Wesley Clark should be removed from this list unless there is proof he has switched sides. He ran in the 2004 election and won Oklahoma in the Democratic primaries. Binarypower 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not think the part on John McCain is balanced or well written and needs to be revised.
My thought is: Who cares who runs for the Repub's they are TOAST anyhow after allowing a crooked administration to rule like dictators for the past 6 1/2 years. These guys were ONLY for themselves. Look to see who has profited from the war, it definitely is not the American people. See how George Bush was put into office and used the office as an instrument to get oil prices to the highest in American history. Look who profited from the war in Iraq....Chaney's old buddies? What about Rumsfeld....look into him a bit. And the Republican's did all they possibly could to play innocent. Mark my words, it will be all in the history books in the years to come. I was a Republican up until the point they put Bush on the ballot back in 1999 and I could not put myself to vote for someone of his nature. Now after seeing how the Republican party is the most close minded party, I will NEVER vote for a republican again....no conscious, no humanity,....and a LOAD OF GREED !!!
HELLO! WE'RE FORGETTING A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN THIS WIKIPEDIA ENTRY!!! OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, KEN MEHLMAN AND MIKE HUCKABEE BUT THERE'S MORE
Is it silly to mention Arnold Schwarzenegger? I suppose he is not currently eligible to serve as President (given his European birth) but his name is often associated with a plan to change that rule. Eh, it sounds silly just typing this, nevermind. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub ( contributions) 14:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I was reading along, thinking what a nice, comprehensive list this was, until I got to Donnie Kennedy. WHO?!?!?! His inclusion in this list is silly, and it effectively ruins the list. He should be removed. Otherwise, I like this article. If you cannot tell the political affiliation of the author, it makes for a perfect wikipedia entry.
Do we need to have a picture of everyone? Bayberrylane 01:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Why can't this page be more like Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election with the pictures darting back and forth, and photos for the Announced Candidates? SargeAbernathy 22:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to change the wording on Hagel facing "similar problems to Guiliani" after the page defines Guiliani's opposition as being due to his pro-choice/pro-gay marriage views. Hagel is against both abortion and gay marriage, and that's not where his supposed liberalism comes from. Umdunno
Why is he still on the list? And even then, why is he listed first? Let's face it, he doesn't have much of a shot anymore... 129.2.227.93 17:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
correct me if I'm wrong, but Mitt Romney's not on the list at the moment. jj 15:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I won't start a revert war here, but I'm sorry, but I just want to note that Hagel is not a "conservative" Republican, despite today's changes to his entry. - Nhprman List 22:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Potential third party candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election has been listed as an Article for Deletion here. As the AfD is about a companion page, and the results could effect the viability of this page as well, you are encouraged to check out its AfD listing. -- Tim4christ17 11:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
First, I don't know why Donnie Kennedy got added back, since he's a yahoo group with 10 members. Secondly, I haven't found ANY link for the Fred Phelps thing, outside of people citing this article in prominent places. I do not want us distributing false information. Can anyone source this?? - Umdunno 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a "Draft Kennedy" page online, but it doesn't appear to be up-to-date and looks more like an ad for his many neo-Confederate books. There is nothing online about a Phelps candidacy, and it's not mentioned on the Fred Phelps Wikipedia article, which is quite thorough. He mentions nothing about a presidential run on his own Webpage. - Nhprman List 15:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone please give a source for the Phelps statement. He was a Gore supporter and seems to hate America, so I doubt he would seek the GOP nomination. Tim Long 19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I moved Donnie Kennedy's entry to the bottom of the "Other people mentioned as possible candidates" section, out of the "Announced" section, since there is no evidence he has announced. However, he is discussed as a potential candidate. This, perhaps, will help solve the edit war about his status. I also question Phelps being in the "Announced" category, since there is no evidence presented that he has made an announcement on his radio show, as presented here. If no evidence is presented, he should also probably go to thse "mentioned" section. The only truly announced candidate for the GOP nomination (and the only one actually announced AND campaigning), is John Cox. - Nhprman List 16:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
"Giuliani is, however, pro-choice and pro gay rights, which might hurt him in the primaries against a strong pro-life and anti-Gay marriage candidate, such as George Allen or John McCain."
Here's a link to another wiki entry that clearly shows that McCain at least voted anti on gay marriage amendment banning it. Therefore we should take out McCain's name. ( Creator22 20:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC))
and for his efforts to get to the bottom of the "Mark Foley Scandal."
Seems to early to be so optimistic on this one. Do others have information I don't? He may very well be doing all he can, but at the present time it seems POV. It has certainly brought him into the spotlight. Whether it will end up for better or worse for him remains in question though. Khirad 09:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Where, again, is Huckabee? Maybe I just can't see him...
I changed the format to a table, per the changes on the Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election. -- myselfalso 21:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Is this really relevant????
"He has been married several times, always to women. He is well-known for being extraordinarily heterosexual."
He has been married three times.
Where is Duncan Hunter on this list? He has already announced the formation of an exploratory committee and, therefore, should be considered a potential candidate. Metstotop333 19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Doing a search on FEC showed that John Cox and Michael Charles Smith both have filed with the FEC, and therefore are taking this seriously. [2] [3]. So do they get put up on the wikipedia page, or is there a different "sign" for wikipedian's to officially list someone's name? SargeAbernathy 20:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I've put up Cox and Smith again, since there are FEC reports being filed. Reading their website I believe John Cox is serious about a nation wide campaign. Michael Charles Smith is more realistic and hopes to gain 5,000 votes in Oregon to get on the ballot and hopes to at least go to the Republican National Convention. I put him up there because he and Cox are the ONLY ones to have been sending in reports to the FEC for their presidential runs. SargeAbernathy 16:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
From the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Don't expect to see Sen. Rick Santorum's name on the 2008 presidential ballot. "Absolutely, positively not. Absolutely not," Santorum said yesterday on The Michael Smerconish Show on WPHT-AM (1210). "My wife would throw me out of the house if I do anything in '08." [4]
In 1952 the (incumbent party in the '52 election) Democrat nominees were neither the incumbent President OR Vice President. VP Barkley sought the Democratic nomination, but lost out to (then) Illinois Governor Adlai E. Stevenson II. Therefore the line First incumbent party, not to put forward as candidate an incumbent President or Vice President since 1952, is inaccurate. GoodDay 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of words which prop up a lot like Exploratory committee (which I believe is a legal requirement), Political action committee etc. Make sure these are wikilinked at least once as most non-American readers are unlikely to know what they are. Nil Einne 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay I know this is completely OT but does anyone in their right mind really think Jeb Bush is going to consider running? His brother has basically screwed up any chance of that completely since it seems to me no one in their right mind would vote for another Bush in the 2008 election even if he's a democract hippie who believes in free love and hates his brother (which he isn't) Nil Einne 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
So that people will not re-add the candidates that have declined to run, and all former candidates will probably be on a shortlist of veep nominees.-- Folksong 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following addition:
Richard Michael Smith of Texas is a Republican candidate for President of the United States, officially registered with the FEC. Campaign reports have been filed for March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2006.
Richard Michael is a social and fiscal conservative. He believes in reducing the size of government, lowering taxes, and preserving individual freedoms. This is a grass-roots campaign, emphasizing the right of the people to choose their leader instead of one selected by wealthy special interest groups.
Richard Michael's campaign biography and statements on the issues can be found on his official website: [5]. Contact him by email at [email removed]
-- Richard Michael Smith 02:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
along with a lot of garbled formatting mess. If he's registered he may warrant a mention in this article, though. -- Aranae 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a note about WP:COI to Richard's talk page. John Broughton | Talk 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I'm not that interested in an article that gives significant space (picture, campaign platform, etc.) to anyone who files out paperwork and pays a nominal fee to the FEC to file for the Presidency. (Gosh, Fred, for $100 and two hours of filling out paperwork, I can have a big picture and bio in Wikipedia for two years! I'm going for it!!!)
I suggest that this article be retitled "Notable 2008 United States ... ", and that pictures and significant text be devoted only to candidates who have at least a very small chance of winning - folks who have been elected governor, U.S. Senator, etc. There certainly should be a section on "Mentioned but not running", for folks like George Allen and Bill Frist, with perhaps a couple of sentences per person, but they shouldn't get as much space as actual and potential notables in the running. There certainly could be a small section for "Non-notable candidates who have filed paperwork", with the name of the person and his/her website, for completeness sake.
John Broughton |
Talk
21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You clearly know a lot about Cox, including some things not in John H. Cox. For example, that he has 33 state "organizations" is not in that article, which says only that As of Oct. 26, 2006, the campaign had committee chairmen in 16 states. (A "chairman" is quite different from an "organization".) If such sourced statements (meeting WP:RS were in the article, I certainly wouldn't have a problem giving Cox a bit more text here.
I note that my criteria for how much space to give a candidate and your criteria may differ significantly. You appear to me looking at effort. My criteria is probability that candidate can get adequate funding from others to run a serious campaign, where "serious" means lots of television ads, large mailings, thousands of volunteers, etc. The reality of American politics, for better or worse, is that if someone who has never been elected to a major office, nor has been a U.S. Cabinet member or military general or CEO of a major company, has ZERO probability of being nominated by a major party, let alone being elected. The reality also is that it takes tens of millions of dollars to run a serious campaign in the primaries, and self-funded candidates (if Cox had that kind of money, which isn't clear) without other qualifications don't impress anywhere near enough people to have any chance at all.
More generally, Wikipedia editors make value judgments all the time about what should and shouldn't go into an article, and how much space to give to any particular matter (article, section, paragraph, sentence, whatever). That's why it's so important to pay attention to what other editors say. It's also why it's so important not to let personal feelings affect such judgments. In this case, I note that no other people who have edited the article previously seem to have a problem with the changes I made to it. I suggest waiting a week to see if any others chime in here, and then, if you're still feel a change is needed, we can discuss the matter further. John Broughton | Talk 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a disagreement (see prior section) about whether "official" candidates (three are now listed in the article) deserve as much space in the article (including a picture) as do candidates such as John McCain and Mitt Romney. I have cited WP:NPOV (undue weight); that seems to have not been persuasive to some editors.
This section is to discuss how to resolve such a disagreement. I note Wikipedia:Resolving disputes offers various options; I am amenable to any of them (except "third opinion", which is inapplicable to this situation). I invite suggestions as to how to proceed. John Broughton | Talk 17:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think anyone but Wikipedia editors should decide what constitutes "undue weight", so, yes, I think an RfC or some other dispute resolution process is still needed here. To clarify - there is now a proposal to give Cox but not the other "official" candidates a picture and full text, because he's mentioned in CQ? Does anyone disagree with that (as opposed to giving ALL official candidates equal weight)? John Broughton | Talk 16:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
As for "Wikipedia is not paper", WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, and WP:N is expressly to help decide what doesn't go into Wikipedia. And WP:NPOV talks about "undue weight", which means that while something might not be deleted altogether, it's not appropriate to treat everything equally.
And apparently I wasn't clear enough either: I think the criteria could be SIMILAR to whatever the criteria was used by the folks putting on the debates. I'm NOT suggesting using "inclusion in debates" as the criteria - the debates won't start for more a year, so what would be the point of that? John Broughton | Talk 16:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
So perhaps the way to handle this is to ask, in the RfC, for suggestions on what the criteria might be. That is, the RfC would be two-part: first, should everyone be treated equally (non-notable official candidate gets same space as John McCain?); second, for those who believe the answer to the first question should be "no", what should the criteria be for distinguishing between "full discussion" candidates and "name and wikilink/campaign site link ONLY" candidates? (For example, "not on enough ballots" isn't a good criteria in 2007; we simply won't know until 2008.) John Broughton | Talk 16:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Calwatch - if you haven't already posted the RfC, perhaps we could discuss the language a bit more here, first. For example, I'm fine with Nphrman's question (except that I would strike "or have annouced they plan to do so", per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) as the first of the two questions in the RfC. There really isn't any need to rush things here, is there? John Broughton | Talk 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Just giving a heads up.
I'm bumping Keating up to "Potential Candidates". He's in SC "exploring" (campaigning) today. That puts him beyond mentioning, IMO. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/16284419.htm - Umdunn o 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Why isnt he at the bottom with the other no--name candidates like Smith?
I'd like to propose a compromise: adopt the following standard - All candidates for President who are actively campaigning nationally receive an entry in the same format (name, thumbnail photo, and a brief, non-POV written description). "Campaigning nationally" doesn't mean just sending out press releases, or appearing in a national newspaper story. Rather, it means having a large number of state organizations (at least being set up) and a large number of volunteers, and spending a significant amount of time and money on campaigning, including national travel. (Cox would qualify, by such criteria.)
Could I get a show of hands - support, oppose? John Broughton | Talk 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no source whatsoever citing him as a potential candidate. The article currently says "grassroots efforts to recruit him as a candidate are gaining momentum", but the only link is this: http://johnesununupresident2008.blogspot.com/ A one-post blog, last updated in April 2006. Permission to remove? - Umdunn o 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
She has state explicitly that she will not run on Meet the Press. Shouldn't she be under "Declined to run"? Danielsan1701 20:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
He does not show up on any national polls, will likely not participate in the debates, and belongs in the other candidates category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Only 2 people supported it, and one was against it. Both of us are now against it making us the majority. Hoponpop69 23:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect nothing can change the enthusiasm of editors who work on this article, but as for me, this has no place in an encyclopedia. It's an attempt at up-to-date news, mixed with an unhealthy dose of speculation by lay journalists, and an invitation for a sh-tload of non-neutral cruft. Kncyu38 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is Keating not in the declined candidates anymore? Someone replaced him with Condi, when they both could've been in without someone being bumped. 24.107.147.61 14:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Why don't they include Michael and Richard Smith in the "Official Candidates" section? -Halibut Thyme, 6 November 07
Romney seems conspiciously absent from the list, hasn't he officially declared his intent to seek the nomination? -- NEMT 15:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
(Cross-posted to: Talk:Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Democratic candidates )
I think the distance distinguishing candidates with exploratory committees and those who have made the "formality" of announcing they are running for president is miniscule.
Here's an example from a candidate's press release, Mitt Romney, which was put out when the Romney for President Exploratory Committee, Inc. was established. In substance, the Federal Election Commission considers exploratory committees equal to presidential campaign committees, that the report and account is the same, and the "substance" of the difference is merely changing the name of the entity, if even that, when the candidate "announces" their candidacy. All funds of the exploratory committee are just as available as subsequently raised-post-announcement funds. In fact they are exactly the same, as far as the FEC is concerned. In other-words, this "exploratory committee" business is window-dressing on a committee that actually is a fully qualified federal presidential campaign comittee.
Here's the quote from the Romney press statement of January 3, 2007:
Q: What is the difference between this exploratory committee and formally announcing Governor Romney's candidacy?
A: This committee has been registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) allowing it to begin soliciting resources and organizing a federal campaign committee structure in anticipation of a formal announcement in the near future. Once an announcement is made, the word "exploratory" will be removed from the name. The committee formed today will use the money raised before and after a formal announcement.
Q: Can money raised by the exploratory committee be used by an eventual Romney for President Campaign Committee?
A: Yes. In fact, it's the same account. [1]
- ^ Governor Mitt Romney Forms Presidential Exploratory Committee Press Release. Wednesday, Jan 03, 2007. Retrieved January 30, 2007.
Isn't time to state that all candidates with exploratory committees are right now presidential candidates? -- Yellowdesk 05:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
what happened to Mike pence? 216.165.2.17 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I saw a blurb across the bottom of CSPAN this morning that said Chuck Hagel will be announcing whether or not he will run at a news conference this coming Monday. Anyone know of any sources reporting this information? -- Aranae 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Fred Dalton Thompson, former senator from Tennessee and current Law & Order actor, has been drawing interest over the past few days. There's currently a "Draft Thompson" movement beginning to form. Here's a link to some of the speculation. [13] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valadius ( talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
Just wondering if we could get some non-trivial published sources on this. I don't listen to his show, but I know he makes a lot of crazy claims and remarks. Also, the webcounter on his website is extremely easy to hack... you just vote once, clear your cookies, and turn them off, and then you can vote as many times as you want. It is clearly being hacked by scripts because the numbers go up by 100 or so every time you refresh the page. I guess thats original research, but it's true. It should not be taken literally. Danski14 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Given the criteria for "official candidates with multi-state campaigns", I do not feel that local candidates with sparse media coverage (outside of their specific locality) mandate inclusion within this article. Regards, Djma12 ( talk) 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Smith is a valid as Cox, more likely to gain delegates to National Convention with localized strategy than Cox's wide but shallow strategy. Multi-state? New Hampshire only costs $1000 to file. Shouldn't Smith get as much space as Savage or the "not running"?
Mikesmth
01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know exactly what wiki policy is concerning this. You technically are a candidate, but do not meet notability criteria per WP:BIO and arguably violate WP:NOT on self-promotion. I'll refrain from edit-warring while seeking more advice... BTW, you can stop referring to yourself in the third person ;-) Djma12 ( talk) 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I can cite wider media references that help bolter the notability point. I'm not just advocating for myself, but Cox and others. There needs to be an open exchange based on merit of ideas, not just conventional media recognition. Mikesmth 01:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Why can't we move the "other candidates" to the main lists? Tim Long 00:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The criteria for the main list requires 1) FEC filing 2) multi-state campaigning 3) independent journalistic coverage. Note, this isn't b/c we are trying to censor out lesser known candidates -- there is still a section for that. (And I do not object to having the image + blurb included as well.) However, the question is whether it is ENCYCLOPEDIC per WP:BIO and WP:NOT. Regards, Djma12 ( talk) 01:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Either way, to whoever is removing them, Cox and Michael Smith should stop being removed on and off again altogether. They belong in "Other candidates" or the main list. Tim Long 05:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel this page should be moved to 2008 Republican presidential candidates? Hoponpop69 03:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I heard on the grapevine Savage said he won't actually be running on his radio talk show, hence an IP user removed him. What a surprise, eh? Danski14 (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the section on Cheney. It clearly does not belong in this article. 207.140.171.5
Re-Added section on Cheney. It fits under the section Raymondofrish
I'm sorry to open up old wounds and I have looked above, but I still can't see what the decision is as to what defines sufficient notability to warrant inclusion. First I want to say that I'm not pushing for inclusion or exclusion, merely trying to define a NPOV cutoff.
To me, the question is what to do with the red links. Are we left to ask whether the individual is notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article. Of the two current red links this may include:
Finally, an argument could be made that anyone who has filed with the FEC can be listed in this "other" section. This would include:
My opinion is that we need to draw a line. Candidates belong here if... (choose one or propose an alternative):
The page needs to be changed in one of two ways. Either 1.)R.M. Smith (and probably Cort) need to be removed from the "other candidates" section or 2.)M.C. Smith and any other candidates that have filed with the FCC need to be added. There is no objective cutoff to the current list. Does anyone have an opinion or should I just arbitrarily change it to one of those options? -- Aranae 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not just list those that get invited to the debates? Hoponpop69 23:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Also, 4/5/07 - I see Michael Charles Smith has had his page removed. This is a sad commentary on Wikipedia. Not only was it the wrong move, there was no consensus for it. For shame.
Why are we listing just Cox, and not all the other perrenial candidates who have filed to run, in that main section? Hoponpop69 01:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is Fred Phelps listed? It says nothing about 2008 in his article and there aren't any references. Not to mention he hates America, hates the government and chants GOD HATES FAGS! He shouldn't be listed. It's a stretch to include even Savage.
It's obvious vandalism. Removing it. User:Spock 156.34.6.34 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Which is vandalism? The addition of Phelps or the tirade made by the poster above me, violating wikipedia's POV?
Casey14
01:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Who the hell is Daniel Gilbert and what is the meaning of that bias entry? Is this the same guy that has the wikipedia article, " Dan Gilbert (businessman)"? If so, his name needs to be linked. I googled him and I can't find a single thing about him running for president.-- Zombiema7 02:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I actually just saw his website. These candidates get more and more obscure every day. Still, can someone find out if it's the same guy from the article I cited above and is it really custom for an entry to be a bias article, which looks as though it was written by a relative?-- Zombiema7 02:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added a link to this page from the United States presidential election, 2008 table JLMadrigal 12:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Robapalooza 17:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mitt romney.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Wesley Clark should be removed from this list unless there is proof he has switched sides. He ran in the 2004 election and won Oklahoma in the Democratic primaries. Binarypower 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not think the part on John McCain is balanced or well written and needs to be revised.
My thought is: Who cares who runs for the Repub's they are TOAST anyhow after allowing a crooked administration to rule like dictators for the past 6 1/2 years. These guys were ONLY for themselves. Look to see who has profited from the war, it definitely is not the American people. See how George Bush was put into office and used the office as an instrument to get oil prices to the highest in American history. Look who profited from the war in Iraq....Chaney's old buddies? What about Rumsfeld....look into him a bit. And the Republican's did all they possibly could to play innocent. Mark my words, it will be all in the history books in the years to come. I was a Republican up until the point they put Bush on the ballot back in 1999 and I could not put myself to vote for someone of his nature. Now after seeing how the Republican party is the most close minded party, I will NEVER vote for a republican again....no conscious, no humanity,....and a LOAD OF GREED !!!
HELLO! WE'RE FORGETTING A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN THIS WIKIPEDIA ENTRY!!! OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, KEN MEHLMAN AND MIKE HUCKABEE BUT THERE'S MORE
Is it silly to mention Arnold Schwarzenegger? I suppose he is not currently eligible to serve as President (given his European birth) but his name is often associated with a plan to change that rule. Eh, it sounds silly just typing this, nevermind. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub ( contributions) 14:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I was reading along, thinking what a nice, comprehensive list this was, until I got to Donnie Kennedy. WHO?!?!?! His inclusion in this list is silly, and it effectively ruins the list. He should be removed. Otherwise, I like this article. If you cannot tell the political affiliation of the author, it makes for a perfect wikipedia entry.
Do we need to have a picture of everyone? Bayberrylane 01:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Why can't this page be more like Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election with the pictures darting back and forth, and photos for the Announced Candidates? SargeAbernathy 22:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to change the wording on Hagel facing "similar problems to Guiliani" after the page defines Guiliani's opposition as being due to his pro-choice/pro-gay marriage views. Hagel is against both abortion and gay marriage, and that's not where his supposed liberalism comes from. Umdunno
Why is he still on the list? And even then, why is he listed first? Let's face it, he doesn't have much of a shot anymore... 129.2.227.93 17:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
correct me if I'm wrong, but Mitt Romney's not on the list at the moment. jj 15:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I won't start a revert war here, but I'm sorry, but I just want to note that Hagel is not a "conservative" Republican, despite today's changes to his entry. - Nhprman List 22:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Potential third party candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election has been listed as an Article for Deletion here. As the AfD is about a companion page, and the results could effect the viability of this page as well, you are encouraged to check out its AfD listing. -- Tim4christ17 11:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
First, I don't know why Donnie Kennedy got added back, since he's a yahoo group with 10 members. Secondly, I haven't found ANY link for the Fred Phelps thing, outside of people citing this article in prominent places. I do not want us distributing false information. Can anyone source this?? - Umdunno 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a "Draft Kennedy" page online, but it doesn't appear to be up-to-date and looks more like an ad for his many neo-Confederate books. There is nothing online about a Phelps candidacy, and it's not mentioned on the Fred Phelps Wikipedia article, which is quite thorough. He mentions nothing about a presidential run on his own Webpage. - Nhprman List 15:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone please give a source for the Phelps statement. He was a Gore supporter and seems to hate America, so I doubt he would seek the GOP nomination. Tim Long 19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I moved Donnie Kennedy's entry to the bottom of the "Other people mentioned as possible candidates" section, out of the "Announced" section, since there is no evidence he has announced. However, he is discussed as a potential candidate. This, perhaps, will help solve the edit war about his status. I also question Phelps being in the "Announced" category, since there is no evidence presented that he has made an announcement on his radio show, as presented here. If no evidence is presented, he should also probably go to thse "mentioned" section. The only truly announced candidate for the GOP nomination (and the only one actually announced AND campaigning), is John Cox. - Nhprman List 16:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
"Giuliani is, however, pro-choice and pro gay rights, which might hurt him in the primaries against a strong pro-life and anti-Gay marriage candidate, such as George Allen or John McCain."
Here's a link to another wiki entry that clearly shows that McCain at least voted anti on gay marriage amendment banning it. Therefore we should take out McCain's name. ( Creator22 20:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC))
and for his efforts to get to the bottom of the "Mark Foley Scandal."
Seems to early to be so optimistic on this one. Do others have information I don't? He may very well be doing all he can, but at the present time it seems POV. It has certainly brought him into the spotlight. Whether it will end up for better or worse for him remains in question though. Khirad 09:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Where, again, is Huckabee? Maybe I just can't see him...
I changed the format to a table, per the changes on the Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election. -- myselfalso 21:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Is this really relevant????
"He has been married several times, always to women. He is well-known for being extraordinarily heterosexual."
He has been married three times.
Where is Duncan Hunter on this list? He has already announced the formation of an exploratory committee and, therefore, should be considered a potential candidate. Metstotop333 19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Doing a search on FEC showed that John Cox and Michael Charles Smith both have filed with the FEC, and therefore are taking this seriously. [2] [3]. So do they get put up on the wikipedia page, or is there a different "sign" for wikipedian's to officially list someone's name? SargeAbernathy 20:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I've put up Cox and Smith again, since there are FEC reports being filed. Reading their website I believe John Cox is serious about a nation wide campaign. Michael Charles Smith is more realistic and hopes to gain 5,000 votes in Oregon to get on the ballot and hopes to at least go to the Republican National Convention. I put him up there because he and Cox are the ONLY ones to have been sending in reports to the FEC for their presidential runs. SargeAbernathy 16:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
From the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Don't expect to see Sen. Rick Santorum's name on the 2008 presidential ballot. "Absolutely, positively not. Absolutely not," Santorum said yesterday on The Michael Smerconish Show on WPHT-AM (1210). "My wife would throw me out of the house if I do anything in '08." [4]
In 1952 the (incumbent party in the '52 election) Democrat nominees were neither the incumbent President OR Vice President. VP Barkley sought the Democratic nomination, but lost out to (then) Illinois Governor Adlai E. Stevenson II. Therefore the line First incumbent party, not to put forward as candidate an incumbent President or Vice President since 1952, is inaccurate. GoodDay 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of words which prop up a lot like Exploratory committee (which I believe is a legal requirement), Political action committee etc. Make sure these are wikilinked at least once as most non-American readers are unlikely to know what they are. Nil Einne 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay I know this is completely OT but does anyone in their right mind really think Jeb Bush is going to consider running? His brother has basically screwed up any chance of that completely since it seems to me no one in their right mind would vote for another Bush in the 2008 election even if he's a democract hippie who believes in free love and hates his brother (which he isn't) Nil Einne 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
So that people will not re-add the candidates that have declined to run, and all former candidates will probably be on a shortlist of veep nominees.-- Folksong 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following addition:
Richard Michael Smith of Texas is a Republican candidate for President of the United States, officially registered with the FEC. Campaign reports have been filed for March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2006.
Richard Michael is a social and fiscal conservative. He believes in reducing the size of government, lowering taxes, and preserving individual freedoms. This is a grass-roots campaign, emphasizing the right of the people to choose their leader instead of one selected by wealthy special interest groups.
Richard Michael's campaign biography and statements on the issues can be found on his official website: [5]. Contact him by email at [email removed]
-- Richard Michael Smith 02:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
along with a lot of garbled formatting mess. If he's registered he may warrant a mention in this article, though. -- Aranae 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a note about WP:COI to Richard's talk page. John Broughton | Talk 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I'm not that interested in an article that gives significant space (picture, campaign platform, etc.) to anyone who files out paperwork and pays a nominal fee to the FEC to file for the Presidency. (Gosh, Fred, for $100 and two hours of filling out paperwork, I can have a big picture and bio in Wikipedia for two years! I'm going for it!!!)
I suggest that this article be retitled "Notable 2008 United States ... ", and that pictures and significant text be devoted only to candidates who have at least a very small chance of winning - folks who have been elected governor, U.S. Senator, etc. There certainly should be a section on "Mentioned but not running", for folks like George Allen and Bill Frist, with perhaps a couple of sentences per person, but they shouldn't get as much space as actual and potential notables in the running. There certainly could be a small section for "Non-notable candidates who have filed paperwork", with the name of the person and his/her website, for completeness sake.
John Broughton |
Talk
21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You clearly know a lot about Cox, including some things not in John H. Cox. For example, that he has 33 state "organizations" is not in that article, which says only that As of Oct. 26, 2006, the campaign had committee chairmen in 16 states. (A "chairman" is quite different from an "organization".) If such sourced statements (meeting WP:RS were in the article, I certainly wouldn't have a problem giving Cox a bit more text here.
I note that my criteria for how much space to give a candidate and your criteria may differ significantly. You appear to me looking at effort. My criteria is probability that candidate can get adequate funding from others to run a serious campaign, where "serious" means lots of television ads, large mailings, thousands of volunteers, etc. The reality of American politics, for better or worse, is that if someone who has never been elected to a major office, nor has been a U.S. Cabinet member or military general or CEO of a major company, has ZERO probability of being nominated by a major party, let alone being elected. The reality also is that it takes tens of millions of dollars to run a serious campaign in the primaries, and self-funded candidates (if Cox had that kind of money, which isn't clear) without other qualifications don't impress anywhere near enough people to have any chance at all.
More generally, Wikipedia editors make value judgments all the time about what should and shouldn't go into an article, and how much space to give to any particular matter (article, section, paragraph, sentence, whatever). That's why it's so important to pay attention to what other editors say. It's also why it's so important not to let personal feelings affect such judgments. In this case, I note that no other people who have edited the article previously seem to have a problem with the changes I made to it. I suggest waiting a week to see if any others chime in here, and then, if you're still feel a change is needed, we can discuss the matter further. John Broughton | Talk 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a disagreement (see prior section) about whether "official" candidates (three are now listed in the article) deserve as much space in the article (including a picture) as do candidates such as John McCain and Mitt Romney. I have cited WP:NPOV (undue weight); that seems to have not been persuasive to some editors.
This section is to discuss how to resolve such a disagreement. I note Wikipedia:Resolving disputes offers various options; I am amenable to any of them (except "third opinion", which is inapplicable to this situation). I invite suggestions as to how to proceed. John Broughton | Talk 17:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think anyone but Wikipedia editors should decide what constitutes "undue weight", so, yes, I think an RfC or some other dispute resolution process is still needed here. To clarify - there is now a proposal to give Cox but not the other "official" candidates a picture and full text, because he's mentioned in CQ? Does anyone disagree with that (as opposed to giving ALL official candidates equal weight)? John Broughton | Talk 16:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
As for "Wikipedia is not paper", WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, and WP:N is expressly to help decide what doesn't go into Wikipedia. And WP:NPOV talks about "undue weight", which means that while something might not be deleted altogether, it's not appropriate to treat everything equally.
And apparently I wasn't clear enough either: I think the criteria could be SIMILAR to whatever the criteria was used by the folks putting on the debates. I'm NOT suggesting using "inclusion in debates" as the criteria - the debates won't start for more a year, so what would be the point of that? John Broughton | Talk 16:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
So perhaps the way to handle this is to ask, in the RfC, for suggestions on what the criteria might be. That is, the RfC would be two-part: first, should everyone be treated equally (non-notable official candidate gets same space as John McCain?); second, for those who believe the answer to the first question should be "no", what should the criteria be for distinguishing between "full discussion" candidates and "name and wikilink/campaign site link ONLY" candidates? (For example, "not on enough ballots" isn't a good criteria in 2007; we simply won't know until 2008.) John Broughton | Talk 16:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Calwatch - if you haven't already posted the RfC, perhaps we could discuss the language a bit more here, first. For example, I'm fine with Nphrman's question (except that I would strike "or have annouced they plan to do so", per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) as the first of the two questions in the RfC. There really isn't any need to rush things here, is there? John Broughton | Talk 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Just giving a heads up.
I'm bumping Keating up to "Potential Candidates". He's in SC "exploring" (campaigning) today. That puts him beyond mentioning, IMO. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/16284419.htm - Umdunn o 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Why isnt he at the bottom with the other no--name candidates like Smith?
I'd like to propose a compromise: adopt the following standard - All candidates for President who are actively campaigning nationally receive an entry in the same format (name, thumbnail photo, and a brief, non-POV written description). "Campaigning nationally" doesn't mean just sending out press releases, or appearing in a national newspaper story. Rather, it means having a large number of state organizations (at least being set up) and a large number of volunteers, and spending a significant amount of time and money on campaigning, including national travel. (Cox would qualify, by such criteria.)
Could I get a show of hands - support, oppose? John Broughton | Talk 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no source whatsoever citing him as a potential candidate. The article currently says "grassroots efforts to recruit him as a candidate are gaining momentum", but the only link is this: http://johnesununupresident2008.blogspot.com/ A one-post blog, last updated in April 2006. Permission to remove? - Umdunn o 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
She has state explicitly that she will not run on Meet the Press. Shouldn't she be under "Declined to run"? Danielsan1701 20:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
He does not show up on any national polls, will likely not participate in the debates, and belongs in the other candidates category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Only 2 people supported it, and one was against it. Both of us are now against it making us the majority. Hoponpop69 23:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect nothing can change the enthusiasm of editors who work on this article, but as for me, this has no place in an encyclopedia. It's an attempt at up-to-date news, mixed with an unhealthy dose of speculation by lay journalists, and an invitation for a sh-tload of non-neutral cruft. Kncyu38 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is Keating not in the declined candidates anymore? Someone replaced him with Condi, when they both could've been in without someone being bumped. 24.107.147.61 14:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Why don't they include Michael and Richard Smith in the "Official Candidates" section? -Halibut Thyme, 6 November 07
Romney seems conspiciously absent from the list, hasn't he officially declared his intent to seek the nomination? -- NEMT 15:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
(Cross-posted to: Talk:Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Democratic candidates )
I think the distance distinguishing candidates with exploratory committees and those who have made the "formality" of announcing they are running for president is miniscule.
Here's an example from a candidate's press release, Mitt Romney, which was put out when the Romney for President Exploratory Committee, Inc. was established. In substance, the Federal Election Commission considers exploratory committees equal to presidential campaign committees, that the report and account is the same, and the "substance" of the difference is merely changing the name of the entity, if even that, when the candidate "announces" their candidacy. All funds of the exploratory committee are just as available as subsequently raised-post-announcement funds. In fact they are exactly the same, as far as the FEC is concerned. In other-words, this "exploratory committee" business is window-dressing on a committee that actually is a fully qualified federal presidential campaign comittee.
Here's the quote from the Romney press statement of January 3, 2007:
Q: What is the difference between this exploratory committee and formally announcing Governor Romney's candidacy?
A: This committee has been registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) allowing it to begin soliciting resources and organizing a federal campaign committee structure in anticipation of a formal announcement in the near future. Once an announcement is made, the word "exploratory" will be removed from the name. The committee formed today will use the money raised before and after a formal announcement.
Q: Can money raised by the exploratory committee be used by an eventual Romney for President Campaign Committee?
A: Yes. In fact, it's the same account. [1]
- ^ Governor Mitt Romney Forms Presidential Exploratory Committee Press Release. Wednesday, Jan 03, 2007. Retrieved January 30, 2007.
Isn't time to state that all candidates with exploratory committees are right now presidential candidates? -- Yellowdesk 05:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
what happened to Mike pence? 216.165.2.17 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I saw a blurb across the bottom of CSPAN this morning that said Chuck Hagel will be announcing whether or not he will run at a news conference this coming Monday. Anyone know of any sources reporting this information? -- Aranae 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Fred Dalton Thompson, former senator from Tennessee and current Law & Order actor, has been drawing interest over the past few days. There's currently a "Draft Thompson" movement beginning to form. Here's a link to some of the speculation. [13] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valadius ( talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
Just wondering if we could get some non-trivial published sources on this. I don't listen to his show, but I know he makes a lot of crazy claims and remarks. Also, the webcounter on his website is extremely easy to hack... you just vote once, clear your cookies, and turn them off, and then you can vote as many times as you want. It is clearly being hacked by scripts because the numbers go up by 100 or so every time you refresh the page. I guess thats original research, but it's true. It should not be taken literally. Danski14 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Given the criteria for "official candidates with multi-state campaigns", I do not feel that local candidates with sparse media coverage (outside of their specific locality) mandate inclusion within this article. Regards, Djma12 ( talk) 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Smith is a valid as Cox, more likely to gain delegates to National Convention with localized strategy than Cox's wide but shallow strategy. Multi-state? New Hampshire only costs $1000 to file. Shouldn't Smith get as much space as Savage or the "not running"?
Mikesmth
01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know exactly what wiki policy is concerning this. You technically are a candidate, but do not meet notability criteria per WP:BIO and arguably violate WP:NOT on self-promotion. I'll refrain from edit-warring while seeking more advice... BTW, you can stop referring to yourself in the third person ;-) Djma12 ( talk) 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I can cite wider media references that help bolter the notability point. I'm not just advocating for myself, but Cox and others. There needs to be an open exchange based on merit of ideas, not just conventional media recognition. Mikesmth 01:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Why can't we move the "other candidates" to the main lists? Tim Long 00:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The criteria for the main list requires 1) FEC filing 2) multi-state campaigning 3) independent journalistic coverage. Note, this isn't b/c we are trying to censor out lesser known candidates -- there is still a section for that. (And I do not object to having the image + blurb included as well.) However, the question is whether it is ENCYCLOPEDIC per WP:BIO and WP:NOT. Regards, Djma12 ( talk) 01:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Either way, to whoever is removing them, Cox and Michael Smith should stop being removed on and off again altogether. They belong in "Other candidates" or the main list. Tim Long 05:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel this page should be moved to 2008 Republican presidential candidates? Hoponpop69 03:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I heard on the grapevine Savage said he won't actually be running on his radio talk show, hence an IP user removed him. What a surprise, eh? Danski14 (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the section on Cheney. It clearly does not belong in this article. 207.140.171.5
Re-Added section on Cheney. It fits under the section Raymondofrish
I'm sorry to open up old wounds and I have looked above, but I still can't see what the decision is as to what defines sufficient notability to warrant inclusion. First I want to say that I'm not pushing for inclusion or exclusion, merely trying to define a NPOV cutoff.
To me, the question is what to do with the red links. Are we left to ask whether the individual is notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article. Of the two current red links this may include:
Finally, an argument could be made that anyone who has filed with the FEC can be listed in this "other" section. This would include:
My opinion is that we need to draw a line. Candidates belong here if... (choose one or propose an alternative):
The page needs to be changed in one of two ways. Either 1.)R.M. Smith (and probably Cort) need to be removed from the "other candidates" section or 2.)M.C. Smith and any other candidates that have filed with the FCC need to be added. There is no objective cutoff to the current list. Does anyone have an opinion or should I just arbitrarily change it to one of those options? -- Aranae 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not just list those that get invited to the debates? Hoponpop69 23:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Also, 4/5/07 - I see Michael Charles Smith has had his page removed. This is a sad commentary on Wikipedia. Not only was it the wrong move, there was no consensus for it. For shame.
Why are we listing just Cox, and not all the other perrenial candidates who have filed to run, in that main section? Hoponpop69 01:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is Fred Phelps listed? It says nothing about 2008 in his article and there aren't any references. Not to mention he hates America, hates the government and chants GOD HATES FAGS! He shouldn't be listed. It's a stretch to include even Savage.
It's obvious vandalism. Removing it. User:Spock 156.34.6.34 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Which is vandalism? The addition of Phelps or the tirade made by the poster above me, violating wikipedia's POV?
Casey14
01:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Who the hell is Daniel Gilbert and what is the meaning of that bias entry? Is this the same guy that has the wikipedia article, " Dan Gilbert (businessman)"? If so, his name needs to be linked. I googled him and I can't find a single thing about him running for president.-- Zombiema7 02:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I actually just saw his website. These candidates get more and more obscure every day. Still, can someone find out if it's the same guy from the article I cited above and is it really custom for an entry to be a bias article, which looks as though it was written by a relative?-- Zombiema7 02:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added a link to this page from the United States presidential election, 2008 table JLMadrigal 12:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Robapalooza 17:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mitt romney.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)