Template talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 3

message: I like the "Active draft movements" heading on the template, and think it's a good way to qualify "potential" candidates (assuming there is credible sourcing for the draft movements). But what about someone like Sam Nunn, who by his own public statements is a potential independent candidate for President. I'm not aware of a "draft Nunn" movement at the present time, but I definitely think he should he should be listed here (as he was previously). The question is, under what heading should he, and other self-declared "potential" candidates (those who meet the notability criteria, of course) be listed?--JayJasper 18:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a "Self-declared potential candidates" section could be a good title to put below "Independent draft movement". I'll do it and see what happens. If you can think of others who can be classified under this please add them.--Southern Texas 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a winner to me. Thanks!--JayJasper 21:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sam Nunn 

message: Shouldn't Evan Bayh be listed under Withdrawn Candidates? CoolKid1993 20:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No because Bayh was never a declared candidate.--Southern Texas 22:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is listed on the Democratic candidates page under the "Declined to seek nomination" header rather than "Withdrew from race". He filed papers for an exploratory committee, but never officially declared his candidacy. So I agree that he should not be listed on this template.--JayJasper 14:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, that is what I had originally thought. CoolKid1993 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The question has already been answered, Yellowdesk. CoolKid1993 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an old discussion and we have since changed our consensus on the matter. The exploratory committee of Bayh was filed with the FEC and an exploratory committee equals a candidacy. This is the new consensus.--STX 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Evan Bayh]]

message: After being a candidate for only three days, how is Alan Keyes a main candidate as of this moment? I've fought back and forth with another user, placing Keyes in the Other Candidates category, but it continues to be reverted. Until Keyes is noted as a notable candidate, by at least being included in polls, then I think that he should remain in the Other Candidates category. CoolKid1993 03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is listed with the main candidates on the  Republican candidates template, and clearly meets the WP notability criteria. That's why I moved him to the listing of main candidates on this template. However, your reasoning has merit, and I have no desire to engage in an edit war. So I agree to wait until Keyes is included in the polls and/or the official debates before moving him to the notable candidates section .--JayJasper 15:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad that you agree, JayJasper. I'm sure Mr. Keyes will fit the criteria of being a main candidate in the near future, if he is included in debates and polls and is recognized as a candidate, not just a former ambassador. CoolKid1993 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Keyes may not have any chance, but neither does Duncan Hunter, and he's listed as a main candidate. He is a seasoned politician, not just some Joe Schmo who decided to run. I think he belongs in the main section. --Mr Beale 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't saying that he doesn't stand a chance, in due time, he should be moved into the main candidates. Unless multiple users disagree. CoolKid1993 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keyes is well on the road to Harold Stassen territory.  Unless he gets included in the debates, I'd leave him out of the main candidates list.  Wasted Time R 21:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Right now, Keyes is in John Cox territory.  If Cox is in the other candidates section, so should Keyes. Casey14 18:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly beg to differ, Keyes will most likely be in the debates and is a former politician. If Mike Gravel is in the majors for the dems then Keyes certainly should be in for the GOP  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GBVrallyCI (talk • contribs) 21:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a former politician does not mean anything.  If we only consider former politicians, that would be against the No POV of wikipedia, maybe you should read the section above on Cox. Casey14 23:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GBVrallyCI, I did not particularlly appreciate your comment about Fmr. Sen. Gravel, considering I am one of his supporters, but I do think that Keyes should more than likely now be moved into the Major Candidates section, considering he was invited to a major debate. If no one else disagrees, then either I or someone else should perform the edit. CoolKid1993 02:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Alan Keyes]]

message: Navboxes are for linking to other articles. If those articles don't exist, the navbox is useless. I'm going to assume that red links indicate non-notable figures and start removing them shortly. Chris Cunningham 11:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The candidates without WP articles are listed on the candidate pages, and can always be added to the template if articles about them are created. No point in needlessly cluttering the navbox in the meantime.--JayJasper 14:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Amen.  Wasted Time R 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of you make some good arguments.  However, where can our dear reader find a comprehensive listing of all candidates (partisan and independent), if not here? We could have black-ink names if not red links.  If nothing else, the template should have a link to wherever that full list is. Korky Day 20:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That should be accessible from the main election article. The navbox is not intended to be any form of summary; it's just an article map. Chris Cunningham 12:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links 

message: Someone recently deleted the links to the candidates' articles and additionally put the very minor candidates (ie. John Cox, LaManga, etc.) with the majors (Clinton, Giuliani, etc.).
I think it's better to keep the very minor candidates separated from the majors.
However, I'm guessing the reason the deletion of the campaign and views articles were done for the intrest of space.  If that is the case, I think it would be better to have just a letter next to the candidate indicating the article; for example: 
Biden (C • V) • Clinton (C • V) • …
But if it were up to me, I'd just change it back to what it was before this edit (with the deletion of Gingrich's name).
Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Matté (talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah go ahead and do it, I was just experimenting.--Southern Texas 16:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I admit I like the clean listing: it has the merit of being visually clear and economical,  without the links to the campaigns and views articles. Each biography article should make it clear how to get to those sub-articles.  -- 24.34.112.131 15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A recent edit 

message: I've never been involved with a wikipedia portal. It's starting to appear that there is such a big constellation of articles that one is desirable on the topic of presidential elections for the U.S., so there can be an easy navigation and center for discussion. I notice it would be nice to easily list the separate categories of election-related articles (and keep most of them off of the recently simplified navigation template as of this date):
:* Political Positions, 
:* Campaign, 
:* Fundraising
:* Primary and calendar issues
:* voting, registration, access issues, counting issues, and more.
-- Yellowdesk 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal: US presidential election 

message: Cox has been invited and will attend a MSNBC debate in November (via his website).  We have already voted he is a major candidate, and this solidifies it.  I will be adding Cox to the major candidates. Casey14 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cox being added to nationwide candidates

message: I added Stephen Colbert to the republican candidicy, wasn't sure if I should add it to the demacrat party (he said he would run as both a republican and a democrat, but I'm not sure).  71.112.137.71 02:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Colbert should not be put on the Template until he files with the FEC, like Socby19 mentioned, and forms a national campaign. As of right now, he reportedly is only working towards getting his name on the ballot in his home state of South Carolina. CoolKid1993 23:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I noticed he was re-added and thus removed him again. Dylan 22:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He noted that in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press. A video of him stating what you just wrote can be seen either here or here on YouTube. CoolKid1993 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  colbert 

message: And what's the standard for a candidate to register? It is fundamentally based contributions received and  expenditures made, for those who are actually running. Here, from the Federal Elections Commission:
:If you are running for the U.S. House, Senate or the Presidency, you must register with the FEC once you (or persons acting on your behalf) receive contributions or make expenditures in excess of $5,000. Within 15 days of reaching that $5,000 threshold, you must file a Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 2 [PDF]) authorizing a principal campaign committee to raise and spend funds on your behalf. Within 10 days of that filing, your principal campaign committee must submit a Statement of Organization (FEC Form 1 [PDF]).  Your campaign will thereafter report its receipts and disbursements on a regular basis.  Campaigns should download the Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates [PDF] for more information on the laws that apply to them.
And for people "testing the waters" and not actually campaigning for office,  there are standards as well. Among a number of registerable actions, these individuals do not yet state that they are a candidate, or  do not yet undertake efforts to become a candidate (such as taking actions to qualify for the ballot), or do not advertise.  From the FEC. Testing the Waters and Campaign Committees. Basically, those people must keep track of expenditures and receipts as if they were a registered committee, are subject to all of the contribution and expenditure limits, and report the financial activity of the "testing the waters fund" at the regularly scheduled reporting dates, after passing one or more of the qualitative thresholds.  And register a committee upon passing the qualitative threshold. Most of these people would have already passed the $5,000 dollar thresholds during their "testing" activities, and would need to file immediately with a statement of Candidacy, authorizing a pricipal campaign committee for their activities.
It appears if a candidate, or potential candidate can keep their activities below $5,000, they will not need to register. (And defacto have no ability to organize a campaign, since they cannot even pay the phone bill for the activities needed to be undertaken.)--Yellowdesk 14:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FEC filing standards