Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2008/Archive 1

message: When did Michael Bloomberg come into this picture? Didn't the guy just switch parties to run for Mayor? His loyalty to the Republican Party is unproven, not to mention his liberal views. I doubt they would ever think of nominating him. --Jiang 23:21, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the list should be left out entirely. The article itself says such predictions would be useless. --Jiang 23:43, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article doesn't say useless, it says tentative, which is correct. --Mcarling 23:49, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Or rather, "difficult". --Jiang 23:52, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

message: Trying to speculate about who the Democratic candidate might be before we know whether or not the incumbent will be a Democrat is premature, at best.  On the Republican side, there is an overwhelming likelihood that McCain will be the nominee.  The current lists portray a wholly inaccurate picture by obscuring these facts.  I propose that the candidate lists be removed, at least until after the 2004 election.
:Yes, but it's a handy resource for do-it-yourself political commentators :-)  And it's fun to maintain. --zenohockey 01:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And the "overwhelming likelihood that McCain will be the nominee" would be awfully POV, too. He's anathema to many religious conservatives, and they tend to play hugely in Republican primaries. And many serious commentators would give edges to various other candidates, notably Giuliani or Jeb Bush. 64.229.35.161 02:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Another point about McCain -- he will be 72 years old in 2008. Reagan aside, that's pretty old for a presidential race. I doubt he'd really be up for it. (I tend to like McCain myself, but I think 2000 was his chance, sadly.) Acheron 20:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The candidate lists are too speculative 

message: "If George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, and sentiments across party lines looked favorably on a contest between him and Bill Clinton in 2008, a change to this term limit might find support."
Bush for 8 more years? Why not, fine by me.
:This would require a constitutional amendment, which could only pass with overwhelming public support.  The chances are remote. Mcarling 9:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  8 more years 

message: I'm not sure if he should go on the speculative candidates list, but given the talk that's been going around recently about a constitutional amendment to allow foreign-born candidates, it's entirely possible that he could be considered for 2008. TheProject 04:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schwarzenegger 

message: I don't think this should be in the article. Cause afterall- most Presidential candidates say the same thing before they run. With that logic- Guilani, Frist, and Owens have to be taken off the list too. All are widely considered to be the GOP frontrunners.
Of course no one knows who it will be this early. But Jeb may throw his hat in yet, you never know. Daddydog 06:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and done this. (172.186.42.31 19:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the section and I disagree with the removal of the list. It should be there. This is a list of potential candidates. Jeb Bush nor Dick Cheney is a potential candidate, for both have declared not to seek the presidency. Therefore, they should not be on the list. However, to make clear that they were not simply "forgotten", we need a list of candidates who declared *not* to run. That's what this list is for. I'll be bold and place it back. Gerritholl 13:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, in politics, simply declaring that you will not run does not necessarily mean you are not a potential candidate. - Nat Krause 13:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the list should be included for that very reason - potential candidates should be listed in this article, yet we should note that they've said that they're not running.  --Goobergunch 17:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. I've moved two other refused Republicans, plus the first two refused Dems (Obama and Hillary). Let's see if any of them change their minds over the next three and a bit year. (172.202.9.48 18:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Refused Candidates" 

message: I believe the "2008- if Kerry wins" scenario should be taken off right about now. Daddydog 06:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to reform the article 

message: Hi, I've moved the following section from the article, as it has nothing to do with 2008. john k 07:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section moved here 

message: I moved the last revision of this extant on our page before john k removed it again tonight to U.S. presidential election, under the heading "Presidential candidacies." I made slight changes: one typo fix, one wording change slightly downplaying Kerry and Edwards' surges leading up to the first primaries which I thought was overplayed, and obvious changes to the superstructure to fit it into the context of its new home. There's considerable promise there for there for a section of encyclopedic value and use, but it probably was misplaced in an article about the 2008 election. Samaritan 07:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved to [[U.S. presidential election]]

message: I feel uncomfortable pontificating on American politics, as I am a newcomer to the USA, having moved to this country from England just over a year ago.  But I was wondering about an omission form the possible Democratic candidates list.  My wife's home state of West Virginia was in the news briefly for electing a Democratic governor, Joe Manchin, despite the state going to Bush in the presidential race.  Manchin seems to fit the criteria for potential candidates outlined in the article, being governor of a state south of the Mason-Dixon line and east of Texas.  He also has proven ability to appeal to red-state voters.  I would have thought this would at least make him a possibility as a Dem candidate.  But as I know so little, I assume there's some reason that he wasn't included which I'm missing.  I'm just posting this to find out what that reason is.  I have no connection to the man or his campaign beyond the fact that my wife was born in WV - if he had been governor of any other state, I doubt I'd have even noticed him in the newspaper reports!
:Once again - my view is that people should only be listed if they have been mentioned as potential presidential candidates in the press, not because wikipedians think they would be plausible candidates. The latter strikes me as being essentially "original research," which we are not supposed to engage in. john k 18:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question from a newcomer 

message: Firstly, can anyone give any support for Pelosi and Reid being discussed as possible candidates for the nomination?  If it is unsourced, I see no basis for the argument that they should be on the list.  Secondly, considering that some of the most discussed candidates have at least quasi-refused to run, wouldn't it be appropriate to list them all together, and note any refusals in the description, rather than having a separate section? john k 18:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pelosi and Reid, "refused" candidates 

message: I trimmed this out the of the article:
:Each candidate listed carries both strengths and deficits; a candidate may be much younger than the typical presidential candidate, or older, or may have some weakness (or overweight) in senior-level political experience, national, foreign or domestic experience, or executive leadership experience. Some candidates may be seen as especially liberal for a presidential candidate, others as especially conservative. These are not lists of the most "mainstream" or "electable" candidates alone. As much as possible, potential candidates listed are among those who could mount reasonably high-profile campaigns for their party's nomination, or independent candidacies as applicable.
Essentially, these sentences don't make an argument. They convey no information that would be either essential or informative. --Jiang 01:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed fluff