Talk:2012 United States presidential election

Template:U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link

bold text for names

why rare the names in bold? or rather why do they need to be bold? they all have their pages, people all not stupid to think the title/state name is theirs.(Lihaas (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).

This has long been standard for election articles. I, for one, find it easier to identify the candidates' names when reading the list at a glance, especially amongst the other wikilinked terms alongside the names. Apparently, others find this to be true as well. Perhaps that's how the standard originated?--JayJasper (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I work on hordes of electiona rticles around the world and never seen this. I thinks its just us president elections. in which case consensus is easier to change.(Lihaas (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).

French presidential election, 2012. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

new source for Hunstman

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/04/the-manchurian-candidate.html

Colors for loss/gain in electoral college

I'm going to change the text colors in this section to match up with the Map. If there's a reason they should stay as maroon and green, someone tell me (readability for colorblind or something I haven't thought of).--→If you have questions, please leave a comment on my talk page (JakeBathman) 19:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about doing the same thing the other day, but I got distracted by something else and never did it. I agree that the text and map should have the same colors, whichever those are doesn't matter as much. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very proficient at .svg files so I can't change the map. But the colors have been updated. → talk page (JakeBathman) 19:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we create Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012?

I know he hasn't announced anything yet, but that doesn't mean there aren't developments. The campaign will be based out of Chicago.[1] Some administration and DNC staffers are transitioning to the campaign.[2][3] At the very least, let this section serve as a repository for future info that will go into the reelection campaign article. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Arguably, the WGN/ChicagoBreakingNews article qualifies as one rs that he's running. But we still need something explicit. The incumbent President is a special case to a point. Can we go so far as to say, "While President Obama's campaign has announced the opening of a headquarters in Chicago , there has been no official declaration that he is running." Thoughts? Uberhill 03:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

At the least, I'm adding those sources into the "prospective candidates" section. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

need to add states asking for birth certificate

Can someone add that for the first time ,state govt's are pushing bills to have the candidates show their credentials ,before their name comes on the ballot. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255489
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255965 I though it was interesting as it was for the first time this is happening.

Those are not reliable sources --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

arizona: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2544p.htm
Connecticut: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/S/2011SB-00391-R00-SB.htm
georgia: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display.aspx?Legislation=32030
indiana:http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/IN/IN0114.1.html
maine:http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billtexts/HP002701.asp
missouri:http://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills111/biltxt/intro/HB0283I.htm
montana:http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/HB0205.htm
nebraska: http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=11970
oklahoma:http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2011-12SB/SB91_int.rtf
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2011-12SB/SB540_int.rtf
texas:http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB00295I.htm
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB00529I.htm
122.162.111.139 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Any moron can introduce a bill; that in and of itself doesn't make it notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Bills are one thing. Laws are another. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

but 10 states!.Atleast this must be added that this is happening for the first time. 122.162.113.92 (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not relevant here. It might be relevant at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

how it is a conspiracy when the state govts are introducing bills.is the federal reserve transparency act hr 1207 a conspiracy? 122.162.111.139 (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

These are bills proposed by "birthers" specifically resulting from the birther conspiracy. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

you do realize each bill has 10-20 co sponsors.So according to you those who support ron paul audit the fed bill(319 co sponsors) are conspiracy theorists. 122.162.113.92 (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Believing there was a 47-year conspiracy to fake a birth location and wanting to audit the Federal Reserve are not equivalent. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It's simply not relevant to this article. This might belong in a discussion of how Presidents are elected generally, or election law. Even if 50 states passed it, we're talking about the 2012 election, not election rules for all time. Please, let's leave it out. Uberhill 18:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

Well its for all time.These bills state tat from now on all future elections the candidates have to show their credentials;not just for 2012 but all future elections. 122.162.110.12 (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

But they are bills, not laws. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of the "Current" template

Notice the documentation of Template:Current states "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence." Mike Pence announcing he won't run isn't enough to make this a current event. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to candidates occur almost daily.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That is true, but that fits under the "recent news" piece that keeps this from being a current event. The current template tends to be overused on wikipedia. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Why was the source I added to "external links" deleted?

Under "External Links" I added a sub-heading for "Unofficial Candidate Websites" (beneath "Official Candidate Websites," which was already there. Under "Unofficial Candidate Websites" I added a link to my blog (http://www.MikeHuckabeePresident2012.blogspot.com). I received a message that my addition violiated some rule and was removed. My question is, are blogs not important to the political process in a democratic society? I intended to start a new sub-heading for bloggers of any candidate or potential candidate to list themselves under.

Warm regards,

Scott Crider (MHP2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHP2012 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

See wp:ELNO item 11. DVdm (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are important to the political process in a democratic society but Wikipedia is not collection of external links. There are (or going to be) thousands of blogs about republican and democratic candidates. So we include just official campaign and well known external links. --Dezidor (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Party Mixup

It may be just me, but the parties for the candidates seem directly opposite. A republican candidate is a registered democrat, and another is a gay advocate. The one democrat is pro-life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.92.44 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

2012 is certainly going to be an interesting year for sure. A near (if not outright) majority of the prospective GOP candidates are either pro-choice or neutral on the abortion issue (Giuliani, Brown, Karger, Trump, Pataki, Bolton, Daniels, Huntsman) which is certainly a contrast to Terry. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I thought it was just stupid vandalism, because, wow, it's just so perfectly oppositie of normality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerBarJude (talk • contribs) 04:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

David Duke

David Duke's article currently includes a mention of a possible 2012 presidential campaign, with four references. Worth mentioning here, or should we wait until more sources materialize? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

From a quick glance, only one of those four is a reliable secondary source. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There's too many "prospective candidates"

It's become a laundry list of any Republican, because any pundit can throw out any name, and as long as any two of them do it, it makes it on this page. Bob Gates? Really? He'd have to resign before he'd be able to be taken seriously. Scott Brown is in for a difficult reelection campaign, a presidential campaign is unlikely. Most of those sources are idle chatter not based on anything concrete. I still think that "two sources in the past six month" standard needs to be revisited. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted the addition of Arnold Schwarzenegger. I think we can all agree you're not a prospective candidate if you're not eligible under the U.S. Constitution. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source articles cited a campaign to amend the Constitution so that he can run for President in 2012. It's clearly possible for Schwarzenegger to be elected President in 2012, but it would require a constitutional amendment before then. Under the current rules, Schwarzenegger should be listed, since there are at least two reputable sources mentioning him as a possible candidate. However, I'm beginning to agree with you that perhaps the standards for a potential 2012 candidate need to be restricted at this point. Perhaps we should make it "four sources within the last six months"? Or "two sources within the last three months"? We would need input from many of the people who work on this article and the Republican 2012 presidential primary candidates article to make such an alteration. What are other folks's opinions? --Darkclass (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right that they're reporting it, but it's ridiculous on their part to suggest it's possible. There is no feasible way a Constitutional amendment would be ratified in time for the 2012 election, let alone the campaign season. It just proves my point that we're giving way too much credence to people who are paid to think of things to write about.

Also, I just pulled Robert Gates off the page because I read the sources, and it's a website set up to draft Gates run by two 27 year old outsiders. That doesn't suggest any interest on Gates' part. The title of the New York Times article is "Gates for President? Not if He Can Help It". --Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As the agreed-upon rules for listing a candidate currently stand, candidates who are quite uninterested in the post can be listed as long as they don't completely rule it out with a Shermanesque statement, and as long as there are at least two reputable/recent sources mentioning their candidacy as a possibility. I agree with you that perhaps it's time to change those standards, though. What would be your thoughts on a new standard for listing? --Darkclass (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The article you cited for Gates really suggests he's not a prospective candidate:

"Gates for President? Not if He Can Help It"
A nascent campaign to draft Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates as a 2012 presidential candidate to run against his boss, Barack Obama, is being driven by two 27-year-old Texas A & M graduates who say they had “informal conversations” with Mr. Gates about their effort this past Saturday night.
Not that the talks (45 seconds each, by their estimation) were especially encouraging for them.
“He told us that he hoped we failed miserably,’’ said Charles Glover, who along with John Huffman is the co-founder of www.draftgates2012.com, a Web site that is attracting a trickle of media attention and what the founders say is “hundreds” of supporters who have signed up.
...
On Wednesday, the Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell, said that Mr. Gates, who has announced that he will step down in 2011, had absolutely no interest in the White House.
“Secretary Gates is both amused and flattered by the Web site, but he will retire from government for good later this year,’’ Mr. Morrell said in a statement. “He has never run for any political office and has no intention of ever doing so. He looks forward to following the 2012 presidential campaign from his home in the Pacific Northwest.”

That may not be from Gates himself, but now that I think of it that's pretty close to a Shermanesque statement right there.

As for new standards, I think at the least we have to consider if they are flatly denying interest, like Gates. Maybe it's time to shift to spokespersons saying they're "considering their options" and things like that. I just think that random articles throwing out a name don't cut it. And I just read those Scott Brown sources. It's a Boston Herald op-ed written for the hell of it and a Politico piece reporting on the op-ed for the hell of it. Nothing that suggests real intent or desire on the part of Brown. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see this discussion thread on the the Republican primaries page concerning this very topic.--JayJasper (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

FEC Filing Forms

This is a list of all 88 (at this time) candidates who have filed with the Federal Election Commission. These include some familiar favorites like Randall Terry, Jonathon Sharkey and Jimmy McMillan, but also a whole host of new characters including David G. Aragon (a Republican), and Warren Roderick President Ashe (a Democrat) and President Emperor Caesar (an independent). Stonemason89 (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That is just sad/hilarious. My favorites are the two Bushes (I just love the part about terrorists out to get them) and Rutherford Burt Hayes. Unfortunately this probably has no place in this article, although it's quite amusing. (Unless of course you can find one...) ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 03:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone placed it under "External links", which seems an appropriate place.--JayJasper (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

For greater understanding, here is an example of a work from one of the candidates. This may be of interest as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy Martin

Should Andy Martin be added to the list? See [4] 173.165.239.237 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure the citation you linked to meets WP:RS standards, and even if it does, one more (dated within the past 3 months) would be needed before he could be added.--JayJasper (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Constitution Party speculation

Here's a link with some speculation for Constitution Party nominees: [5] Tiller54 (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Who crapped all over the article's formatting?

Could someone that knows what they are doing please fix the formatting?