Talk:United States presidential election, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

United States presidential election, 2008 has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Please see Wikipedia:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy for standards for all "U.S. presidential election, yyyy" pages.

Archives: /Archive 2006 - /Archive 2007 - /Archive Al Gore

Contents 1 Minor-major party candidates 2 Opening paragraph 3 80 years? 4 Just Curious 5 Green Candidates 6 It is incorrect to remove the link to the Wicked Witch of the West. 7 odds and betting 8 Giuliani: still in exloratory phase?

[edit] Minor-major party candidates

There are at least twice as many FEC-listed or at least announced candidates than those listed here. That includes "minor-major" candidates as I'll call them (because, while they've filed, they're probably not going to enter the national primary). Some, but not all, include Republicans Saint Jesus Michael Archangel, Hugh Cort, John Cox, Millie Howard, Mark Klein, Richard Smith, and Michael Charles Smith (the last of which is the only one currently listed); and Democrats Warren Ashe, Randy Crow, Michael Forrester, Dan Francis, Karl Krueger, and Sal Mohamed. Also, there are scores more independent candidates. Any way we can establish a principle for distinguishing these candidates, or making a complete list or explanation for why some are not listed? I don't think they should all be listed, because it just becomes a laundry list of names instead of an article, but I'm having trouble coming up with an articulate reason for doing so or a way to indicate why. --Zz414 16:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My proposal would be to remove the major-party candidates that have never been elected to some "higher office" before. Only those who've ever been elected to Vice President, Governor, Senator, Representative or Mayor have historically been proven to stand a chance in the race for a major party's nomination; plus war-winning generals. Only if other candidates are highlighted by "the media" should Wikipedia pay attention to them. Also see the shortlist published by the FEC, which seems to use a similar selection. For independents I wouldn't know what "rule" to apply. Peterbr 21:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest something slightly different. A lot of times a third-party candidate is running in only one or two states. I suggest keeping the larger party listings as they are, as removing would be a HUGE controversy - more so than I want to deal with as a major watcher of this page. In exchange, any third party candidate may be listed, BUT must be cited with FEC filing proof AND list if they are not on the ballot in all states. For instance, John Doe has filed but only for a spot on the Oregon Ballot - and should be listed as such. If you think about it, our system needs to recognize more than just the "headline-getters". Fair and open listing for all legal presidential candidates. - Thanks - Eisenmond 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the FEC shortlist idea. That said, we should be careful about candidates who've only held another office, which would ostensibly exclude Sharpton (who's received primary delegates in the past, after all), among others. As for Eisenmond, that's an appropriate burden for third-party candidates, I think. If an independent campaign garners enough support to be listed in several states, then that will be listed. Of course, I have no idea if candidates could even start filing in states right now if they wanted to, which may make that burden too high. No easy answers, but I appreciate the discussion. --Zz414 15:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The shortlist on the FEC site shows that Richardson, Gilmore, Tancredo, Thompson, Huckabee, etc. have all filed, but they are still listed under the "Candidates who have formed exploratory committees, but not yet filed with the FEC:" section. Either this information has been out of date for a month, or some other criteria is being used for this distinction. The same should be applied to Minor-major party candidates (I just don't understand what that currently is)--66.63.138.194 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

De facto this article is using the same criteria as the sub-articles Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Democratic candidates and Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Republican candidates, which are: "The following have officially declared their candidacy for the 2008 Presidential Election by filing (or announcing plans to file) the necessary papers with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC)." and "The following have officially decided to run for the Republican nomination for President office by filing the necessary papers with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), and are actively conducting a multi-state campaign." The operative word seems to me "official", which is shown in those sub-articles by using the heading "Official candidates". I propose to use that heading in this article as well, and make the criteria explicit. Peterbr 16:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

I dont understand the part where it says "no incumbent president seeking re-election",but bush cannot seek relection if he has had two terms,so why would it say no president will seek relection? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodrigue (talk • contribs) 17:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

In all the presidential elections 1932 to 2004, an incumbent president or an incumbent vice-president ran for his Party's presidential nomination (which isn't the case, in 2008). GoodDay 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he said president, so that doesn't make much sense. Gooddays response didn't make sence, because he added vice-presidentm,which changes that whole thing entirely. What I really didn't understand was the "Vice-presidential candidate who recieves the most electoral votes will be the 47th vice-president." Every election, a president and vice-president run on a ticket to become the corresponding officer for the next four years. We don't elect people for 12 years in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.53.115 (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 80 years?

It says currently that it's been 80 years since an election with neither an incumbent VP nor an incumbent president. What about 1952? I suppose Truman took a while to decide not to run, and Alben Barkley ran desultorily for the Democratic nomination, but I don't think anyone thought he had a chance to win. Color me dubious of this claim. john k 15:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the comments earlier on, at the end of #Article_is_looking_out_of_date. Peterbr 09:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's such a specific claim that I'm dubious of its usefulness. Nixon was, at any rate, the first modern vice president. Barkley had no kind of leg up for the nomination as a result of his position, and the Democratic nomination was certainly seen as wide open that year. Prior to Barkley, the last sitting vice president to even try to become president was, er...John C. Breckinridge in 1860. It was only with Nixon that the idea of a vice president succeeding his president became commonplace. john k 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference to a Washington Post article to demonstrate attribution to a reliable source. Peterbr 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the claim is technically true. The question is whether it's significant. The 1952 Democratic nomination was wide open. Barkley was never the front-runner, ran in no primaries, and, indeed, did not win the nomination. The current phrasing suggests that the last wide open election of this kind was in 1928, but in fact, in all reasonable respects, it was in 1952. The claim is true, but misleading, in that it implies that Alben Barkley's role as vice president running for the nomination was comparable to that of Al Gore or George H.W. Bush or Hubert Humphrey or Richard Nixon, which it was not. john k 16:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just Curious

Why is it that we have deemed Mitt Romney as a frontrunner, but left out Newt Gingrich? Polls show Gingrich ahead of Romney quite consistently. Just throwing that out there. Jrborchik 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Gingrich isn't officially in the race. As long as he's not running, he can't be front-running. Peterbr 16:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Candidates

I've been watching the list of Green candidates and have seen the names change repeatedly. Right now the list isn't even organized the way the other third parties are, with announced candidates separate from those who just might be running. The list of announced candidates ought to include Elaine Brown, Nan Garrett, Kat Swift, and Kent Mesplay. Possible candidates should include Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Rebecca Rotzler, and Cindy Sheehan. --Banyan 22:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is incorrect to remove the link to the Wicked Witch of the West.

She has often been compared to The Wicked Witch of the West by various people including Rush Limbaugh. Even if you disagree with this comparison, the two have been compared, and readers should be able to view what Hillary Clinton is being compared to. Earl Grey Tea 23:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:LIVING. Peterbr 16:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] odds and betting

What are the odds for these candidates? Can someone at least provide a link, given that they may change? And is betting on this presidential race legal in the U.S.? It seems legal in the U.K. -Amit, 04/04/07

[edit] Giuliani: still in exloratory phase?

Is Rudy's campaign still in the exploratory phase, or is he officially in? His website says "campaign committee" as opposed to "exploratory committee". --Wgbc2032 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)