Talk:United States third party presidential candidates, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 29 July 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] As with all parties

It is really annoying. Every party says "As with all parties there is speculation, ect. ect." just sounds really bad when you are reading the entire article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.152.206 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Ventura

Should Jesse Ventura's mention of a run for President be mentioned?

"Dwight Schmuck: a physically disabled American with a new view and vision for our country. His website is: http://schmuckforpresident.com"

This shameful self promotion is in violation of Wikipeida's standards and very concept. I have removed the offending code.

[edit] Tom Brokaw?

Tom Brokaw is a member of the Green Party? Running for president? Is this true? Is there proof somewhere? --Blue387 07:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheehan and the "obscure law"

quote the article:

"...and an obscure California election law prevents her from challenging Senator Dianne Feinstein as a Green..."

Anyone have a cite for this? She's a resident of Berkeley, California routinely has Green Senatorial candidates ... what sort of law could stop her? --Jfruh 22:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

According to ballot-access news "Individuals such as Cindy Sheehan who might want to run in a minor party primary are disqualified because they have been major party members in the past period." (Note that there are many laws which keep candidates off American ballots, this is just one example) Anarchist42 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I edited the article to make this clear. --Jfruh 02:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

************It has been suggested that this article be merged with United States presidential election, 2008.**************


I don't think this should be merged with another article. Chadlupkes 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge it.


Don't Merge. SargeAbernathy 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. --Ted-m 15:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. Aardhart 05:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. There is a republican and democrat page, so there should be a third party page also. 84.68.47.49 17:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. This issue was already settled on the Republican and Democratic pages...no need to re-argue it here. --Tim4christ17 03:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Djdickmutt 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge --Alex 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Merge this. This is the kind of bias that keeps third parties down. How many of these people are bots for the two main parties, I wonder? this is part of the 2008 election. It is relevant to the 2008 election. It should be in the 2008 election article. Or make a seperate article for each political party. Let us get rid of this bias.

[edit] Deletion

This page is seriously inching close to deletion. Unless some guidelines to eradicate "crystalball-ness" (snort, laugh) ... is put into place then it's bye bye third party cadidates and I would agree for the reason. This page is SERIOUSLY speculative.

Therefore to eradicate this, I am going around the web searching for confirmed runs. If they aren't confirmed then they go down into a list of "speculations". If (later) I find no credible news source for their speculation then there is no reason to put them on this page. This isn't a page where any joe shmo can come in and put Kermit the Frog on the Prohibition party list. Let's try to get this page at least half way serious before deletion SargeAbernathy 16:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Done. For the time being I've deleted anyone that did not have a source. I don't care if you've heard it through the grapevine that so-so wants to run. Grapevines CAN'T be sourced.
Oh, and we can't source sites that are "who's running" sites. They get their sources from US, and so we need to make sure our sources are right too.
The best way to be sure that someone is running? Find their Joesmith2008.com site. If they are SERIOUS about running at this point they would have made one. If they are going to be running in the future then they will make one then and we can add them then.
If you are concerned about someone who you think is running but has no source ... then use this talk page. Enter the name and ask other wikipedians if they can find any source to the rumor you heard. If they can find it, and that person's campaign page, then it's fair.
As the campaign changes up to 2008, then this page will change. Some people on here now, may be taken off or moved to a "other people that ran in 2008 include..." section.
Anyone have any problem or consideration about any changes here ... then TALK. Wikipedia talk pages are called "discussion" for a reason ;) SargeAbernathy 16:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that there is a difference between speculation about someone running and someone saying he was considering running - I'm fixing it with reference to Jim Gilchrist, don't know about the others. Good changes, though.  :) --Tim4christ17 05:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. But I think there needs to be a distinction between the two. I changed the title to "Third party primary candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election" to sound more definite for wikipedia standards. If Mr. Gilchrist is "thinking" of running then that's a good source, but since he hasn't said "Yes I'm running. here's my campaign page", then it really isn't a sure thing. I won't change it just yet. But should he be listed as if he was running, or should we mention him in the "some people speculated" line until he is more decisive? SargeAbernathy 06:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
He has said that he will run if McCain enters the race - otherwise he is just considering running. But there needs to be a distinction, either way - b/c someone saying they're considering running is much more "sure" than people speculating about the topic. --Tim4christ17 06:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Another question - was this listed as an AfD? I see the notice, but no link to an AfD discussion. --Tim4christ17 05:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Potential_third_party_candidates_in_the_2008_United_States_presidential_election SargeAbernathy 06:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
One other note - this page was moved during an AfD, and without concensus (pulling it out-of-line with its companion articles for the Republican and Democratic parties). Therefore, it should be moved back until after the AfD, and until a concensus can be reached regarding the names of ALL THREE articles. --Tim4christ17 06:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed names

These people had no source. Find a source, win a prize. (Prize is that you get to put their name on the page)

Constitution

Constitution Party aims to thwart Hillary, GOP: "Howard Phillips and the Constitution Party he founded set in motion the plans to launch its own third party candidate for president. ... He affirmed that by next July, his party intends to nominate a presidential candidate, with possibilities for the ticket including Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist, former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes, Baptist pastor Chuck Baldwin, and author and WND columnist Jerome Corsi."
So there's Baldwin, along with three others, but no Clymer. bd2412 T 21:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Green

announced and is back on the page. - Bcharles 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Cynthia McKinney has been courted by Greens for many years. She has made remarks recently distancing herself from democratic party policies, but has not announced any intention to bolt from the party or to run for president. - Bcharles 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Natural Law (disbanded in 2003)

Independents

  • John Joseph Kennedy
  • Ralph Nader (I so expect him to go back up)
Nader has stated that he will run if the democrats nominate hillary, al or a dlc (right wing) candidate, which is the most likely senario. - Bcharles 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further Cleanup

Since the AfD nomination, User:SargeAbernathy has greatly cleaned up the article. I will be continuing to do so over the next few days (any help would be appreciated) so it matches its companion pages in content, format, and style. I will also be attempting to source the people currently listed, as well as those who are listed above. --Tim4christ17 22:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist Party USA

This was added under Socialist Party USA - I have removed it as it was unsourced. Feel free to re-add it to the article once it has a source. --Tim4christ17 04:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Mal Herbert of Vermont, who stood as VP candidate in 2004 has been mentioned at some party meetings as a potential candidate, as has Party Secretary, Greg Pason of New Jersey. Eric Chester, of Massachusettes, who served as VP candidate in 1996 has been approached by some party members as a possible candidate. A long shot candidate is Mark Damron of Ohio, the current President of the IWW Labor Union.

[edit] Candidate Photos

As we get closer to the election, more photos of the candidates will become available. Please add them as they become available, following the established format from the Republican and Democratic companion pages, which are located at Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election and Potential Republican candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. --Tim4christ17 talk 10:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philles

Only Philles has any FEC filings that you can search for on the FEC site. I've not found any evidence there of other third party candidates who want to run. [1] Of course I could just not be looking in the right place. SargeAbernathy 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that third party candidates don't register as quickly as major party candidates do. According to the FEC website, a candidate doesn't have to file until after they've received or spent $5,000 for their campaign. --Tim4christ17 talk 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I just searched the site for candidates for the Presidency for the 05-06 election cycle. It brought up many candidates... see this page. On the other hand, this page may not be much help, as Bill Clinton is listed here... --Tim4christ17 talk 20:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It appears that some candidates keep reporting to the FEC long after their campaigns are over. John Glenn apparently continues to report because he has outstanding campaign debts from his run for the Democratic nomination in 1984. --Metropolitan90 09:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't forget wikilinks for important concepts

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 15:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which parties to include?

Currently we have a candidate from the Independent Green Party of Virginia, which appears to be a single-state party. Should we really be including candidates from parties which not only don't have a theoretical chance of winning, but also (since they are from a single-state party) likely won't have a significant impact on the election as a whole? I'm leaving the entry for now, but it's something to think about for the future.... --Tim4christ17 talk 08:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That candidate used to be listed in the "Independents" section. Apparently an anonymous editor removed in October without anyone noticing or objecting (diff). There was a proposal in Template talk:USParty a while back to include only parties receiving at least 5,000 or 10,000 votes in the last Presidential election. I thought it seemed a reasonable idea. It might also be nice to have details here of the different parties' nominating procedures and restrict entries to candidates actually competing in primaries, caucuses or nominating conventions. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 20:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
See following discussion topic. Korky Day 10:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The USA looks undemocratic to the world. Wikipedia should step back and describe without the usual USA bias.

The 2-party system is like the ocean to the USAmerican fish. You don't even realize that system makes your country a non-democracy. An encyclopedia with an unbiased world view would not discriminate among parties or candidates. In the discussion article above someone absurdly suggests that Wikipedia institute its own requirements for the USA presidency! (A certain number of votes for the party in the previous election.) Then another Wikipedian chimes in that it's reasonable. So you don't believe in every USA citizen having the right to run who meets the constitutional requirements? Furthermore, this article itself is proof of discrimination. Two other parties get their own parallel articles, but "third parties" (sic)(an innumerate term) are all ghettoized into one article. I propose they all be in one article (or as a second choice, each party gets its own article). If you vote on this proposal, please give your reasons. Korky Day 10:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We have no requirements for the US presidency -- we simply have requirements for subjects of encyclopedia entries, namely that they be notable and that information about them be verified by reliable sources. Many people who have the right to run for President do not have the right to an article on Wikipedia.
The fact that the Democrats and Republicans have their own articles is not proof of discrimination; it simply reflects reality, as an encyclopedia is supposed to. There is just more interest and information about Democrats and Republican candidates, most of whom are notable in their own right and one of whom will almost certainly be the next President. As a supporter of a minor party, I may bemoan the fact that politics in America is dominated by the Republicans and Democrats, but Wikipedia is not the place to do anything about that.
I oppose the proposal to combine all three articles into one since I feel it would be unwieldy. The Democrat and Republican articles are already rather long, and likely to get much longer in the year before the primaries even begin. On the other hand, splitting up this page into many separate articles would also be inconvenient, especially since most of these minor parties (a better term than third, as you mention) have very little information on potential candidates. Information on all of them, for the foreseeable future, can more easily, elegantly, and efficiently be collected here. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, David Schaich, for your comments. Please consider the possibility that you're being unintentionally defeatist or even masochistic, like many USA non-duopolists. Why not help create a fair fix to the problem? Your only argument with any merit is that the article would be too long. Your other arguments are all in the category of self-fulfilling prophesies. Out of time. More later. Korky Day 19:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm back. You insinuate that an encyclopedia is not the place to do something about the unfair political system. Exactly the opposite is true. People who are tired of the unfair, corrupt, bought, undemocratic mainstream media will turn naturally to an encyclopedia to try to find a little sanity, a little objectivity. You seem to think that we have to copy all that bias which is in the mainstream media.
You write, "Democrats and Republican candidates, . . . one of whom will almost certainly be the next President." That is a prediction. Predictions are not the proper function of an encyclopedia. Nor are judgements of which candidates are "notable". I say all the candidates are notable because the readers want to know who the candidates are. Why not tell them in an unbiased way? Why do you have to say, in effect, "Here are the candidates who have a chance of winning--and over there are the hopeless candidates."? That's not a neutral point of view. That's being a fortune teller. Worse, you are being a tool of the duopoly by favouring their candidates over your own. I'm not saying you have to have an equal amount of information about each one. If we can get too little information about some candidates, then so be it.
I will concede that not everyone deserves encyclopedia coverage who blurts out in some bar at one in the morning that they have suddenly decided to run for president. No, they must have some credibility that they will actually register as a candidate (including write-in candidacies), campaign for the office, get on the ballot in one or more states or territories, and/or be nominated by a party, etc. However, it is not our job to censor candidates from the list based on how successful they are predicted to be. Nor is it our job to banish anyone to the hopeless list. The encyclopedia writer does not predict, though she may report others' predictions. Also, she may report on what the candidate has done or has not done SO FAR.
In conclusion, here is my best suggestion so far, taking into account your valid points: We have one article summarizing all the candidates, without bias or prediction. We have a maximum number of words for each candidate, maybe 2000 or 3000 words, or whatever you want. Then we have a separate article for each candidate who has additional information of interest to the public (more than the maximum number of words, plus any information not very relevant to the candidacy, such as details of Clint Eastwood's movies, if he were to run for president). Is that a good solution for your (and my) concerns? Sorry, my log-in expired while I was writing that. Korky Day 09:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, here it is, 6 months later--and no one's showing the slightest interest in making this article unbiased as I've asked for above. Then the USA deserves what it's going to get: more pseudo-democracy, while the rest of the world pushes way ahead of you. Korky Day 08:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a chance in hell. Not in the english wiki anyway.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should Susie Flynn be included

Should Susie be included? Probably not, but just wondering... 71.38.17.212 04:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. Even though she's a kid she's running for President...so yeah. --Revolución hablar ver 12:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, don't you have to be voting age to be elected? If I, a Canadian born and raised, declared candidacy, would you list me? -- Zanimum 14:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oddly enough, we have an actual test case from the last presidential election to compare this to. In 2004, the Socialist Workers Party nominated Roger Calero and Arrin Hawkins for president and vice president. Calero was not even a U.S. citizen (much less native-born as required by the Constitution), and Hawkins was under the Constitutional minimum age of 35 years old. However, they did manage to get listed on the ballot in 5 states; I would consider anyone who is listed on the general election ballot for president in at least one state to be sufficiently notable to warrant being listed in an article such as this. However, Susie Flynn isn't going to get listed on any general election ballots, because she's not a real candidate or even a real person. She's a fictional character. [2] Any coverage of her in Wikipedia should be under the assumption that she is a member of Category:Fictional politicians, not as an actual candidate. --Metropolitan90 06:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NSM

I removed them. Does anyone have objections to that? I did not think the party was notable ( I think it's disgusting, too). --Revolución hablar ver 08:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's disgusting, but it's notable. I have reinserted the info, with refs. Heather 15:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, any party that's taking the time to run, no matter how far from the mainstream, should be included. -- Zanimum 14:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] spam tag

I added the spam tag {{Cleanup-spam}} because anybody with $10 a month can buy a "MPS in 08" web URL and then link her/his site to wikipedia. Is there some way to weed out spammers and non-notable candidates? ( PS I understand this tag may be seen by some as overly agressive but that is not my intent. I just think some of these candidates may be non-notable and/or non-candidates and would like to invite the anti-spam gnomes to evaluate. 2008 will see a lot of people pretending to run who are not in any way shape or form actually running. Might as well discuss this now. MPS 20:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

At some point it would be good to require a reference to some sort of media coverage of each candidate. That should be a pretty low bar, though it's probably a bit early to phase it in at the moment. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It might also be a good idea to list only candidates (under the "Independents" heading) that can be verified as having filed with the FEC. --JayJasper 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
As part of the WP:WPSPAM project team the {{Cleanup-spam}} has brought this article to my attention. In my opinion the links to sites are bordeline spam/boderline notable. I belive that if a Candidate has his own Wikipedia Article then his campaign website will be linked to from there, if they don't have their own WP article there is no justification for including an External Link to their site. This article should just list the candidates with an image. If there is agreement on this I am happy to to this. -- Rehnn83 Talk 13:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I would go a step farther than a listing and an image. I think verification of a candidates's FEC filing status or of a significant draft effort on a potential candidates' behalf, along with at least one reference to media coverage (per David Schaich) would be sufficient for establishing notability. Good point about external links regarding candidates who have a WP article. --JayJasper 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] George Phillies entry

George Phillies never served as LNC chair, as is clear in the George Phillies page. 71.61.81.160 18:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

George Phillies Has never served as LNC chair but he was a candidate in 2002 for the position [3]. the reference to the 2002 LNC chair election had been included but was unfortunately edited out, I went ahead and restored it. Highground79 20:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed entries

Candidate: John's Secret Identity

Official campaign web site: http://johnssecretcampaign.blogspot.com/

As an independent write-in candidate I humbly submit my own campaign for inclusion in your list of 2008 candidates.

I am running a no-contribution volunteer-only campaign to hopefully remain under the FEC's radar. I am not asking anyone to change their vote from any other candidate to me, but rather to vote for me if they weren't planning to vote for anyone else. I'm hoping to make my mark on history by getting at least a few more people out to the polls that would have turned out otherwise, and maybe they'll participate in future elections. I'm not adding myself to the page. I'll leave that decision to yuo fine folks. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.70.88 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign sites

Links should be removed per United States presidential election, 2008#External links to political campaigns. -- Cat chi? 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul appears twice

Ron Paul appears twice, not sure hot to correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.109.240 (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite right -- he shouldn't even appear once, per this. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] I declare my candidacy

I posted my candidacy for the President of the United States on the presidential candidates of 2008 page and it was deleted. I am Walter H. Ring 3rd of Richmond, VA, an Independent White Racial Nationalist candidate for the office of President of the United States. I declared my candidacy on May 15, 2008, running as a write-in. On May 16, 2008, Owen B. Crump of Powhatan, VA, also an Independent White Racial Nationalist, declared his candidacy for the office of Vice President of the United States. He is running as a write-in candidate as well. I contacted the Richmond, VA office of the Secret Service to request protection as a presidential candidate. I also contacted the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the Richmond, VA daily newspaper to announce my candidacy, as well as post my candidacy on several White Nationalist forums. My candidacy and the candidacy of Owen Crump's are both legitimate. We will not accept any donations of any kind for running for office. We feel that people need to keep their money because giving it to us solves nothing. We are not going to campaign because we do not have the time, the money or the inclination to do this-we both have regular jobs and I financially support a family singlehandedly. Although we feel absolutely none of the candidates for president or vice-president are worth voting for, the most important thing about our candidacy for president and vice president is the fact we are running against and opposing the first serious possible nonwhite candidate for president. If a nonwhite becomes president, it is the absolute beginning of the end for America and the White race here. No nation, with the possible exception of Japan, has retained First World status with a nonwhite leader in power. Anyone wanting to debate my candidacy or this entry is welcome to do so-all I ask is that you do not vandalize this entry. Thank you.

Comment added by Walter H. Ring 3rd—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.136.179 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 18 May 2008

Hello, to get a sense of how Wikipedia works, please read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:COI. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)