Talk:2012 U.S. presidential election/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Ten minutes

Surely the last one was only ten minutes ago! ^gnostic 23:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what it feels like! But apparently it's been two years. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We almost made it halfway between the two! Tyrannis (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just curious as to who would be inflicted upon as as the world's most powerful (wo)man, should the Republicans win. Dalek (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh. No problem. TOW has had their's up since the last election. Conservapedia probably has one already. Tyrannis (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia's been up since June 2009. [1] I guess I could just see which Conservapedia thinks is the best option, and consider it the worst. Dalek (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point this should just be a forum discussion. Any objections to my moving it there, before I do? ħuman 02:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of that, since it'd let people throw everything out there... and we can beat it into an article by, say, 2011.Dalek (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a little to early now for this page to exist in the mainspace, now that I think about it. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 02:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. I see if simply moving it works to put it into the forum space. I suspect I'll have to add some header to it. ħuman 03:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't as easy as I'd like, but it worked. ħuman 03:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is beginning to look much more like a real article to me. Do we have one on the 2008 election to match the title to if we move it back into the mainspace? ħuman 21:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's at 2008 U.S. Presidential Election --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 21:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I moved it back. Hmmm, the "forum" header appears to have automagically disappeared. Weird. Should we add a section (or more) on the major issues yet? ħuman 22:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

State wide

I'm tabultaing which GOP guy wins in each statesmost recent polls. Will done soon. Where do you want it in the article? Tyrannis (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We might want to tag that section with when it was last updated? ħuman 00:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hillary

Is it worth adding Hillary Clinton as a possible Democratic candidate? There's vague rumors, but it's most right-wingers salivating at the thought of a sitting Democratic President having to fight for his own party's nomination. MDB (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

going by their 2008 battle, It'd be fun to watch. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not going to happen, unless things change drastically for the worse in a year and a half, or unless there's some serious shit going on behind the scenes we don't know about. DickTurpis (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely zero chance.--^talk 06:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

She'll besevenentyish I think. But she is an obvious choice. ħuman 06:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

She'll be 65 on election day, that wouldn't be unprecedented, although recently elected Presidents have been rather young. Still, I don't see her challenging a sitting President either, especially since she's part of his administration. By hanging on and maybe switching posts with Biden, she can put herself in an excellent position for 2016 no matter whether Obama wins or not, so that's a much safer bet. Röstigraben (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's right, I was "remembering" figuring out that she'd be 69 in 2016, when she might have a viable run. ħuman 21:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Newt

I's too bad this isn't a "Fun" page, because I'd add "is the Devil" to Gingrich's section.

But on the other paw, is that an advantage or a disadvantage? MDB (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Rick Perry

Why would he be running to be the leader of a country that he doesn't even want to be a part of? --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 19:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ages

Shouldn't we say how old they will be in Nov 2012? Current ages aren't very informative, and of course will change twice (at least) by then. Perhaps, say "born 1960, will be 52"? ħuman 21:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, we are using the "age" template. I added "will be" instances of it to a couple people. Anyone excited enough to pitch in on some of the others? Bueller? RA? ħuman 00:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary polls

"Currently gay activist Fred Karger is the only candidate running for the Republican nomination, ... Many of the candidates below are going to run once the election cycle actually starts (i.e., after the 2010 midterm elections, at the very soonest)." As a Brit who understandeth not this primary stuff, are Gingrich, Huckabee et al actually running or not? 02:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

They aren't "running" until they formally declare and register with the Federal Elections Commission, at which point they can form their committee and raise money, etc. ħuman 02:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So what are these Primary Polls about? How come there's voting for someone who isn't running and might not run? It's all very strange. 02:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not voting, it's polling. The pollsters are calling "likely Republican voters" and asking who they prefer and reporting the results. I do recall that in UK, "polls" refer to real voting. Here they mostly mean idiots interrupting work or play with silly questions on t' telephone. ħuman 02:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Aah, I get you! Thanx. 02:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

People who aren't running

Should they be put in a separate page, baleeted, left where they are, what? Тy^Talk. 20:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your solution is fine. Wikipedia also keeps sections about rumoured candidates who never got out of the gate, it's good for having an account of the whole field as it was perceived at one point. Röstigraben (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. Тy^Talk. 20:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Chthulu

So should we have joke candidates in or not? Chthulu is always funny, but Human reverted a joke I made about Jesus, who gets a fair number of write in votes every year. So should all non-human deity/figments of imagination go? ATP (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Going to be an awfully long article if we start adding Jesus or Stewie Griffin or whoever. Perhaps we could fork them onto a fun page if it gets unwieldy. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Updates

I don't understand all the dense wiki-fu used to make up these tables. Could someone who does maybe move Santorum to "Confirmed Running" and Huckabee to "Looked like they were going to, but declined"?--^talk 01:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me a cite for each please? But yeah I'll get on it. Тy^Talk. 01:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Huckabee won't run.

Santorum in first debate, which was only for declared candidates.--^talk 01:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Тy^Talk. 01:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That was fast! Wish I knew wikitables so well.--^talk 02:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't. I just notice patterns. Тy^Talk. 02:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mitch Daniels isn't running.--^talk 11:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to this page, but I think I did what you suggested? --Sid (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, perfect!--^talk 11:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Randall Terry

Randall Terry did not announce he would be challenging President Obama in thevDemocratic prmaries? nobs^{don't bother me} 03:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly notable, but anyways, can you give me a citation Rob? Тy^Talk. 03:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Would CNN be an acceptable source? [2] nobs^{don't bother me} 03:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes that works quite well. Тy^Talk. 03:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Write it better. ħuman 03:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll try. Тy^Talk. 03:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Not very polite! I will help though.--^talk 04:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of a joke: How many Ratwikians does it take to update a half sentence about the ongoings in the Democratic party that made news 5 months ago? nobs^{don't bother me} 04:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Four so far. - π 04:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for not hating on me friends. Yes, let us write it better. PS, I really do mean "thanks". It's been a couple days now since anyone told me to fuck off here, and it makes me feel so much more welcome than six months ago. I appreciate the effort. ħuman 04:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The new version id much better. Sorry if I used a heavy-handed method along the way. I appreciate everyone except the insane one's work on this. ħuman 04:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

non notable?

If Randall Terry is non-notable, why does he have his own Rationalwiki bio? Maybe it should deleted. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

He is non-notable as a candidate. He is hilarious and on-mission as an RW article. Do you understand the difference, Rob? PS, I am still 403'd at CP, and I even sent you my IP address. Still waiting... ħuman 04:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You have a RationalWiki bio and I can honesty tell you nobody but people on this website give a fuck about you, sorry it is harsh but true. - π 04:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I should be thanked. This page looked like crap til I fixed it. Then it took a committee of four to rubber-stamp the work I did. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions.--^talk 04:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever would we do without you, Rob? Röstigraben (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Romney's wealth

The Romney entry refers to his personal "billions". Most estimates I've seen have a maximum for his wealth as $250 million. MDB (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. He recently had to hand in some information about his personal wealth, IIRC it was somewhere in the 150 million range. Röstigraben (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Realistic

Too bad we can't have a more realistic ranking system - I mean, Gingrich is essentially done, for example. There are three tiers of candidates: real ones (Romney, Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman, Paul), peddlers just looking to amass influence and sell their endorsement (Gingrich, Santorum, Palin), and guys just there for a cause (everyone else).--^talk 07:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, as long as we avoid Andy's mistake and set up an objective standard for ranking candidates. We could reorder them into groups: a "top contenders" tier with, say, the three candidates who lead in nationwide polling, a "minor candidates" group, and one with "also-rans" containing everyone who's below 25% name recognition. That could be done rather easily, and updates wouldn't be an issue either, since the polling data is already there. Röstigraben (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it'd just be a judgment call - no way to do it objectively. Gingrich still polls like a "real" candidate and Santorum polls like a third-tier guy for a cause. I'm not saying I want to change the article, because I can't think of any fair way to do it (McCain polled very badly this early in the race in 2008). I was just noting that it's funny that we have people like Perry, Gingrich, and McCotter all in this same category.--^talk 08:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's no way to include intangibles without drifting into punditry, and that would be problematic because different editors would probably disagree about the ranking. But the numbers we've got would already be enough to cull all the long-shots like McCotter, Roemer and Karger from the main list. Most people don't even know they're running, and they lack the resources to change anything about that. Then we could just let the field of "serious" candidates sort itself out as they quit the race one by one. Röstigraben (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a weird thing that happens in the media in that regard. I mean, take Ron Paul, for example. Even though he has an amazing organization and absolutely devoted followers who contribute to his substantial fundraising (considering his profile) he is not considered a "serious" candidate - Fox News' coverage has strongly implied that there are only three major serious candidates right now (Perry, Romney, Bachmann). Why not include Ron Paul, since he just won a major straw poll and polls pretty well? Well, someone somewhere engaged in the punditry that says that he doesn't stand a chance in the real contest.

To some extent that's correct: polling also indicates that Paul has a sort of ceiling to his efforts, where he has difficulty penetrating past a very specific demographic. He's tried to expand this by emphasizing his social conservatism but he's unwilling to dampen his extremism on a lot of things so he suffers outside that very small sector. But even though he's never going to actually win, he might win a state or two and push his agenda forward (fuck Bachmann: Paul is the only tip of the spear around here). Which kind of makes him a cross between the first-rank and third, since in the end he's just going to be trying to slide the overton window towards the libertarian side.

I don't know... I think, on balance, that ranking wouldn't really work. It's way too early now, for one. Traditionally, polls at this stage are not predictive of actual victory - you can poll very badly this early and still win the primary - and even though they are predictive of continued candidacy (if you poll too badly no one may donate) that can be overcome by appealing to special interests or really dedicated campaigning. National polls are particularly worthless.

Maybe this is a project to undertake in a few months, when it's more sorted out. The second tier will be looking to peak and then sell their endorsement early on, and then the first and third tier are easily sorted with a polling ceiling. And once September passes or the like, the almost-rans like Palin will have decided they can't get any more glory by letting people beg them to run. What do you think, Rosti?--^talk 09:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that we rank all the candidates by their polling numbers; as you said, that would be way too early, since most eventual voters haven't even tuned in to the primaries. But there is a group of candidates - almost half of our "confirmed running" list, actually - who dont have any chance at all, no matter what happens. None of them are included in surveys or allowed to participate in debates. I'd say we put them into a special section and continue with a shortlist of viable candidates. Based on polling and debate participation, that would be Romney, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum and Huntsman. My guess is that some of them, especially Newt, won't even survive until the winter, naturally reducing the list. There may be some new entrants to replace them, although I don't expect any major further additions to the field. When the actual voting is about to kick off, we could start ordering the remaining candidates based on robust data like intensive polling and fundraising. Paul, by the way, would do very well according to these metrics and closely trail Bachmann for 3rd place. He's still a long shot, but I agree that the media are a little rash in downplaying his candidacy, which is very viable according to the fundamentals. Röstigraben (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good plan! Maybe "Viable" and "Long-shot?" Let's do this next month, when we will be able to safely rule out those who haven't declared and eliminate the "may run" category (filing deadlines for SC aren't until May, but even Perry is at this point rushing to make up lost time).--^talk 10:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Field is narrowing

Essentially the race is Perry vs. Romney at this point, with Bachmann's campaign manager quitting as her funding and polling evaporates. Palin is definitely not going to get in the race, and the other candidates either squandered their chance or never had one. The upcoming GOP debate will really cement this in place - if Perry doesn't screw up, then he's locked himself in as one of the men in a two-man race. If he does screw up, he might have left some light in the race for someone else, but even then it's iffy. At this point, he's sucking up all the extremist and Tea Party support. Interesting stuff!--^talk 10:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply to myself: Perry screwed up!--^talk 08:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Joke Candidates

I'm stopping myself from putting in Robot Nixon right now. Should we keep it as it is? Osaka Sun (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the joke in joke candidates is already running pretty dry. Let's not push it. DickTurpis (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean Richard Nixon's head? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What did you think? :P Osaka Sun (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"can use tag line "Obama, you're Fired"."

Hahahhaa. Laughed loudly and colleagues looked at me strangely as there is nothing amusing about the work I am doing. Ace^ace 22:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Frontrunner

I've stripped Romney's label as frontrunner. There's no clear frontrunner at this point between Gingrich or Romney. The latter has an advantage in his well-built campaign, but Gingrich is up by almost double digits in both early primary states, and with Cain's support dropping (he's considered dropping out) most of that is going to go to Gingrich. With only a month left, it looks like Gingrich will be the Not Romney.--^talk 08:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul

When can we move him to the "No fucking chance" section? He's won no states, the media is ignoring him and he hasn't even gone to some of the debates. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

He's banking on the brokered convention or something. Тy^rannis 18:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There's still time for him to run as an independent, right? Osaka Sun (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

He won't. His son's future would be badly damaged.

I don't think he should be moved. There's only four candidates, and Ron Paul is getting delegates and has come in the 40% or so range in some states. Newt has just as poor a chance as Paul, so if you move one you'd have to move both.--^talk 19:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)