Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2008/Archive 2

Others

Pat Roberts and Micheal Bloomberg for the republicans; Gary Locke for the democrats.

Candidate list out of control

The candidate lists are deeply bloated at this point. I mean, Richie Daley is a potential presidential candidate? Perhaps we should try to have some criteria here based on people actually being mentioned as potential presidential candidates in the media. I'd add that many of the people listed here are much more widely touted as VP prospects, or as future gubernatorial or senatorial contestants. john k 07:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well I think some of your deletions were warranted, but I disagree on others. For example, I disagree with you on the removal of Rice and Quayle as possible candidates. I personally think old Dan might make a forbidable candidate in the nomination process, and maybe the general election. In any case, I think people will talk about him as a possible (unless you have information I don't have about this). Likewise my buddies who listen to Limbaugh salivate at Rice as a possible nominee. They love her, or at least use to. The scuttlebutt will certainly there for a run. Mind you, I'm neither advocating these candidates, nor saying they could get the nomination, or even win any primaries. But the list is about possible candidates is it not? I think it will certainly be quite large. Overall, it seems you are making judgements about electability, rather than who might simply run. Would you have removed Kucinich or then-obscure Howard Dean from such a list four years ago? -- Decumanus 07:53, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Well, a list of anybody who might possibly run would be completely useless. In theory, any senator, governor, congressman, former senator, former governor, former congressman, big city mayor, cabinet level appointee, vice president, former vice president, &c &c &c might possibly run. Our criteria should be people who have actually been discussed as nominees. I will agree with you that Rice should probably be on there, although I think she's an utterly ridiculous candidate - an unmarried middle-aged black woman who has never held elective office, has been arguably utterly incompetent at the appointive job she has held for the last four years and is absolutely terrible in her public appearances is supposed to be able to win the Republican primaries? Or even to think she might possibly win the Republican primaries? But, yeah, people talk about her, so she should probably go back. I'm pretty dubious about Quayle, though. Has anybody even seen him in the last four years? At any rate, shouldn't we list people who already have been discussed as possible candidates, rather than people who might be so discussed in the future? john k 08:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All in all, I agree with you on principle. But I've certainly heard Quayle's name come up. Don't ask me where: I don't keep track of such things. But I'm not surprised, all in all. I personally think he'd be the instant favorite of the evangelical contingent. They love him. And the Democrats would vastly underestimate him. -- Decumanus 08:14, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Re: Quayle, he announced his candidacy in 2000 (after no one had seen him since 1992) but then dropped out. I would be surprised if he didn't at least explore a run in 2008. -- Jord 21:18 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add him back as well. Did you have any other specific disagreements? I think most of my other removals were pretty sound. A lot of these people, also, are really more discussed as VP candidates - maybe we should clarify that. john k 08:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Personally I thought most of your removals were good. I was going to remove Salazar myself, for example. -- Decumanus 08:19, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

this early a large (but preferably not endless) list of possibles seems appropriate. right now it looks wide open and likely to draw lots of candidates on both sides. perhaps there should be two categories: likely or widely considered candidates and a separate section for other "possibles" mentioned by contributors here. later (maybe by June 2005) it may be possible to narrow to say top 10-15 likely candidates on each side based on activity and buzz between now and then. http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm has initial poll results on 7-10 candidates on each side polling at least 1% now. but it would be too soon to trim the lists down to these yet. by early 2006 some polling level, 1%, 2% or perhaps higher, would be a reasonable type of list cutoff criteria. by spring/summer 2007 the criteria could be become that the possible candidate must have started an official exploratory committee to be listed. (from a reader)

Well, clearly the view that Rice has done poorly at her job as National Security Advisor is opinion, to say the least. I have no reason to think that someone who is African-America, a woman, or unmarried couldn't get the Republican nomination or win the general election. I think the Quayle listing is as silly as he is. He's run already, and went nowhere (in 2000). I don't think he'd go anywhere in 2008, especially if John Ashcroft or Rick Santorum ran. Those are just two vastly more realistic candidates who are beloved by the evangelical right.--Xinoph 22:26, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

But, then, somebody deleted Santorum as unrealistic a while back, and I think Ashcroft may have suffered the same. Samaritan 01:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that odds of Rice, Quayle, Sanatorium and Ashcroft getting the nomination are about as likely as me being named undisputed ruler of the universe later this afternoon. But that is not the point! The list is of likely canidates not of likely nominees. Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich are both likely Democratic candidates but highly unlikely nominees. - Jord 17:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Candidate deletions out of control

The new spate of deletions is further out of control than the candidate lists.

There are some universally obvious names to include - Edwards for the Democrats; I'd have been sure McCain for the Republicans until he was deleted (!); there are some who'd hold some elemental possibility but it would be nearly universally acceptable not to include at this point. (Ressurect Carter or Bush 41!)

In such cases - as the ones where we get the edit fights - where we arrive at no clear consensus, NPOV suggests very strongly that we take a broadly inclusive view of those who could reasonably, at least, find some reasonable support and attention if they ran for the nomination.

If we'd been doing a 2004 page as late as early 2002 with the subjective and individualistic standards deletionists seem to be applying now, Howard Dean (obscure, pacifist, too liberal, too pro-gun...) would have been widely deleted. Bob Graham and Gary Hart, who attracted some heat and with a different course of events might have stayed into the primaries, would be too old; Edwards too young and inexperienced. (Lets' not even get into George W. Bush's controversial personal history before the 2000 race.)

That the Democratic list, as I write, includes Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich - as well it should - but not the party's House and Senate leaders - that some of us have had to fight to keep possible frontrunner McCain and the widely mooted Condi Rice on the Republican list - is insanity.

If you have a short list of the very likeliest nominated candidates for President by your personal determination, please put it on your blog or Talk page or Usenet or somewhere else. I certainly will.

The best we can do with this page is either a broadly inclusive list of individuals with some of the basic prerequisite attributes to be notable candidates for a nomination - or a ridiculous three year tug-of-war over subjective personal opinion. As Wikipedians, I believe our charge is clear. 64.229.33.197 22:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed Bob Dole from the list.After 30 years of losing in presidential election,Today he's a loser.His chance is less than even John Ashcroft!FInally thanks for removing and cleaning the lists, I think if we don't do this we have to write down here all member of U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives as potenitial nominees!!--Sina 08:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The point is not to accurately predict who might be a candidate. The point is to note those names that are actually being talked about. I've acknowledged I was wrong about Rice (although I still think she's less likely to be the Republican nominee in 2008 than, I dunno, George W. Bush), and that she should be on the list, much as it pains me to see the ridiculousness, because she's been talked about. But that doesn't mean we should include random elected officials. The key should be whether they are being mooted about in the media. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, for instance, have never been mentioned as possible presidential candidates. I have every doubt that they ever will be. Just because they hold a position that theoretically makes them look likely (although no House party leader has ever won a nomination, and only a few - Champ Clark, John Nance Garner - have actually tried) to run for president does not mean that they are actually under discussion. john k 15:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dick Gephardt certainly ran for the 04 nomination. A several-years-early page for the 96 or even 2000 elections would have been lacking without Newt Gingrich. And as for media zeitgeist, most of the stories about the Democrats now go 'Who will lead and represent this tattered party and where will they take it? Nancy Pelosi is the House leader and says blah blah; Harry Reid, just elected Senate leader, blah blah blah." If they haven't connected these memes, it's only been a couple days since Reid's leadership victory, less than a week since the general election. They will.

And the reasons you stated in your edit summary for going ahead and deleting both were basically POV punditry. Reid is pro-life: well, he's neither the only pro-life Democrat nor the only dissonant voice on abortion in party leadership or presidential contention (see Giuliani, Pataki...) Pelosi is a 'liberal woman from San Franciso' - well, besides her recent talk of co-operation with the President, the 04 candidate was a limousine liberal ex-war-resister from Boston (and got 48%!), and a putative 08 frontrunner is a liberal woman from New York who I am sure scores much higher negatives than Pelosi. 64.229.33.197 00:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look, here's the bottom line: Everyone talked about Gephardt long before 04 (further, he wasn't Dem leader when he ran, but that's neither here nor there). All you need to do is cite some source that mentions these people as possible candidates for the nomination. Then I will withdraw any objection to their listing here. You have still not cited that. Until that happens, it is just my POV against yours. john k 02:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, if and when we reach a consensus that every entry on the Democratic and Republican lists has to cite a source. Samaritan 03:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) (64.229.* newly registered)

There is already a consensus on this. It's called "no original research." Our own speculation would qualify in this case as original research. The point of the article is to discuss what is generally said about the 08 race at the present time, not to present what we think about the 08 race at the present time, which is worthless. I'd add that a source doesn't need to be cited for every individual. Anyone defending an individual whose place on the list is challenged should be able to cite a source, however. john k 22:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With due respect, at this early juncture, I would say that Pelosi and Reid ought to be on the list simply because they will be the key elected Democratic spokespeople from now until the mid-term elections and therefore have an inherent advantage in name recognition should the offer for the nominaition. -- Jord 01:38 16 Nov 04 (UTC)

I've restored them both again. *sigh.* I'm purely neutral on the inclusion of Gavin Newsom - with such information as I have now I'll neither add nor delete him myself. john k, remember that the mandate of the list is now extended to Vice Presidents (IIRC you made that edit yourself?) so the bar is set lower. Samaritan 01:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tom Brokaw

User:172.173.7.221 posted the entry below for Tom Brokaw under "Other parties and independents." Not that it doesn't have a place somewhere on the web, but it's obviously advocacy, wildly disproportionate to anybody else's entry, and would not last as such within the context of an encyclopedic article on the 2008 election. I bring it here to ask what we should do about Tom Brokaw himself, though. CNN did list him in a medium-short list of 04 Dem VP possibities before the selection of Edwards [1]. (On the other hand, so did Dick Morris [2]...) Samaritan 21:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

user: i guess moving it here is better than nothing. perhaps the full entry didnt belong on the mainlist so i restored just his name and occupation comparable to the others. i added the detail under his own wiki entry and i hope it can also stay there. i am not an advocate of tom brokaw. i was just thinking outside the box at a possible unconventional candidate. i wrote the paragraph to explain the rationale for his running since he isnt an obvious candidate. he could help the democrats win iowa, nevada, new mexico, maybe even ohio. let others think about it. later i found this, showing he was mentioned as a possible vp also in the wall street journal. but he denied interest in being a candidate. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/8143518.htm?1c but a past denial is common and doesnt preclude considering in the future.

Hey, I see where you're coming from, and I have my own issues with deletionism too (eg. see above). Questions, though: Should he be listed in "Other parties and independents" if he's only been discussed otherwise as a potential Democratic candidate? Is the connection there too tenuous? Listing him in three places or creating a category for interesting curveballs with no clear party identification would seem like overkill, though. Samaritan 01:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) , who won't use the main article to spread my personal curveball meme: Bruce Springsteen for the Democrats.

Original entry for Tom Brokaw:

• Tom Brokaw soon to retire as NBC anchorman. Has never run for office but would have strong name identification and favorable ratings. The theory of considering him as a candidate is that he might a rare individual who might not add to the deeping division of the country and could possibly help bring it a little more together. Probably knows more about the reality and diversity of the American people than a typical American politician for President. Born in South Dakota, he is a Midwesterner who has lived most of his adult life in New York and Washington D.C. but still remembers and respects the America outside the big city. Has a ranch in Montana. Passes the "moral values are important" test. Wrote The Greatest Generation to honor those that fought and won World War II. Covered the White House and all the issues facing the federal government. Knows as much or more about the world as a typical American politician for President. Would be 68 in 2008 but is healthy, active and bright. Could probably be competitive as a Republican, Democrat or Independent. Party identification has been kept private. Familiarity with business and political elites could help him raise money and attract talented advisors. Has shown interest in environmental issues. Ability to communicate on TV is a key test for presidential candidates and a key job skill of Presidents. Like or dislike his voice, most would say he is smooth and credible as a speaker. The lack of a voting record means he would not have built-in opponents of certain hot issues, might be able to finesse giving very specific answers on those vote-losing topics and he would have the flexibility to tailor a campaign platform to appeal to a broad audience and to the politics of the moment. Would probably have to be drafted, but he is a competitive guy and might be tempted for a career capper and to show he could do as well or better as the Presidents he covered. The precedents of Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger winning Governor's races would suggest a willingness of voters to consider non-career politicians for high office. Probably wouldnt consider it until he has satisified his taste for travel and adventure for awhile after his retirement from the anchordesk at the end of 2004. Recently signed to produce documentary specials on part-time basis for NBC thru 2014.

Senator and Governor-elect

Please don't add any Senator-elect or Governor-elect in the article before any discussions here.Wikipedia is not a political forum.--Sina 15:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pelosi

Seriously, please cite someone somewhere who has suggested that Nancy Pelosi is a potential candidate/vp nominee. (Also, you seem perfectly happy for Dennis Hastert/Tom DeLay not to be on the list - what's the deal?) john k 16:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Jord's response below. Others would add Pelosi even if I wasn't here. As for Hastert (or DeLay), I'm purely neutral on their inclusion - as with Newsom, above, I won't delete them (as I have deleted what I'm confidently sure are patent impossibilities like Craig Benson), but I don't think highly enough of my predictive abilities to actively delete them if they are added. But Pelosi is not Craig Benson. Can you accept that the consensus would see her as, at the very least, a tough enough call that we should err on the side of inclusion? (Especially since the scope of the list now includes floated VP possibilities.) Samaritan 20:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further: Did anyone in 1992 say that Bob Michel was a potential presidential candidate for 96? In 88 did people mention Michel, Jim Wright, or Tom Foley? Was Tip O'Neill under consideration after 84? or 80? Was John Rhodes a potential candidate after 1976? Was Gerald Ford ever seen by anybody as a potential candidate before Nixon needed someone who would easily be confirmed by Congress? As far as I am aware, Dick Gephardt and Newt Gingrich are the only House leaders in recent times to have seriously been considered for national office. (And Gephardt, it should be noted, made his first run for the presidency before he became Majority Leader, while Gingrich was the idol of the right as a back bench bomb thrower before he became Bob Michel's whip in 1989.). I'm vaguely willing to compromise on Harry Reid if you'll quit the nonsense about Pelosi. john k 16:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alas, this isn't a two-person disagreement between us: other users would add Pelosi even if I wasn't here. See Jord below. As well, for all you know, I may think as you do that Pelosi would be a highly flawed presidential candidate. Many people thought the same of Dean, Bush in 2000, etc, to say nothing of some of the people still listed. Samaritan 20:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pelosi was mused as possible female presidential candidate before she became leader by a feminist group [3], is that a good enough source for you? I think that Pelosi is a far more likely candidate than Reid, but that is not our job here - our job is to list people who have been talked about or may be talked about. At the end of the day, Pelosi, Reid and the chairman of the DNC are going to be the most frequently seen federal Democrats throughout 2005 and most of 2006, they'll obviously get a following and obviously be talked about as candidates. -- Jord 20:00 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, if you have an actual source mentioning Pelosi, that's fine, put her (and Reid, I guess) back. My point was that the mere fact of her being a congressional leader is not sufficient to say that they're a presidential possibility. I was more willing to give way on Reid because Senate leader does seem to be a position that, in recent years at least, has created some presumption of the possbility, at least, of presidential ambitions (Daschle was certainly discussed, Dole was a nominee, Howard Baker ran at some point, I think, Frist is currently discussed - on the other hand, Trent Lott, George Mitchell, Robert Byrd, Mike Mansfield, and Hugh Scott, so far as I am aware, were never seriously considered as national candidates). But, yeah, an actual reference is fine. I'd add that the DNC chair certainly will not "obviously be talked about" as a candidate. Remember the Terry McAuliffe boomlet in 03? Or when Jim Nicholson was being talked up on Free Republic? Yeah, neither do I. Because the party chair is, as often as not, a faceless fundraising functionary. It looks likely this time around that we'll get a top-tier politician in the office (Vilsack or Dean), but they're on the list because they're already seen as possible pres candidates. If anything, being DNC chair makes them much less likely to be candidates, since the DNC chair's job is to be evenhanded between the various candidates, not to use the job to run themselves. That said, I don't think we disagree too much here, except that I'd suggest that it's not our job to list people who "may be talked about." Our job is to list people who have been talked about. Period. Anyone may be talked about - it's completely POV to list people because they may at some point be talked about. john k 22:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I never, ever suggested that "the DNC chair (would be) 'obviously be talked about' as a candidate", I stated, rightly, "Pelosi, Reid and the chairman of the DNC are going to be the most frequently seen federal Democrats throughout 2005 and most of 2006" (emphasis added). Also, there is a longer tradition of Senate leaders being candidates than you suggest. You forget Lyndon Johnson and Robert Taft. Also, Robert Byrd did run in either 1972 or 1976. Finally, in the future, I would ask that you drop the critical sarcasm from your arguments, it doesn't help your argument and risks starting a flame war. -- Jord 23:33 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert Byrd was not a real candidate - he was a favorite son in 1976, and never seriously aimed at the nomination. And he didn't become leader until 1977, in any event. Bob Taft only became official Republican leader in 1953, after his last run for the presidency (although he was unofficial Republican leader from about the death of McNary in 44, or so). But yes, LBJ was a candidate. Everett Dirksen was not. I seem to vaguely recall William Knowland as a possible candidate, but I may be imagining that. McNary, Joseph Robinson, Alben Barkley, and Charles Curtis were all VP nominees. But, at any rate, you did say that the DNC chair will obviously be talked about as a candidate. I quote, "[Reid, Pelosi, and the DNC chair will] obviously get a following and obviously be talked about as candidates." At least, "Reid, Pelosi, and the DNC Chair" seems to be the antecedent for "they" in that sentence, since the previous part is "At the end of the day, Pelosi, Reid and the chairman of the DNC are going to be the most frequently seen federal Democrats throughout 2005 and most of 2006". But perhaps you didn't mean to include the DNC chair. At any rate, I don't take kindly to people telling me how to make my arguments. If I want to be "critically sarcastic," I will be, and it's really none of your business so long as I am not making personal attacks (which I do not believe that I have) or been obscene (which I certainly haven't). In this case, however, we don't seem to have any further disagreements. john k 00:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On second reading, I can see how you might have misinterpreted my remarks, but by they I did mean Pelosi and Reid. On the other hand, this time around the DNC chair may be seen in that light as Vilsack and Dean seem to be the most talked about options for that post. In response to "I don't take kindly to people telling me how to make my arguments", I didn' tell you too, I asked you to, politely. To quote, I said "I would ask that you drop the critical sarcasm from your arguments, it ... risks starting a flame war" (emphasis added). It is of course up to you how to make arguments and you may do as you wish, however, for the hope of maintaining civility, I asked that you do something. Should you choose not to follow my advice, that is, of course, your call, but I would hope that you don't take offence as you seem to infer above. Regards. -- Jord 01:00 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From what I looked out so far, the only time Rep. Pelosi's name was mentioned for being president is at [4]. -- Zscout370 21:07 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And here, see above ;) - Jord 21:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ron Paul

I think that it is very unlikely that he would be a Republican candidate for president, as he is only a Republican for ballot and committee purposes. I could see him being a possible Libertarian candidate, I suggest we remove him from the Republican list but leave him on the Libertarian list. Objections? -- Jord 23:03 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He coooooouuuullld do run for the Republican nomination for attention, then back to the Libertarians. But that's too speculative. [See john k? We do have standards too. :)] No objection here. Samaritan 23:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Formal versions of names

I see someone has put in a lot of work to do this to all of the candidates. Is this necessary/helpful? -- Jord 23:05 18 Nov 04 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Like the inclusion of Alfred E. Neuman, I don't have the heart to remove it, at least at first blush. Although the more I look at it, the more it seems potentially distracting and cluttery... I gave every candidate the brief bio lines, with links to states etc., in the first place as assistance to those less familiar with American politics, so that they could easily compare (what is Illinois as opposed to Indiana? etc.); links to "B. Evans "Evan" Bayh III" and so on down don't seem to serve any like purpose. Samaritan 23:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Someone (anonymous :S) has removed the long name links, I don't know whether to revert or not? By the lack of response to my original question about it, I presume no one cares! Samaritan you seemed to indicate that the formal names are unnecessary and I tend to agree so I'll leave it as it now is. -- Jord 19:46 23 Nov 04 (UTC)

I agree. Samaritan 23:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)