Talk:2008 United States presidential election

Template:U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link Archives: /Archive 2006 - /Archive 2007 - /Archive Al Gore

Protection

I have protected this page as Steve Colbert is constantly being added when he has not filed with the Federal Election Commission. Shawn W 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Television Debate Ratings

Could someone explain or fix the dates? They're not in chronological order. Was this intential? In not, please someone fix this. Thank you. (Ilikerad 21:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

Umh why is there a picture of shaved balls on the page? 147.144.66.152 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC) James P.

I did not add the data but I created the table and I noticed that it was not presented in chronological order but instead by the number of viewers. I see no problem with this.--Southern Texas 21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is Ron Paul listed as a potential candidate for some third parties?

Is there a source for this? He has explicitly stated in interviews that he is not interested in running for president on a third party ticket and there have been no other hints or signs of interest from his staffers or anything to contradict that position. In general, shouldn't you need to list sources for something like a "potential" candidate? At least with people like Al Gore or Mike Bloomberg their staffers have leaked things like they are considering it but there has been nothing of the sort for Ron Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.212.187 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted him from those lists of potential candidates. If anyone wants to re-add him, then list a source when doing so. 70.190.114.235 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The article still claims under the Libertarian Party that Ron Paul is a potential candidate, which is sourced to a website that says little more than the Libertarian Party desperately wants him back. However, Paul has openly stated in the YouTube-CNN Debate that he will not run for any third party if he does not land on the Republican Ticket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.168.233 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

NO what Ron Paul said that there was a "small chance" that he would run on another ticket. He NEVER stated that he would NOT run as and independent or liberatarian.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New Jersey

A recent poll (that can found easily when searching for "New Jersey general election polling") showed Giuliani leading Clinton by 1%. Thus, it very much merits to be shown as a swing state, especially considering it hasn't gone GOP since 1988 and Kerry won there by 6%. Giuliani has clearly improved GOP prospects in that state, and it is not unfair to say so in the article.-John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.253.51 (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If Giuliani gets the nomination, a lot of previously Blue States would be competitive. I'm not sure how many people in Red States would bother to vote though. A whole host of assumptions would be challenged.--Appraiser 18:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The poll you mentioned (Giuliani ahead of Clinton by 1%) was conducted by Quinnipiac University. Link: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1106 If you scroll down the poll you´ll see that Clinton has substantially closed the gap with Giuliani. In the beginning of 2007 she was trailing by about 10% and even managed to pull ahead in a recent Rutgers University poll. Link: http://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/polls/release_08_09_07.pdf While Giuliani obviously has a certain appeal to NJ voters, polls this far out are of limited significance. Remember that Bush was tied with Kerry in NJ polls during summer of 2004, yet Kerry won the state by 6%. Link: http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/polls.php?fips=34 Nevertheless: all other Democrats though are trailing Rudy Giuliani in NJ right now, suggesting that NJ might be added to the "Potential Battleground Section" ... --The Pollster 13:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There's still a whole lotta people in red states that would vote for Giuliani in the end because of the "anybody but Clinton" factor,... Dr. Cash 06:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That is, unless there's a conservative third-party alternative. In that case, red states would turn blue and purple states would turn red. The map would be wacko.--Appraiser 06:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Swing State Map

The swing state map needs fixing. West Virginia is listed as one of the swing states in the section and Virginia isn't, but the map highlights Virginia as a swing state and not West Virginia. EJB341 20:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs Updating There are some states that are competitive that are not shown to be on the map. Washington - John McCain is very competitive in all of the SurveyUSA polls. Louisiana - Clinton is very competitive in this state. It went for Bill twice. North Carolina - Clinton is also very competitive here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.162.16 (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Battlegrounds- NY?

The Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 page says this:

"The prospect of a Republican candidate with the potential to win New York State's electoral votes would be a strategic victory for the Republican Party, although the prospect is perhaps less likely with New York Senator Hillary Clinton running on the Democratic ticket and the possibility of Mayor Michael Bloomberg running as an Independent."

If there are any political commentators or polls backing up that theory, despite the obvious counter about Clinton/Bloomberg, is it maybe worth including New York State in the potential battleground state list? EJB341 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

@ EJB341: This is just plain campaign propaganda. Campaigns simply have to say they are competetive everywhere, even if it´s not the case. A Democrat for example will say he will do well in Utah even if the state´s going 70-30 for the Republican in the General Election. The same here: Rudy Giuliani´s campiagn pretends it will win NY, allthough I can city numerous recent opinion polls showing Clinton ahead of Giuliani by huge margins: Rasmussen NY poll - Clinton 58%, Giuliani 33% - SurveyUSA poll - Clinton 59%, Giuliani 37% - Quinnipiac University - Clinton 52%, Giuliani 37% and so on. You see that currently NY is no swing state whatsoever. --The Pollster 05:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Arizona be a battle ground state. It has been in the past 2 elections. Someone who knows more about this, look into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwishbonetoy (talk • contribs) 02:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Arizona is currently "Lean Republican". Take a look at the latest Rasmussen AZ poll: Giuliani leads Clinton by 11, Thompson leads her by 17, McCain by 10 and Romney by 7 points. Even in 2004 it wasn´t close. Bush won by about 10%. It may get closer by election day, but I wouldn´t bet on Clinton winning the state. --The Pollster 06:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Potential battleground states

Any reason why Oregon, New Jersey, New Hampshire, or Maine are not listed while Republican strongholds Virginia, Kentucky, and Colorado are? It seems like a bias.--Southern Texas 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, probably because no one has done it. Feel free to add some more to the list. My personal opinion, New Hampshire should definitely be added. Oregon maybe. New Jersey, probably not. On the other side, Virginia yes. Colorado maybe. Kentucky, no. That's just my opinion. Turtlescrubber 23:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I really think this list should be thinned down. The only real battleground states are Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and New Mexico in my opinion of course.--Southern Texas 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be thinned out, but being this far out from an election I don't think it really matters that much. I don't really see a pov issue as this section is concerned. It's more of a current event that is receiving incomplete and sporadic coverage. Turtlescrubber 02:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to thin it out and remove the tags and we'll see what happens.--Southern Texas 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks good. Turtlescrubber 01:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For those editing this section, here's a Fineman s tory in Newsweek arguing that New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona will be defining states in this election: [1]. --Aranae 21:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We should restore the other list of swing states. It's much more comprehesive and shows all the swing states. Besides, your definition of swing states is just your opinion. --65.9.236.213 13:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we worry about sourcing what we already have before adding more unsourced material? Turtlescrubber 22:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For the swing states, I'd have New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Florida. Each of the states were won by 5% or less. This is largely in agreement with the on swing states. I got the results from electoral-vote.com. --Hobie Hunter 02:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The battle ground party is such a mess. There are new polling in Florida, and it was reverted with the edits made by 65.9.236.213. It needs fixing! Politics rule 20:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Colorado and Nevada are secure Red states, Minnesota, and Oregon are secure blue states. These should be removed. Removing the polling information added by User:Politics rule is uncalled for. The list is way too long right now.--Southern Texas 22:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that all states decided by less than 5% in the last election should be included in the "potential battleground states"-section, as well as special states like AR (Hillary Clinton -> former first lady), NJ and CT -> polls show Giuliani beeing competetive there and WV -> polls showing Hillary Clinton competetive there. There are also several poll which show her competetive in KY. Both WV and KY were won by Bill Clinton twice and then twice by george Bush. So I wouldn´t rule it out as a possible battleground for Hillary Clinton. And someone please update the map with the states I just mentioned ! --The Pollster 06:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of bias, isn't it a little early for presumed nominees? Why does every battleground-state synopsis include a poll result for HRC vs. Giuliani? Mateo LeFou 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure it´s early and there are still 4 months until the primaries but as of now we only have Clinton vs. Giuliani polls which are updated on a regular basis in a number of states. That´s because major polling companies don´t waste their money on polls like Kucinich vs. Paul, candidates who are reaching 1% in national polls. Therefore I find it fine to update the state polls on the basis of Clinton vs. Giuliani until we know the candidates. To include polls from low-polling candidates would be ridiculous as they are not as well know as someone like Clinton, who´s been a polarizing figure for more about 20 years. They are still lagging behind in name recognition and would provide distorted state polls in favor of the well known Clinton. That´s why Giuliani is a good option until we know the nominees, because he too enjoys nearly 100% name recognition. --The Pollster 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You can run down the list of high polling candidates using your fingers, and have to use two hands. Clinton vs Giuliani is probably not going to happen - even if you concede that it's more likely to happen than any other pairup. 69.138.245.9 03:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the possibility of discussing the battleground states in a more narrative fashion? For example, paragraph one might list the states that came within 5% in the 2004 presidential election. Paragraph two could discuss states that might now be in play when considering results from the 2006 elections (states like Virginia, Colorado, Kentucky, and Missouri). Paragraph three might discuss the impact of certain candidates on bringing various states into play: Giuliani on NJ, NY, and yes even CT, Clinton on FL, AR, MO, KY, for just two examples. To take the discussion even further, a fourth paragraph might point out that certain match-ups could bring even more states into play. Recent polls by Survey USA, for example, show Clinton beating Romney in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Alabama. This sort of treatment offers various ways of treating the notion of battleground states without presuming either side's nominee or relying too heavily on historical or media-driven narratives of which states can be called battleground. Seems more objective to me.

I would also suggest moving state-by-state polling data that is currently in the battleground section into the state-by-state section, or giving state-by-state polling data (that is, general election match-ups on a state-by-state basis) a page of its own. There is more and recent polling data than what's been listed here, and what we see seems sort of unorganized. No offense to whomever put it up. --Doktorliability 06:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of battleground states, why are they even noted to begin with? This seems highly speculative and most of, if not all, or the information would be removed after the election anyway. I was under the impression that articles should be based on fact, not predictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyisland (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The non-battleground states don't include Alabama for the Republicans. Nearby the republicans are listed with 142 Electoral College votes instead of the appropriate 148 as shown on the map. BlairLTFPM (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

John Cox

He should be on the major candidate page, as is in the template. It has been discussed. He is running a national campaign, was in the Iowa Straw Poll. He is included in many national polls but polls at 0%. He should get equal coverage, not as the media portrays him and other candidates (Gravel, Paul), who have been not invited to debates. Casey14 02:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

1) If he consistently polls at 0%, then he's not really a major candidate. 2) I saw Gravel at a televised debate (The first one, actually). -- 12.116.162.162 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

There is enough evidence to support that Stepehn Colbert is a potential candidate for the 2008 Election. A great many people think that he should run, therefore that makes him a potential. Apollo 82

Seeing as every time he is asked he laughs in the reporters face kinda means he's not going to run Gang14 05:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Or it could just mean he's a professional comedian. Whether he campaigns or not, if the Unity '08 crowd pick him & put him on the ballot, he would then be a candidate; since many in Unity '08 seem to be pushing to select him, that seems to me to mean that he's a potential candidate. Perhaps not a serious threat to the duopoly, but a potential candidate nonetheless. Sketch051 18:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

By that argument every person in the United States who meets the Constitutional requirements is a "potential candidate," since anybody could be nominated by a minor party or even just written in on the ballot. Should limit this to people that have seriously and unambiguosly announced their intention to run, and are actively campaigning for president.

For that matter, what is even the relevance for including "potential candidates"? I have a hard time seeing any justification for calling a list of people who may or may not run, as either being relevant or noteworthy. Citing that someone "might run" is just citing someone's speculation, even if it comes from the person itself. Seems very un-encyclopedic to me... anyone have a compelling argument to the contrary? Just seems to me that inclusion of speculation about "potential candidates" is arguably a violation of this Wikipedia policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CRYSTAL#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball 75.70.123.215 23:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It would help to have clear guidelines as to what constitutes a "potential candidate" on these pages. As I understand it, the term is limited (for our puposes) to persons for whom there is a strong and active draft movement to persuade them to run, or those who have openly discussed the possibility of running. If either can be credibly sourced, then I would argue it is relevant to the subject of the '08 campaign and should be included in the article.--JayJasper 15:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC

Stephen Colbert just announced his candidacy for President on his show. The page should be updated to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.89.171.198 (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This may warrant a subpage if it gets too long upon Colbert's return to air (T-minus 10 days). But I wanted to say that I found the disagreement in the edit history of the lamest edit wars page humorous. Perhaps there will eventually be an entry on that page about whether the edit war is considered lame or not. (Not to give anyone any ideas...). Narco 08:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's almost a troll-like comment. Pupununu 08:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Stephen Colbert Candidacy

Fix RFCxxx template - added a new section head and matched it to template section param as by convention RFCxxx templates are placed at start of a (sub)section. Also cleaned up reason in template - neutrality required. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, it's a tough call, but I would err on the side of including more information rather than excluding it. Definitely no more than one sentence though, to avoid weight issues. Ngchen 13:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One cannot run for two political party seats at the same time. This is a joke, and should be removed from all of the election pages!!! Shawn W 19:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the US has a long tradition of multi-party endorsments, espcially by minor parties, which was mosty killed off by the major parties around late 1800s, after the states only permitted "official" ballots to be used. It used to be the voter would bring their own ballot, printed by the parties. New York State allows multiple party endorsments, explicitly. In general, it is still possible for major parties to accept the same candidate, but it would be a state-by state thing. -- Yellowdesk 15:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because no one has before doesn't mean it's not possible. Yes, this is a joke, but it's also for real. I.e., he's running as a candidate (for real) as part of a large joke. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

He has not filed with the FEC, therefore he is not an official candidate. If we put Steve on the site for running for president without filing, then you may as well as add me or anyone who only says "I'm running for President" Shawn W 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that all that's needed? I haven't found anything that says filing with the FEC is requried. 70.109.106.170 00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Bill Clinton has, as have several other people not listed here. In support of your argument, however, everyone else listed under the Democratic candidates has filed (except for Gore). This is also true for the Republican candidates listed here, as well as most of the Libertarian candidates (Link and Root have not filed with the FEC). It is not true of any of the Constitution or Green party candidates (except for Nader who has not officially declared). So, if this is the criteria, more than just Colbert's name needs to be removed from the list. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's even only about the filing as much as where to put him. He's not an independent but as I said below its not fair to the "third-tier" guys to list him - twice - with the big boys. If we include him at all he'd have to be relegated to his own section to conform to NPOV i think. Except then we have a weight issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupununu (talk • contribs) 07:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't Colbert listed under Self-declared potential candidates ? Is Michael Moriarty more worthy of being listed? If so, I don't see it. 70.55.84.13 06:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course he should be included. He's a real candidate who's really running. It's not his fault his national campaign network isn't fully mobilized yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.240.82 (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would actually suggest a couple of sentences on this - one to state that he is running (which can obviously be sourced), and a second the include the universal assumption that this is a joke and a publicity stunt (which can also be easily sourced). I think the amount of media coverage this has generated makes it clearly worthy of inclusion. Sarcasticidealist 08:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If Colbert gets on any states' ballots then he should certainly be included in the way that Pat Paulsen was in United States presidential election, 1968 - same exact situation. Don't we have some guidelines about exploratory committees, FEC filings, etc, about when someone is called a candidate and when not? I recall there being such discussions about Thompson - Colbert should be treated in the same way. And there's nothing wrong with including sourced comments about whether or not it is a joke candidacy. Tvoz |talk 09:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And I would agree that "self-declared candidates" could be a good place for him. Tvoz |talk 09:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Tvoz despite being one of the people who initially removed Colbert (although at the time he was listed under Republican, Democrat, and his own "Favorite Sons" section - definitely not the way to go). I watched today's show and he was filling out the forms, or at least pretending to do so. Either way, Colbert seems to have racked up enough publicity (and ostensibly his first campaign donor/sponsor) for a mention somewhere. As a side note, it's pretty clever that he's at least honest about taking money from the corporation. ;) Luatha 09:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Stephen Colbert should stay. Although this is most likely gne big joke, he seems to be serious about it. Last night he appeared to be filling out the filing forms. --Hobie Hunter 12:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He should still be in a separate section rather than under both of the major parties. Pupununu 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Colbert updated his website to http://colbert08.org/ [[2]]. Behun 04:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot I could update it after I logged in. Behun 04:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

At this time it appears that it is Stephen Colbert the character, and not the person, I have made the appropriate change. Arzel 00:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Err, no. Please refrain from creating piped links to the character. Ombudstheman 01:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Then what would be your suggestion? It is clear that it is SC the satirical character which is driving this faux campaign. I suggest we not make a mockery of the entire process by feeding this here. I like SC, and think it is funny as hell, but it doesn't belong here. Arzel 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I should make it known that I know "Ombudstheman" outside of Wikipedia - just for future reference, in case allegations of sock puppetry, conflict of interest, whatever. I don't know, I'm paranoid. Anyway... It's already been decided that this candidacy merits inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm not sure I see where the mockery comes in other than what could very well qualify for WP:LAME some day if people start edit warring over whether it's the character or the person. Stephen Colbert is running for president; why can't we leave it at that? Luatha 02:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well for one, he hasn't officially submitted papers for presidency. Additionally, he claims to only be running in SC, which is hardly the entire country. There already exists wikipedia pages for the character he created which is separate from his real persona. At this time he has only announced his canadicy through his alternate faux persona therefore it is quite logical that any relationship regarding his presidency be put through his character and not through him personally. Finally, this is all a huge charade and shouldn't even be here to begin with. Arzel 02:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with you on the count of this not belonging on the main article. A point was made somewhere about the fact that listing him with the major candidates isn't fair to third tier candidates whose campaigns are completely serious. However, if we are going to list it here, linking to the character just seems silly. I'd be open to a straw poll to relegate him to an article about the SC race or wherever, FWIW. Luatha 02:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing seems silly. I suspect it will resolve itself completely over the next few weeks. He is off for the next two, so I don't think it will resolve before then, but my prediction is that when he comes back he has to cancel his campaign, and it will probably be the focus of the "Word" and he will branch off into some other tangent relating to the whole ordeal. He has such a large following within universities that to completely remove at this time would be begging for an edit war, and I don't have time to go that deeply into it right now. I agree that it is a little disingenious to those minor candidates that are truly serious about their campaign. The fact that he is only pretending to run in SC should be enough to remove him from this article all together. Arzel 03:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Stephen Colbert presidential campaign, 2008

A brief mention in the article, and a wikilink to the full article (which is clearly notable enough to justify being an article) should suffice. As for characterizing Colbert, saying that he hosts a half-hour show on the Comedy Central channel should suffice. But he clearly isn't a major candidate; self-declared minor candidate seems about right. And regardless of the split between the person and the television show host, the reality is that fictional characters can't file for office; if he has filed, it's for him in person, and if he hasn't, that should be noted (if only in the location in the article). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I'm a fan of the Colbert Report just as much as the next guy, but I have to be honest,... listing him as a candidate on this page, next to all the other "serious" candidates, is going a bit far. Especially when he's stated he's only running in the South Carolina primary. I'd compare his "candidacy" more to Pat Paulsen's than anyone else. Dr. Cash 03:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thresholds to meet to warrant listing

• A Federal Elections Commission filing declaring candidacy, and
• FEC filing declaring a principal campaign committee, plus
• actual Filing for candidacy in a primary.
• After that, the standard of noting the "kind" of candidate he is, and the notabiity (meaning coverage, and hence source-able ness of information about of the candidacy) must be assessed.

The FEC's threshold is $5,000 of expenditure or contributions received, plus activities leading to the nomination: advertising, campaigning, candidacy in a primary, and the like.
-- Yellowdesk 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Look guys, the precedent we've set on this page for the past year is that a candidate has to file with the FEC, be included in national polls, and be present in the major debates to warrant listing on this page. Colbert isn't included in the polls or debates. If we list Colbert here, we have to list all 300 of the jokers running "national" or "state-wide" presidential campaigns. We've already laid out a precedent--FEC filing, poll inclusion, debate inclusion, and it would be dumb to change it now. I love the Colbert Report as much as everyone else, but the Colbert listing has gotta go. Sorry. --Ai.kefu 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, according to Stephen Colbert presidential campaign, 2008, he has been included in some polls? But I agree completely. Pupununu 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Colbert was actually included in a Zogby poll or something not too long after I posted my comment about Colbert not being included in any national polls. I would still wait until he receives an invitation to participate in a major media-hosted multi-candidate debate (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, etc.) before listing him. --Ai.kefu 21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I wouldn't hold my breath for that one. :) Pupununu 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, who knew this was going to be such a divisive issue - I only came to the page because I wondered why he wasn't listed somewhere. It seems like an injustice not to at least mention Colbert somewhere... Time will have to be the judge, as has been stated above, because I concur that if he appears on the ballot in any state, he is definitely worthy of a mention. Narco 07:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if he's on the SC ballot, I can guarantee there will be a disagreement about whether it warrants listing him under the major parties, independents, his own section, or not at all. Perhaps a sentence or two in the overview of the election as a whole? Actually... that's a good idea. Why not just mention his campaign as one of the highlights of the election season so it gets a mention but no undue weight and the "seriousness" aspect is open to interpretation. Pupununu 08:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. Luatha 09:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that, although I don't have strong feelings about his inclusion, there are more than a dozen candidates (see my previous comment for a list of these) listed on this page that haven't filed with the FEC. If we want to impose those guidelines, some cleanup is required. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Colbert definitely should be included in some way or we're guilty of the opposite kind of bias people normally complain about, I.E. neglecting legitimate pop culture elements instead of being inundated with frivolous ones. Ombudstheman 21:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone pointed out on my talk page that they couldn't find the list I was alluding to above, so rather than just answer their question, I'll assume that other people would be similarly confused and repost it: Link and Root of the Libertarian Party have not filed with the FEC. None of the Constitution or Green party candidates have filed—except for Nader who has not officially declared that he is running. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we atleast get rid of Michael Moriarty? If Colbert is a joke, what is Michael Moriarty? 132.205.99.122 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A bad joke? Ombudstheman 09:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait on this. The Stephen Colbert "candidacy" story is gathering steam, but right now I do not see it as being significant to the overall story of the 2008 US election. I mean, does the 2004 US election article have a description about the Daily Show's "Indecision '04" coverage? Cuz at this moment, Stephen Colbert's "candidacy" is about as relevant as that: it is satire regarding the election.

That said, I see more stories about this every day, and the situation could change rapidly. As per WP:CRYSTAL, I think we should leave it out for now. Consider: If Colbert's "candidacy" were to end today, would anyone even remember this by 2009, or even by November 2008? I don't think so. So, as per WP:CRYSTAL, it's not notable. Yet. Let's just wait and see. --Jaysweet 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless he's planning to run in all 50 states, I don't think he should be listed as a candidate. The difference between him and all other fringe candidates is that the fringe candidates take themselves seriously. His intent seems to be social commentary. Perhaps there should be a brief section on media coverage which could mention his "campaign." -- Macduff 16:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Draft movements

Does the various draft Colbert social networking efforts count as active draft movements in states outside of South Carolina? 132.205.99.122 19:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a fine line to make between Colbert's draft movements and those of the marginally notable candidates who are listed, but considering the current consensus not to include Colbert, I don't think it's worth pushing. Once you include the draft Colbert movements, it turns into a matter of common sense that he's accepted the draft and then we come back to the original question about his candidacy. At this time, it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. Pupununu 05:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected?

The tag at the top of the article says its protected, but I've just fixed two IP vandalisms. Has the protection run out? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the logs it was never protected in the first place. Maybe it should be until we can decide where if anywhere Colbert goes. I'm inclined toward a separate section given he's apparently semi-serious about filling out forms for both parties in South Carolina only. Except that's not really fair to the "third tier" candidates referred to in the Republican section considering in a real political poll he'd have 0.001% of serious likely voters. Pupununu 07:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection, since the vandalism and edit-warring seems to be exclusively from anonymous I.P.s. Sarcasticidealist 09:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully this will let the regulars sort this out and keep the history from filling with reversions.--chaser - t 09:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the edit history, this will probably inevitably be coming up again, and since it's related entirely to Colbert, I'm moving the section under his part of the talk page. Narco 07:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

I don't have strong feelings about his presence or absence on this list, but for those who feel like adding him, please make it look nice. Here's something you can copy & paste:

• Stephen Colbert,^† comedian (Campaign Article, Campaign Site)

We definitely don't need red-links on an edit that won't last until the next revert happens. The dagger (^†) indicates that he has not filed with the FEC—something that some editors have used as a justification for removing him though there are plenty of candidates listed here that have not filed with the FEC. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that people are continually re-inserting mention of Stephen Colbert, it may make sense to just include a sentence along the lines of "Comedian Stephen Colbert has announced his intention to be a candidate in one state only" with a link to the wikipedia campaign article only. I think this is better than no mention at all, given that he is apparently filing paperwork and his "campaign" is currently widely-known. -- Macduff 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a while now we've had "Additionally, comedian Stephen Colbert drew unprecedented levels of support on Facebook when he announced his bid for president" as the last sentence in the "2008 presidential election characteristics" section. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 20:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely appropriate to include him as a footnote in the Internet section if we're covering candidates' MySpace/Facebook/Meetup support (which is marginally encyclopedic although the Internet picture as a whole is important). Beyond that, it's over. Luatha 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's moot now

As of today, he is officially no longer either a Republican or Democratic candidate. Last night he announced he wasn't going to file for the Republican primary (the $25,000 filing fee, even if he ponied up, could potentially have put him in the sights of the FEC) and this afternoon the South Carolina Democratic Party executive committee voted to deny his application to appear on the Democratic primary ballot. There is no appeals process. Colbert could still conceivably run as an independent, but he has not announced plans to do so, so as per WP:CRYSTAL, there is no longer any argument to list him as a candidate. A prose mention of the Facebook thing is probably notable enough to include, and hey whadyaknow, it's already included. For now, the issue is pretty clearly decided. --Jaysweet 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here and here are the citations. I'm sure many more references will follow. It's pretty much over for Mr. Colbert now. Dr. Cash 22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thankfully. Arzel 22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that he definitely does not merit top billing now (I was kinda hoping he'd get on someone's ballot). I like the way it is currently set up where he is mentioned under effect of the Internet and nowhere else. He's a blip on the campaign trail worthy of a sentence, nothing more nothing less. Ombudstheman 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And you thought Colbert was nutty

I just removed a section called "Candidates proposing amendments to constitutional rights" which consisted of "* John Taylor Bowles of South Carolina (Campaign Site) proposes to eliminate freedom of religion, freedom of assembly to anyone other than Aryans. Also proposes unreasonable search and seizure and cruel and unusual punishment." Aside from the simple fact that he's a NN lunatic, do we also include Bush supporters and proponents of waterboarding in this section? Ombudstheman 22:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion under "withdrawn candidates"

Do we have a consensus against inclusion?

The editor who restored it said in the edit summary, "even if you don't like Colbert's profession." Actually, I was totally freakin' psyched about Colbert's campaign, and I'm disappointed that the denial of the Democratic Executive Committee combined with the WGA strike effectively ended what I thought had the potential to be a great satirical commentary on the nature of political candidacy, to pose serious questions about the sensibility and effectiveness of FEC regulations, and to make us really think hard about how we define a legitimate candidate.

That said, I just don't really feel like his two-week campaign was a notable enough part of the election, nor really serious enough, to warrant inclusion on that list. The mention of Colbert's wild Facebook success in the "Effects of Internet" section is plenty. --Jaysweet 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was amusing at first (especially the "no, it's the character that's running" arguments), but now it's just dumb. Luatha 00:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore V

Given the number of times Al Gore has stated that he has no plans to run, this should be reflected in the draft section. If you don't like the way it is currently worded, please try to adjust the wording instead of just removing it. Otherwise, it gives the impression that he hasn't said anything on the matter, when he has repeatedly (ad nauseum, even) stated that he has no plans to run. Yeah, I hear the difference between that and "not running", but anyone who thinks he'll run is fooling themselves. (I take his "no plan" comment to mean: well, if Hillary gets arrest for running a drug smuggling outfit, Obama is deported because his name sounds too much like Osama, Edwards goes bald, and Richardson gets convicted stealing candy from a child, then I'll consider running.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he is going to run either and I agree that his statements to that effect should be noted. However, if you are going to use his statements in the article, he should be quoted accurately. I like the newest version, it seems accurate to me.Turtlescrubber 20:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize for getting a little hostile there. I was taking out frustration I've felt elsewhere, and it was out of line. You were also right that my original version was not as accurate as it could have been. That said, I've always favored editing over deleting, but I realize that's a matter of personal Wikipedia philosophy. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the philosophy part. I favor deleting over editing. That means I also have very thick skin. You weren't uncivil at all. Just glad it all worked out. Turtlescrubber 20:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to at least get rid of that ancient photo and replace it because young Gore no longer exists, only fatty Gore can run due to time-space continuum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.132.45 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If Gore never gives a Sherman statement, are we gonna leave him listed, right up to the 2008 Democratci Convention itself? GoodDay 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that after the first few caucuses/primaries we can eliminate the "draft" candidates—at least for the major parties. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Turtlescrubber 03:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a cross behind his name? He's not dead, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.214.0 (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Party Symbols

Why are the Republican and Democratic parties' icons displayed at the top of the page? There are other parties fielding candidates. Gatherton 09:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative image suggestion? I think this amount of crystal ballery - the amount that says, based on current information, this is going to be a de facto contest between those two parties - is acceptable. But I'm certainly willing to listen to alternative suggestions. Sarcasticidealist 09:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the infobox's existence here seems to have originated from a bit of creative Uncyclopedia-style vandalism. I like the "He bombed them all" part.) I'm partial to removing it considering it can be summed up as "A Republican and a Democrat will face off and the Electoral College will decide the victor." Luatha 09:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moriarty

Please delete this person, I haven't seen any news reports saying he's running (not news from 3 or 4 years ago). We should use Stephen Colbert as the standard for inclusion, if his level of only just acceptable, then we can easily delete a ton of crackpots from the election page. 132.205.99.122 18:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Graphs on candidacy pages

There are graphs on the various candidacy pages showing hypothetical matchups and standing in primaries. There's an added line that was found with linear regression. Why should there be a line? Wouldn't a rolling average be better? Popularity isn't linear. 171.71.37.203 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone thinks we are all imbeciles

The tag at the top reads: This article or section contains information about an upcoming or ongoing election in the United States. Content may change as the election approaches. Is it even possible that someone could have the capacity to actually read this article yet not realize that an article about the 2008 election is about an "upcoming" election? And what about the sentence, "Content may change as the election approaches". May change? Is this serious? I'm sorry, but the Daily Show couldn't have written it better.

If we want to be taken seriously, then let's not treat the readers of this project/encyclopedia like total complete imbeciles. Unschool 05:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's kind of silly. But I think it's just standard wiki-policy to add these things to articles about future or upcoming events, probably as sort of a "cover your ass"/legal kind of thing. I don't think it's directed at wikipedia regulars, most of whom probably know better ... but rather the millions of people that ARE dumb enough not to realize that it is a future event,... Dr. Cash 06:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the reason to keep the tag there is because some people use CD versions of the encyclopedia (I'm guessing in places where internet access is unavailable). So if a CD is burned today with this article, and someone reads it next summer, they will immediately realize that this article is probably no good anymore. Otherwise they may think Wikipedians are imbeciles, having missed the fact that 90% of the candidates dropped out long ago.--Appraiser 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unschool is absolutely correct in that the tag is just plain silly. I make an effort to take these off the top of election articles. There is no cover your ass legal type argument for these tags only wishing thinking and policy wonking. Let take it off. Turtlescrubber 21:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

This section needs a source and information for what, if any, relevance it has. I realize it's legitimate information, which is why I'm not removing it - but we need to work on the section if we're going to keep it. Pupununu 05:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed it after I came here to see if anyone else had mentioned this and saw it was originally a list ordered by number of viewers. Sounds like Fox News trying to say "lol we pwn msnbc" again. Ombudstheman 23:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

voting rules

I want to ask you about some issues with counting Bush's votes from individuals (in one of the the previous elections), why do they matter since the president is chosen by the Electoral College? please redirect me to the article that describe the role of individual citizens in the election process --84.234.42.68 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Communist Party

Does the Communist Party no longer field a candidate? There's no entry for them.Bill 06:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they haven't run a presidential candidate since 1984. I believe they've endorsed the Democratic candidate in every election since, though I doubt the Democrats care. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt they'd want that endorsement anyway considering the kind of fodder it would give certain talking heads. Luatha 00:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That would be like Islamic terrorists endorsing Republicans as the family value party. Poisonous. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul One-day fund-raising Error

There is an error where it states that Ron Paul set a one-day fund-raising record. It should read something like: "Ron Paul raised approximately four million dollars in one day, close to the record set previously by Romney of six million dollars in one day." Somebody please fix this who has access to the protected page. I don't mean to push any particular candidate, but the blatant errors in Wikipedia should be corrected quickly to keep it useful. There's a huge potential for error when using superlatives like "the most ever" or "all-time record" and I think such superlatives should be generally avoided in Wikipedia unless thoroughly backed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.26.79 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 9 November 2007

Hi, sorry, Romney only raised $3,143,404 that day, the rest was in signed pledges, which are not funds raised, are they? [3]. The statement is correct as is, although Kerry had a higher non-Internet day when he was nominated (i.e. general not primary). John J. Bulten 21:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Battleground Map

I brought this up a while back and it didn't get changed, but it really needs updating now. West Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky are now all listed in the section and are missing from the map. I've made an updated map using uselectionatlas.org, but I'm trying to figure copyright and uploading. EJB341 16:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton Hostage Sitution

I added details to the time line but should this be added to main article? Samaster1991 18:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed

I have to say that I am disappointed with the layout of Republican and Democratic parties. I may have to go with a third party cannidate (Green or Independance). I feel that Hilary won't do to much for the Iraq/Iran war and Giuliani isn't concerned about health care enough (those are the people I've considered). Anyways, the cannidates aren't too good this year.

--KT-- KT529 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Errr, what does that have to do with this article? Your posting belongs on a blog. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Error

The graph on the right side at the top of the article gives the date "4 November 2004" instead of 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.255.60 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed HoosierState 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The date should actually be written as "November 4, 2008" not "4 November 2008" as the article is about the United States. 4.235.114.202 (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is written as November 4, 2008 HoosierState 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Alan Keyes?

Why is there no mention at all of Alan Keyes, when he was just in today's republican debate? Macduff (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

He was a very late addition to the race, and it's overly generous to call him a candidate. The fact that he was in the debate just speaks to the idiocy of whoever planned the debate. Nevermore27 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. I did a refactoring of the sections to syncronize them with other election years, and I removed him as a "minor candidate". My reasoning is that he wasn't in any but one major debate, isn't included in almost any major polls, etc. I was actually quite disappointed to hear he's running (I like him too much to watch fail to get enough media attention again). The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Keyes is a bit of a ridiculous candidate, came in ridiculously late, no one takes him seriously, but he is going to be on the NH ballot, so I think there should be a mention of him on this page, for the benefit of anyone wondering about him who comes here to find out. William Quill (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keyes entered the race September 14, 2007 -- just 9 short days after Fred Thompson, over one year before the general -- which has never been considered late, historically. To say Keyes entered too late for inclusion is inaccurate. Alan Keyes is a national candidate. He is currently confirmed on the ballot in 18 primary states, including: California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Conneticut, New Hampshire, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Washington state, Arizona, Utah, Louisiana, Maryland. Additional states are being added as deadlines are reached. Keyes participated in the Values Voters (Maryland) Debate in Sept. '07 as well as the Des Moines Register/IPTV Debate referenced above, Dec. 12, 2007. Keyes has been included in the American Research Group, Inc. polls, and polled at 3% in the USAToday/Gallop Poll following his most recent debate appearance, putting him even with Ron Paul (at the time) and above Tancredo and Hunter, who have all consistently been included here. savvyconsumer7 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Alan Keyes has receieved 0% of the vote in every caucus and primary to date. He is not a major candidate. His picture should be removed from the main page.76.195.84.182 (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Might I suggest a vote to have Alan Keyes on or off the Republican page? 216.107.227.138 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He should be off the candidates section. Nobody talks about him, he hasn't even gotten 1 vote in Iowa or New Hampshire. Frankly I didn't even know he was running until I saw him on here. HoosierState 23:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If Alan Keyes gets 0% of the vote again in Michigan, I think he should be removed as a major candidate. We are not even talking delegates here. He has gotten 0% of individual votes in all primaries and caucuses to date. 75.21.97.158 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Once again Alan Keyes did not even recieve 1 vote, I really think he should be removed. If you can't even receive 1 vote then you're irrelevant. HoosierState^Talk 01:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not even 1 vote. Come on now, I thought you were supposed to be able to fool some of the people all of the time. I bet someone even voted for Pat 'The ballot was confusing' Bucannan. AK isn't on a single media outlets rankings, I haven't seen him do an interview (except the 'is that a racial question' bit)and the only debate he was invited to(Tavis Smiley?) was the one everyone else turned down. For god's sake take him off the list. The Russian State controlled press uses his charge of voter fraud in NH to give the impression America doesn't have free elections. AK is a smart guy, but hes melodramatic, prissy and has no real experience (anyone can be an ambasador to the UN its like being the the ambasador to the international terminal at JFK). He has no chance in hell of even getting media attention and even less of one with BO running. The only use for the guy is a possible running mate for an independent Ron Paul (the wacko with some votes). That way Ron Paul can write in his newsletter "See I'm not a racist, My running mate is one of the good ones." --mitrebox (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know Keyes was running until my Government teacher gave us an official list and then saw it on the Wiki a couple of days later. I removed him, somebody will probably revert, but Keyes has no business being mentioned as a "candidate". HoosierState^Talk 03:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• • From AlanKeys.com

Forum Stats Threads: 338, Posts: 2,179, Members: 1,288, Active Members: 446

Pledge signers: 'Pledge to tell 5 friends' 4166 with a goal of 5000 pledge has been going on since sept 14th

I think his own site is a testament to his irrelevancy, but there is room in the 'other candidates' section of the republican 08 candidates article for him. I'll put it to a vote on that article but since he doesn't even hace a wikipedia candancy article it may be a little lopsided. --mitrebox (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what's funny is that he wasn't even listed on the Iowa Caucuses ballot, the New Hampshire Primaries ballot, or the Michigan Primaries ballot. I think it's safe to say he's not a candidate. HoosierState^Talk 03:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• See told you somebody would revert. No matter he'll drop out soon enough. The guy isn't even on any ballots but we have to have him on wikipedia. Man if this is the case I could be a candidate, I'm not on the ballots but I want to be president. Haha not really. HoosierState^Talk 03:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• First of all, what is with all the hate against Alan Keyes? It seems like he's being kept off the list of candidates purely out of bias. Secondly, Keyes has gotten votes. Iowa's GOP just refuses to reveal them: http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/05/keyes-votes-not-yet-counted-in-iowa/ This is major news of yet another election fraud, and it's ridiculous that Wikipedia is going along with the censorship of Keyes. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As is mentioned in other discussions, the Iowa GOP does not require individual precients to count and report write in candidates. Write ins are counted by the party, by hand, at the state GOP headquarters where the ballots are locked away for security. Hand counts of write ins are long tedious expensive processes, thats why civilized nations have ballots with peoples names on them. One has to determine each name and determine the intent of the voter (misspelled names, partial names (Barrak Keyes), A***???* Keeezzzee etc ). The Iowa GOP is conducting the hand count under their own rules. Furthermore its a caucus not a primary, its run by the party not the state. There can't be fraud because no one has a constitutional 'right' to vote in a caucus. Its ridiculous that wikipedia (a website that anyone can edit) has so few Keyes supporters that they can't keep 'us' from 'repressing the masses', "help I'm being repressed." --mitrebox (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Did you even read the site you submitted as evidence? It suggests he's only running to pay off past campaign debts. I might actually say LOL on a talk page. and i just did.--mitrebox (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And you obviously didn't read the site very well. The site itself never suggests that's why he's running. What it says is, "Some people have suggested that he’s only running to help pay down past campaign bills, and that he will continue his campaign as a third party or independent candidate in order to continue paying down such debts. Still, his organization claims they received a significant number of votes and suggest a conspiracy involving the use of “communist-style” tactics to surpress the Keyes vote total…" That's far from what you're saying, that the site itself supports such a theory. Try reading the article again with some reading comprehension this time. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh my dearest apologies, I guess I misread that, being confused what with all the Alan Keyes news reports going around. Feb 5th will be a historic day for Alan, never before will a candidate have received so small a percentage of total votes cast. I'd say he should take a page from UFO Kuchenich but Alan never even got started. --mitrebox (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Misread, huh? A good thing you told me that, or I'd have gotten the impression you were deliberately and dishonestly taking it out of context, what with all the snide attacks on Keyes you're making. Oh, and it's spelled "Kucinich".--Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Much of the information criticizing the Keyes campaign is factually incorrect -- where is your documentation. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE MY POST. Thank you! Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

We should at least be consistent between all the pages on the election template. He's listed on the template as a candidate, he has a column in the primary results page, etc. He should either be on all pages or none of them. William Quill (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• If the criteria prior to Super-Tuesday is $50,000 then here is documentation from the Federal Elections Committee (FEC). Keyes entered the race on 9-14-07. Per the FEC, as of the end of the 3rd quarter on 9-30-07, Keyes had net receipts of $77,768. It still remains that Keyes is a multi-state candidate, with net receipts above $50,000 going into Super Tuesday and should be included. Search Keyes at the FEC website at:

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/srssea.shtml PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE!Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Per the FEC, http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_28990167738+0 Keyes Net Contribution as of 12/31/2007 were $206,796.32 well in excess of the $50,000 mark set to be considered a major candidate in the GOP.Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tancredo

Just a heads up:

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/tancredo-to-abandon-presidential-bid/20071219230409990001

We should wait until the actual announcement to remove him, but keep it in mind. 82.152.200.188 (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

combine "major party" and "third party"

separating these two sections is implicit support of the two-party system and therefore a violation of neutral point of view. Lorleolando (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Everyone knows the United States has a two-party system so by showing it on Wiki isn't really supporting it. It's just showing the facts of the system we have. HoosierState 15:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The third parties aren't even garnering 1% of the vote this year, and don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of winning. Wikipedia is not a democracy - we're more interested in reported the facts as is than trying to make the field level for the down and outs. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The United States does not have a two-party system in any legal or official way. It is that way only because of the media, and therefore the public, attitude towards it. Therefore we shouldn't acknowledge it in this article, to maintain neutral point of view. Right?Lorleolando (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Lorleolando. All the parties that have ballot access should be listed in the same category. This article should conform to a neutral, objective point of view to be credible. 76.195.84.182 (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost no third parties have ballot access in any state. In most states you have to garner 5% of the previous elections votes to have your parties candidates automacally on the ballot. In 2004 no thrid party gained 5% of the vote in all states. There is this magical word called defacto. Example:In the US there is a defacto two party system. There is no leagl or offical way to number floors in an office building and there are some variances on LL or 1 but I can't imagine anyone randomly numbering floors. Defacto is a word that takes very complex and complicated things and shortens them in managable terms, like an encylopedia article. Furthermore Independents and Third Parties should have their own section, partly because it helps contrast third party participation from one election cycle to another.--mitrebox (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Giuliani v Clinton?

In the above discussion over battlegrounds a few months back, there was this:

Speaking of bias, isn't it a little early for presumed nominees? Why does every battleground-state synopsis include a poll result for HRC vs. Giuliani? Mateo LeFou 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure it´s early and there are still 4 months until the primaries but as of now we only have Clinton vs. Giuliani polls which are updated on a regular basis in a number of states. That´s because major polling companies don´t waste their money on polls like Kucinich vs. Paul, candidates who are reaching 1% in national polls. Therefore I find it fine to update the state polls on the basis of Clinton vs. Giuliani until we know the candidates. To include polls from low-polling candidates would be ridiculous as they are not as well know as someone like Clinton, who´s been a polarizing figure for more about 20 years. They are still lagging behind in name recognition and would provide distorted state polls in favor of the well known Clinton. That´s why Giuliani is a good option until we know the nominees, because he too enjoys nearly 100% name recognition. --The Pollster 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

At the time, I agreed with the Pollster's point about keeping the Giuliani v Clinton mention, at this point I think we can begin questioning it. It's probably still fair to call Hillary the Democratic front-runner, since despite slight slips in support for her the set-up is still the same as it was a few months ago. She's leading nationally, in NH, in SC, in Feb 5th states, with Iowa (where she's tied with Obama and Edwards) as her only real weak spot where the other two could grab momentum. But at this point of the GOP side, Giuliani has slipped in the national polls and is now almost even with Romney and Huckabee. And he's lost even more ground in the early state polls, no longer solidly leading in Michigan, Nevada or Florida and still not pulling up his numbers in NH, let alone Iowa or SC. There's still probably no point changing it at the current time. but once the results start coming in in January, Giuliani is probably going to collapse and the battleground section is gonna need a restructure. 82.152.200.188 (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Uga Man

I will probably be running as a write-in candidate, Where should I add my name?--Uga Man (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Any self-addition without citations to a reliable source will in all likelihood be promptly removed. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

However, if there is a reliable source, you will most certain get your own Wikipedia entry. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The Uga Man presidential campaign has begun. If I am interviewed by WikiNews and state I am running as a write-in candidate would it count as a reliable source? Where do we list write-in candidates?--Uga Man (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Another consideration is whether the individual in question is notable, and has--perhaps several-- reliable sources describing that person. About 200 individuals have registered with the Federal Elections Commission in the current election cycle. A lot less than that number are judged notable enough to appear on this page. Whether one interview on Wikinews warrents listing is rather doubtful. See:Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Autobiography.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not notable enough to have an article, but some candidates are still listed who don't have an article themselves. I want to create a new section for write-in candidates and add myself. What does everybody think?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 19:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You say on your user page that you're ineligible to serve as President because of your age. Wouldn't that also make you ineligible to file with the FEC? In any event, I'd favour a separate article listing all of the no-names running, with a link from this one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for additional polling

I would like to see a pole on some real canidates. such as huckabee vs clinton or manybe obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.35 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Encylcops do not predict the future, thus we use the conditional and not the future tense

He would win the triple crown for a man whose won two and is eligible to enter the third contest. Radio Guy (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)ay happen...

New Info Box

You can find it here

Shall I place this on the page. Yes? No? Any amendment's needed? Samaster1991 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

4 or 5 notable candidates may run in this election. That's too many images in the lead and would make it look cluttered. I think you should remove the party symbols and just put the map like United States presidential election, 1800. --STX 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In other words, I like the way the infobox looks now.--STX 19:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Samaster1991 (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah sure post it but i might recomend better colors those ones are kinda pastely it might catch more people's eyes if the color was brighter and bolderCharlieh7337 (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

†?

What exactly is this cross symbol meant to symbolize next to some candidates' names? Religious leaders? Withdrawn candidates? I've only seen it used to indicate military commanders who have died in battles in infoboxes on wikipedia. --NEMT (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I too thought it was 'dead' until I saw so many. Perhaps it designates 'reverend'? Regardless, it needs to be explained. Modest Genius ^talk 05:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is explained, but the comment is easy to miss. "Candidates marked with a † have not registered with the Federal Election Commission." HTH. Amayzes (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

From Gravel's Webpage

We're Still in the Race! January 4th, 2008 by J. Skyler S. Mc...

Once again, the Mainstream Media has not gotten the facts straight.

MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann has incorrectly declared that Sen. Gravel has dropped out of the race following the January third caucus in Iowa. This is not true, and Sen. Gravel is still an active member in this race. We are requesting that MSNBC and Keith Olbermann retract their statement, and issue an apology to the campaign for promoting blatantly false misinformation.

Again, Sen. Gravel has not dissolved his campaign, and has no intentions of doing so

Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gravel needs to stop complaining and get back to providing traction on my unpaved driveway. --NEMT (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Turtlescrubber (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Iowa caucuses/primaries

Will someone please update this with the results of the Iowa caucuses/primaries? I think Obama and Huckabee won. And now, apparently, Biden and Dodd have dropped out of the race. Contralya (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike Gravel has dropped out as well, from what I've heard. And yes, Obama and Huckabee won. If I remember this right, the Democrat "standings" (for lack of a better word, due to my limited vocabulary...) were Obama, Edwards and Clinton. I forget the others. And, if I remember right, because I'm more hazy on this one, the Republican "standings" were Huckabee, Romney (?) and either Giuliani or McCain. I remember Ron Paul was in fourth and I think it was Thompson in fifth? Really need someone to find the actual standings though, but I'm positive on the Democrats. I wasn't up to see the Republican final tally (they dragged on and on. XP). user:SuperDMChan 11:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gravel has refused to drop out so he's still in. The Democratic results were Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel. The Republicans were Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain, Paul, Giuliani, and Hunter. I know I'm right but you can check here to confirm my information. HoosierState 18:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the results of Iowa should be POSTED in the article. Contralya (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Moore and Alexander have filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander have already filed with the Federal Election Commission, but since each state's ballot laws are different, they are having trouble getting on an active ballot for November 2008, especially Pennsylvania, which was predicted by Socialist Party USA to be on of the hardest states to get on an active ballot. --Alexandergungnahov (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If it weren't for PA's stringent ballot laws the US would almost certainly have a Socialist party President. --NEMT (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a link? I heard that they were working on the FEC paperwork over a month ago, but have not yet been able to find them in FEC disclosure report searches. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've found out what happened -- the Moore/Alexander campaign received permission to bundle their statement of organization etc. with the Year-End 2007 report, due 31 January. So they should be popping up in the FEC database in the next couple of weeks. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Polls?

There is practically no point in having that poll data. It is very outdated, and would need to be updated every month in order to be accurate. Contralya (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think we need some volunteers to monitor its removal. Kinda a big job for just one or two people. It will harder to keep it out of the article as the election approaches. However, it should be done. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Its all Hillary and Guiliani anyway. I think all candidate specific polling data should be removed. It definitely pushes a pov. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the polls in the "Potential Battleground states"? Shouldn't they be removed too? I certainly think so. HoosierState 06:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they should. All candidate specific polling in the article should be removed. Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

If we're going to report on the details of each primary we have to do it without spin - this is not a newspaper article, it's an encyclopedia, so words like "humiliating" and "debacle" and "free-fall" and "surprisingly" are way inappropriate, as well as violating the concept of WP:CRYSTAL. I removed the recent additions, and think they need to be re-worded in a much more neutral tone if they are to be included at all. Tvoz |talk 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

True. That is POV --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 06:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul's Image was deleted by a vandal

Some vandal removed Ron Paul's image under the current Republican candidates. Will someone please revert it? Thank You 75.21.97.158 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is extremely strange

I am logged in on every other page I visit on Wikipedia, but somehow I get logged out on this one. Can someone please help with this? I really want to remove a bothersome misplaced apostrophe in the section on Florida as a hotly contested state. I also would like to add something about how Michigan's high minority population, particularly its large population of Arab-Americans and Muslims, adds to its Democratic appeal as I think this is one thing that distinguishes it from a lot of other "swing states" particularly its neighbors in the Midwest. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the Word Really Getting Out?

Our South Carolina Republican primary started this week and the Democrats get their chance the week after. The word is not getting out as to the when and where voters are suppose to go for these primaries. Hey, voting is a privilege that we Americans should take advantage of! So why are some of us kept in the dark most of the time?

CORRECTION: South Carolina's Republican Primary starts this Saturday, January 19th. And rumor has it, Democrat Primary follows shortly afterwards. Any ideas? 65.188.22.40 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar: the 2008 campaign is getting fiercely, ferocious. I sent my President a Xmas card. Doesn't everybody in our country? You should if you haven't. Then I get this postcard from Hillary's office. I say, "What?!!!!! Has Mr. George W. gone Hillary on me?" 65.188.22.40 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Duncan Hunter is no longer in the presidential race

This page needs update, Duncan Hunter, according to this page, is still running. He is not. Look at his campaign website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.48.84 (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been changed. --Barinade2151 (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

About the testicle-picture vandalism that is refusing to go away. How do we get rid of this? Werothegreat (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It was added to the "Wikinews as articles on..." template, and therefore it was added to every page that made use of that template, including this one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Alan Keys?

Is he still in the race. There is no mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs) 23:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

He is still in. This article only lists the major candidates for the two main parties; he's still in United States Republican presidential candidates, 2008. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Only cause Alan Keeps editing wikipedia. --mitrebox (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Alan Keyes is in the race. He is campaigning in Texas until their March 4th primary. Here is an article from San Antonio's Express News: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/religion/stories/MYSA012308.02B.Keyes.286665f.html Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Contorvosy alligation

I removed the following because it came from a website forum. If anyone can find a more credible source I'll put it back in.

Bev Harris, who founded the group black box voting says there were problems with the chain of custody of the ballots as well as a lack of proper accounting of how the ballots were stored, transpored and sealed, which makes a recount's results suspect. http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/71456.html

I'm concerned that all the photos could be easily faked by slapping labels on a bunch of moving boxes.--mitrebox (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also no proof that the photos were take prior to counting rather than after.--mitrebox (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Black Box Voting is not very credible IMHO, and I think it fails WP:RS. So take that for what it's worth. Calwatch (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think its fine to cite Black Box Voting (though it should be made clear who is making these claims, as they are, as is mentioend before, rather controversial), but not their forums; if the group puts out a formal report or something, that's fine, but random forum posts are not a viable Wikipedia source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

External links to political campaigns

While it is acceptable to put these links at the bottom of individual persons campaign articles, they are not acceptable here. See:

• Wikipedia:External links#Points to remember #2: "External links should typically not be in the body of an article. Include them in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox."
• Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming

  In this case the promoted "product" is the candidate.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry I should have discussed it here first. I undid them as they are informative as they lead to office links and cannot be classed as spamming.

It was the same with the Opinion Polling for the election, according to Wikipedia they are encyclopedic but exceptions were madeSamaster1991 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

These are like inline links to Coca Cola's and Pepsi's websites when talking about cola in general. Them being official candidate pages is irrelevant. -- Cat ^chi? 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that last comment. These are links to specific candidates' Web sites when talking about those specific candidates. If nothing else, they show that these candidates really are candidates (which can matter for those independents without Wikipedia articles). Why don't we just stick all of these links in <ref></ref> tags? That seems like it should solve any problems. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

They aren't use as references. Each individuals campaign has an article dedicated to it, thats the place for these links. -- Cat ^chi? 01:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it hinges on, given the fact that the internet is such a force in modern politics, are links to the Offical site relevant to candidate info? Is the reader interested in that info? Wikipedia is not a search engine but with all the politics in play typing in 'John Jackson' might not turn up the Offical candidates site. Cola and candidate for leader of the free world are not the same thing, no matter what that Damn Doctor Pepper says. Is it more important to give the reader the info about a candidates campaign or is it more important to strictly cling to our WPolicies that we don't even enforce equally across other pages?--mitrebox (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Each of the candidates has an article in Wikipedia, and those articles contain links to the candidates' websites. Inline links are supposed to be used only as references, not as navigation to offsite links. Horologium (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the need to place links within the body of this article. If it violates policy, then the policy needs to be changed, or a consensus needs to come to exempt these articles from the policy. Calwatch (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? -- Cat ^chi? 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson is listed as not endorsing anyone, which is correct, but this article claims he has eight delegates - which is absolutely false. Thompson has always had 0 Republican superdelegates, and placed third in the South Carolina primary, which failed to get him ANY delegates. This article makes it sound like Thompson is going to be sitting back and waiting for others to negotiate with him later to pick up his endorsement and, by extension, his delegates. He doesn't have anything to negotiate with. Also, delegate counting (even when legitimate) will quickly become outdated unless someone is referencing CNN, MSNBC, etc. to check for updated counts from each primary/caucus as well as shifts among polled superdelegates from each party. Readeraml (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Thompson does not have any delegates. I do not see where in the article it says Thompson won any delegates though. However just for future reference the Republican Party does not have "superdelegates" only the Democrats do. HoosierState^Talk 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are the ones that wear the capes right?--mitrebox (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

Shouldn't the lead mention who the main candidates are? Richard001 (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On being self-referential

{{editprotect}}

I think this text is inappropriate: "Whether or not the debates were actually held, however, was not considered sufficiently relevant to merit a mention in such popular online references as Wikipedia." 75.73.71.69 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

what the feet are you talking about?--mitrebox (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is in reference to the following paragraph. I had added the final sentence in the hopes of provoking someone who knew more about the topic of giving an update--clearly someone had written this in summer of 2007 and then the issue had been dropped.

In late April, Huffington Post, Yahoo!, and Slate magazine announced that they would be hosting one Democratic and one Republican debate for Presidential hopefuls. The debates were proposed to be held after Labor Day and hosted by Charlie Rose. Of the debates, Arianna Huffington remarked "It was clear to me, the 2008 campaign was going to be dominated by what's happening online — new technologies, new media like never before." Whether or not the debates were actually held, however, was not considered sufficiently relevant to merit a mention in such popular online references as Wikipedia.

Labor Day is now long past, so the paragraph in this form (with or without the final sentence) really does not belong here, though if anyone knows anything about the debates (which were presumably held?), one could write something retrospectively about them.--Bhuck (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Kucinich urges supporters to back Obama.

Could someone please add the following info under: Candidates and potential candidates => Major parties => Democratic Party => Withdrawn Candidates

I see that it says the following:

• • • Tom Vilsack, former Governor of Iowa, a presidential candidate from November 30, 2006 to February 23, 2007, withdrew from seeking the Democratic nomination due to a lack of funds and endorsed Senator Clinton.

Under Kucinich's withdrawal, it should also mention that he urges his supporters to vote for Obama. Source is below.

Source: Kucinich urges supporters to back Obama. Main Article: [4]

Quote by Kucinich (from the article): "But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.190.98 (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That was in the context of the Iowa caucuses. He has delivered no such instruction more generally since his withdrawal, to the best of my knowledge (although it seems reasonable to assume that he is backing Obama, based on that quote, to reach that conclusion in the article would be original research). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudy to withdraw

It was just confirmed on "Nightline". He's gonna make the announcement tomorrow and back McCain. Tuxedo Mark (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep - we're all aware. We're just not removing him as a candidate until it's official. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's now on BBC - can an admin update this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7218879.stm Cheers! Dutpar (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Edwards

John Edwards is out as well. But we'll wait till the announcement, of course.

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/edwards-to-quit-presidential-race/20080130091709990001

82.152.204.58 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike Gravel

Mike Gravel announced earlier today that he will be dropping out of the race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true. This is cited nowhere. Tinmanic (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Turn on CNN. They're talking about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you should be able to provide a source. Please do so. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your televeision. Turn it on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 04:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read this.--Nkrosse (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

CNN says he is still a candidate. See CNN. Your edits are vandalism. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I will read it as soon as you turn on your television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is false. TigerManXL is most likely trolling. (189.148.8.18 (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

TigerManXL has also violated WP:3RR. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're going to feel real silly once they get back around to this story again on CNN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 04:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Using CNN as a reliable source, http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/ confirms that Gravel is still a candidate. There has been no source provided that suggests otherwise. Remember, Wikipedia's policies require that content be verifiable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks for the info. That contradicts the story they were running on TV earlier.

It also confirms Alan Keyes is not a candidate. Apparently Alan's nephew keeps putting him back on the republican pages.--mitrebox (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

CNN needs to get their act together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Mike Gravel has rectenly dropped out of the race. His picture should be removed from the viable candidate section and the following text should be included:

• Mike Gravel, U.S. Senator of Alaska, withdrew on January 30, 2008 due to lack of support.

You are not listening. Without a citation, this cannot be added. Saying "I saw it on CNN" is not a reliable citation. When you find it in print it can be added. Horologium (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

www.cnn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 05:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2982 http://www.boxxet.com/Michael_Bloomberg/Biden_Dodd_Gravel_Drop_Out.1gfvqx.d

(ec x2)First, Sign your posts. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know how to do it by now. Secondly, you are acting in a disruptive fashion; you cannot possibly think that your behavior is appropriate. Your edit warring is directly responsible for the page lock now in place. Until you can provide a SPECIFIC citation to a specific article, you have nothing. Please stop referencing CNN, because they haven't printed anything about Gravel exiting the race. The two sources you added are not only blogs, but they are dated January 4th, the last time Gravel was rumored to have dropped out; they don't support your assertion at all.Horologium (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly trolling, and I was the one who requested the lock due to disruptive users such as yourself. I provided 2 specific citations. If your candidate dropped out, that is hardly my fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 06:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

At the bottom of the boxxet article, it states "Correction: Mike Gravel is still campaigning, as one of my commentors has pointed out. My bad..." The Jan 4 speculations proved to be in error. --Evb-wiki (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you did not request protection, you requested an unprotect to add your unsourced assertion, then a re-protect. I read your request for unprotection; that was what brought me back here. As for your calling me a troll, that's laughable. Horologium (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

according to gravel2008.us he'll be at the Alternative Debate tonight has a fund raiser Saturday. If he dropped out he must have taken the Clinton 'I will not campaign' pledge when he did it.--mitrebox (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a Clinton endorsement would be interesting.

Horologium, it is clear why you were not allowed to become an administrator, considering your troubling demeanor.

Wow, way to incinerate WP:NPA, and it's not even correct. I haven't requested adminship yet. Horologium (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes yes everything is clear now... oh wait I don't care about any of this.--mitrebox (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page suggests otherwise. You have no business telling me to do anything considering how you are not an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 06:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the lock has been resolved, I will make the proper corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 06:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(ecx3)My talk page suggests that an administrator considered nominating me for adminship, and I declined, due to an arbitration case in which I contributed evidence. And while I can't block you, I can report your behavior, after which an admin can block you. And the page protection on this article is not going to be lifted with that "wait it out" mentality. And sign your posts. Horologium (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your behavior is clearly unwarranted and would not be desirable for an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerManXL (talk • contribs) 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, this article will remain fully protected until a reliable source (not a blog, an actual reliable source) can be found supporting either side. Second, TigerManXL, your comments are rude, borderline personal attacks. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Whether or not a user accepts a request for adminship is his or her choice and has no basis in this dispute and is never the judge of a user's capabilities as an editor. Whenever a reliable source can be found, please request unprotection at WP:RFPP. And TigerManXL, please sign your posts. Any questions can be directed to my talk page. Cheers!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright Gonzo, I was just insulted because a user interjected himself into the conversatiion and impled that he had authority over the matter when he clearly did not. I will find further resources in addition to the ones I have already provided. TigerManXL (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats alright, I know we all can get a little jumpy sometimes. Let's all step away from the situation for a bit and see if we can focus on finding the right info and make the article as good as we can. And thank you TigerManXL for signing your posts!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to CNN Election 2008, ABCnews Vote 2008, CBS Campaign 2008 and FoxNews YouDecide '08 all show that Mike Gravel has not withdrawn. --Evb-wiki (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide updated, reliable sources only. 146.151.12.169 (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got CNN.com & CNN on TV, nowhere have they announced that Mike Gravel dropped out of the race. Please note: I'm a Canadian and therefore I've no favourite candidate (in otherwords NPOV). GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PS- Would somebody re-insert 'Mike Gravel', as he's still a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination? GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links

{{editprotected}} I would like to propose adding an external link to http://4-president.com, a comprehensive real-time monitoring of blog posts and articles by the candidates, the pundits, and those who report on the elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbakks (talk • contribs)

4-president is a blog roll. It has up to date info but is rather indiscriminate on its sources (wordpress, etc). Does putting this as a link mean that we will accept it as a reputable source of information? I feel that WP readers expect some kind of authority from the links we post. Blogs sometimes get information first but also get it wrong more often than traditional media. WP is not up to the minute. Traditional Sources can and have been wrong in the past Rathergate, but they have reputations to uphold. When a blog gets it wrong nobody notices. And please sign your protect requests.--mitrebox (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined this edit is not needed immediately, and probably isn't a reliable source.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Source for Keyes

Here's the most recent one I could fine. He's definitely still in, and I think he should be included in the article (he is running a multi-state campaign, even if he's not doing it especially well). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not arguing that hes in, thats settled by his FEC statement, just arguing that he is not relevant to the Main article. There are 19 democrats and 37 republicans running for president. They are listed on the subpages where they are relevant. --mitrebox (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The source was for the benefit of User:Evb-wiki, who specifically requested one in his last reversion.

I can live with not including him, but I'd like to be clear on what the standard for inclusion on this page is. As I understood it, it was anybody running a multi-state campaign, which Keyes undeniably is. I don't actually see much to separate him from Gravel, to be honest. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I had reverted his removal a week or two ago, but the discussion at that time (see above) suggested there was a consensus to exclude him from the gallery. Of course, consensus can change. Nevertheless, he is not included in any of the big U.S. news network's coverage - CNN Election 2008, ABCnews Vote 2008, CBS Campaign 2008 and FoxNews YouDecide '08 - Gravel is included in their coverage. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the two is 1 Graves held political office before so he can theoretically run a successful campaign. 2 he garnered some attention with those weird ads and his non-conventional approach. 3 hes on CNNs, FNCs, ABCs, NBCs, and CBSs lists where as Keyes never has been any of those. --mitrebox (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As for 1, I'm leery of giving elected office (of the sort that Gravel's held) precedence over unelected office of the sort that Keyes has held (much more recently than Gravel's done anything). I address the issue of quantity of coverage below. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Keyes and Gravel are in the same boat, remove them both. They're irrevelvant. Both have zero delegates and both are barely getting any votes. As mitre mentioned they are all included on the sub pages, and we should keep this article limited to the main candidates (Dem: Obama and Clinton - Rep: Romney, McCain, Paul, and Huckabee). HoosierState^Talk 01:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's fair, and I'm certainly no Keyes zealot (I'm a Canadian, and one who likes Mike Gravel at that). But I think we should apply a uniform standard, and I can't think of one by which Gravel's in and Keyes is out. Gravel's been getting marginally better media coverage (although I've seen it reported that he's quit, that he's a Republican, and that he's the former Governor of Arkansas, so the coverage isn't that good for him either) but, while amount of coverage is a determinant when it comes to who gets an article, it's not necessarily a determinant for what's included within an article. We use real measures for that, and both Gravel and Keyes are in more or less the same boat by all of those measures. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a talk for standards on the template page [[5]] $50,000 for Dems and Reps and $5000 for 3rd parties is one idea. Another says Rep and Dem candidates at this point (or after Tuesday at least) must have at least 1 delegate.--mitrebox (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's take this conversation over there. Thanks for pointing it out. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If the criteria prior to Super-Tuesday is $50,000 then here is documentation from the Federal Elections Committee (FEC). Keyes entered the race on 9-14-07. Per the FEC, as of the end of the 3rd quarter on 9-30-07, Keyes had net receipts of $77,768. It still remains that Keyes is a multi-state candidate, with net receipts above $50,000 going into Super Tuesday and should be included. Search Keyes at the FEC website at: http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/srssea.shtml

Per the FEC, http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_28990167738+0 Keyes Net Contribution as of 12/31/2007 were $206,796.32 well in excess of the $50,000 mark set to be considered a major candidate in the GOP.Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is documentation Keyes is still in the race and campaigning in Texas until March 4th, when they have their primary: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/religion/stories/MYSA012308.02B.Keyes.286665f.html PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE MY STATEMENT. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvyconsumer7 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 1 February 2008

Third opinion

Hey. A third opinion was requested for this discussion, so here it is. I don't think that Keyes belongs on this page, for the reason that HoosierState mentioned. They can be in the subpages, but the main page should be reserved for the main candidates that are still in. However, I also agree with what SarcasticIdealist is saying about treating both Keyes and Gravel the same way, so I don't think that Gravel should be listed either. Also, I'd offer a blanket warning to everyone - but especially to Mitrebox and Savvyconsumer7 - about edit warring and 3RR. This is ridiculous. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee wheez, Mike Gravel gets the axe? isn't he registered in all 50 states? Wow, Gravel got gavel'd. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PS- I wish people would relax & realize the Democratic & Republican nominations won't be offically decided until August & September. For goodness sake, it's only February. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think that, since Gravel is still included in all major U.S. network news candidate listings - see, e.g., CNN Election 2008, ABCnews Vote 2008, CBS Campaign 2008 and FoxNews YouDecide '08 - he should remain listed on this page. Otherwise, we need to explain why he is not. Keyes (on the other hand) is not listed, and I don't think he has ever been included by the networks during this campaign. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I added Gravel back, but that will probably get reverted. But my opinion is that even if you only have 1%, you're still in the race. The article should mention all the candidates. - Spyke1077 (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Keyes should be listed here. He is running a multi-state campaign. That is the criteria for inclusion. Keyes got 14% in 2000. He obviously deserves to be included. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Keyes should be list. Keyes' lack of major media coverage is indicative of the blacklisting occurring against him. The major media did not cover Keyes on the day of his announcement, in 2007. The lack of major media is a cause, not a result, of the slowness with which the campaign is building traction. Keyes is attempting to turn that around, on the ground in Texas. Keyes is actively campaigning, using the internet as a vehicle to get the word out (which does not require all that much money.) Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please Helpme. Is a 3rd opinion binding? What is the process for resolution. The 3rd opinion said remove Keyes, remove Gravel. Someone has removed Keyes and reinstated Gravel. What's the process from here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvyconsumer7 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We should use state registration: Gravel is registered as a presidential candidate in all 50 states; Keyes isn't. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely accurate. I know Gravel wasn't able to get on the primary ballots in Alabama (link), Vermont (link), Virginia (link), Rhode Island (link), or Oklahoma (link), probably among others. The January Ballot Access News had a more comprehensive list, but it hasn't been put online yet and I don't have my copy with me to check. (I assume this is what you meant by "registered as a presidential candidate in all 50 states" -- let me know if I misunderstood.) -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

While they cannot be considered an official arbiter, CNN lists Gravel as a candidate (as well as now-departed Dodd, Kucinich, Biden, Edwards, and Richardson); AFAIK, they have never listed Keyes (although they still list now-departed Giuliani, Thompson, and Hunter). Gravel may not be on the ballot in all 50 states, but he is on the ballot in the vast majority of them. Keyes is on the ballot in only 16 states. I'd say keep Gravel on this list and remove Keyes. Horologium (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In fact, ABC news and MSNBC don't have Keyes either; both have Gravel, and the MSNBC candidate profile for the GOP has Tommy Thompson, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback and Jim Gilmore on it, but not Keyes. Keyes really does not belong on this list, but I really don't much care one way or the other towards Gravel. If pressed, I'd say include him, because all the major news sources seem to be doing so. Horologium (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies David Schaich, I'd asumed Gravel was registered in all 50 states. His prominance in this article led me to think so. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep them both. They're both still in. And they're both major candidates in some way or another. Does it really bother anybody that much to have them in? Come on, Keyes got 14% back in 2000. And the media has treated Gravel as a major candidate most of the time. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What Keyes did in 2000 has no relevance. Keyes is not a major candidate. He's only campaigning in Texas, which isn't even a Super Tuesday state. Gravel has not been mentioned at all by the media. He hasn't even made it to the debates because he does not meet the requirements. I still say exclude both. There are sub pages for a reason. HoosierState^Talk 22:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JBFrenchhorn, keep them both. Keyes is focusing his efforts in Texas, just as Giuliani jumped ahead to Florida. That does not mean he is not a candidate in all the other states, as well. For instance, while campaigning in Texas last Saturday, he attended campaign events in TX in the afternoon, then flew to IL to give a speech in the evening, per his website: "Alan Keyes to speak at the Ronald Reagan Day Dinner, Republican Assembles of Lake County Illinois, 5:30pm - 9:00pm, at the White Deer Run Country Club, 250 West Greggs Parkway, Vernon Hills, Il 60061 Phone: (847) 680-6100. For more info call Mr. Raymond S. True, Chariman (847) 367-5231." Remember, Keyes is on the ballot in at least 18 primary states, plus he will participate in the caucus states, as well.Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with that, keep Gravel and Keyes. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be my preference as well, although I'd rather delete both than treat them differently. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We gotta have Gravel & Keyes. I feel there's a rush to eliminate candidates from the Democratic & Republican lists. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted above, and User talk:Horologium also states, there is a good reason to treat Keyes and Gravel differently. The reliable sources that have lists of candidates - i.e., CNN Election 2008, ABCnews Vote 2008, CBS Campaign 2008 and FoxNews YouDecide '08 - treat them differently. These sources list Gravel but do not list Keyes. Remember, Wikipedia's role is to describe, not prescribe. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with this. However, what we should describe should, in my view, be based on objective measures (fundraising, presence on ballots, etc.), rather than on what others have chosen to describe. Remember, according to WP:N, "notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." Media coverage makes people notable enough for articles, but I don't think media coverage is a good measure of which candidates should be included in an article.

I did misspeak slightly earlier, however: I'd be quite prepared to include Gravel but not Keyes provided that doing so was based on a set of objective criteria that was universally applied. For example, if we decided that a candidate had to be on the ballot in at least twenty-five states to be included, it might then be okay to keep Gravel but not Keyes. I just don't like doing so on the basis that that's what others are doing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think setting our own criteria might violate WP:SYNTH. Find a reliable source that includes Keyes on a list of national candidates and I would probably say keep Keyes too. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Keyes and Gravel should both be kept in until concensus has been reached. Keyes has been in and out of the article for quite a while, at least as far back as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008&oldid=183643037 Until concensus has been reached, we should give both candidates the benefit of the doubt, especially in light of the fact that both are still completely in the race. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Find a source that lists includes Alan Keyes on a list of national candidates and I'll agree; I'm in complete agreement with Evb-wiki on this. Keyes (regardless of his performance in the past) is not a contender in this election. In the two races in which he has been on the ballot (yes, only two so far), his better performance was in Florida, where he took a whopping .2% (yes, that is two tenths of one percent) of the vote. At least Gravel has been in most of the contests, and actually took over 1.2% in the Florida contest. I'm not going to revert you and get into an edit war, but I really object to your revert. Horologium (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me? or is that image of Alan Keyes funny looking. Like he's warning everyone - I'm telling you, people; I'm telling you. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Get Alan Keyes off of this page! Who cares how much money he has raised! He has received zero votes, he has never been on any national debate. I dont want to here anything about how he has 'raised enough money to be considered a candidate' because Stephen Colbert's campaign raised more than his yet Colbert isnt on our list. So the only reason Keyes should be up here is if Stephen Colbert is here too. 216.107.227.138 (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest moving to an official vote? ThirdPoliceman (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)