Jump to content

Talk:2008 Democratic Party presidential candidates/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Mark Warner

You could keep Mark Warner under the "other" candidates. It's been rumored and he's been urged to run, and the Republican article mentions Cheney and Jeb there with statements refuting a presidential run.

Suggested merger with Republican page

Would it hurt to merge all of these articles into Potential candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election? --Revolución (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't. It's likely Republicans aren't looking for Democrat names and Democrats aren't looking for Republican names. They're better seperated.

Agreed. Keep them separate. Simon12 04:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. They are in the running for different things right now (the two parties' nominations) Still A Student 00:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

yeah I'd say keep them seperate

Joe Biden

Would you people please make up your mind as to if Joe Biden is an "announced" candidate or not? I don't think that he is - I think he has announced an intention to run, with is semantically different. However, I just wish people could settle on one way or another - every time I check, Joe Biden has been moved again.--Tonywiki 19:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Not only does it keep moving back and force, but the reference that the announcement was taken from seems to have been remove. But the text of the paragraph says Biden has "officially declared" and there was a reference link to back it up (though it was very vague reference from Rolling Stone). I thouhgt he had officially declared more than a year ago, I may have misunderstood. Does anyone have a definitive source? Alex 22:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem is that there is really no such thing as "officially declaring". The only thing official is either filing with the FEC, or officially entering a primary, none of which happens until 2007. To me, the key thing is that he is the first major candidate to say he is definitely running, and for that, he deserves to be in a separate category. I tried creating a new category, "Definitely running", which avoided the "Announced" debate, but even that got reverted. As far as I can tell, there are a number of editors who want Biden in some announced/declared/running category, and only one editor who disagrees. Seems like a consensus to keep Biden in as announced/declared/running. Simon12 00:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I had placed the link to a Rolling Stone article which said that it was his intention to run. User:12.217.121.245 has continually changed it saying that Biden has not yet announced that he is running, depsite the Rolling Stone article. User:12.217.121.245 also removed the link from the Biden section if you look at the history of the article. I've reinserted the link. --myselfalso 04:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that on the U.S. Presidential Election, 2008 page Biden is listed under "Candidates who have expressed serious interest", not Announced candidates. Same thing for Chris Dodd as well. Open poppyseed 21:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

I requested a citation for Jimmy Carter saying that he was considering a run for President in 2008. --myselfalso 03:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked and could only find a small blog comment on a Washington Post article that mentioned Carter. Oddly it was posted with in the hour the article was updated to include Carter. I found the inclusion of Carter in this article amusing to think about but could not find any evidence to support it. I am not going to delete it but would not be opposed to someone else deleting it. Dapoloplayer 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd vote for him. ;)--KrossTalk 02:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Is it absolutely necessary to have a photo of every candidate? From Clark on down the photos don't even correspond with the text, which I find v. annoying. Bayberrylane 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the photos, but could someone fix them so they line up with the text? I suppose creating a new section for each paragraph would do it, but there ought to be a more elegant way. Extra space below each paragraph would be no real problem. (also in Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election) Still A Student 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

How bout split this page into two sections: 1 for candidates that have announced they will run and 1 for candidates that people are speculating will run.

I disagree - leave it as one page, so that one can see the "broad view" of the 2008 Democratic race. And leave the pictures - they add to the page.--Tonywiki 19:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos should be there and *definitely* be rearranged. They don't line up with the text. All photos aligned to left and text next to them would be a nice look.

How about putting the candidates in tables so everything lines up? Schi 19:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the Jimmy Carter Reference

I deleted the Jimmy Carter reference as it was quite clearly bogus, and then was reprimanded by administrators for vandalism.

My mistake. There has been a lot of vandalism tonight, I must be getting an overly-itchy trigger finger. I saw that the Jimmy Carter section had a citation, so I figured it was legit. Turned out that it was citing a satire website. Once again, my apologies. WoodenTaco 05:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Gary Locke

I'm putting Gary Locke back in because I figure his chances of clenching the nomination are at least equal or greater than Boxer and Lewis, and it seems that he might be angling for a veep seat just like Chris Dodd or Joe Biden. --Folksong 01:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you include a picture as well? --myselfalso 02:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey I like Gary Locke and I know him but I don’t see him running for President. He might try for a VP slot but that is years to early to talk about. --8bitJake 21:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No offense to Gary Locke fans, but the odds of him running are slim and their's no real evidence that he will/could/would be pursing the nomination in 2008. Even if he could/does have good odds that if he ran he would/could clench the nominee for VP or Pres., if he doesn't run, it's worthless to really count on it. Hey, I'm not trying to rain on any Washingtonian's parade, or say that it's imposible that he'll run, but until there is some real cementing evidence that he's considering running, I don't think he belongs on this page. Locke's all right. But I'm reverting him from the article. Sorry. The above editor makes a good point though; we're years from 2008, and who knows what's going to happen? Editor19841 00:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the real reason I put him there is the quote "Given the mood of the country and the concerns that people have, I think it would be possible for an African American or an Asian American to run for president now (2004), and clearly in 2008." Since Gary Locke is Asian, shouldn't that be considered a veiled reference to a possible candidacy on his part? I'm not going tit-for-tat here, but how about Barbara Boxer and John Lewis? I haven't heard anything from those two about a possible candidacy.--Folksong 04:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that he did not run for re-election in 2004 is a major strike against a presidential run. Usually current governors run not former governors. Now WA Governor Gregoire in 08 that would be interesting but unlikely. Besides Scoop Jackson was the closest that a Washingtonian ever got to a nomination. The whole system is biased against the Pacific north West since presidential primary politics are totally east coast. --8bitJake 16:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Dukakis

Dukakis???!!! This cannot be for real surely?

  • I'd rather vote for him than this lady or this guy.--Folksong 18:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • So would I. I actually like the guy, but the idea of him running in 2008 is absurd. If he were nominated, the Democrats would be ridiculed and he would almost certainly lose almost every state. I find it hard to believe he is really talking about being a candidate. Still, I guess it shows he's prepared to stand up for what he believes in.
      • If he's serious about running, then I would expect to see him garner the most goodwill out of all of the candidates, particularly amongst the grassroots and younger voters, which could lead him to a strong showing. The way things are going, I really feel Mike stands a chance- I see his appeal similar to Carter after Nixon's presidency, and he is the only possible candidate I know that could offer a coherent and unique Democrat alternative to the Republican agenda in regards to defense and domestic issues. Also, Dukakis has the most experience out of all the candidates here. He knows what went wrong in his first campaign (after he came so close to winning) and would be best-prepared to go on the offensive and handle the negative campaigning.--Folksong 04:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I can agree with some of what you say, he would certainly offer a genuine alternative to the Republican agenda and is perceived to have integrity, but it seems he has been removed so evidently someone on here dosen't rate him as a serious candidate, which is unfair if he has actually spoken about running!

Vilsack

Vilsack should be moved into the top section. He's the only Democrat listed in the ABC Note Invisible Primary listings [1] who's not in the Potential Candidate section. I'd do it but I would mess the pictures up.

Agreed. Vilsack is a major likely candidate.

Gravel picture

Can we get a Gravel picture that's not 30 years old?Simon12 03:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How about this pic? Unless that was the one you tried to upload.

Robbins

I added Robbins, then realized it wasn't in alphabetical order. But then when I tried to correct it, I couldn't figure out the formatting. Sorry - can someone please fix that? Jessesamuel 19:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved this to Potential third party candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election as I can't find any indication he's run for the Dems. 172.202.0.208 01:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - didn't know it existed Jessesamuel 07:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I see someone has played with the photos again. How about we make an agreement about what the pictures should LOOK like on the page.

Now I know what I'm going to suggest will sound BIZZARE, but how about photos on the page for only the ones that have announced their intentions to run? Not only will it make the page look nicer, but it will shorten it. We really don't need a photo for every single democrat. It looks like a photo gallery for democratic politicians in our country, not a list of 2008 candidates. Really, Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh can stand to have their paragraphs without a photo for a few more months. SargeAbernathy 14:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the pictures are fine, but they were fine before the latest change - now they're messed up. I vote for rv to last May 3 revision, alternating left and right, and aligned with top of related text.Simon12 15:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
That is at least better than what they are now. SargeAbernathy 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
They're absolutely terrible right now. Someone with some formatting experience please change this. --Liface 04:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Howard Dean

He's popping in and out. If we are to take him at his word about DNC chair, he's not running. But he certainly falls under the category of "Other people mentioned as possible candidates", and other people who have declared that they are not running have been listed. (See Obama here and Condi for the GOP) I ask consensus to add him back. -Umdunno 03:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Dean was a top contender four years ago and is in a prominent position. If anything, his message is more likely to be successful in 2008 than it was in 2004. I doubt he'll run, but he certainly could. Tonywiki 19:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I posted this elsewhere. Dean can not run. He could never get the nomination, since he is not elegible to. The state parties would never allow him to even be an option. -Nick Catalano contrib talk 10:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Dean certainly could run - there is no legal reason he can't. If you think otherwise, please explain why you think he is not eligible. Politically, he won't, for many reasons, but that's a different issue. He is certainly eligible to run. Simon12 17:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Simon12 is right - Dean of course could be nominated for president. There is no legal reason that he cannot. Tonywiki 00:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Companion page up for deletion

Potential third party candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election has been listed as an Article for Deletion here. As the AfD is about a companion page, and the results could effect the viability of this page as well, you are encouraged to check out its AfD listing. --Tim4christ17 11:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The concensus of that article's AfD was keep. --Tim4christ17 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting of page

The formatting of this page (and its Republican counterpart) seem very odd. I'm proposing that the formatting of the page be changed. I was considering a table format like this:

Joe Biden

 File:Jrbiden.jpg
Joe Biden, born November 20 1942 in Pennsylvania, U.S. Senator from Delaware and 1988 Democratic primary candidate. Biden first hinted that he might run in a December 8, 2004 radio interview with host Don Imus, saying: "I'm going to proceed as if I'm going to run." Subsequent to dropping other suggestions over ensuing months, Biden officially declared his presidential candidacy on March 21, 2006. Biden's Federal Leadership PAC is "Unite Our States", which tracks Biden's public appearances and policy positions.[1][2][3]

Chistopher Dodd
Christopher Dodd, born May 27 1944 in Connecticut and US Senator from that state. Dodd was reported to be a likely contender for the Democratic Vice President slot on John Kerry's ticket in 2004. He is the first Senator from Connecticut to serve five consecutive terms. In May 2006, Dodd said he has "decided to do all the things that are necessary to prepare to seek the presidency in 2008", including hiring staff, raising money and traveling around the country in the next few months to enlist support.[4]

Mike Gravel

 File:MikeGravel.jpg
Mike Gravel, born May 13, 1930 in Springfield, Massachusetts. U.S. Senator from Alaska from 1969 to 1981 and an active candidate for Vice President in 1972. He was notable for advocating a guaranteed annual income, which he termed a "citizen's wage," of $5,000 per person, irrespective of whether the person worked. On April 13, 2006, Gravel announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. His policy announcements to date include support for direct democracy, FairTax and withdrawal from Iraq. His is considered a very longshot candidacy since former Sen. Gravel will be 78 years old at the time of the general election and will have been out of federal politics for almost three decades at the time of the election.

Because it would make the page more difficult to edit, I think that a template to make the table may work better and would be easier to use. Not sure yet. Any thoughts? Or suggestions? --MZMcBride 02:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We've argued this and argued this. See the "pictures" above. Current consensus was a grumbling vote for the system we're using over whatever we had before, but I say go ahead and change it if no one objects. It's looking worse and worse visually. -Umdunno 02:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's best the way it is now - easy to edit and space efficient. With the pictures staggered, it saves space on the page, making it easier to get an overview of the candidates. It further eliminates the blank space we'd have in the shorter entries when the picture takes up more vertical space than the text. --Tim4christ17 06:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the current system being used is absurd. This one would help the TOC box, and would also make it section editable for each candidate. The extra white space isn't really a concern. I think what is a concern is the sporadic bulleting. I think this method would create a much cleaner page and would make the page wholly more presentable. --MZMcBride 20:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The current way is jumbled and confusing. I am not a good editor, so I would recommend that somebody else change the page to fit the proposed "table" format. --Metstotop333 19:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, a table would be less confusing and better for organization. Schi 20:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.uniteourstates.com
  2. ^ http://www.joebiden.com
  3. ^ http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/nataffdaily/story/9518235/biden_in_gore_out?rnd=1143406767000&has-player=true
  4. ^ http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentarycarlson0528.artmay28,0,4676350.story?coll=hc-headlines-commentary

Evan Bayh

Status? I heard something on the CBS evening news the other night relating to the fact that he had announced his candidacy. Anyone hear the same thing, etc.? Editor19841 (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Steve Bouchard should be removed. Bouchard left the PAC in 2005 to pursue other interests.

Barbara Boxer

Barbara Boxer should not be included in the top section of candidates. I've been paying close attention to the 2008 candidate talk, and she is very rarely (if ever) touted as a likely candidate. At most, she should be down there with Bredesen and the others. I'd do it but I can't format it.

2008 primary articles

Are there articles on the 2008 primaries yet, like what states vote first, etc.? Should there be? — goethean ॐ 18:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

nevermind. — goethean ॐ 18:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Hey, I put everything in the article into tables. The way it was was simply too sloppy, and the table makes it nice, cut and clean. Nothing was rewritten in the article. Also, I left the tables separate so people could easily browse between who was announced, potential, possible, or have already dropped out. --myselfalso 05:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we add Nancy Pelosi?--Ctang 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re the paragraph on Hillary: Is it really appropriate to say "perhaps as part of an effort to shake perceptions of being overly liberal"? Essentially you're saying, "she takes this position, but we don't believe she really means it". Unless someone can provide evidence of an ulterior motive, we ought to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that if she says she supports the war it's because she really does support the war. Otherwise, it's just editorializing, which I think is inappropriate on Wikipedia. (Also, there's an extraneous slash in Carl Levin's paragraph.) Iglew 23:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Federal Election Commission and Gravel/Vilsack

Well, Gov. Vilsack has filed with the FEC for his chance at 2008. Since this is apparently needed for "official" status, then I'd like to direct people's attention to this secondary source that says Mike Gravel also filed with the FEC and is therefore an "official" candidate. Sadly, however, I've not found a copy of that form or an official annoucement by Gravel that he as done so: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0413-11.htm ... can anyone confirm this? SargeAbernathy 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Another site that says he has: http://www.newsfollowup.com/elections_gen.htm (scroll down) SargeAbernathy 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, found the FEC site: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00423202/

There are a lot of words which prop up a lot like Exploratory committee (which I believe is a legal requirement), Political action committee etc. Make sure these are wikilinked at least once as most non-American readers are unlikely to know what they are. Nil Einne 15:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Former" candidates?

I wonder if this section is really appropriate. I mean, how can they be "former" if they didn't even run in the first place? Such a section seems to really only be appropriate during the primary when candidates start conceding and dropping out. If we noted all the people who decided "not to run", the section would have to be huge in order to be fair, as I'm sure there are dozens who decided not to run, but who don't all happen to be prominent enough to thus far be mentioned. This also applies to this and this article. Any thoughts?-67.167.93.51 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Blagojevich, seriously?

okay, its one thing to fall on the wrong side of the law, its another to have your whole administration involved in an elaborate kickback scheme. He has no potential as a candidate, its a joke to even see him on this list--35.11.130.91 07:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore

I notice somebody put Gore in the "Potential candidates who decided against running". Please don't put any candidates in that list until they actually say they won't run. Gore has not gave a stright answer yet. So leave him in Potential candidates for now. Thanks!

Kingzjester 02:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Gore just ruled out running in 2008. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070209/pl_afp/uspoliticsvotegore_070209134618.

From that article:

Gore: He said: "I don't have plans to be a candidate again and though I haven't... completely ruled out any possibility of running at some point in the future I don't expect to and cannot perceive circumstances in which I would."

He's been saying that since last year. Nothing has change.

Dennis Kucinich

He said he is running see: http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2006/12/kucinich_will_r.html.AWatiker 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bayh

The only source for Bayh dropping out is one report from FOXNews, which says "FOXNews has learned...", and it doesn't say who the source is. That is not really a verifiable statement, and no other news source is reporting it as fact, only as a rumor. Can we wait for an something more official, or at least a second source before reporting it as a done deal? Simon12 04:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That didn't take long. The Indianapolis Star has the story, including a statement from Bayh[2]. He's outta here. Simon12 05:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

FEC

How do we know which candidates have filed with the FEC vs. just announcing? I don't see any references on the page that back up the distinction between the two groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWatiker (talk • contribs) 10:22, 28 December 2006

On a related note, CNN's story on Edwards' declaration [3] mentions only Kucinich and Vilsack as official candidates, not Biden, while implicitly including Edwards. Morgan Wick 01:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Biden

What category would Biden fall under? He is listed under exploratory committee in the main presidential article. Should we keep him under announced for this article, or keep it like the main article and list him as exploratory? J Klein my talk my contributions 21:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug Stanhope

Doug Stanhope is supposedly running as Libertarian. Why no mention?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Stanhope#Presidential_campaign —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.185.170.172 (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

This is an article only about democratic candidates. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_and_potential_2008_United_States_presidential_election_third_party_candidates AWatiker 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Tom Vilsack appearance

Is it notable that Tom Vilsack has appeared on the Daily Show to talk about running? Titanium Dragon 08:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore update

There's a Reuter's report out today that says Gore is definitely not running in 2008. However, the report does not actually quote Gore saying this, and there has been no confirmation in other media sources, which would be expected if Gore actually definitively said he wasn't running. Unless better confirmation comes along, I don't think Gore's status in this article should be changed yet. Simon12 03:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

His status should definitely not be changed. I think that report misquoted Gore and there is a large difference between Gore saying that he does not intend to be a candidate again, but cannot rule it out, and him vowing not to run in the 2008 election, which to my knowledge, he did not do.--Folksong 04:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
the Al gore portion of this article is confusing to me. he's listed under not running and potentially running. Skhatri2005 06:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

2nd Al Gore update

It is always reported that Gore "won't run" when he over seas. It happen in Japan three weeks ago and now Al Gore is in London and the same thing is happening again. I wouldn't trust these articles. Gore will make up his mind in the USA why would he do it abywhere else? Besides in the article today over in England that said Gore was not running said "Former US vice-president Al Gore reiterated here that he does not intend to run for president in 2008 -- though he did not entirely rule out doing so further in the future.

Nothing has changed. He has been saying that since this time last year. We should keep him until he gives a yes or no answer.

Btw, im rewording the note on this page. It makes it seem like Gore is dead set on not running. He has not indicated nothing yet. Oh yEs itS caRly 00:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


exploritory commities

I noticed that Obama was listed under undicided canidates. I saw on the republican list that they had a section for possible canidates whith exploritory comities and another for canidates without exploritory commites. Obama and i beliive some of the other canidates have exploritory commities although they are yet to announce that they will defenetly be running.

AfD this, please

I suspect nothing can change the enthusiasm of editors who work on this articles, but as for me, this article has no place in an encyclopedia. This is up-to-date news, mixed with an unhealthy dose of speculation by lay journalists. Kncyu38 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Per the discussion on the Republican page, I see no reason to delete this page. --myselfalso 02:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree. I'd just like to recommend to get the pages sprotected in time should IPs turn up and start to include weird or delete important stuff, as is already happening at the John Edwards article. You certainly know articles like these are prone to POV attacks for obvious reasons. I count on you to keep an eye out for potential trouble, that's all. Kncyu38 10:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep These sort of easy refference pages are why wikipedia can be superiour to paper encyclopedias. This article does a nice job of listing candidates and potential candidates, while giving some brief commentary on each. The commentary should be made more standardized however, so each candidate would have similar information in a similar format. Definately keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harley peters (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

John Kerry has removed himself

from all contention. I will accordingly move him down. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/24/kerry_to_bow_out_of_08_presidential_race/ -Umdunno 04:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, beaten to it. -Umdunno 04:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

"HR Clinton is ANNOUNCED candidate - it says so in the first line of the writeup!" says an anon user, putting Hillary in the "Announced candidates" section. Now, aside from his taking the writeup and maybe (I'm too lazy to actually look) summaries of Hillary's announcement too literally, I don't like this on principle, because the main reason that section even exists is to cover Joe Biden telling people he was going to run well before he filed anything, and now I fear it's opened a can of worms. I can understand separating out candidates who definitely plan to do something along the lines of running from candidates who have merely "expressed interest", but that brings up POV issues. Even disregarding that, because these days forming an exploratory committee seems to almost be the equivalent of declaring you are running for president, defeating the purpose they're supposed to be used for, shouldn't forming an exploratory committee trump "announced candidates" (which should be "definite future candidates")? Morgan Wick 17:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

has not completely ruled

Shouldn't Gore stay on the Potential candidates list until he has given a stright answer? Everyone else on the declined to run list has said no and didn't add nothing to the end of it like "I have not ruled it out" like Gore is doing. Plus has Gore said no? The article says that but not Gore. That's a big difference. Remember that Japan article that said Gore was not running and turned out not to be true. I think this is another one. Gore was quoted saying the same thing he always says. I say leave him on until he gives a stright answer. Oscar are a week or so away maybe he'll say there. But Gore has not said no and should not be added to the delined to run list until he completely rules it out. Plus no one else in the media is reporting right now that Gore is not running. Looks like the editors made a bad title choice.

Oh yEs itS caRly 04:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, The media still includes Gore in opinion polls (yet not Bayh, Warner, Feingold, etc.), so that means he has not told them a definate no. Will Gore run, probably not, but that probably yields doubt. Leave him up there in no Exp. Com. section. -Comedy240 20:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Kathleen Sebelius

I don't remember where I saw it, but I know for a fact that I read that Kathleen Sebelius has said that she will not be a candidate for president in 2008. Tonywiki 03:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if you give a citation, I'd be glad to move her to the "declined to run" category; until then she's going back into "potential canidates" She should be in here anyway, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinotn is the only other female canideate more speculated than her.

No offense but you can't just put her as a potential candidate because you like her. Find a source or stop POVing. - Comedy240 3:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I put her in is because she is speculated to run; there is good reason to have her in there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16240572/site/newsweek/ - Newsweek says VP choice of eventual candidate, not Prez run. Please stop adding a candidate that has little to no media or self-promotion of a Presidential run - Comedy240 3:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Exploratory comittees are equivalent to Presidential Campaign Committees

(Cross posted to: Talk:Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Republican candidates )

I think the distance distinguishing candidates with exploratory committees and those who have made the "formality" of announcing they are running for president is miniscule.

Here's an example from a candidate's press release, Mitt Romney, which was put out when the Romney for President Exploratory Committee, Inc. was established. In substance, the Federal Election Commission considers exploratory committees equal to presidential campaign committees, that the report and account is the same, and the "substance" of the difference is merely changing the name of the entity, if even that, when the candidate "announces" their candidacy. All funds of the exploratory committee are just as available as subsequently raised-post-announcement funds. In fact they are exactly the same, as far as the FEC is concerned. In other-words, this "exploratory committee" business is window-dressing on a committee that actually is a fully qualified federal presidential campaign comittee.

Here's the quote from the Romney press statement of January 3, 2007:

Q: What is the difference between this exploratory committee and formally announcing Governor Romney's candidacy?
A: This committee has been registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) allowing it to begin soliciting resources and organizing a federal campaign committee structure in anticipation of a formal announcement in the near future. Once an announcement is made, the word "exploratory" will be removed from the name. The committee formed today will use the money raised before and after a formal announcement.

Q: Can money raised by the exploratory committee be used by an eventual Romney for President Campaign Committee?
A: Yes. In fact, it's the same account. [1]

Isn't time to state that all candidates with exploratory committees are right now presidential candidates? -- Yellowdesk 04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Governor Mitt Romney Forms Presidential Exploratory Committee Press Release. Wednesday, Jan 03, 2007. Retrieved January 30, 2007.

Tommy Thompson

Why is Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson not on this page? He's formed an exploratory committee too.

Yes, but he has that pesky problem of being a Republican, which would make him stand out a bit on a page of Democrats. Simon12 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation formatting

Any objections to me slapping a bunch of {{cite web}}s and {{cite news}}s on these references? The result would look a lot like United States Senate elections, 2008. I know WP:CITE does not require the use of the templates, they're just the easiest (to me) way to achieve more complete citations, which it does require. -Tobogganoggin talk 06:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, since there has been no response, I've started. Having already found a few dead links, I'm sure to find more. Once I format what I can, I'll hunt for replacements and prune those out. -Tobogganoggin talk 03:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike Gravel Photo Update

I want this unprotected so the photo of Mike Gravel can be changed to MikeGravel.jpg , which is his current campaign photo and on his Wiki Bio .. instead of the boring one there now. Don't be afraid Hillarynistas! DavidYork71 02:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My protection request was only for a semi-protect, due to an hour-long vandalism battle with an unregistered user. Joe Biden's bio and pic were being replaced with Osama Bin Laden's. I have not bias here, it just isn't right. The moderators placed a full-protect in error. I have since requested it to be downgraded to a semi-protect, so un-registered users cannot modify the content. –m.f (t • c) 11:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I want to update his pic to MikeGravel.jpg, and add main article link to Mike Gravel presidential campaign, 2008 which now exists and is informative. Don just be fair to the Hillary-and-Obamanistas. Phaps you can do this for me now as i'm in Australia, i've waited long enough, and its now waaay pas my beddie-bye time. DavidYork71 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
We can wait until the semi-protect has been installed. However, I have just reviewed your discussion site, and it appears you have quite a history of content being either un-cited, or completely absurd. e.g. your attempt to create an article titled "Autosodomy". Seeing that has certainly made me hesitant to believe you want to positively contribute to this article. But, seeing as it is not up to me, we will simply wait and see what the admins decide. And as a side note, I don't see how my request for a lock was in any way related to Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, when it was Joe Biden's bio that was being vandalized and replaced with pictures of Osama Bin Laden. –m.f (t • c) 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Editprotected

I removed an {{editprotected}} from up top, a moment ago. Currently, this page isn't protected, so you should be able to edit on your own. If I'm mistaken, or if the page is protected before you get any edits in, please note that it'll be much easier to find whatever request is being made if the editprotected template is left right next to the request itself. Thanks! – Luna Santin (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this page should go back to being edit protected. I just went through and corrected vandalism that had substituted all mentions of "delegates" with "HIV Patients," "elections" with "erections," and "Democrats" with "Democraps." How juvenile... There might be more that I missed, but that kind of vandalism is just sophomoric. 160.39.181.59 (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

References (please keep these at the end)

Hillary Clinton is not a declared Candidate

Hillary Clinton is not a declared candidate. She has only formed an exploratory committee. I have moved her to this section to reflect this fact —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blahthequah (talk • contribs) 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

This doesn't make any since. According to the FEC Filings from Prospective 2008 Presidential Campaigns Clinton, Bill Richardson, and even Rudolph Giuliani have filed for exploratory committees as is common for candidates to do before primaries. Richardson is in the declared candidate category and so is Giuliani in the Republican candidate wikipedia entry. There is no need to separate Clinton like this. Also, the link citing Clinton's filing for an exploratory committee, [4], is broken.

--Rotorius.kool 02:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hillary D. R. Clinton - Officially Declared

Oh my God, you are all so infuriating! Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy on 1/20.07 - I swear, Hillary could be in the middle of the primary election, and you all would still have her as a "potential" candidate" because she simply announced her candidacy on exploratory committe day - I moved her and she shouldn't be moved back, because William Richardson is the ONLY one who is unannouced and without an exploratory committe.

Move page?

Does anyone else feel this page should be moved to 2008 Democratic presidential candidates? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Bill Richardson

Bill Richardson stated "I am running," when asked by Jon Stewart if he was running for President on last night's (3/28/07) airing of "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central. Rich 13:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes.I tried to add it but it got reverted.He's offcially running.Parralax 01:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone ought to mention that he's been nominated for the nobel peace prize 4 times. Not that I'm voting for him, but I think it's a significant achievement. 71.148.48.87 23:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to start resembling the following

Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2004

I'd also suggest once again moving the page.Hoponpop69 21:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Added to United States presidential election, 2008 table

I have added a link to this page from the United States presidential election, 2008 table JLMadrigal 12:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-Candidates

Why are there non-candidates here? There are several people on this page who never intended to run.

Democratic Debate video

Does anyone know where to watch or download the video of the democratic debate talked about here? http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/26/dems.debate.ap/index.html Thank you - --Dave1g 02:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Found it. Would this be a good external link? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ --Dave1g 14:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Other candidates?

The Republican candidate page has a list of "other candidates", people officially running for the Republican nomination who for some reason or another are not listed as part of the pack of candidates by mainstream coverage. Surely there are Democratic candidates in the same boat. So why is there no "other candidates" section? Inkan1969 21:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Added Dal LaMagna. --Allstar86 17:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sentence Fragments

I have concerns about the multiple sentence fragments located in the first sentence of many of the people. They say something to the effect of: 

John Doe, born January 1, 2000, in Washington, D.C., the Senator from Where-ever.

This to me, clearly is a sentence fragment, considering there is NO predicate (verb). Is there a particular reason for at least a linking verb not being there?!

Curran (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Clinton's Credentials

Clinton's credentials don't follow the style used for other candidates. Bullets (for others) are used to describe political offices.

Added thumbnail Chart summarizing Opinion Polling for the United States Presidential Election, 2008 - General Election - Two-Way Contest - Results of All Democratic and Republican Candidates

Chart summarizing Opinion Polling for the United States Presidential Election, 2008 - General Election - Two-Way Contest - Results of All Democratic and Republican Candidates (click to enlarge)

--Robapalooza 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential candidates who decided against running

Aren't a majority of Americans potential candidates who decided against running? How should we choose who to include in this list? 142.103.8.98 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There must obviously be notable "buzz" for someone to run or announce their run. Since most people are not notable and do not generate enough buzz, they should not be added. Buzz would be defined as the anticipation at I'd say at least a state-level. The buzz for a store owner in a random town in America created by some of the townspeople would not be as notable as, say, a state senator, representative, or large figure that may not necessarily be known for politics. It's hard to say how to include people in the list because then you have to factor in media bias and other things that may exaggerate or downplay a candidate (Ron Paul comes to mind as an example of this, as he all but ignored initially but now seems to be a bit better off). I'd say the best way to identify a potential candidate would be someone notable who has made an official position. The person need not be a politician. Goofyman 01:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think the entire section should be removed. From the context of the article, it can be assumed that if a person is high-profile enough, and hasn't explicitly stated they will not run for election, they would be in the "potential candidates who haven't declared" section. There's no need to say what won't happen. For example, if someone wants to know if John Kerry will be running for President, and they don't see his name on this page, then it can be safely assumed that he won't be. There's no need to add a section of "by the way, these people won't be running for President in 2008." -- 12.116.162.162 17:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 14:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion into 2008 Presidential Candidates

I'd like to move the table with the main Democratic candidates into a template and transclude it onto this page and 2008 Presidential Candidates. Please comment at Talk:2008_Presidential_Candidates#Transcluding_Democratic_and_Republican_candidates. Λυδαcιτγ 05:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Experience of Mrs. Clinton

These were offices and positions she held - they should be listed. The reason this is not listed for any other candidates is because the other candidates never held positions like this. The template is meant to show the experience of the candidates, and this shows hers the best. Also, her work as an attorney for congress during Watergate should be noted.

This isn't a place to stick a resume, it's a brief summary of the candidate. Academic decathlete (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Warner

Mark Warner has clearly said that he is not going to run. Why is he still in the potential category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.103.0 (talk) 19:56, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore

Isn't it time that Al Gore was moved to the "not running" category? I mean, how many times does someone have to say that they have no plans for running before they aren't considered "potential" anymore? If the same standard that is being applied to Al Gore was applied to everyone else, there would be tons of candidates on the "potential" list. I think it's time to move him. Thoughts, anyone?Wahhmaster 16:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone should put on that he never officially said no, and he can't run because of deadlines. 71.110.66.18 (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You forget that Wikipedia has a bias toward anything related to Al Gore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.132.45 (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think Al Gore is actually going to run? This isn't rhetorical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.208.169 (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam flag

I can't revert this page (such as Al Gore's 1505 birthday) due to the use of a reference that the spam filter doesn't like. --Aranae 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. --Tom (talk - email) 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Howard Dean

That is a HORRIBLE picture of Howard Dean. Can't we find one of him where he doesn't have that goofy cross-eyed look on his face? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.231.220 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

From Gravel's Webpage

We're Still in the Race! January 4th, 2008 by J. Skyler S. Mc...

Once again, the Mainstream Media has not gotten the facts straight.

MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann has incorrectly declared that Sen. Gravel has dropped out of the race following the January third caucus in Iowa. This is not true, and Sen. Gravel is still an active member in this race. We are requesting that MSNBC and Keith Olbermann retract their statement, and issue an apology to the campaign for promoting blatantly false misinformation.

Again, Sen. Gravel has not dissolved his campaign, and has no intentions of doing so

Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Eliminate "Declined To Seek Nomination"

I propose that we eliminate the section discussing Democrats who did not seek nomination, as this would include literally every Democrat (except 14 or so) in the country. Simply because the media speculated that they may run does not make them notable; this would be akin to writing an article about how the weather might have been had the meteorologists been correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academic decathlete (talk • contribs) 05:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Delegate Race" section makes no sense

I am struggling to make any sense at all of the "Delegate Race" section and am considering reverting it back to what was there before. First of all, how can the table show a few hundred pledge delegates when only 67 pledge delegates have been selected so far? And what does the "delegates needed" column represent--delegates needed for what? It clearly doesn't mean to win, but what else would you need delegates for? Please explain!--Margareta (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There are delegates chosen during the primaries/caucuses and also "superdelegates" who are party officials who have already endorsed a candidate. Is this what you're asking? As for "delegates needed," it comes from dividing the current number of delegates by 2025, which is the minimum number of delegates you'd need to win the convention (slightly over half of 4049). Sxp151 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to Move Gravel

Mike Gravel should be moved to the "other candidates" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.116.3 (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Kuncinich

kucinich has not dropped out as of thursday jan 24th. Can someone move him down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.217.141 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's official, Kuncinich has announced his withdrawl from the presidential race. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Professional Qualifications" chart

Although I agree with the editor who deleted this chart that this article should not specifically be for helping readers decide who to vote for, I think this chart does a good job of presenting a lot of objective personal info about the two top candidates. Honestly, Gravel probably should be included, but what's the point? johnpseudo 21:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


A Clinton support must have edited this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.197.42 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Ron Paul not featured?

Why is Ron Paul not featured on the 2008 Elections page?Jay38932006 (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You can find him here.--Nkrosse (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I feel quite foolish, I had followed a link to Presidential Candidates which did not say Democratic, and mistaken this for overall runnings. Fixed the link. Jay38932006 (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Standardization with Republican presidential candidates?

Just thinking that a standard format (with delegate numbers on top) would serve to unify the layout of the two major party pages ad generally make it a bit more useful to reaad, without scrolling practically all the way down on one page to see current delegate numbers and having numbers on the other page right there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.67.150.149 (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All official candidates for President, 2008

Having counted over 410 candidates, including 77 that media sources have reported also, the total number of official "announced candidates" for President so far in 2008 is currently over 340 in accords to the United States Federal Government official record; this as reported by Vote Smart and easily accessable on their webpage at http://www.votesmart.org/election_president_search.php?type=alpha. All the candidates should qualify for this page somewhere berween #2 & #3, so I amm simply adding this helpful link to the external links titled "All Candidates 2008(Project Vote Smart ) " ...ASAP Objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EPLU RIB USU NUM VERSE (talk • contribs) 00:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Very Well; its agreed! --S"1"(c) 01:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EPLU RIB USU NUM VERSE (talk • contribs) 01:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Half a delegate?

The Delegate Race section indicates that Clinton has 924.5 pledged delegate. How is it possible to have half of a delegate? Can someone check this? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some delegates to the convention get 1/2 vote. The pledged delegates from Democrats Abroad, Guam, American Samoa and Virgin Islands get 1/2 votes. The unpledged delegates from Democrats Abroad also get 1/2 votes. (This is to allow more delegates to attend the convention for delgations with few total votes). Simon12 (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hillary in East Germany

When did Hillary Rodham live in East Germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.116.3 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Keith Russell Judd

This guy is also running for the democratic nomination. He resides in Texas and will be on the ballot in Idaho (making him a nation candidate). He is also write-in on Kentucky, California, Indiana and Florida.

Source: "Texas prison inmate cons way onto Idaho primary ballot". Gannett Wisconsin Newspapers. The Associated Press. 2008-04-16. Retrieved 2008-04-17.

EvanCarroll (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

Should Bill Clinton not be mentionned in Hilary's summary? Obama's mentions Oprah, and the support of Bill Clinton seems a lot more relevant/important than Oprah's in my opinion. Or at least perhaps "former first lady of the United States to Bill Clinton" M.nelson (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

endorsed barak obama

can someone please post references to these people supposedly endorsing barak obama? I mean I love the after hillary, endorsed barak obama in the article.. I mean does it really count after they are the person is already chosen that you endorse them?.. I mean just about everyone will endorse at the end when its either that or the other party.. seems kinda disengenuos to me.. at least source it...looks to me like an obama fan boy went down the list and said.. well that one sounds good.. -71.232.179.236 (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Withdrawn" v. "unsuccessful"

Now that there is an actual nominee, it seems to me that the candidates who ran and lost should be referred to as "Unsuccessful" candidates, rather than "Withdrawn." Some of the candidates can easily be referred under both labels, such as Bill Richardson and Joe Biden, but it seems kind of silly to refer to Hillary Clinton as having "withdrawn." She lost. She was in it until the end, and she "withdrew" (actually, suspended her campaign) only after Obama had a majority of delegates. I propose that those candidates who actually ran in at least one state nominating contest be referred to as "Unsuccessful" candidates, while the one who announced he was running but withdrew before the Iowa caucuses (Tom Vilsack) would remain in a separate "Withdrawn" category. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This would be nice

If somebody could add in the number of popular votes each candidate received. I know there probably isn't a single correct answer to that as I don't believe all the caucuses release final vote totals (I could be wrong on that). I'm not sure how many votes they received other than I know Hillary Clinton said she received some "17,000,000" votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Tondowsky (talk • contribs) 06:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


Incorrect information has replaced correct information!!

The popular vote results have been changed and are incorrect. Hillary won the popular vote, but somebody has decided to change the results here on Wikipedia to make it look like Obama won the popular vote. added by Leveni 17:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates/Archive_1&oldid=1142396925"