus if we were insensitive. Rather than try to convince each other of our views, what solution method would satisfy Yellowdesk for how to determine among the views? RFC? Thank you. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a puzzle to me how  Southern Texes claims not to rely upon an outside source and guage for inclusion in the template. Does S-TX now propose to discontinue the use of the standard for inclusion  "Filed with the FEC?"   -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Read what I said and you will answer your own question.-- Southern Texas  03:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's Southern Texas's proposal, from above. Clarity is desired. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Outside gauges shouldn't be used for inclusion since the template is not a map to any outside sources but is a map to wikipedia articles.
 * I also said, We have already determined who the candidates are, the gauge I am talking about is a "gauge for inclusion" you continually misquote me out of context about the use of the FEC but I am past where you are stuck. We already have determined that the FEC is to be used to determine who are the candidates. The disagreement is over who among the candidates should be included on the template. I favor determining inclusion by deciding which candidates have articles on wikipedia (very simple) since this template is a guide to wikipedia articles and not outside sources.-- Southern Texas  05:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. You do favor that the template's standard for inclusion be the outside threshold files with the FEC, but not the outside standard and threshold files electronically with the FEC (i.e. $50,000 of activity or expected activity). -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Found a monkey wrench. Cannot find any FEC filing for several presumed filers: Grundmann, Templin, Brown, Amondson, B. Moore, and F. Moore. Applying consistently would remove Socialist and Prohibition candidates entirely, and would leave Constitution with only its convention. However, I still favor the current rule as fair to third parties (where Yellowdesk's isn't apparently); but this edit is big enough to vet it here first. Propose these lines read as follows: If no objections will implement later. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Constitution Party | Convention
 * Green Party | Mesplay . Smith
 * Libertarian Party (unchanged)
 * Other parties | Prohibition . Socialist (USA)
 * Independents | Schriner . Sharkey


 * A bit of an indicator how ineffectual these parties are. Let's unearth the FEC contribution/expenditure reports on the parties. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Exploratory = Candidate (?)
Trusting the rule is still effective as stated here, I reinserted Donnie Kennedy. (I also see that there was a discussion of Bayh above and that folks gave 2 different reasons for his exclusion: the filing was only exploratory, and it was by "Friends of". Taken with the previous clear consensus, I trust this means that even though the first reason given was insufficient, Bayh was still validly excluded for the second reason.) I verified last time that Kennedy had filed exploratory personally so he is still in at this instant, I believe. I also discovered he helped found League of the South, which is a good ticket to notability. Good to keep? John J. Bulten (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * FEC filing, acknowledging (avowing) a principal campaign committee, equals candidate (whether notable or not). -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

John Cox has not dropped out
Could someone please put Cox back into the active candidates section? Some disgruntled former employees keep spamming his article and insisting that he has dropped out, despite documented proof that his campaign continues. I don't work for him, or support him (he's nuts), but it bugs me to see this blatant abuse of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.50.203 (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well this certainly took awhile. A reliable source quotes Cox and says he is still seeking the nomination as of 11/12, vitiating his 10/27 comments. I have requested sanity at John Cox via this edit. Will also edit here. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous candidates
Here's some more folks I find ambiguous. All have filed FEC and are notable, so would be included somewhere according to the current rule. Took a bit of research to get them all. Keep in mind that as we reach conventions most everyone will become "Withdrawn". At that time it will be a simple matter to retain the D and R candidates as "Withdrawn" for historical interest, and to change the "Candidates" row to "Nominee" and add the subarticles (positions, campaign, etc.). However the third-party candidates will not be so easy unless the above step is taken. This proposal is presented on the same ground as the previous one re deleting unfiled candidates. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC) refactored John J. Bulten (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dormant folks (haven't said "no" clearly enough for me): Wesley Clark (D), Ralph Nader (I), Condi Rice (unk), Mark Warner (D). In each case it appears the person has an extant committee and has deliberately left the door open to jump into the race later. I think they should all be listed in a reopened "Potential" row after "Independents", because that's indeed what they are. Inactive, but meeting the inclusion criteria.
 * Withdrawn draft and third-party candidates (said "no" clearly): George Allen (R), Evan Bayh (D), Mike Bloomberg (I), Howard Dean (D), Russ Feingold (D), Newt Gingrich (R), Al Gore (D), John Kerry (D), Al Sharpton (D), Doug Stanhope (L). Wasn't there once a draft movement row? In each case the candidate has withdrawn, but there is a committee and the draft movement or campaign is notable. I would add a third "Withdrawn" row at the end, after the parties and independent and potential candidates (Bayh can be added to D withdrawn, and the other Ds and Rs similarly). This category will fill up fast later and there is no place for it on the template yet. It doesn't need segregation by party because it's all third-party. I know Bayh had been rejected previously because it wasn't his committee ("Friends of"), but I am discounting that reasoning and currently think there is no reason to exclude him from the template.
 * I agree with this idea, but instead of potential I think that Rice, Nader, Clark, Warner, etc. should be labeled under "Active Draft Movements". The appropriate article can be linked as in Rice's case its the Draft Condi Movement-- Southern Texas  22:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, as long as "active draft movements" is understood to mean "haven't said 'no' clearly" and we don't try to party-segregate it. But then it should be the last line and go underneath "Withdrawn" where that means third-party. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nader's committee may be left over from previous runs. The applications shold be checked to see if the canidates have actually signed and acknowledged the committee. They are available for inspection, as they're published online through the FEC. If not acknowledged, these can be disavowed by a draftee at any time. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also realizing that with my logic we should also include some more folks which have been listed elsewhere in WP; I have refactored by adding more names to the second category (see if you two still like it). And of course Gore's ways of saying no leave this criterion less than perfect. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Another reason, in my view, for having a "significance" threshold of electronic filing at the FEC: $50,000 in the current election cycle extinguishes this kind of hairsplitting. Gore will have a committee, and probably has debts to pay down. Not much of an indicator to me. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, going ahead with several changes. Please use WP:BRD on any objectionable ones. John J. Bulten (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work, I see no problems with this.-- Southern Texas  04:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not such good work. Your "withdrawn" list now includes two very different kinds of people:  those who were thinking about running but decided not to (Dean, Kerry, Gingrich, for example) and those who actual started real active campaigning but then ended up quitting (Vilsack, Tommy Thompson, Brownback, for example).  I don't see any utility to combining these.   Wasted Time R (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And a few who have left-over committees from the last, or two cycles ago and who have been steadfast in not participating this year never withdrew. Gore for one.  This edit to the template will probably be unwound over the coming week, as it gets picked apart. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As for Doug Stanhope, He states he never had any activity. Never was a candidate. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On Condolezza Rice, she has not acknowledged the committee filed in her name. RICE, CONDOLEEZZA DR	ID: P80002868  As there is no request for avowal/disavowal from the FEC, hence, this draft  committee has failed to have even $5,000 in activity. Not active. Here's an example of such a letter. In my view she fails the "filed with the FEC" test. And the roumor test as well.
 * On Nader: his last acknowledged committee, was for 2004. NADER FOR PRESIDENT 2004   ID: C00395038 Last filing available July 2007. Oct 2007 filing has error on FEC servers as of today. Nader filing July 2007. assets about $1,000. Activity nil.  There are about 15 committees with his name, unacknowledged. He fails the FEC filing test for this election cycle. Page two of the last orginzational filing indicates this one is the principal committee. Organizational amendment 07/19/2006
 * On Mark Warner, the Draft Mark Warner committee received permission to terminate its affairs and cease reporting to the FEC. TERMINATION APPROVAL	 10/23/2007 Not a candidate. Not even a draft movement.  His senate committee filing indicates that the Senate committee is his principal committee now. September 27, 2007 Organizational Filing
 * On Wesley Clark, he has a principal committee left over from the last election cycle that owes about $251,000 and has cash of about $153,000. It made no effort to raise money, though $27,000 came in the last quarter apparently (July 1 - Sept 30, 2007). Has an old committee and not doing anything with it. Not a candidate.
 * I'm ready to see the category "Draft Movement" be dropped from this template. I'm taking Warner off right now. The rest of the listings are the as flimsy as the Steve Adams listing. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! WP:BRD really does work. However, what I'm hearing back is: "committees had no activity", "never active", "never formally declared candidacy", "actual started real active campaigning", "steadfast in not participating", "never had any activity", "never was a candidate", "not active", "activity nil", "not a candidate", "not doing anything". I beg to remind that an FEC filing is an activity, a declaration, a campaign, etc. The meaning of your (more ambiguous) statements seems to be more than mere filing; they seem to refer to items like financial activity, avowal, lapsed committees, and public statements. Now I can understand how the first three might be relatively easily quantified, although public statements should not be taken except in the most unequivocal cases of absolute withdrawal (witness the confusion over Gore and Cox). Off-the-cuff statements of anything less must defer to the published statement of candidacy. I wouldn't mind changing the criteria from "has FEC filing" to "signs FEC filing", though I'm still working out how that is verified at FEC site and what change it would make.
 * Now as for the word "withdrawn", I still think Stanhope filed but publicly rejected, but I'm open to rephrasing it. If there is a filing rejected by clear public statement, that seems to me a "withdrawal" of the filing. If the filing can be verified as never signed nor formally avowed, then I'm OK with making that subtle change in the criteria and dropping that name after discussion. But if the person has signed something, dropping out means that signature is "withdrawn", no two ways. There are other differences between the Gingrich and Brownback campaigns, but on the quantifiable detail of filing status they are in the same category, and the other differences one can cite are much more open to gradation and debate.
 * In short, I am open to changes of criteria that are clear and quantifiable. The signed/avowed filing criterion is worthy of investigation. (The $50K criterion is clear and quantifiable, but to me is clear undue weight; that list of 22 is 100% two-party, while my latest list of 51 is 79% two-party, and I calculate FEC filings as only 45% two-party (346/769). The proper WP weighting should be higher than 45% due to D-R notability, but it should definitely not be 100%.) Yellowdesk and Wasted may be able to quantify further criteria that can be discussed.
 * For illustration, here's how I obtained my list quantifiably. I finally found http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advcansea.shtml where you can just click "Send Query" with all fields blank and get all races (10K candidates). Then I spreadsheet-filtered on "President" and got 769 names as of yesterday, over the past few presidential races. Then I hand-selected names to test for WP articles based on extant WP lists and strong possibilities, and tried several name variants for each to find the WP article (these steps involve a bit of judgment call but their only fault is occasional false negatives). Quite simple. I only excluded names if it was undeniable that their campaigns were totally unrelated to 2008 (i.e., not subject to judgment call). Adding a step to this process, like clicking a certain button series at FEC to find who signed, would be very amicable; but an ambiguous step like "have they delivered stump speeches" would obviously not be.
 * I have now reviewed your links, and BTW thanks very much for sharing them. I could see a rule disqualifying a candidate whose image list, obtained at "query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?" followed by the candidate's personal number, contains no activity or committee (Allen, Bloomberg, Feingold, Gingrich, Rice, Warner). However, in my view:
 * Bayh has an open committee. The fact that it's called "Friends of" is not a quantifiable enough factor for disqualifying him from the "Withdrawn" category, because if the committee changed its name, his FEC page would appear similar to that of GHW Bush (for one). To disqualify Bayh from the "Withdrawn" category requires a clearer criterion.
 * Clark receives $27,000 donations last quarter? That's a potential candidacy. ("When I run, I'll be the national security candidate" or some such.) He is publicly responsible for his treasurer handling that money, that's an (agent) action.
 * Dean, Gore, Kerry, and Sharpton have personally filed FEC in a prior cycle, their committees were available this cycle, they were considered as candidates, they publicly rejected using the committee (any more than they had already): that's clearly withdrawal, of a prior available avowed candidacy.
 * Nader spends $2,000 this quarter to keep his "2004" committee alive this cycle? Same as Clark. Potential.
 * Stanhope clearly filed personally and withdrew that filing personally. His $0 raised has, to date, not been an acceptable criterion.
 * Under BRD, I will delete Rice as unobjected, but will await further discussion on the above names and the use of the word "Potential" or other designator for Clark and Nader. They could also be called "Inactive", "Possibilities", "Available", "Unclear", "Ambiguous", "Undecided", or "Unannounced". Refactored John J. Bulten (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your review of Bayh looks good. I won't quibble further about the others (which I don't believe should be on the template, but I will not re-edit). I would rather have clearer or more comprehensive standards. Having a $5,000 activity standard makes some of the issues moot, and $50,000 standard makes most of the questions go away, except for the judgment calls on old committees. As soon as the primary season starts, most of these issues will evaporate. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:Use common sense has to apply at some point. If you ask Tim Russert or Brit Hume or any other politically observant person, did Sam Brownback run for president for 2008? they'll say yes, he sure did, he was in a bunch of debates, he had a whole fundraising site set up, he campaigned all over the place, but he wasn't getting traction the polls and his money was running out, so after some time he quit.  If you ask Russert or Hume or anyone, did John Kerry ran for president for 2008? they'll say no, he thought about it and decided early on not to, announced that, and was never heard from again in that respect.  All your FEC minutae aside, any template that does not reflect this is not reflecting commonly understood reality.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)