Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2008/Archive 3

List going too high

The list is going high,Gary Hart for president?that's unbelivable!In order someone please add Robert Byrd to the list!--Sina 00:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think Gary Hart is a plausible candidate in that he expressed interest in running in 2004, but thought it was too late to get into the race. Despite that he would be 72 in 2008, however that is that same age that Bob Dole was during the 1996 campaign. FYI here is an article re: his 2004 musings. -- Jord 01:13 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe Gary Hart might could be the final nominee of Democratic Party in 88,because I believe he might could win Midwest and west coast easily.--Sina 12:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand what you are trying to get at? Had he won the nomination in 1988 he would have won the election? If so, I am unsure how this is relevant to the 2008 election, please clarify. -- Jord 20:36 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did a bad mistake! I mean in 1984!if you look at this map you might could see he got all midwest and west coast plus Florida and North east liberal states.But I think none of them couldn't defeat Regan.

Understood, however I still don't see how this is relevent to Hart's inclusion as a potential candidate in 2008. -- Jord 23:20 19 Nov 04 (UTC)

I don't see why Gary Hart couldn't be the nominee. He's got strong credentials in the homeland security and War on Terror department, he's a social liberal, which always scores big points in the primaries, and he's got gobs of charisma. His only two handicaps, his age and the sex scandal, have been blown out of the water by previous candidates. He'll be the same age in 2008 that Bob Dole was in '96 and I think we can all agree that both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich have sort of taken the sting out of an extramarital affair, especially one that happened two decades previously.

A new short list

I've created a new short-list of candidates who have either publicly stated their intention to run, or are engaging in stereotypical pre-candidacy type activities (most notably speaking visits to Iowa or New Hampshire). While there's the caveat that a high-profile candidate like Hilary probably wouldn't start such activity until later 2006 and that some potential contenders may not even be moving in that direction yet. The thing which distinguishes this list is that it demands some sort of demonstrable evidence of pre-candidacy rather than just idle speculation. -- Seth Ilys 14:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Me likes, me likes!! Should we add Howard Dean due to Democracy for America and his run for DNC chair? If you read the blogs on DFA, it is quite clear that all of his supporters want him to run in 08. - Jord 17:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not all of us. While I, personally, was a Dean supporter (I voted for him in the Iowa Caucus), I recognize that the "I Have a Scream" speech has thoroughly ruined his chances at the nomination. That's why I want him to be the DNC chairman. It's the next-best thing. I guess you could say I'm an Ex-Deaniac for Feingold.

Is Gary Lock natural born citizen?

Yes - Jord 21:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Should people who show up on the short list also show up on the long list? On the one hand, having, say, Joe Biden on both lists seems redundant. On the other hand, there does seem to be a risk that somebody might be deleted from the short list and not be readded to the long list. — DLJessup 22:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we should remove the names of the people on the short list from the long list. Zscout370 23:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Strongly disagree: they are two seperate lists. One lists all potential candidates, one lists active candidates. An active candidate is also a potential candidate. - Jord 21:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jord, you can't argue from definition when what we are discussing is the definition of the two lists. Under the current setup, we have a list of active candidates and a list of all potential candidates. Under the alternative, we would have a list of active candidates and a list of inactive candidates. What I am asking is: which definition is better?

Under the current regime, we have the problem that there are two distinct places to comment on the same candidate, leading to duelling commentary. Under the alternative, we have the risk that an active candidate might be deleted instead of being moved to the inactive list. Which problem is more serious? Are there other problems that we haven't considered?

— DLJessup 05:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem with an "inactive candidates" list is that that is a very subjective call, we are already treading on thin ice w.r.t. original research with the 'active candidates' list. I think having a list of all of the candidates which seem conceivable and a seperate list of those with empirical evidence that they are running is the way to go.

W.r.t. to the comments varying, the candidates on the larger list, for the most part don't, and IMHO shouldn't, have much for comments there. Just their positions and perhaps a brief comment of theirs on their interest/disinterest in the presidency. The active candidates list, for obvious reasons, has to have a longer explanation as to what activities they are undertaking to be active. -- Jord 18:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ObSpelling: "separate", not "seperate".

Jord, with regards to your first point, I fail to see how having an active and an inactive candidates list is any more subjective than having an active and a potential candidates list. If A is the set of active candidates and I is the set of inactive candidates, the set of potential candidates is A ∪ I.

However, your second point has some merit. What drove me to ask this question was the fact that I found myself asking questions about comments on Hillary Clinton in the potential candidate's list when better and more complete commentary already existed in the active candidate list. Additionally, I noted that Joe Biden (the one Democrat prior to Hillary alphabetically) had a grassroots petition next to his potential candidate list entry, but not near his active candidate list entry. However, it appears that none of the other active candidates has much in the way of duplicate commentary. — DLJessup 19:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It looks like this problem has been solved in what looks like a very good compromize to me by 209.222.250.91. Agreed? - Jord 16:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm really glad you like, although if you're approving of what I think you're approving of, you might want to recheck the History page. Those changes were implemented by DLJessup (hey, that's me! <g>), not 209.222.250.91. — DLJessup 16:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry... was catching up on edits as I'd decreased the frequency of my visits during the down time and the database restoration. Credit where credit is due: good job! - Jord 17:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mark Sanford

I removed the SC governor from the list of active candidates. The justification for him being listed there was a purported news release from him announcing his candidacy. This seemed rather odd to me as he is in the formative stages of a campaign for re-election as governor. After a newscan, I discovered that the news release, though framed to look it was from him, was in fact from an organization looking to "draft" him to run. In a January 11, 2005 interview he stated that a presidential run "was not on (his) radar screen" but did not rule it out.[1] I've left him on the potential candidates list but active is inappropriate. - Jord 14:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bayh

Is a vote on Rice's confirmation and a columnist's assumption enough to say he is an active candidate? I don't think so. I'll remove him if there is no complaint in the next day or so. - Jord 01:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree (with Jord). Samaritan 03:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. --Benna 05:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am agree.He may run but voting against Rice is not enough to say he is an active candidate.With this logic, we can add Robert Byrd on the list because of his vote against Rice!--Sina 11:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I dont quite remember where I read it, but recently I read in one of the blogs that Bayh has hired some pollsters to quietly start working on his candidacy. -- (unsigned contribution by SpitFlame)

I strongly disagree. American spectator reported that Bayh is doing backroom maneuvering to kick start his candidacy. link here --BoshTang 04:06, 9 Feb 2005 (EST)

SpitFlame & BoshTang, we can't post people as active candidates for office based on one vote in the Senate. If the media reports that they made that vote for that reason, then we can -- we cannot make that call as it is POV and original reserach, we now have a source but it is questionable. BoshTang, can you provide a more reliable source than a political gossip column? - Jord 17:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here are some articles which claim the vote agaist Rice was a vote with an eye on 2008. Some of these articles are from "mainstream media" MSNBC Chicago Sun Times TMnews AlJazeerah --Boshtang 06:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for digging thouse up, I trust that they are sources for the above but I haven't had a chance to read them. Casting a vote with an eye on the presidency establishes he has an interest (qualifying him as being listed in the large list of potentials) but do any of them talk about him forming a campaign team, going to make speeches in early primary states on that subject, etc? That would qualify him for the short list of active candidates. - Jord 14:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not realize the discussion was about putting Bayh in active candidate list. I was under the impression that you wanted to take him out of Potential Candidate list. I agree, Bayh should stay in Potential candidate list for the time being. --Boshtang 21:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Franken, Hannity & Sajak

Are these television personalities serious or the result of vandalism? I can see Franken & Hannity due to their political affiliations but I think it is quite unlikely either would take the leap for president. I've never heard of Sajak making his political affiliation public. I was about to remove them out of hand, but perhaps someone knows something I don't? - Jord 23:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Franken has expressed very serious interest in running for his old friend Paul Wellstone's Senate seat from Minnesota in 2008... I wouldn't leave him on a presidential or vice-presidential possibilities list for that year. Hannity was earlier the subject of a paragraph stressing very strongly that he had said he wouldn't run for office; I deleted it a few months back. As for Pat Sajak, it must be a case of Republican celebrity-watchers taking what they can get. (See his federal donations and his columns in Human Events...) Samaritan 23:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah I had heard Franken talk about running for the Minnesota Senate seat, but the impression I got from him was that he was only half serious and that he had said it would be foolhardy as he'd not lived there for a couple decades. Thanks for the info on the other ones! :) So, the question remains - do we want to leave them or not? - Jord 02:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Out, I think, unless they were sourced. Samaritan 04:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Here is your source, Samaritan. [2] - Zscout370 16:36, 8 Feb 2005 (EST, USA)

As for Sean Hannity, I do not know if he is a possible candidate, but I have found a far-off website for Hannity to run in 2004. Also, who is this Sajak character mentioned? - Zscout370 16:40, 8 Feb 2005 (EST, USA)

• We know about him talking about running for Senate, we were looking for a source for a presidential run of which I doubt there is any. Sajak is the host of Wheel of Fortune, he was listed briefly as a potential Republican candidate. - Jord 21:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, that Sajak. I know him now! Though I do apologize, since I did not read the above paragraph (however, as with any name, there could always be two Pat Sajak's :)). Zscout370 15:27, 10 Feb 2005 (EST, USA)

• Update: Franken ruled out a Senate run in 2006, when Mark Dayton's retiring: CBC (!) Newsmax

Sajak is back without a source, should he be removed? - Jord 15:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I thought this was a joke. Pat Sajak for President? Gimme a break. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Holy Sh*t! I just checked out Sajak's site, and he's a big Liberal who has negative appeal for the current president. I never thought he had such opinion before. Maybe a possibility now... -- Riffsyphon1024 08:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Possible Candidates Not Running

Hey yall, do you think we can have a list of people who said that they will not run for the presidency, example Barack Obama? - Zscout370 20:40, 7 Feb 2005 (EST, USA)

This was on the page once upon a time but was removed the consensus being that many politicians say they aren't going to run before actually deciding to run. [3] - Jord 21:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John "Jack" Murtha

I think he should be removed from the list of Democrats --Boshtang 06:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are there any news articles (or even gossip articles) that report his interest in Presidency? --Boshtang 06:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If there are no objections by Feb 20th 2005 lets take him out of potential candidate list. --128.194.146.102 20:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Somebody has already removed him from the list. Closing this section. --128.194.146.102 20:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Herman Cain

He lost primary elections in Georgia. Very unlikely to run for president. I think he should be removed from the Republican list. --Boshtang 06:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He has all but said he is running, that doesn't mean he will win or even have a chance, but we are not here to handicap the race, we are here to discuss who is running. Dennis Kuchinch lost the primaries - by and large - very badly but it still quite likely to run again. Some people don't run to win, the run to advance an issue or an idea. Either way, they are still candidates - Jord 17:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Has he? It would be a good idea to link a article which reports his interest in Presidency. --Boshtang 05:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I recall the person who added him to the list included a link in the edit summary. Really though, the fact that he ran in 2000 is pretty strong evidence that he has an interest ;) - Jord 14:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shape of the battle

This section has two paragraphs about the republican stragety in 2008, but just one sentence about the democrats. There should be more discussion about the democratic strategy in this section. --Boshtang 06:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For the Democrats, the Bush re-election in 2004 gives them a broad freedom to choose a 2008 candidate and platform unencumbered by having their own sitting president seeking re-election. Some leading figures in the Democratic party had anonymously expressed their desire for Bush to be re-elected; because he is one of the most unpopular Republican Presidents amongst Democrats in history, they feel that his second four-year term will lead to spectacular party unity and fundraising success, laying the basis for a powerful Democratic resurgence.

was deleted and replaced with

For the Democrats, the Bush re-election in 2004 gives them a broad freedom to choose a 2008 candidate and platform.

by Rlquall. I feel that the longer paragraph is appropriate, but I have already reverted to it once upon its removal by an anonymous user. Just wanted to get some consensus before doing so again. Let me know. -- Jord 00:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

defense of shortening: this longer paragraph makes democratic leaders sound machivellian or traitorous to democratic voters. i thought it was too partisan - and "anonymously expressed" isnt a sound grounding source - i never heard any Democratic leader say actually say it. some whisperers think that maybe Hilary or Al Gore might think that, but they have no proof; its all hearsay.

It is heresay but it has been widely said in the press. Although we are in no position to say "oh well, I was talking to a top democrat yesterday and he, anonymously, told me this this and that" but the press are and have said the above. I still think it should go back. - Jord 17:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd support its inclusion, tweaked a bit. How about:

For the Democrats, the Bush re-election in 2004 provides broad freedom to choose a 2008 candidate and platform, unencumbered b a sitting president seeking re-election. In media reports before the 2004 election, some Democrats ["leading figures" is stronger than we can comfortably say] had anonymously argued there would be benefits [not their "desire," which sounds more Machivellian; this way, they're just spinning a possible Bush win in advance, which is reasonable in a close race] to a Bush re-election; because he is one of the most unpopular Republican presidents, among Democrats, in history, they suggested his second four-year term could lead to considerable party unity and fundraising success, laying the basis for a Democratic resurgence.

And a link to a news item (or even a news-referencing blog post) about these anonymous comments would be great, and I know I've read these too, but I can't readily find anything. Samaritan 21:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dean - Not a Candidate

Howard Dean is not a candidate for the 2008 elections. The purpose of being the chair of the DNC is to help the party in giving it direction and get people elected.

Yesterday, Dean was Elected the Chairman of the DNC. This preculdes him from running. He would never dare to run, because he would have let down his party, and few democrats would vote for him in the primary elections.

Therefore, I request that the Howard Dean entry be removed from the article.

StephenM

A agree. He did promise that he will not seek Presidency if elected DNC Chair. Now that he is DNC chair we should remove him from candidate list. --Boshtang 16:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You clearly have more faith in the promises of politicians than I do. — DLJessup 17:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I supposed that I do, since Howard Dean was one of the best and most trustworthy governors in the nation, and didn't break the promises he made to the people of Vermont. I, and my fellow democrats no longer consider Dean a viable candidate, not only for the promises that he has made. We also feel that he will follow the precedent set by the DNC Chairs of the past, not to abandon the party during an election cycle to pursue public office. -- StephenM

Though I doubt Dean would step down and run (as he would have no chance as doing so would kill his credibility) he is just a likely to run as a number of people on the list. So long as sites like this exist, I think he ought to be on the broader list. I removed him from the "active candidates" list when he won the DNC race for the reasons above. - Jord 20:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dean has been removed again, should he be restored? - Jord 02:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blogs

While doing Google searches, mostly I see blogs not set up by the candidates. It is just names taken, and when it gets closer to the election, rip off the respected candidates. I just wish to stress caution that we sould be careful about the links we put up, or go into detail what each site is about. Just a head's up, thats all. Zscout370 17:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

I noticed that Saturnight had changed the commentary on Hillary Clinton from:

She has previously stated she will not run for president, however she had intially stated she would never be a candidate for Senate.

to:

Senator Clinton has always said that she will not run, nevertheless, there are many rumors that she will.

My questions:

• Can anyone document that Hillary Clinton had denied that she would run for the Senate?
• Can anyone document that Hillary Clinton has denied that she would run for President?

Thanks, — DLJessup 21:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, I could if I really tried. At one point the sources were linked from the article. I'll try to sift through the history to find it. - Jord 22:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jord. That hint enabled me to find this link to a Yahoo! article indicating that Hillary Clinton has denied that she would run for President in 2008. Additionally, the Wikipedia entry on Hillary Clinton specifies that she initially denied that she would run for the Senate, but I still haven't found documentation to back that up. — DLJessup 23:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I changed it because it was irrelevant and rather POV. saturnight 20:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

You don't think that Senator Clinton's past behavior might be relevant in considering her future behavior? I think that the tone of the original sentence was poor, but, assuming that the assertions made are factual, this is perfectly relevant and not particularly pov. — DLJessup 22:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to reply to my own post, but something hit me just after I wrote the previous paragraph. Saturnight, even it turns out that Ms. Clinton did not make similar assertions about running for the Senate, you should probably get rid of that "always". Do you know that she didn't ever say to her husband that she might run for his job? How about that she might have told a friend at Wellesley over some beers that she would run for President someday? A better adjective might be "often" or "repeatedly". — DLJessup 22:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg

Bloomberg in likely candidate list? He is more suited in potential candidate list. --Boshtang 04:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed him. - Jord 21:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John Edwards

CNN has reported that Edward's run is not decided yet, depending on how his family is doing. For those who do not know, John's wife Elizabeth is undergoing chemotherapy to treat breast cancer. Zscout370 14:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes but I believe he is proceeding as if he is running in the interim and that she is expected to make a full recovery by summer. That is what I had heard last anyway. - Jord 15:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth Edwards is doing better and she will full recover during 2005 summer. She is almost finished with her chemotherapy treatment, and her doctors are extremely encouraged by how well it is going. If anyone check One America Committee will ensure that Edwards will run!--Sina 21:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)