Talk:2012 United States presidential election

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

Use of bold and italics to convey information

I'm unhappy with the use of phrases like "candidates in italics have dropped out" and "declared candidates are in bold" and would much rather have the attributes of candidates conveyed by words rather than a variation of font. It reduces the accessibility and readability of the article somewhat. Alex Sims (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understad why it makes the article harder to read, if that's what you're saying. SOXROX (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Accessibility#Text says: "By default, most screen readers do not indicate presentational text attributes (bold, italic, underline) or even semantic text attributes (emphasis, importance, text deletion), so struck-out text is read normally along with any other text."

I think it would clearer even for people who are not using screen readers to have separate lists for declared candidates, undeclared candidates and former candidates. Ground Zero | t 22:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

All but one will be withdrawn eventually.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a separate list for withdrawn candidates in the Republican section but not in the others? A little consistency would be helpful and certainly less confusing for readers. I think all sections should have a withdrawn list. Then, when all but one becomes withdrawn, we simply remove the "withdrawn" title and merge it with the candidates list.--NextUSprez (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Resource;

After Obama's Broken Promises, Will Green Voters Sit Out 2012? The Nation Editors September 14, 2011 ... This article appeared in the October 3, 2011 edition. Excerpt ...

“If he didn’t mean it, he shouldn’t have said it.” Referring to President Obama, environmental activist Bill McKibben was saying this a lot during the sit-ins he recently led outside the White House to urge Obama to block a climate-killing tar sands pipeline to run from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Two weeks of protest resulted in 1,253 arrests, making it the largest act of civil disobedience in the history of US environmentalism. It concluded September 3, one day after Obama made one of the most fateful—and shameful—decisions of his presidency: ordering the EPA to delay new regulations on ozone emissions because the rules pose undue “burdens” on corporate polluters. ... the independent panel of experts advising the EPA were unanimous in recommending the tougher regulations, which would reduce incidence of child asthma and avoid 12,000 deaths a year. Second, Obama’s order was possibly illegal. The Clean Air Act expressly forbids the government to consider the economic impacts of its regulations; public health is the sole criterion (a stipulation upheld in 2001 by the Supreme Court, with none other than archconservative Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion). EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, who has described the existing regulations as “not legally defensible,” has now been undercut by her boss, raising questions about whether she—the administration’s strongest environmental voice—will resign. Third, in making his announcement, Obama channeled the antigovernment mantra of the Chamber of Commerce, citing “the importance of reducing regulatory…uncertainty,” thus buttressing the discredited argument that regulation costs jobs. Fourth, Obama blatantly double-crossed environmentalists, who were suing the EPA over these regulations when Obama took office. His aides persuaded them to drop the suit because Obama’s EPA would soon strengthen the regulations. Overriding the EPA in this manner sets an ominous precedent for the tar sands decision, which Obama is scheduled to make by year’s end. Bear in mind, as the president likes to say, that both decisions are his alone; he can’t blame Congress for tying his hands. The EPA has twice lambasted reports by the State Department that absurdly claim that the Keystone XL pipeline—projected to transport the dirtiest fossil fuel on Earth across 1,700 miles of North America, including the crucial Ogallala aquifer — would have “no significant environmental impact.” Citing the EPA’s estimate that the tar sands in Alberta, if burned, would emit 82 percent more greenhouse gases than conventional fossil fuels, McKibben has called the pipeline “a fuse to the second-largest pool of carbon on the planet,” behind Saudi Arabia. The claim that the tar sands will reduce US dependence on petro-dictators is just as dubious. One of the refineries the pipeline will supply in Texas is half-owned by Saudi Arabia’s state oil company. ... If Obama approves the pipeline (XL), explains Courtney Hight, his Florida youth-vote director in 2008 who was arrested in the protest outside the White House, “it is just human nature that the resulting disappointment will sap the enthusiasm that drove us to work so hard last time.”

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're saying we should add it, I disagree. If this actualy becomes an issue in the election, which I doubt, maybe we can add it then. SOXROX (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Does the article mention Executive Order 13514? Environment September/October 2011's article Legislating Climate Change on a National Level has a nice simple summary of the the patchwork legislation in the US. 99.190.85.146 (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Executive Order 13514 likely to be a factor in the election? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Roseanne barr and Robert J. Burck

Does anyone know if Robert Burck has filed with the FEC?

Also, I looked into some stuff, and found out Roseanne Barr's FEC identification number is P20002804. Is this true? Does it come up on fec.org?

Hermanator1 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, what about Stewart Alexander? Has he filed with the FEC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.21.159 (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Green Party Convention

Does anyone know when the Green Party National Convention is going to be? If so, can it be put on the page? Hermanator1 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't find any info on that from an internet search or on the the GP website. Don't think that's been announced yet.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Communist Party USA National Convention

U.S. Communists plan 29th convention, call to action The Communist Party USA is making plans for its 29th National Convention to be held the weekend of May 21-23 at its national headquarters in New York City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.21.159 (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they've put a presidential candidate on the ballot in quite some time.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the CPUSA article, the last time the party ran a presidential candidate was 1984. Unless they are going to be running one this time around, the convention is not relevant to this article.--Rollins83 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Campaign Finance Updated June 28, 2011 99.119.131.17 (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource regarding global warming and resulting climate change

Where Did Global Warming Go? by Elisabeth Rosenthal published October 15, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.131.17 (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Climate change policy of the United States for starters. 99.190.82.204 (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Time (magazine) resource regarding Moderate and Purple states and independence

Middle Of The Road by Joe Klein Monday, Oct. 24, 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Pew Research Center for Excellence in Journalism via Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting resource

Anti-Obama Media Bias? Not Quite October 18, 2011 by Peter Hart ... new study from Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism that found Barack Obama has been subjected to far more "negative" coverage than any of the Republican presidential candidates. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama and/or the Presidency of Barack Obama? 99.19.47.214 (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It only states Obama there, and Republican candidates. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Status Quo Bias

Twice, the gallery for the Socialist Party candidates was removed on a claim that third party candidates should not be treated equally. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutrality#Impartial_tone. By treating other candidates as lesser and to be ignored and remain faceless makes for an impartial tone in the article endorsing the status quo, which would make this a partisan article. It is not giving any more to any candidate's viewpoint to have their picture, so there is not an issue of balance. Already, the listing of all third party candidates below in a separate section makes them seem less prominent.

Going beyond this is a means of supporting the status quo which is a clear violation of the Neutrality mandate. KV(Talk) 10:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If you truly believed that then why did you only add a gallery for the Socialist candidate and not the others?--William S. Saturn (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I only had the pictures for the SP. I'm not really sure if the others have pictures available or not; if so, it should be added for them too. KV(Talk) 16:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)