Talk:2004 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Covering future events

Why don't we stop talking about the future? Future release album, future election, future etc... -- Taku 08:13 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

This is actually the present. The U.S. "election season" for presidential elections is beginning in earnest now, with several announcements about who is (and isn't) running. Election day is the end of a long public process that has already begun. - RobLa 08:33 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

-Hehe, getting ready are we. :)--Sv

"Self-centered" pages

There is no room for a waste of time with self-centered crap like this in an encyclopedia. Things like this are what make Wikipedia an unreliable joke by idiots with nothing more to do than create something of no real value.....DW

Self-centered? Has RobLa announced that he'll be running, then? ;) --Brion

Yay, me for President! Hmmm...have to add my announcement to the timeline...  :) -- RobLa

What ever happened to the fine art of procrastination? :) --mav --Xinoph 20:07, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

whaddya mean...working on Wikipedia is how I procrastinate.  :) Seriously though, I'm hoping that by getting an early start and tracking this election early, we'll have a really complete record of what transpired.

DW: What do you mean by self-centered? And you really think its things like this that are troubling? Read the nonsense under Fifth World and Micronation. -- Zoe

gotta go with Zoe on this. rofl.-Sv

---

Listing potential election issues

Although it's not possible to list potential issues in say the 2008 election, it is certainly possible to list potential issues cited by the candidates that motivate them to run in the next election. For instance Cynthia McKinney will certainly make an issue of the Iraq crisis, 2003 and oil imperialism. Gary Johnson will certainly make an issue of the War on Drugs. Ralph Nader will make an issue of the War on Terrorism and its civil rights impact. Issues mentioned by lots of potential candidates ought to be in an 'issues' section or separate article on "likely issues in the 2004 U.S. presidential election" just so people can bone up on them in one place.

This could get a *lot* of people reading Wikipedia, if the articles established a high reputation for quality and impartiality. It's worth doing for that reason if no other.

---

Parenthetical notes

Is there a reason for parenthetical italicized notes (this note is unnecessary)?

No, there isn't. I merged the info in one into the article, this is the other:

(Didn't Cheney say at some point during the 2000 Election that he would not run for a second term?)

... Questions like that go here, an answer, as a statement, goes there. -- Jake 08:01, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

"Considering" vs. "Announced"

Our distinction between "considering" and "announced" is problematic. What exactly do we mean by "announced"? There are two formal actions taken with the FEC: statement of organization of an exploratory committee and statement of candidacy. Perhaps we should have "considering," "formed exporatory committee," and "declared"? M Carling (03 March 2003 14:18 UTC)

No objection, though I'm not volunteering to fix this up  :-) -- RobLa 07:53 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Yes the formal FEC actions are the ones that count, it's the only neutral/objective basis for any such classification. Go for it.

Standard for inclusion

The standard we've been using for inclusion of a party has been that they were on the ballot in enough states to elect a president. I think we should stay with that, though this would be the place to discuss it. Clearly we need some standard, else we would have several dozen parties listed nearly all of which are completely irrelevent to the presidential election. The Democrats, Libertarians, and Republicans are expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states. The Greens are expected to be on the ballot in about 45 or so states. Reform and Constitution have little hope of being on the ballot in more than about 10-15 states. Natural Law has a better chance, though still slim. -- Mcarling 08:32, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Even thought the parties may not be on enough ballots to win the election. This is an encyclopedia we can at least report who from this these parties are running. Are we sure that the Reform party or Constitution party will not be on enough ballots? The election is still a year away and perhaps between now and than one or more of those parties will be on say 40 ballots.

A person could make a similar argument that even thougt the Libert and Greens are on enough state ballots neither one has a "real" chance to win the election and should not be treated the same as Dems and Reps. Depending on what states your are on it would only take 12 states to win Of course you have to win all thoses states and thoses are the biggest states, but in "theory" you could do it. I think in the interest of being "inclusive" and giving people more information let's include other parties. We could add call them minor parties or regional parties, but they deserves as much of a platform as the greens and libitarians Just checking the 2000 election and the Reform party got more votes than the Libs, so one could make a case that base on the the last election the reform party should be included on this last as as well as the libSmith03 22:28, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There is no chance that Natural Law, Constitution, or Reform will be on the ballot in 40 states in 2004. As of the end of September, Libertarians are on the ballot in 27 states (expected 47 to 50), Greens are on in 20 (expected 40 to 47), Natural Law are on in 12 states (expected 20 to 30), Constitution are on in 10 (expected 15 to 18 including CA), and Reform are on in 7 (expected 10 to 12). Smith03 is correct that the Reform candidate Pat Buchanan received more votes in 2000 than did Harry Browne the Libertarian candidate, however, it was only about one twentieth the votes received by Ross Perot in 1996 and the Reform Party has continued to implode since then. If I recall correctly, the Reform Party fielded a total of 7 candidates nationwide in 2002, compared to several hundrend Greens and about 2000 Libertarians (partisan races only).

Smith03 has argued that we should have a more inclusive standard that the one we've been using, however, has not proposed a specific standard unless it was the suggestion that we include any party that's on the ballot in even just one state. The problem with that standard is that we would have to include several dozen parties about which information is scarce. I can't think of an objective standard higher than on the ballot in one state but lower than on the ballot in enough states to win that makes any sense. Perhaps someone else will. Until someone suggests a different standard and there is some consensus on it, I'm going to revert to the standard we've been using. -- Mcarling 01:26, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) How about this for a standard we list the partys that are listed on the US political party page? All I am looking for is basic info on the small parties, when and were they held their conventations/ who is their nomine for pres and veep that is all

but one quick note about again about ballots if a party was on ballot in the 10 largest states they would have as good of chance to win as a small party on the lower 40 states. Who knows perhaps neither the ref/ cons or nl party will get on 25 or 30 or 40 states but we can at least state for the record the names of their nominees and were they held their conventions lets leave the partys on the page it does not hurt itSmith03 00:40, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) Who and when set the current "standards" ? Smith03 00:41, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As we have seen before, a small party in only one state with a relatively few number of votes can affect the electoral outcome. Such a small party might not be able to elect a President of their own party, but they can certainly spoil the election of a President from another. Don't know if they belong on this page, but they can be important.Ark30inf 00:47, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I would that we continue to use the test of whether a candidate is on the ballot in states with enough electoral voters to have a theoretical chance of winning. I can think of no other objective criteria that makes sense. - Mcarling 16:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "theoretical chance of winning" is not easily defined. Technically, anyone for whom votes may be counted has a "theoretical" chance of winning. Can we develop a more objective criteria? - Scooter 23:31, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"theoretical chance of winning" is very easily defined as having a theoretical possibility of winning a majority of electoral votes. In most states, votes are counted only for those on the ballot and for registered write-in candidates. In all states, both are few. The set of candidates who are either on the ballot or registered write-in candidates in states with a majority of electoral votes is well defined and will typically be about five in number. If you'd like to suggest an alternative criteria, then please suggest one. - Mcarling 07:31, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In 2000, there were 16 Candidates on the various 51 ballots. If Wikipedia had been around in 2000, I would have listed the 16 candidates because they had the chance to win electoral votes. That's the rule of thumb. If a candidate is listed on at least one General Election ballot, then that candidate is on the list. (For the record, the 16 candidates were: Bush-R, Gore-D, Nader-GP, Browne-LP, Philips-CP, Hagelin-NLP, Buchanan-RF, Lane-GRP, McReynolds-Soc, Harris-SWP, Moorehead-WWP, Smith-AZLP, Dodge-Prot, Venson-Ind, CG Brown-Ind, Youngkeit-Ind) - iHoshie 18:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think Hoshie's proposal is reasonable. I still prefer the standard of being on the ballot in enough states to have a theoretic chance of winning, but I could live with Hoshie's proposal if the consensus is that it's better. Candidates who are definitely on the ballot in at least one state could be included. - Mcarling 19:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mcarling, my standard is a two pronged standard. If you are on a state ballot with the ability to win EVs (dosen't matter if you are Bush/Gore, who could win 538 EVs or Denny Lane, who could win Vermont's three EVs), you get listed on this page. -- iHoshie 20:41, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

I understood that. It's a reasonable standard. The standard of being on the ballot in states with enough electoral votes to win is also a reasonable standard. I happen to prefer the latter. These are the only two reasonable standards I've seen proposed here. I don't mind putting this to a vote. - Mcarling 21:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry If I sounded a bit harsh in the above message. I forgot the second part in my first message. Mea Culpa. --iHoshie 08:23, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed new standards

Parties that are listed List of political parties in the United States should be included.

The smaller the party the less said ( that fine) but at least acknowledge that there are more than 2 big parties and two small parties ( that even though they may be on 40 state ballots have no more chance to win than the smaller parties).

just date/city of convention and nominee name and vice pres name. We don't need to go into any great details about any "party politics" within say the constitution party conventation. Just put the nominee name and vice pres name. Plus I think we should leave the other parties listed until we decided on a new standards.Smith03 00:50, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Most of the minor parties listed List of political parties in the United States don't have presidential nominees. Most of them don't even have national conventions. Even the Natural Law Party won't have a nominee for 2004, and it seems that the Reform Party won't either. Most of the minor parties are local or regional and have no relevance at all to presidential elections. I'm surprised that a standard has been proposed that's even lower than having a presidential candidate on the ballot in at least one state. I still think that being on the ballot in enough states to have a theoretical chance of winning is the optimal standard. If someone wants to know about the smallest of parties, they can always click on the link to the List of political parties in the United States. Mcarling 21:43, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Moving Democrats to own page

I guess I don't understand why the Democratic candidates have been moved to their own page. Moreover, I don't know why anyone in the next few months would assume they could find info about candidates at an encyclopedic entry marked "Democratic Primary". I would be bold and change it, but I haven't been working on this page, and don't want to muck up the works if there's a good reason for how it's being run. My suggestion: couldn't we leave the candidates on this page for the time being...maybe say that more information is available on whatever party's primary page? Then, after the primaries start to thin things out, we move all the candidates to the primary page at that point (say, mid-March) with the assumption that people will know at that point that info on who's in and who's out will be on the primary page? If I'm missing something here, let me know. I just doubt the wisdom of forcing someone looking for the Democratic candidates to follow another link (which may confuse them at this juncture), but leaving independent and Green candidates on this page...I don't know why we're tossing in the roadblock. Please enlighten me: Jwrosenzweig 22:12, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

We need to have one timeline for the Democrats. Either we maintain it as part of U.S. presidential election, 2004, or we maintain it as part of U.S. Democratic Party Presidential Primary, 2004. The problem is that there's significant literary license being taken with what gets included and what gets excluded from the main timeline, versus the Dem party timeline. Worse, there's inaccuracies being introduced in U.S. presidential election, 2004

I've never been thrilled with maintaining a separate page for the Dem party primary. My vote is that we merge these pages back together. -- RobLa 21:59, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree with RobLa that these should be merged. -- Mcarling 22:06, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FEC Filings

There's not a lot of clarity about what the various stages of a campaign are. My understanding is that for tax purposes, these are the stages:

• Considering
• Formed exploratory committee
• Official campaign

In the spirit of trying to figure things out based on this information, I've started rooting around the FEC site to try to figure out how to come up with the dates. Here's the only useful query I have so far. Feel free to add more. -- RobLa 09:44, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

FEC filing queries:

• Filings for Howard Dean

Endorsements

Should endorsements be listed in the timeline? Al Gore is expected to endorse Howard Dean today. UtherSRG 12:54, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I can imagine endorsements quickly getting out of hand. On the other hand, Gore's endorsement is significant. I'm neutral on this one. Mcarling 14:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For now I'm going to add it. If it gets messy, we can always remove it later. UtherSRG 15:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Iraq war references

Is it realy necessary to list major events of the Iraq war here? They don't strike me as in line with the rest of the listed events. - Seth Ilys 17:38, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Possible edit war over Howard Dean's Confederate flag comment

Here's the entry in the timeline in question:

• November 1 - In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Howard Dean is quoted as saying "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats." [1] This comment stirs strong controversy among Democratic contenders.

Here's the play-by-play:

• User:ChrisDJackson: Revert, we don't have time or space to list all stupid quotes from Dean, Bush, Kerry, ect. Listed one inparticular would be NPOV. Revert
• User:Salsa Shark: We _do_ have the space, and if you think the time is important, _you_ take it.
• User:ChrisDJackson: How many other quotes are up there? None, therefore posting one in particular is irrevant and biased against Dean
• User:RobLa: Adding Dean Confederate flag quote back in....this has proven to be a noteworthy quote in the campaign. Other quotes of equal gravitas to the overall contest should also be added.
• User:ChrisDJackson: Good, add all the other candidates quotes that are noteworthy, until then it is being reverted.
• User:Salsa Shark: It's accurate. It's apposite. It stays.

I'm hoping this is the end of the debate....it seems to have died down. However, I'm not planning on monitoring this 24x7, so I'm documenting this here for future reference. I feel pretty strongly that this is an important entry in the timeline -- RobLa 09:28, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Since the edit war continues to revert/unrevert other edits (Havenworks, monies) as well as the quote, I took the quote back out, removed Havenworks (yet again) and add the monies back in. If y'all get more quotes, piece them together and agree here in the talk first so that the edit war doesn't hurt other edits. Sheesh!!! - UtherSRG 19:57, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I haven't yet documented Kerry's "regime change" quote, but the other quotes that have stirred the most dust have been Dean quotes by virtue of him being the frontrunner since July. I'm not terribly motivated to do that now because I'm having to spend all of this time defending a perfectly valid edit - I'm wondering what other edits I make will fall on the cutting room floor. -- RobLa 05:09, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Here's the proposed wording for Kerry's comment.

• April 2: Speaking before an audience in Peterborough, New Hampshire, John Kerry says “We need a regime change not just in Iraq. We need a regime change here in the United States.” [2] Republicans criticize Kerry for speaking out against a wartime president. [3]

Regardless of ones politics, it's quite obvious that both Kerry's Apr 2 quote and Dean's Nov 1 quote are very important to the history of the campaign. They framed the political debate for many weeks following their utterance. I personally don't feel that either quote significantly changed my feeling about the candidates, but its clear from the hubbub surrounding the quotes that they were noteworthy occurances.

I plan to add this soon, and readding the Dean quote, unless there's a reasonable objection. -- RobLa 07:59, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Timeline

Personally, I think the timeline should stick to events that directly affect the election process (announcements, fundraising totals, etc.). "Mission Accomplished", the capture of Saddam Hussein, etc., will only indirectly affect the election. They will be important campaign topics, no doubt, but deciding which of these indirect events to list is troublesome. Already some Bush quotes about Iraq have been added. We could endlessly add quotes from other Bush speeches, the State of the Union, and so on. Is there some way we could list important events that may affect the election in a separate timeline or list? --Minesweeper 10:00, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

In working on this article, I've always tried to put myself in the shoes of a 20-year old reading this 20 years from now. I think there's a minimal amount of current events coverage necessary in order to have enough context to understand this campaign as a story. The war, "mission accomplished", the post-war looting, the ongoing violence, and the capture of Saddam Hussein have all really had a profound impact on the election. In particular, in explaining Howard Dean's rise, one can't ignore the role of the troubled peacekeeping operations in Iraq.

However, in looking at the timeline now, I realize it has many of the facts, but doesn't tell the story. That may be the best we can do until the election is over...it may be that we're too close to tell the story. Nonetheless, I feel that now is the time to gather the facts, so that when this is all over, it's much easier to tell the story. -- RobLa 02:54, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Important Future dates

This is silly -- why not list important dates in the process. To remove one by one each as they occur is like wiping the record. -戴&#30505sv 23:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Future dates that expire should be put into a historic timeline. Kingturtle 00:03, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

About the top table

Should Bush and Cheney be listed in the top table without vote figures since it's a near certainity that they will be reselected by the GOP? -- iHoshie 00:36, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was just about to add all of the announced and filed candidates that were listed further down on the page, and make the "Presidential Candidate" heading black, but leave the other headings grey. How 'bout that? —Mulad 04:20, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd oppose putting any entries into the table until the party conventions. Factual accuracy. - Seth Ilys 05:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I also oppose putting entries in the table at this moment. It's already repeated towards the bottom of the article. The table is supposed to be a summary of results, not a listing of declared candidates. --Jiang 05:23, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

I also oppose putting entries in the table at least until the conventions. Even after the conventions, the candidates could change. It's probably best to leave the table empty until the election. Mcarling 06:10, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Leaving the table empty is an immediate indication to any visitors that the election has not taken place yet, and I think it should stay that way until we have some results to report. --Minesweeper 08:45, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian Presidential Candidate Aaron Russo

Hollywood film and music producer Aaron Russo has recently announced his candidacy for president in 2004 as a Libertarian. His campaign web site is www.russoforpresident.com.

LaRouche deleted

I have deleted Lyndon Larouche as a "Democrat" candidate. He has been disowned by the DNC and if he got 15%>, he would not get delegates. [I wrote this originally the day before, when I was really tired, so it didn't come out right.]

iHoshie 11:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He may not be considered a Democrat, but the Democratic primaries are what he's running in.

James Anatidae 13:15, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

James, you have a point. He is running in the primaries. I'm voting on 10 Feb in Virginia, and he's on the ballot. In 2000, he won 22% in the Arkansas primary. Being over 15%, LaRouche should have gotten delegates. He was refused. Ballot Access News says about the case:

On June 23, state Judge John Ward ruled that the Arkansas Democratic Party need not seat delegates to the state convention pledged to Lyndon LaRouche, even though state law says, "The Delegates to the national party convention shall be apportioned to the presidential candidates whose names were on the ballot at the primary, in the proportion that the votes cast for each candidate bear to the total votes cast." LaRouche polled 22% of the May presidential primary vote, so under state law, he should have been entitled to seven delegates to the national convention.

The Democratic Party has a national rule that candidates for president who aren't registered to vote may not receive delegates. LaRouche is not a registered voter because his state of residence, Virginia, does not permit ex-felons to register. The judge ruled that the national rule takes precedence over state law. LaRouche v Democratic Party of Arkansas , civ 00-5429, Pulaski County Circuit Court.

Because of this, LaRouche is not a Democratic candidate for President.

--iHoshie 07:27, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche is a Democrat. That the leadership of the Democratic party consider him an embarrassment and wish he were not a Democrat doesn't change that. That his beliefs are divergent from most of the party doesn't change that. Mcarling 13:45, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche has been listed as a Democratic candidate in the D.C. "preference" primary, and the Rhode Island primary. He is a Democratic candidate for President. Whether the Party decides to give him any delegates is not the subject of this article. - Scooter 20:15, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Scooter, I don't dispute he's a "Democrat". He isn't a "Democratic" Presidental candidate that can win delegates. In the primaries that's what matters.

Christine Hall wrote an article on LaRouche's "Democratic" status:

But Democratic consultant Mark Mellman didn't hesitate to offer an explanation.

"He has his own [political] party," said Mellman. "And they have on occasion tried to use the Democratic Party, to take over the Democratic Party, to further their own interests.

"The formal Democratic parties have disavowed" LaRouche and his surrogate candidates, said Mellman.

"We're a pretty big tent, but the tent doesn't include lunatics and criminals," Mellman said.

To add to the fuel of LaRouche not being a "Democrat" Presidental candidate, we have the case of Nancy Spannaus. Spannaus is one of LaRouche's people. She contested the 2002 VA Senate race as an Independent, but claimed to be the "Democratic" candidate.

According to Jonathan Last:

She announced her current campaign in March 2001 and a month later wrote to the Virginia Democratic party saying that she "would like to become the Democratic Party nominee." The Virginia Democrats rebuffed her and then decided not to field a candidate in the Senate race. Spannaus collected 14,000 signatures and got herself on the ballot--as an Independent.

The Democrats are aghast that Spannaus is trying to capture votes by passing herself off as one of them. In August a state party spokeswoman told one local paper quite pointedly, "There is no LaRouche wing to the Democratic party."

If the Democrats don't recognize LaRouche's *Candidates* as "Democrats", then LaRouche is not a Democratic candidate for President.

--iHoshie 03:24, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hoshie: I'd argue for his inclusion on the list of candidates for the sake of comprehensiveness and accuracy... he will and has appeared on state ballots, and people will and have voted for him. He's raised several million dollars for his campaign. When someone comes to this page, looking for information on "Democratic" candidate Lyndon LaRouche, they'll presently find nothing, which isn't very useful to them. I suggest that we include him on the list with a brief note about his disownment by the DNC. That sounds like a fair compromise position to me... - Seth Ilys 05:16, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll write a quality blurb when I get a chance. -- iHoshie 13:29, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

While I have no objections to what's been put in the article now, it might be worth noting that LaRouche isn't the only non-viable candidate in the race - there are lists here (about twenty Republicans and about thirty Democrats). If we include LaRouche, should we include any of the others? Personally, I would say that we shouldn't, because LaRouche is far better known than the other non-viable candidates. But should we perhaps work out the exact criteria for inclusion? I don't think we can really aim for completeness, given the number of them, but how exactly do we go about determining who gets put on our list and who doesn't? -- Vardion 14:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The key issue here is that LaRouche has won delegates in Democratic Primaries, and that the decision by the DNC to refuse to certify them, or to confiscate them and award them to Gore as was done in Arkansas 2004, is an issue of greatest importance, because it is a clear violation of the Voting Rights Act. Reynquist and co. gave the DNC their blessing -- for the simple reason, that they have been waiting for years, for an opportunity to nullify the VRA. User:Herschelkrustofsky

Cobb info deleted

I've just deleted an entry on David Cobb that was added by User:Mcarling which read as follows:

February 9 - David Cobb, the leading Green Party candidate, announces that in order to avoid costing the Democrats another election the Greens will pursue a "safe state" strategy of running only in states in which the winner is certain. Many Green activists decry the lost of ballot status that will surely ensue.

My reasons were:

• It was not cited;
• It automatically assumes the Greens "cost the Democrats" the 2000 election, which is far from NPOV;
• Cobb has advocated a sort of attention to "safe states", but he announced it well before Feb 9, and has refused to rule out any state as of yet; and,
• Cobb will be campaigning in Iowa tomorrow, specifically to help retain ballot access for the Green Party in that state.

I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'll replace it if there is a copy of the announcement somewhere. - Scooter 21:59, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I found it at www.politics1.com

It does not assume the Greens "cost the Democrats" the 2000 election. It asserts that Cobb acknowledged costing the Democrats the 2000 election, which I believe is correct.

I accidentally put it back while reverting the Socialist Equality Party which is not on the ballot in any state. Feel free to have a look at the post at www.politics1.com and then rewrite it as seems NPOV to you.

I think the essence should stay, but certainly open to different wording. - Mcarling 22:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cobb hasn't acknowledged that it happened, but has acknowledged only that people perceive it that way - which he is taking steps to avoid in 2004. (My source is personal contact with the candidate.) And certainly, saying "...costing the Democrats another election..." does in fact assume that the Greens cost them the first one.

Additionally, this has always been his stance from the moment he entered the race, so I'm not sure what date one might put on it.

This might be something to add to the David Cobb article rather than this one. - Scooter 05:27, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

First, it is conceivable that Nader didn't cost Gore the 2000 election. Second, as written it does not assume that Nader cost Gore the election, but rather than Cobb used words to that effect (which he may or may not have). Third, I'm still open to changing the wording.

As for a date, what's the earliest date you can find (you seem to be closer to this) that Cobb said this publically.

I think this is more relevent to this article than to the Cobb article. - Mcarling 08:10, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cobb announced his candidacy at the 2003 Green Party National Conference in Washington, DC, on July 18. [4] He mentioned this part of strategy then, during a press conference. Other candidates, such as Lorna Salzman and Carol Miller, announced at the same time, and laid out some of their strategies and issues as well. Cobb did not use words to the effect that you describe; you're right in that I'm involved with the effort, which is why I'm checking with you in order to maintain as much NPOV as possible. Again, I still believe that this has more to do with Cobb directly than the election in general, but if you believe it belongs here, then perhaps this could be the wording:

July 18 - David Cobb announces his candidacy for the Green Party nomination in Washington, D.C. As part of a "genuine effort to reach progressives across party lines", he announces that part of his strategy includes a "Strategic States Plan", concentrating efforts where Electoral College votes are not "in play". Some Greens decry the lack of an "all-out" strategy from Cobb.

Is this acceptable? - Scooter 20:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since I haven't seen anyone suggesting that I should not do it, I will "be bold in editing", and make the change. - Scooter 23:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On the ballot?

It was stated that "Dozens of people say they're running for president. Only those who do the work to get on the ballot should be included here." I think this qualification should be relaxed slightly to include registered write-in candidates. Anthony DiPierro 21:53, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If someone is on the ballot or a registered write-in in states with enough electoral votes to have a theoretical chance of winning, then I would agree that they should be included. - Mcarling 22:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Minor Candidates

Why is there the extensive list of Republican candidates, while the only minor candidate to be listed on the Democratic side is Lyndon LaRouche, who is not, as one user has already pointed out, technically a Democrat? Should Wikipedia list all candidates who file for every election? Let's be honest and be willing to say in this article that President George W. Bush will be the Republican nominee. None of these people have any chance of being the nominee even were something to happen to Mr. Bush; there is a process for that as well that doesn't involve minor candidates.

--Xinoph 05:37, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, though, we should somewhere, list all candidates who have filed, especially for the U.S. Presidential race. Ideally, we should have at least stubs on each of them. But Xinoph has a very good point that they aren't really germane to the main presidential election article. Also: in searching the FEC's website, I haven't been able to find a full filing list. Anybody know where this list might be found? -- Seth Ilys 15:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bush could still be caught with the proverbial live boy or dead girl. He could also die of a heart attack or something else. Of course, even if Bush were to not be the nominee, none of the other Republicans now officially running would be the nominee. So, while I don't agree that we can definitively say that Bush will be the nominee, the others listed will definitively not be the nominee, so I agree that we needn't list them. BTW, I don't think it's fair to uniquely equate LaRouche with the minor Republicans running. He's closer to Sharpton or Kucinich in terms of seriousness of candidacy. -- Mcarling 17:28, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

If they're non-notable, they dont deserve articles. Finishing top ten in New Hampshire doesn't cut it. The split off was improperly named so I have undone that. I suggest that most of the failed republicans be removed. --Jiang 06:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of List

Since John Kerry is the presumptive nominee, I think it makes sense at this point to remove the full list of Democratic candidates from this page and leave it as a historical article in U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2004

The list of candidates who remain in the race should be left on this main page so that people don't have to click on the link to the U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2004 in order to see who is still in the race. This is consistent with the list of Republican, Libertarian, and Green candidates.

Perhaps the minor candidates who dropped out and those who declined should be left off the page, but surely John Edwards, Wesley Clark, and Howard Dean should still be listed as they have all played significant roles in the election.

Acegikmo1 06:27, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

I see you've removed the list of Republican candidates. I think this should be discussed, as the list was based on criteria established through exchanges on this page and individual talk pages (see User_talk:Acegikmo1 or User_talk:Jiang).

Thanks

Acegikmo1 06:38, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't remove any list of candidates entirely - I moved both the Republican and Democratic lists to their individual primary entries, since for all intents and purposes (without being disrespectful to Rev. Sharpton or Congressman Kucinich) these are now historical events, as I noted above. While both of these candidates certainly made important contributions to the race, and are still officially campaigning, it is entirely accurate to say that Senator Kerry is the presumptive nominee. I think the criteria for listing candidates was great, but this election has entered the "general election" phase, and I think it's fair for us to recognize that. --Xinoph 12:28, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

I guess that the problem I see is that people like Dean and Clark are mentioned in the timeline without any proper introduction before that. Even if we don't list the major figures who were or still are running under "Candidates", I think we should briefly discuss them early on the page.

Acegikmo1 01:41, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

I actually don't see why that would be a problem; he is first mentioned with his announcement in the timeline, which tells who he is (Vermont Governor) and links to his bio page for further information.

--Xinoph 20:07, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Vote!

I seek your input at Wikipedia:WikiProject POTUS Campaigns. Please come weigh in. jengod 23:06, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Advantage to Kerry and Bush

Near the top of the page you have

"For the individual presidential campaigns, see George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004 and John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004"

with links to these campaigns. This makes it sound like these are the only two candidates running and gives them an unfair advantage (someone coming to this entry for information may only read the top of the page and only check out those two campaigns). Of course it may not be possible to include every candidate's campaign/webpage at the top, so I suggest removing the comment about Bush and Kerry's campaigns all together and listing where to find more information later on in the entry for each candidate.

---

Reform party endorses Nader

Nothing on the Reform party on the page, but I noticed they endorsed Nader, although he's still an independent. --Tomruen 04:49, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Anyone wants to update the page, here's the info:

http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=32

Nader Receives Endorsement of Reform Party USA

Washington, DC: The Independent Presidential Campaign of Ralph Nader welcomed the endorsement of the Reform Party USA saying: "This endorsement shows that our independent campaign is receiving support from across the political spectrum from people upset with President Bush and looking to shift the power back to the people so a solution revolution can take hold and solve many of the nagging problems and injustices in our society." It also continues to build a coalition to challenge the corporate political duopoly and give the voters more choices in November.

The Reform Party’s endorsement will bring more civic activists to the campaign to help get Nader on the ballot throughout the United States. Reform Party members can help spread the message that there is an alternative to the two corporate parties as their history demonstrates. The Reform Party, whose presidential candidate Ross Perot received 19% of the vote in 1992 and nearly 9% in 1996, claims over one million active members.

The most immediate priority is to overcome the deliberately obstructive ballot access barriers installed by the Democratic and Republican duopoly. In many states these barriers prevent political competition, blocking more choices and voices from third parties and independent candidates from national to local elections all over the country.

Ralph Nader will continue to run as an Independent candidate for President. He welcomes the endorsement of the Green Party if they decide not to run a candidate. "We need to join together to present a strong challenge to the corporate duopoly and show the American people there is an independent candidate with a strong record of fighting for the health, safety and economic well-being of the American people," said Nader. Nader was the Green Party nominee in 2000 and in 1996.

---

Probability

As of May 25, 2004, what is the probability that Kerry will win?? 66.245.119.206 00:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

There's obviously no real way to determine that. I suppose that looking at recent polls asking people which candidate they would vote for could provide a rough estimate. According to U.S. presidential election, 2004 timeline, a 15 May poll determined, "John Kerry is chosen by 46 percent versus Bush at 45 percent." I guess that means he has a roughly 50% chance of winning.

Acegikmo1 00:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

For what its worth, several online gaming sites are offering odds on the election. The one I just checked gives Bush 13/20 odds, Kerry 1/1 odds, and Nader 1000/1 odds. ElBenevolente 00:17, 26 May 2004 (UTC)