Talk:Perennial candidate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ralph Nader

Listing someone who has run for office three times sets a very low standard for the status of "perennial candidate". Can Khanartist please provide a justification for his desire to list Nader? By this standard Nelson Rockefeller would also be a perennial candidate as would Adlai Stevenson (who had an abortive run in 1960 along with is 1952 and 1956 attempts).AndyL 14:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Three times seems quite low to me as well to be described as "perennial". Jayjg 14:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We would have to add Joe Clark and John Diefenbaker, who each ran for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada on three occasions, and that would just be the start. What about Strom Thurmond and people like him who are re-elected many, many times? Kevintoronto 14:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And why not add them? There is a very clear bias here against major party candidates, and towards third-party/little-chance candidates. I'm not condemning that, as "perennial candidate" does carry connotations of a candidate who doesn't have a prayer of winning, yet runs anyway. Nader fits this criteria.

Please establish a quantitative criteria for number of failed elections so that you are not deleting something arbitrarily. Ezra Anderson has only run three times by this page's count, but has not been removed. What isn't too low? Three runs for local office is not enough in my opinion, but three runs for the national office of President of the United States is certainly sufficient. Khanartist 18:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Harold Stassen was not a minor party candidate. Anyway, I'd tend to agree that Enza is more a fringe candidate than a perennial candidate. As for Nader, I have never seen him described as a perennial candidate outside of blogs where the others have been. How many mainstream media sources can you find that describe Nader (or any three time candidate) as a perennial candidate?AndyL 19:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And why not add them?

Because no credible sources describe Rockefeller or Stevenson as perennial candidates, that's why. For us to call Nader one is POV as a result since three time candidates are generally not referred to by the perennial label. AndyL 19:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re-reading the article, I can see that the examples I cited do not fit within the current description. I agree that it would make sense to agree on a standard definition here. I think that restriting this to people who run and lose a great deal, for the purpose of promoting their views, is a good starting point. Losing three times still does not seem like very much. I think that this list would grow very long. Take Tony Clement for example -- he is a fairly mainstream fellow who sat in the Ontario, Canada legislature for a while, and was a prominent minister in the Cabinet, but then lost the Ontario PC leadership, the federal Conservative leadership, his seat in the Legislature, and a bid to get elected to the House of Commons. But perennial candidate? I don't really think so, because he did have reason to believe that he might win, unlike the people listed on the page. Kevintoronto 19:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would say Nader is on the cusp of being a perennial candidate. If he runs a fourth time (and loses) I'd be more comfortable with listing him. Listing him now strikes me as POV. As for Tony Clement, given his past success it would be premature to list him as a perennial candidate though his past success is not a barrier to perennial candidate-dom (see Harold Stassen). I think Paul Hellyer who was a longtime Liberal MP but has launched numerous unsuccessful attempts at a comemback since then might be considered a perennial candidate, I'd have to check and see how many unsuccessful runs he's had since 1970. Diefenbaker one one leadership contest and lost two while Clark won two and lost one so given their batting averages we really couldn't consider them perennials. As for Strom Thurmond, he's the opposite of a perennial candidate since he kept winning (perennial candidate implies perennially losing candidate:) It's not number of elections you've run in but number of elections you've run in and lost.AndyL 21:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree; four times should be enough, especially since that's four in a row. On another note, if people think three times is enough, Harry Browne, Libertarian candidate for President from '92 till 2000, should qualify as well. Johnleemk | Talk 06:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some would say that Nader's activities in the 1992 Democratic primaries constituted a presidential campaign, although the Wikipedia article implies otherwise. By the way, Harry Browne only ran for president twice -- the Libertarian candidate in 1992 was Andre Marrou. - Nat Krause 07:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As much as I am a fan of Enza Anderson, I think she has to go. Three times really is not enough. How about this as a first stab at a definition (please feel free to make changes):

A perennial candidate is a person who has run frequently (for the purposes of this article, at least four times) for public office in order to promote his or her own views despite having little or no expectation of winning. Kevintoronto 22:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Al Hamburg and Edward T. "Ed" O'Donnell Jr.?

How about these guys, 14 bids and 6 bids for the presidency respectively?: http://www.politics1.com/dems04.htm Not clear if they were actually on a ballot for a primary or what. Esquizombi 04:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Keyes

Keyes got 40%+ for Senate in Maryland (where he really was living at the time, unlike his Illinois race) in at least one race (1992, I think) and is, as a former United States Ambassador, not quite the joke portrayed here, although he is, as another editor said of another person, "on the cusp" of being a perennial candidate. Rlquall 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Very true. In light of this definition: "They run not with any serious hope of gaining office, but in order to promote their views or themselves.", I don't think Alan Keyes belongs on the list. It's also questionable whether Al Sharpton or Eugene Debs belong. The obvious ones: Pat Paulsen, Harold Stassen, Lyndon LaRouche, are definitely perennial candidates. One thing which makes a perennial candidate a perennial candidate is their campaigns are widely perceived as jokes even by people who may share some or all of their political outlook. Harold Stassen is the quintessential example here. Keyes may be treated that way by the left and Sharpton that way by the right but they aren't treated that way otherwise. Puppy Mill 11:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)