Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries

Current candidates

Should we have a specific criteria to make the list of candidates? Currently we seem to allow anyone who says they are running onto the list. Such a rules would not have to become effective right away, maybe after the first debate. Would it make sense to limit this to something like:

Any candidate who: A) Files with the FEC, OR B) Says they are running AND A) Registers at 1% in any poll, OR B) Holds or has held high office or has held a significant non political position, OR C) Appears on the ballot in at least two states, OR D) Appears in a televised debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I vote yes also. Those are very reasonable terms. If we don't limit it, we're going to have a mess of an article with a bunch of irrelevant fourth and fifth tier names cluttering up the page. --Ai.kefu (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We already have a specific criteria: FEC filing or formal declaration; Wikipedia article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Should the criteria be amended?AWatiker (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I vote for the terms you proposed above.--Ai.kefu (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to try amending the requirements for current candidates. I'd suggest that to be listed a candidate must be currently traded at intrade.com. This is a great way to let the market decide who is and is not a serious candidate.174.111.245.63 (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Straw Poll

Fred Karger won the St. Anselm College Republicans straw poll in New Hampshire. As this potential source points out, his campaign is specifically targeting college students, a demographic among which he appears to be quite popular. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

George Pataki

Pataki needs to be added back to prospective candidates according to recent news sources. This article says he's "mulling a bid": http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52645.html This article does as well: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/private_politics_IPOeFNGEGClh7zpEhRoUnM?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Alabama flavor

A recent source mentioning Riley, Moore, And that crazy Dale Peterson guy as potential candidates: http://blog.al.com/archiblog/2011/03/roy_moore_dale_peterson_add_nu.html Peterson again: http://blog.al.com/live/2011/02/dale_peterson_internet_sensati.html Yet another source listing Riley as a potential candidate:

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/rick-santorum-launches-presidential-exploratory-bid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

88 Candidates

According to an article cited by this entry 88 candidates are running, not all of them are likely notable enough for inclusion. We really need a criteria to determine notability of these candidates.AWatiker (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If a candidate has a wikipedia page then they are included. Notability is ultimately decided by WP:AFD.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Rand Paul still considering bid?

Most sources such as this one have claimed that Rand Paul would make a 2012 bid if his father, Ron Paul, wasn't going to, but Ron Paul is listed as Formed an Exploratory Committee. It seems very unlikely that he will challenge his father for the nomination, so should he be moved to Denied Interest of Previously Reported? --User:Redstate1995 (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Probability is not a substitute for reliable sourcing.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that Ron Paul could still decide not to run, causing Rand Paul to run. If Ron Paul announces he is running then I think we can move Rand Paul down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad (talk • contribs) 14:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is too soon to move Rand Paul down. The article saying he filed for reelection also very clearly says he is considering the prez race, even the article that says Ron Paul formed a "testing the waters" ctte. says he won't make a final decision until May and that Rand may still run. Both Paul's are still "prespective candidates" at this point! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

These are the last two paragraphs of the Politico article cited as he source for Rand Paul:

Since arriving in Washington, Paul has not shied from media attention and has flirted with a presidential bid, saying that if his father decides to run for president in 2012, he won't. The elder Paul has launched a “testing the waters” account to begin raising money toward a presidential bid and has said he will make a final decision on whether to run in May.

But even after the younger Paul filed for reelection last month, he’s shown signs of looking toward the White House. Just as his reelection papers were filed, he visited with Republicans in the key primary state of South Carolina and, two weeks ago, he met with top Iowa Republicans.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53404.html#ixzz1KAtnacgd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Pataki is not running

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53508.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.198.99 (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul has NOT formed a formal exploratory committee. Fred Karger has NOT announced, he ONLY has an exploratory committee.

Source for statement one: Paul's political aide Jesse Benton confirmed Thursday that a so-called "testing the waters" account has been created for the potential candidate. The organization is not a full exploratory committee, but money from the account could be transferred into a campaign war chest should Paul officially choose to enter the fray.

from the Hill http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/156039-ron-paul-forms-testing-the-waters-account

The source for statement two is the actual link linked in this article, read it. It says he was the "second candidate" but they're using a liberal definition for candidate, it makes clear he has only created an exploratory committee.

The article does not state that Paul formed an exploratory committee, but rather specifically says he "announced the formation of a 'Testing-the-waters' account." Note in the heading for that section, it says that those listed have formed an exploratory committee or other similarly purposed organization, which is what a "testing the waters" account is (the same applies to Newt Gingrich).

As for Karger, you're obviously looking at the first three citations which confirm that he formed an exploratory committee in 2010. The last two citations - [1], [2] - confirm that he made his candidacy official in March of 2011. (Here's a few other sources - [3], [4] - as well as his FEC filing report that confirm it as well).--JayJasper (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Every candidate listed in that section has a formal exploratory committee except one, Ron Paul. He should not be included with the others. Wikipedia should recognize some new informal stage just for the sake of Ron Paul fanboys who want him to be more prominent.

New Gingrich most certain has a formal exploratory committee, that's why he's website is called Newt Explore 2012.

As to Karger, those articles you provided say he announced his candidacy but they are in fact from the exact same day that he formed his exploratory committee. Obviously the articles are referring to that event, not the event of a formal declaration of candidacy (which hasn't happened). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.74.188 (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Come again? The same day he formed exploratory committee? The links Jayjasper provided are from March 2011. Karger formed the committe several months before that, as the first sentence clearly says he did so in August 2010. The second sentence goes on to say he then filed papers and officially declared his candidacy on March 23, 2011. You mention "an actual link in the article" which "makes clear he has only created an exploratory committee". The only one that says that is this one: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/fred-karger-the-gay-rights-bogeyman-of-the-gop-presidential-race/61279/ and it is dated August 11, 2010, about 7 months prior to the official announcement in March 2011, and it is linked as a source for the first sentence which says he started the committee in August. You can also go through the edit history and see earlier versions of the article and see for yourself that Karger was listed as far back as mid-August of last year (with sources) as having formed an exploratory committee, before being moved to the Declared list in March when he made the candidacy official. He is indeed a declared candidate.

Also, Newt Gingrich does NOT yet have a formal exploratory committee. See http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpps/news/gingrich-admits-confusion-over-2012-dpgonc-20110307-gc_12210573# (2nd and 4th-to-last paragraph), http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53476.html (3rd paragraph), and http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/03/gingrich-dips-toe-in-2012-waterswith-a-website/ (2nd paragraph). That's why it says in the "2012 presidential candidacy" of the Newt Gingrich article "Gingrich officially announced that he had created a website entitled "Newt Exploratory 2012" in lieu of a formal exploratory committee for exploration of a potential presidential run".--216.12.35.52 (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a more articulate response than the one I previously made. I've pruned the wording of Karger's entry to make it more concise. It was rather verbose, and maybe a little confusing, in previous form.--JayJasper (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We use this to determine who actually has opened an exploratory committee. Yes, Karger is listed, but Gingrich and Paul are not; however, they are listed on this wikipedia page because both made announcements that they were moving toward seeking the presidency.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

New Format

The new format looks nice, but I think it is too big, the old size was better. I think the cells should be shrunk back down. Also, I think the phrase "Candidates believed possible" isn't the right one to use. I'd change it to "Candidates Speculated About" Thunderstone99 (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thunderstone99, thanks for the feedback. I went ahead and restored the 100px sizing, from the 140px I'd blown the pix up to. For the "Current Spec" table, How does "Speculated to run" sound for its heading?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds better. Thunderstone99 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thad McCotter

Should he even be included in the Prospective Candidates Section. I mean, both sources Here and here don't give an indication that he is looking at running, just either that he should be President or when he was listed as a Dark Horse Candidate, (Along with other Politicians who've already dismissed running). Neither article gives an indication that he wants to run. Can't we move him to Previously Speculated, since he hasn't shown an interest in running? --User:Redstate1995 (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This source states that he has not announced reelection plans for his house seat yet, and describes him as coy and not dismissing the idea of a prez run: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/05/riding_fox_news_bump_livonias.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That source has been added to his listing on the page.--I.C. Rivers (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A more up to date mccotter mention:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/may/9/picket-mccotter-president/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for that link. I used to update him in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NextUSprez (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry

I know he has said he is not running, but what is the threshold for ignoring that, considering he seems to be getting buzz again. real clear politics, cnn, and political wire all have mentions of him in the past week as a possible candidate:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/18/perrys_actions_suggest_a_serious_look_at_2012.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/17/rick_perry_presidential_push_quietly_gains_steam_109894-2.html http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/05/17/perry_quietly_feels_out_presidential_bid.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/17/perry-performance-fuels-talk-of-2012-draft/ http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/17/new-2012-buzz-rick-perry-thinking-of-jumping-in/ http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/gov-rick-perry-for-president/

Not sure what the "threshold for ignoring" is, I don't know if there was ever a discussion of such, but I think that once a potential candidate makes a shermanesque statement and is moved to "declined" section, they should stay there unless the candidate himself indicates a willingness to re-consider the decision not to run. So unless Perry himself says or strongly hints that he might re-think the possibility of a making a presidential bid in 2012, I think he should remain where he is. That's my thought. Other thoughts or ideas, anyone?--Rollins83 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking similarly, but I also understand the argument that with the generally uninspiring Republican field, people who earlier said no or haven't been talked about might emerge. I'd keep an eye on it and wait for something more direct (as in, from the candidate or candidate's surrogates). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/ Rollins & Muboshgu. I don't recall there being a discussion about "when do we move someone from declined to prospective", but several months ago, we discussed when to move a candidate from prospective to declined. The consensus we reached was that we would use the mid-term elections as a benchmark: prior to mid-term, when someone dubbed by the media as a potenital candidate denied any interest or intention of running - but speculation continued - we would err on the side of the speculation and keep them listed as a prospect. Following the mid-terms, we would err on the side on the (so-called) candidate's own words if they then flatly denied intentions of running, and list them as declined. To be consistent with the present standard, it would be best to keep those listed as declined in that section until they themselves (either directly or via a spokesperson) give an indication that they are reconsidering their earlier decision to stay out of the race.--JayJasper (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well put. I agree with Jay.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Good call, as Perry camp's most recent on-record Shermanism is here!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Congressman Peter King Considering Bid

Please add Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to list of potential candidates.

www.theatlanticwire.com%2Fpolitics%2F2011%2F05%2Fpeter-king-doesnt-rule-out-presidential-run%2F37873%2F&ei=vRDUTaLQK8Th0QGJvtXjCw&usg=AFQjCNG7uoRyZ5RvBiLMda740xJSON_vpA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jro660 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Bolton

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55153.html

Going to NH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.114.254 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Olympia Snowe

Olympia Snowe is also said to be one of the possible candidates for the Republican party. She is the senior United States Senator from Maine and a member of the Republican Party. Snowe has become widely known for her ability to influence the outcome of close votes, including whether to end filibusters. Senator Olympia Snowe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Said by who?Ratemonth (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)