Jump to content

Talk:2012 United States presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.50.188.77 (talk) at 16:43, 14 August 2011 (→Tom Miller). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


2016 page

Too soon for a 2016 page? The media are already speculating on candidates - [1] [2] and pollsters are already polling on it - [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.42.74 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created three times before the 2008 election and deleted or redirected each time. The same would happen here. I personally think there should be, but unfortunately consensus seems to say otherwise. SOXROX (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a page. WP:CRYSTAL allows for future events to have pages, especially as we know the 2016 presidential election will be the first Tuesday of November 2016. With all the speculation of candidates on the 2012 page, there's not all that much difference between it and the 2016 page (aside from the declared candidates, of course). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per SOXROX, the consensus has spoken, repeatedly. It would be best to wait until after the 2012 election has taken place.--JayJasper (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there's enough sources, of course, we could always fight the consensus. This page was once locked until "January 1, 2012" before that was lifted. I have no idea if there's enough credible information on 2016 speculation, especially since it hinges so much on the 2012 outcome.--Tim Thomason 04:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Out of personal interest, I started listing individuals that have received speculation for the 2016 election at User:Southern Texas/2016.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That could be useful, Saturn. Are you going to add polls to it as well? Another poll here on Democratic primary candidates for 2016. Yes, it's early, but worth saving for the future all the same [4] Tiller54 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning to add polls, but I certainly see how that poll would be useful in the future so I will make a new section.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a 2016 page! --Smart (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical question

Suppose a future independent candidate on the level of a 1992 Ross Perot or a 1968 George Wallace emerges (nobody is on my radar). What is the minimum amount of info required to place them into the top infobox? Polling data around 30%? Multiple media sources treating them as a legitimate top-tiered candidate? Obviously, I wouldn't expect this to be possible until after the major-party nominees are clear.

Donald Trump would probably fall into that category should he decide to run as an independent (as he has hinted). 30% is a bit high actually. Personally, if he gets included in any of the major presidential debates (as Perot did), I'd be in favor of including him (or whomever else ends up emerging). Difluoroethene (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5% has been used as the threshold on previous election articles. If a candidate reaches above 5% in polling then they should be included, however, if they poll below 5% on election day then they should be removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5% seems a bit low. Perot and Wallace received 18.9 and 13.5% of the popular vote respectively. It's also significantly less than the percentage of "undecided" voters, typically around 10%. I'm therefor thinking 10% to be a better threshold. Rami R 07:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but 5% is used on all election articles, including congressional and gubernatorial races. Furthermore, a limit of 10% would exclude Perot's 1996 run when he received 8.4% as well as John B. Anderson's total of 6.6% in 1980. 5% is generally regarded as a milestone for third party candidacies and according to Walter Dean Burnham represents a successful third party candidacy in a presidential election.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I certainly am, thanks. I'm not convinced that Anderson's 1980 and Perot's 1996 runs were significant, having both received less than a quarter of the second place's votes. It should also be noted that Anderson and Perot were only added to the infoboxes about a year ago. However, if a reliable source states that 5% is the significant threshold, so be it. I would like a citation though. Rami R 20:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See page 4 of Three's a Crowd: The Dynamic of Third Parties, Ross Perot, and Republican Resurgence where it states: "most scholars follow Walter Dean Burnham, who defined 'successful' third parties as those that attract at least 5 percent of the vote. By the Burham standard, Ross Perot's electoral movement in 1992 and his Reform candidacy in 1996 were extraordinarily successful." --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of Anderson and Perot's influences on their campaigns, I definitely support the 5% threshold. SOXROX (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party National Meeting

Could someone please add the Green Party to the map of national conventions? Here is the press release: [5] -- WiiVolve (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The National Meeting is not the same as the Party's 2012 National Convention, the dates & location of which apparently have yet to be determined.--JayJasper (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 68.41.32.124, 7 August 2011

Ken Grammer is still running, so he should be put back on. Robert Burck, Roseanne Barr, Stewart Alexander, Jack Fellure, and James Hedges do not have there papers turned into the FEC, so they shouldn't be on here. Grammer should be put back on though.

68.41.32.124 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're Usenduro, right? Please don't use sockpuppetry to promote Grammer's campaign; that's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Also, this edit is both uncivil (calling other editors trolls) as well as an admission of an apparent conflict of interest in your part. Please read up on Wikipedia policy regarding these areas, and don't keep re-adding Grammer since consensus has already been established that he isn't notable enough to mention. Difluoroethene (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every time Grammer was added here yesterday it was with a redlink. To be listed as a candidate there needs to be a Wikipedia article about the person.Ratemonth (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per discussion. SOXROX (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page of the article he created, before it was speedily deleted, Usenduro revealed that he is in fact Ken Grammer.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEN GRAMMER

Ken Grammer should be under Independent candidates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.32.124 (talk) 07:34, August 9, 2011

You already brought this up in the section above. He is not notable enough for inclusion per Wikipedia community consensus. Give it a rest. —Diiscool (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Consensus will always say he doesn't belong until he has an article that passes AFD. Now go away please. SOXROX (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do some research. Your making wikipedia look like a joke. Ken Grammer and Joe Schriner are the only two independents running for President. I'm not going away. This dishonesty and bias you have for certain candidates is unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.32.124 (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google News search on "Ken Grammer" and "Kenneth Grammer" pulls up one (1) news article. That is not notability. Perhaps if Mr. Grammer gets himself an interview with the New York Times or the Washington Post this would be a different story. If he can't even abide by the community consensus on Wikipedia, how is he going to lead the United States of America? —Diiscool (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Mr. Grammer, you and Mr. Schriner are not the only Independent candidates for president that have filed with the FEC. Here is the complete list: Andre Barnett, Whence Brown, Savannah Bush, Tanner Bush, Scott Cain, Joseph Charles, Paul Chehade, Liza Cherricks, James Cooper, Jeff Davis, Kenneth Domagala, Verl Farnsworth, David Frey, Herman Goodman, Raedeen Heupel, John Hoelzel, Samuel Hoff, David Kilgore, Kristen Tollefsen, Robert Lee, Brad Lefler, Michael Levinson, Ed Maddox, James McCall, Ronald McCune, John Parmele, Samuel Powell, Rajesh Raghavan, Dan Rozelle, Stephen Shadden, Michael Stollaire.
As you can see, there are too many candidates to reasonably list on this page. Therefore, we only include candidates that reach wikipedia's threshold for notability. At the moment, you are no more notable (by wikipedia's definition) than any of these other candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'M NOT KEN GRAMMER! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR BRICK HEAD! I'M A 13 YEAR OLD THAT'S TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THAT YOU'RE WRONG! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.32.124 (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC) And you know what else is funny? You say candidates like Ken Grammer are not eligible to be on your bias page, yet you have candidates that aren't even running officially like Roseanne Barr, Robert Burck, Stewart Alexander, Jack Fellure, James Hedges, etc. You also have so many candidates that people don't even pay attention to - Jonathon Sharkey, Jimmy McMillan, Andy Martin, Randall Terry, ALL OF THE THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES - so this is just proof that this is all bias. Also, I can tell you've had problems with Grammer in the past, and that's a reason to act like he's not running for President? TRY TO KEEP IN MIND THAT I AM NOT KEN GRAMMER OR ANY OTHER CANDIDATE, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU WIKI MODERATORS HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. OH, YEAH. KEEP IN MIND THAT I'M 13 AND I HAVE TO TEACH YOU HOW TO MAKE A NON BIAS PAGE. Got a reply to this? I'll argue all day and night to get the right candidates on and the wrong candidates off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.32.124 (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to sign so you can all see me. --------------------------------[reply]

Want to be blocked? Because we'll gladly ask an admin to do it for disruptive editing. SOXROX (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, try to make a wikipedia article for him. To be included in this page, they need their own article. Thunderstone99 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That has already been tried and failed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Bryan Grammer. It seems very suspicious that the above user claims to be a 13 year old, yet Usenduro (who seems to be the same user) claimed to be Mr. Grammer.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'M NOT USENDURO! I'M NOT KEN GRAMMER! I'M JUST A 13 YEAR OLD BOY FROM ILLINOIS THAT IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE ELECTION!

Then you will understand each year, enormous quantities of minor, insignificant candidates run. Look them up on google, there are a bunch of people who just are not notable enough to gain the media attention satisfactory to letting them being sourced on wikipedia. Also, talking in all caps makes you less likely to be taken seriously. The policy is that only people notable enough to get their own wikipedia pages get to be in these articles, therefore, as Ken Grammer is not notable enough, he does not get to be in this article. Other candidates than just Ken Grammer have had their pages deleted and information removed from this article, so this is not some sort of crusade against Grammer, this is the policy for these pages. You could hold a vote on this talk page to try to change the policy to let these people be inculded, but unless the policy changes, Grammer, or any other candidates who don't have their own articles, will not be included on this article. Thunderstone99 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Thunderstone99 is right. We are sorry for your inconvenience. It would be great if you could go away now. Hermanator1 (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined to Run

I think it is rather pointless to have the full list of people who declined to run on this page. Not only does the huge list + their quotes take up a lot of space, since they declined their role in the election is set to being nonexistent short of endorsements/VP nominations. All three groups of people who declined are on the separate primary articles, and I suggest they be kept there. Perhaps even prospective candidates can be moved there to, considering that now the majority of candidates who are running in the primaries have declared, it is less important to keep tabs on the others. Thunderstone99 (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could link the declined section from the primaries articles to this article to take the old ones out. However, there should be a section for candidates who entered, then pulled out of the race. SOXROX (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not a scoreboard. For accuracy, every notable candidate that entered the race needs to be listed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I misunderstood. Yes, I agree that the decline list is not necessary for this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that having the "declined" list on this page is excessive, given that the lists are already on the respective corresponding candidates/primary articles. This is the system we've used for previous election-related articles, and it seems quite sufficient.--JayJasper (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since everyone seems to be in agreement to delete the section that has the declined candidates, I will do that. I suppose prospective could still be kept, as they may still enter the race, unlike the declined people. (should a declined person move up to prospective, they would be re-added under that) Thunderstone99 (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being the first person to tell me what I can do and not telling me I'm Grammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.32.124 (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are Grammer. Do not play these games with us. Hermanator1 (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you could be a part of the "game" as well. You just started this account today and headed right to this discussion. Just my gut, but I think you're a part of the game too. SOXROX (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page

I've found out something. There are candidates running who are not on here. Like the following: Andre Barnett Tom Miller Ken Grammer And more! Why aren't they on here? Also, I think that maybe we should make a separate section for candidates like Robert Burck, Roseanne Barr, Stewart Alexander, and Jack Fellure, who have not yet turned in their papers but claim to be running. What do you think? Hermanator1 (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sockpuppet of the IP.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that you have no other word to use but sockpuppet. Do you know any other words? 68.41.32.124 (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

perennial candidates do not belong

I deleted three people listed as candidates whose primary notability is "perennial candidate". This hardly includes the entire list of such people, and mixing these people up with the serious candidates makes the whole page look like a joke. People come to this page to see who are the serious candidates, and there are a lot of them; mixing in non-serious candidates is no help at all.

I also strongly suspect that Fred Karger should be deleted. Note also that Karger is the only candidate with no corresponding "campaign" page, which strongly indicates that he has no real support. His WP page is also notably thin. Benwing (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed. Please read the talk page archives.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep in mind that Karger, in a recent nationwide poll, actually finished ahead of Gingrich. Difluoroethene (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If perennial candidates are running, even though most of them are just jokes, they should be included, because they are running. If they have filed with the FEC and made an official announcement, they should be included. Also, Fred Karger should be included for the reasons above and he made it into the debate that is happening tonight. Hermanator1 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If every candidate that filed & announced were included on this page, there would be 188 candidates on the page as of the time of this posting. There would undoubtedly be well over 200 by the time of the election, the article would be massively WP:TOOLONG and its reader-friendliness would be greatly hindered. Wikipedia, by its own stated policies is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See plank #3 of WP:POLITICIAN, which states that merely being a candidate does not establish notability, thus we include only those who meet the general notability guideline.--JayJasper (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the list of FEC filers I posted in my above comments is listed in the "External links" section of this & other 2012 election-related articles, so all candidates who file are listed, though the vast majority are not listed in the text of the article as they do not meet the notability threshold.--JayJasper (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Karger's not in the debate but I agree he belongs. He has recieved soem coverage for his campaign and made a a big stink every time he didn't get into one of the debates. SOXROX (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I apologize. I misunderstood one of Karger's statements. I thought he was being included in the debate, but he's not. He should stay on the page though because he is not a perennial candidate. Hermanator1 (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sharkey

Sharkey announced to a radio show that he will withdraw from the race. When it happens, and as it happens with other candidates, I suggest we keep their images in the table, but unbold their names.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, which radio show was it? We could use the broadcast itself as a source (maybe not for this article, but in Sharkey's article) indicating that he plans to step down. Difluoroethene (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sharkey sent out an e-mail and called it the "The Big Chat Radio Show". Here's a excerpt from the e-mail:

"On Tuesday night during an interview on The Big Chat Radio Show, I announced that I would be filing with the Federal Election Commission my withdraw from the 2012 Presidential Campaign, because their is no way I want to be on the Titantic. I'm taking my row boat and going to Hollywood to do my movies.

AND as I also said on The Big Chat, in 2014, I will run as a Republican against Rick Scott for FL Governor."

--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 77.49.154.248, 12 August 2011

If you go to the article Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012, you will see that Rick Perry has neither formally declare candidacy nor even form an exploratory committee. He is simply speculated to run (same as Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, George Pataki, John R. Bolton and David Duke). Can you please remove him from the Republican Party candidates? Thanks! 77.49.154.248 (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the citations for Perry, they say that he will announce his presidential candidacy on Staurday. I don't know what others will think, but I think that obvious intent is a good reson to put him on the list. We did the same with Jon Huntsman Jr. SOXROX (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't the same. Huntsman formally declared candidacy on June 21.--77.49.154.248 (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I meant was Huntsman was added around June 18-19 because it had been leaked that he would announce at a rally on the 21st. The same is happening here with Perry. It's just a formality. SOXROX (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike this whole "I'm going to announce that I'm going to announce something!" charade these politicians do to get as much free press as they possibly can. I personally would not encourage that behavior (not that they would pay attention to us anyway) by not listing Perry as an announced candidate until he actually announces. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it may be formality dear SOXROX but Perry may die before sunday so he will be unliste "automaticaly". I am certain that we must unlist Perry and see IF he will really declare candidacy or it was a "game" to get free press as Muboshgu said.--77.49.154.248 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What to do after a candidate withdraws...

In the above section "Sharkey", I tried to begin a conversation on what to do once candidates withdraw. I anticipate that several will drop out after tomorrow's straw poll. Should we place the candidates in a separate section? (while noting that in the future all but one will be withdrawn) or should we simply unbold the name? (my preference). --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a "withdrawn" section - see the Democratic Party candidates section. Of course, that doesn't mean we have to keep it that way, but I think we should make a distinction between the withdrawn candidates and the exploratory candidates (although Roy Moore appears to be the only one remaining in that category), and just unbolding the names doesn't make that distinction. I lean towards keeping the separate section, but am open to other ideas that make it clear to the reader that the candidate has withdrawn his/her campaign.--JayJasper (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unbolding the names wouldn't be the right way to do it because Roy Moore is unbolded due to still ahving aan exploratory committee. Yes, we could remove him for that reason, but I think we should have a separate section with a date that each candidate wihdrew along with the reasoning. That's what Warren Mosler's status is on this page, so why not make that customary? Therefore I'm with JayJasper on this. SOXROX (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to list the date of withdrawal & the reasoning, since we don't post the date candidates declared candidacy on this page, like we do on the primaries/presidential candidates articles. On those articles, yes, include that info. But I think it would suffice to keep the "withdrawn" section as is, with just the name and title listed on this page since it is a broad overview of the election. The sub-articles are there to cover the more "specific" info on the candidates.--JayJasper (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Miller

Why is Tom Miller (R) not added to the list? Tom Miller 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart30 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons described ad nauseam on this talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur perennial candidates should not be added, but this is Mr. Miller's first run. He has a website (unlike the other minor candidates).

This is Wikipedia, we should not discriminate and determine who is and is not a serious candidate. --Smart (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability makes that determination. To quote User:JayJasper from above:

If every candidate that filed & announced were included on this page, there would be 188 candidates on the page as of the time of this posting. There would undoubtedly be well over 200 by the time of the election, the article would be massively WP:TOOLONG and its reader-friendliness would be greatly hindered. Wikipedia, by its own stated policies is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See plank #3 of WP:POLITICIAN, which states that merely being a candidate does not establish notability, thus we include only those who meet the general notability guideline.

I consider this matter closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been answered, I've already read JayJasper's post long before I wrote this article. --Smart (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Smart. Tom Miller should be on here because he's not a perennial candidate - he is for real. Hermanator1 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, so he's not notable. Instead of wasting your time here you should write an article for him (though it'd probably just get deleted because he's probably not notable in any way). Ratemonth (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, not having an article on Wikipedia does not necessarily mean one is not notable, only that notability has not presently been established on WP. The longstanding consensus has held that, given the vastly numerous list of candidates that emerge in every election cycle and the relative few that receive significant and persistent coverage in multiple reputable secondary media sources, it is necessary to limit inclusion to those whose notability has been established per WP standards, specifically those who have an article well-sourced enough to survive an Afd.--JayJasper (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone a while back, if I remember correctly, wrote an article on Thomas Miller but it failed to survive AFD. The same fate also befell Ole Savior and John Davis (Colorado politician), in addition to the aforementioned Ken Grammer.
Notable for one event means someone is written about within the article about the event, and the person's name can be redirected to that article. Perennial candidates are not notable for only one event, so they cannot be redirected to one particular article. imo they should have their own articles, even if those articles are perennial stubs. Ole Savior is covered by the reputable media including the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Which is more than some Pokemon, comic book, literary, TV and film characters can claim, yet they have their own articles. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pawlenty Withdraws

How should we list Pawlenty? The way I did it is only a proposal and I'm open to any different way to list him and other withdrawn candidates. SOXROX (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pawlenty did not withdraw yet. He is still in the race. It says on his website. Hermanator1 (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, he did drop out. Sorry about that. Hermanator1 (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the description (name and date) perfectly acceptable for now. Eventually there will be an article similar to Republican Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008 and the withdrawn candidates will likely be handled in that fashion. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official candidates, current and past

Please add this link

to External links. That's the official list and can also be used to adjudicate arguments over who is and is not a candidate. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=444824265"