Talk:2012 United States presidential election/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Chris Christie

He's denied strongly and maybe even Shermanesquely a bid for 2012. Ive seen at least two articles and have this one on hand. He has to finish out his term. A lot of this speculation about people getting elected and then running for president 2 years later is patently absurd. Marco Rubio is also tapped, but the presidential campaign is about to begin. Theres just no way hell run. Similarly, Christie wont just run before his term is up. 2016 sure. The source I provided confirms he has no interest in 2012. I think we should remove him from the list at this point.--Metallurgist (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The current consensus among the article's editors is that as long as there is speculation in reliable sources of a presidential run, the potential candidate should remain listed, even if he or she fervently denies any intentions of running. This is because politicians have typically proven to be unreliable when denying plans to run for president. The list of those who have ran after saying they wouldn't could easily fill an entire WP article. So we go by media speculation (being careful to identify it as such).

Of course, consensus is subject to change. If you wish to propose changes or modifications to the current standards, please feel free to start a new discussion thread on the subject and present your ideas.--JayJasper (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Where does that go then?--Metallurgist (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking where the new discussion thread would go, it would go at the bottom of this page where all new discussion topics are to be placed per WP:Talkpage. Or did you mean something else?--JayJasper (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The new one. Thanks Metallurgist (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Alvin Greene

The former Democratic Senate candidate from South Carolina is considering a presidential campaign: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44895.html. Ratemonth (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

We need more than one source. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are more sources:

He definitely meets the article's standards for a propective candidate. The only problem is that he is undecided on which party affiliation he would run on, so I'm not sure where to put him. Do we list him multiple times as a propective Democrat, Republican, and Independent until he makes his intentions clearer?--JayJasper (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say Democrat since that was his most recent affiliation. The statement "I’m thinking about it. I don’t know which party I’ll run in as a candidate" makes it clear that he will run under a party label rather than as an Independent. I don't see any connection with the Republican Party, so I don't think it would be appropriate to include him there. In conclusion, he should definitely be listed on the Democratic side, and possibly as a third party "miscellaneous". --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dick Morris

His opinions should not be treated as reliable sourcing. You can clearly see in the article that he's just throwing out a couple names with no actual basis of fact in terms of whether or not any of the three would be interested in running. Furthermore, he's a Republican partisan hack who is trying to claim that Obama's presidency is done unless he moves to the right. I don't think we should see this as credible. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See this DC T•C 19:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a better source. I still don't think random speculation is encyclopedic, but at least that is better than a Dick Morris citation, which I'm taking out. We wouldn't include citations from Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann, would we? And please don't accuse me of edit warring. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012

The page Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 is currently a redirect to this page, but perhaps it should be recreated since it appears likely President Obama will face challengers.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it likely? Who's gonna run? --Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering that there are articles for Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1996 and Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1984, I suppose an article for Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 will need to be created, but I'd say not until there's something concrete. Alvin Greene exploring how much it costs to get on the ballot isn't enough. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WSS, you must be moonlighting as a publicist for Alvin Greene and Jimmy McMillan :-) First putting them in Template:United States presidential election, 2012 and now wanting to create an article for them as "challengers". Maybe appearing in the National Journal power rankings should become the cutoff line? It'll be a while before the Black Hulk Hogan makes one of those tiers ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget he's also the publicist for Phil Davison :P --Muboshgu (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be premature to create a Democratic Party primaries article right now. While it may appear likely that Obama will get a challenge of some kind, we don't know for certain that this will happen. No point in starting an article now that may have to be deleted (or re-redirected) within the next several months. Let's wait until we know for sure.--JayJasper (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

He has 0% chance of winning, but Jimmy McMillan announced today that he will indeed run in 2012 (]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/23/jimmy-mcmillan-of-the-ren_n_800926.html].) 96.25.248.210 (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Read the article more closely. "McMillan said he would register as a Republican to avoid a primary challenge from the president" - not in the Democratic primary column. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Listed party

Alvin Greene is listed as a Democrat because he is currently affiliated with the party, although reliable sources have not mentioned a party for his potential run. Should we move prospective candidates to an Independent label when a party label for the run is lacking in reliable sources or should we rely on the current affiliation? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is best to stick with the current affilation, until the person in question specifically states that he or she is running for a different party (or as an independent).--JayJasper (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

bold text for names

why rare the names in bold? or rather why do they need to be bold? they all have their pages, people all not stupid to think the title/state name is theirs.(Lihaas (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).

This has long been standard for election articles. I, for one, find it easier to identify the candidates' names when reading the list at a glance, especially amongst the other wikilinked terms alongside the names. Apparently, others find this to be true as well. Perhaps that's how the standard originated?--JayJasper (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I work on hordes of electiona rticles around the world and never seen this. I thinks its just us president elections. in which case consensus is easier to change.(Lihaas (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).

French presidential election, 2012. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

new source for Hunstman

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/04/the-manchurian-candidate.html

Colors for loss/gain in electoral college

I'm going to change the text colors in this section to match up with the Map. If there's a reason they should stay as maroon and green, someone tell me (readability for colorblind or something I haven't thought of).--→If you have questions, please leave a comment on my talk page (JakeBathman) 19:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about doing the same thing the other day, but I got distracted by something else and never did it. I agree that the text and map should have the same colors, whichever those are doesn't matter as much. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very proficient at .svg files so I can't change the map. But the colors have been updated. → talk page (JakeBathman) 19:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we create Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012?

I know he hasn't announced anything yet, but that doesn't mean there aren't developments. The campaign will be based out of Chicago.[1] Some administration and DNC staffers are transitioning to the campaign.[2][3] At the very least, let this section serve as a repository for future info that will go into the reelection campaign article. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Arguably, the WGN/ChicagoBreakingNews article qualifies as one rs that he's running. But we still need something explicit. The incumbent President is a special case to a point. Can we go so far as to say, "While President Obama's campaign has announced the opening of a headquarters in Chicago <cite> , there has been no official declaration that he is running." Thoughts? Uberhill 03:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

At the least, I'm adding those sources into the "prospective candidates" section. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

need to add states asking for birth certificate

Can someone add that for the first time ,state govt's are pushing bills to have the candidates show their credentials ,before their name comes on the ballot. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255489
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255965 I though it was interesting as it was for the first time this is happening.

Those are not reliable sources --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

arizona: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2544p.htm
Connecticut: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/S/2011SB-00391-R00-SB.htm
georgia: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display.aspx?Legislation=32030
indiana:http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/IN/IN0114.1.html
maine:http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billtexts/HP002701.asp
missouri:http://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills111/biltxt/intro/HB0283I.htm
montana:http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/HB0205.htm
nebraska: http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=11970
oklahoma:http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2011-12SB/SB91_int.rtf
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2011-12SB/SB540_int.rtf
texas:http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB00295I.htm
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB00529I.htm
122.162.111.139 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Any moron can introduce a bill; that in and of itself doesn't make it notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Bills are one thing. Laws are another. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

but 10 states!.Atleast this must be added that this is happening for the first time. 122.162.113.92 (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not relevant here. It might be relevant at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

how it is a conspiracy when the state govts are introducing bills.is the federal reserve transparency act hr 1207 a conspiracy? 122.162.111.139 (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

These are bills proposed by "birthers" specifically resulting from the birther conspiracy. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

you do realize each bill has 10-20 co sponsors.So according to you those who support ron paul audit the fed bill(319 co sponsors) are conspiracy theorists. 122.162.113.92 (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Believing there was a 47-year conspiracy to fake a birth location and wanting to audit the Federal Reserve are not equivalent. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It's simply not relevant to this article. This might belong in a discussion of how Presidents are elected generally, or election law. Even if 50 states passed it, we're talking about the 2012 election, not election rules for all time. Please, let's leave it out. Uberhill 18:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

Well its for all time.These bills state tat from now on all future elections the candidates have to show their credentials;not just for 2012 but all future elections. 122.162.110.12 (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

But they are bills, not laws. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of the "Current" template

Notice the documentation of Template:Current states "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence." Mike Pence announcing he won't run isn't enough to make this a current event. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to candidates occur almost daily.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That is true, but that fits under the "recent news" piece that keeps this from being a current event. The current template tends to be overused on wikipedia. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Why was the source I added to "external links" deleted?

Under "External Links" I added a sub-heading for "Unofficial Candidate Websites" (beneath "Official Candidate Websites," which was already there. Under "Unofficial Candidate Websites" I added a link to my blog (http://www.MikeHuckabeePresident2012.blogspot.com). I received a message that my addition violiated some rule and was removed. My question is, are blogs not important to the political process in a democratic society? I intended to start a new sub-heading for bloggers of any candidate or potential candidate to list themselves under.

Warm regards,

Scott Crider (MHP2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHP2012 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

See wp:ELNO item 11. DVdm (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are important to the political process in a democratic society but Wikipedia is not collection of external links. There are (or going to be) thousands of blogs about republican and democratic candidates. So we include just official campaign and well known external links. --Dezidor (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

David Duke

David Duke's article currently includes a mention of a possible 2012 presidential campaign, with four references. Worth mentioning here, or should we wait until more sources materialize? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

From a quick glance, only one of those four is a reliable secondary source. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There's too many "prospective candidates"

It's become a laundry list of any Republican, because any pundit can throw out any name, and as long as any two of them do it, it makes it on this page. Bob Gates? Really? He'd have to resign before he'd be able to be taken seriously. Scott Brown is in for a difficult reelection campaign, a presidential campaign is unlikely. Most of those sources are idle chatter not based on anything concrete. I still think that "two sources in the past six month" standard needs to be revisited. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted the addition of Arnold Schwarzenegger. I think we can all agree you're not a prospective candidate if you're not eligible under the U.S. Constitution. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source articles cited a campaign to amend the Constitution so that he can run for President in 2012. It's clearly possible for Schwarzenegger to be elected President in 2012, but it would require a constitutional amendment before then. Under the current rules, Schwarzenegger should be listed, since there are at least two reputable sources mentioning him as a possible candidate. However, I'm beginning to agree with you that perhaps the standards for a potential 2012 candidate need to be restricted at this point. Perhaps we should make it "four sources within the last six months"? Or "two sources within the last three months"? We would need input from many of the people who work on this article and the Republican 2012 presidential primary candidates article to make such an alteration. What are other folks's opinions? --Darkclass (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right that they're reporting it, but it's ridiculous on their part to suggest it's possible. There is no feasible way a Constitutional amendment would be ratified in time for the 2012 election, let alone the campaign season. It just proves my point that we're giving way too much credence to people who are paid to think of things to write about.

Also, I just pulled Robert Gates off the page because I read the sources, and it's a website set up to draft Gates run by two 27 year old outsiders. That doesn't suggest any interest on Gates' part. The title of the New York Times article is "Gates for President? Not if He Can Help It". --Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As the agreed-upon rules for listing a candidate currently stand, candidates who are quite uninterested in the post can be listed as long as they don't completely rule it out with a Shermanesque statement, and as long as there are at least two reputable/recent sources mentioning their candidacy as a possibility. I agree with you that perhaps it's time to change those standards, though. What would be your thoughts on a new standard for listing? --Darkclass (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The article you cited for Gates really suggests he's not a prospective candidate:

"Gates for President? Not if He Can Help It"
A nascent campaign to draft Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates as a 2012 presidential candidate to run against his boss, Barack Obama, is being driven by two 27-year-old Texas A & M graduates who say they had “informal conversations” with Mr. Gates about their effort this past Saturday night.
Not that the talks (45 seconds each, by their estimation) were especially encouraging for them.
“He told us that he hoped we failed miserably,’’ said Charles Glover, who along with John Huffman is the co-founder of www.draftgates2012.com, a Web site that is attracting a trickle of media attention and what the founders say is “hundreds” of supporters who have signed up.
...
On Wednesday, the Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell, said that Mr. Gates, who has announced that he will step down in 2011, had absolutely no interest in the White House.
“Secretary Gates is both amused and flattered by the Web site, but he will retire from government for good later this year,’’ Mr. Morrell said in a statement. “He has never run for any political office and has no intention of ever doing so. He looks forward to following the 2012 presidential campaign from his home in the Pacific Northwest.”

That may not be from Gates himself, but now that I think of it that's pretty close to a Shermanesque statement right there.

As for new standards, I think at the least we have to consider if they are flatly denying interest, like Gates. Maybe it's time to shift to spokespersons saying they're "considering their options" and things like that. I just think that random articles throwing out a name don't cut it. And I just read those Scott Brown sources. It's a Boston Herald op-ed written for the hell of it and a Politico piece reporting on the op-ed for the hell of it. Nothing that suggests real intent or desire on the part of Brown. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see this discussion thread on the the Republican primaries page concerning this very topic.--JayJasper (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

FEC Filing Forms

This is a list of all 88 (at this time) candidates who have filed with the Federal Election Commission. These include some familiar favorites like Randall Terry, Jonathon Sharkey and Jimmy McMillan, but also a whole host of new characters including David G. Aragon (a Republican), and Warren Roderick President Ashe (a Democrat) and President Emperor Caesar (an independent). Stonemason89 (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That is just sad/hilarious. My favorites are the two Bushes (I just love the part about terrorists out to get them) and Rutherford Burt Hayes. Unfortunately this probably has no place in this article, although it's quite amusing. (Unless of course you can find one...) ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 03:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone placed it under "External links", which seems an appropriate place.--JayJasper (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

For greater understanding, here is an example of a work from one of the candidates. This may be of interest as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Party Mixup

It may be just me, but the parties for the candidates seem directly opposite. A republican candidate is a registered democrat, and another is a gay advocate. The one democrat is pro-life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.92.44 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

2012 is certainly going to be an interesting year for sure. A near (if not outright) majority of the prospective GOP candidates are either pro-choice or neutral on the abortion issue (Giuliani, Brown, Karger, Trump, Pataki, Bolton, Daniels, Huntsman) which is certainly a contrast to Terry. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I thought it was just stupid vandalism, because, wow, it's just so perfectly oppositie of normality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerBarJude (talk • contribs) 04:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy Martin

Should Andy Martin be added to the list? See [4] 173.165.239.237 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure the citation you linked to meets WP:RS standards, and even if it does, one more (dated within the past 3 months) would be needed before he could be added.--JayJasper (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Constitution Party speculation

Here's a link with some speculation for Constitution Party nominees: [5] Tiller54 (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Who crapped all over the article's formatting?

Could someone that knows what they are doing please fix the formatting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.153.73 (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Did Obama file?

Sources say he didn't. http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/03/obama_wooing_donors_for_his_20.html Shii (tock) 14:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't offically filed for 2012 yet, at least not according to any reliable sources, but it sounds he's in the "testing the waters" phase. See this for example.--Rollins83 (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The criteria for candidacy is either a formal declaration or FEC filing. We have neither for Obama. In fact, the Obama entry is completely unsourced.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Gingrich

this article states that Newt Gingrich might not be an "official" candidate yet:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich showed all the signs of preparing to announce an exploratory committee earlier this month, but pulled back and declared that he was “exploring” a possible run. The mixed signals may have damaged his chances of breaking into the top tier of Republican hopefuls.

Should we keep him in the declared candidates section, or move him into the prospective candidates list until he decides definitively that he's going to run? 173.165.239.237 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Tim Pawlenty

Tim Pawlenty has formed a presidential exploratory committee. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51671.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.201.176 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

New candidates

Sources for Andy Martin of Illinois: [6] [7] [8] [9]

?The first link never mentions Martin; the fourth is self-published. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

But all we need is two sources; the second and third should be okay, right? 173.165.239.237 (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources for John Davis of Colorado: [10] [11] [12] [13] 173.165.239.237 (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, the fourth is self-published. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, can't we use just the first, second, and third; that would be more than enough, right? 173.165.239.237 (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

source for Rand Paul: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/03/22/paul_tests_the_presidential_waters.html also in local charleston sc paper... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Obama should be listed

It is a foregone conclusion that Obama is running for re-election unless he falls ill or dies in the next year and a half. He should be included. As every president eligible for re-election has sought re-election since the ratification of the 22nd amendment except for LBJ, perhaps "incumbent president" should be one of the criteria for listing a candidate. The article looks ridiculous without Obama listed as a/the Democratic candidate. - Pictureprovince (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Then add a source.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

He's back with 4 sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NextUSprez (talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

He's still a prospective candidate. He's doing all the things he needs to do to rebuild his electoral organization, but he hasn't announced anything yet because, well, he doesn't have to. He might face more of a primary challenge than Bush the second did in 2004 (which was none), but not much more. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the above, I am adding Obama with sources showing staff have left the White House to explicitly work on the reelection campaign. - Pictureprovince (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pictureprovince and Muboshgu. Being the incumbent President puts him in kind of a special category, or ought to anyway. Given the sources provided, the listing of Obama is justified.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's more sources [14] [15] [16] [17][18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NextUSprez (talk • contribs) 19:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Presidential candidates

Strange, I don't recall reading or hearing about anybody declaring their presidential candidacies for 2012. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why we insist on links to reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The candidates section should be empty. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that the page has changed such that the current criteria for inclusion under the candidates header is:

The following are individuals who have either formally announced that they are running for president in 2012 and/or have filed as a candidate with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), have formed an exploratory committee for a possible presidential run in 2012, or, in the case of the incumbent president, have begun to shift human resources to the reelection campaign.

I imagine it wont stay that way, and offer no opinion on what the proper criteria should be. Monty₈₄₅ 20:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Holy smokers, when did the inclusion criteria change? GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following this page very long, but the most recent major change appears to be [[19]]. Monty₈₄₅ 21:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The candidates section & gallery should be emptied. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Do you believe your ignorance translates into reality?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Has any of them announced their candidacies for president in 2012? Exploratories don't count. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, Randall Terry, Fred Karger and Jimmy McMillan have all declared themselves as candidates, and are correctly sourced on this page. And as per consensus dating back before the 2008 election, exploratory committees do count. Please do not assert that there are no candidates and that tables should be blanked because you haven't personally heard anything.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Very well then, if Terry, Karger & McMillan have so declared? keep them in. But the rest need to be moved to the prospective candidates section. This includes Obama, as he's not declared his candidacy 'yet'. Exploratories shouldn't count for inclusion into the 'candidate section' & 'gallery'. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That cannot be done because it would reject consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's shown me yet, where a consensus was reached to loosen the inclusion criteria. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The consensus for including Obama is not that strong or long held, it was from four editors discussing it quite recently, albeit with no objections. Monty₈₄₅ 18:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Monty's description is correct, scroll up to "Obama should be listed." No one objected to including the incumbent president when all signs point to a candidacy since all incumbent presidents except one have sought re-election since term limits were introduced. The discussion was open for a week without objection. If you object, then perhaps we should restart the discussion and see if consensus remains. - Pictureprovince (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Obama should be moved to the 'prospective' section, aswell as the Republicans. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds do you argue this please? - Pictureprovince (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

They haven't declared their candidacies. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about the incumbent president. I am talking about exploratory committees for which consensus has been quite clear.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a widely understood fact that Barack Obama will be a candidate for president in 2012. We can point to many sources that show this to be true. An article about the 2012 election that doesn't include Obama is a candidate is incomplete and farcical. - Pictureprovince (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(res to WS) Exploratories, mean the idea of running for president is being explored. (res to Pict) President Obama hasn't declared that he will run for re-election 'yet'. Even though he'll likely run, he hasn't said so yet. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to discount exploratory committees as evidence of presidential campaigns, please gain consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope I can get a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

He has not said he has running, but the person he has appointed as his campaign manager has said that he is. Is that not good enough? - Pictureprovince (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I largely agree that an incumbent president should be listed if reliable sources find that he is moving toward re-election. However, because we did not encounter this situation during the last election, it is something for which we need to develop and gain a broad consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not mandatory for an incumbent President to seek re-election. Nor should we automatically assume an incumbent President will seek re-election. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria needs to be stricter

IMHO, one must declare his/her candidacy for president, in order to be included in the candidates section & gallery. Exploratories need not apply. Exploratories are only for potential candidates. As for Obama? it's not mandatory for an incumbent President to seek re-election. Put these potential candidates in the 'prospective candidates' section.GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem is of categorization; currently we have Three categories: Candidate, Those with widespread speculation about future candidacy, and those who have clearly ruled out candidacy. The problem then becomes, what do we do with someone who has taken unambiguous steps towards becoming a candidate, but have not yet formally declared? They don't really fit in with the category of people who the media are merely speculating about, but they also are not officially candidates. We could create a separate category for them... Monty₈₄₅ 19:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

They belong in the prospective candidates section. That section's inclusion criteria can be more open. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We could make distinctions, as we already do on the Republican primaries, 2012 and Democratic presidential candidates, 2012 articles, between those who have officially & outright declared their candidacies and those who have formed exploratory committees. As for "exploraties need not apply", I beg to differ. For one, as pointed out in another thread on this page, the consensus that exploratory committees meets the criteria goes back more than 4 years -here is evidence, this is the election '08 page as it appeared 4 yrs. ago to the day. Also, reliable sources in the U.S. regularly refer to those who formed these committes as "candidates", a point that any Google search will verify. Remember, WP is a tertiary source that is meant to reflect what reliable sources say. The sources call them candidates, we should do likewise and place them in the Candidates section. It must also be noted that the formation of an exploratory committee enables one to legally accept campaign contributions, hire campaign staff, and generally qualifies one to participate in official candidate debates. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....--JayJasper (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, to illustrate the point about media regarding persons having formed exploratory committes "candidates", note that the New York Times and Boston Globe refer to Tim Pawlenty as a "presidential candidate".--JayJasper (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's frustrating when such sources make blunders. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's a giant "blunder" from PBS: "In the eyes of the FEC, there's no difference between what candidates like to call an 'exploratory committee' and a presidential campaign committee. Candidates like multiple bites at the free media apple for rolling out a candidacy and an escape hatch should the money and support not immediately materialize, hence any talk of an 'exploratory committee'." Think of it this way: A person who forms an exploratory committee is a candidate much like a minor league baseball player is a professional ball player. He hasn't made it to the Major Leagues - and possibly never will - but he makes a living playing baseball, and thus is "professional". Someone with an exploratory committee hasn't made it "official" - and possibly never will (though the vast majority eventually do) - but has qualified oneself to receive legal campaign funds, run official campaign ads, hire campaign staff, etc. Actions that make one - by definition - a candidate, albeit at a lower "level" than a formally declared one. Which is why they merit listing as "candidates". That being said, there is a case to be made - per Monty845's comments - for making clearer distinctions in the article among the differing categories or "levels" of candidates.--JayJasper (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearer distinctions are required, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Names of formally declared candidates are now bolded for distinction. Will that suffice?--JayJasper (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The non-formally declared should be moved out of the 'candidates' section & into the 'prospective candidates' section. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy Martin

Please stop removing Andy Martin from the article; he's mentioned in more than enough reliable sources. Removing sourced content without giving any explanation is not constructive in the least. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone who files to run should be listed in the main article. Simply having a couple sources should not be the main criteria in keeping of the list. Gage (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Andy Martin has an article, is sourced and has filed with the FEC. Per past consensus, he should be listed in this article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

William is correct. If anyone wishes to propose changes to the standards for inclusion, please do so. But, per the presently existing criteria, Martin qualifies for listing.--JayJasper (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)