Talk:2008 United States presidential election
Possible Issue: I wasn't able to find this page by searching wikipedia for "US Presidential Election 2008". It seems that this page will only return in the search results if "US" is spelt "U.S." can we make this page available to people searching "US" too?
Template:U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link
- Archives
- Old talk archived at /Archive 1 by Goobergunch|? on 21:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC). Archive includes all talk up to around the 9th of November.
- Old talk archived at /Archive 2 by Zscout370 19:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC). This includes the talk about candidates lists.
- Old talk archived at /Archive 3 by DLJessup 02:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC).
- Old talk archived at /Archive 4 by DLJessup 21:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Old talk archived at /Archive 5 by BaronLarf 17:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Possible candidate lists which are considered too speculative for the main article are stored at /Lists of potential candidates.
Obama
Though Obama has stated he will not run in 2008, Gore, Cheney, and Clinton have all done the same, yet they are on the list. The fact that Obama denied it at all means there is certainly a link between him and the 2008 election. Take a look at these articles for proof: Obama's name had been bandied about as a potential presidential candidate even before his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention this summer made him a household name. I said to myself, "You're looking at our first black president." We the people of the United States of America herby endorse a future candidacy of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois to be elected as the 44th President of the United States on Novemeber 4th, 2008. I'll ask: Why not now? He's already proved he can attract the votes of whites as well as blacks and other minorities. Andre (talk) July 5, 2005 18:58 (UTC)
- You're mistaken, Cheney is not on the list. Although Al Gore and Hillary Clinton probably will not run, they're viable candidates and there's been wide speculation about them. I think they belong on the list due to the amount of speculation. Obama, on the other hand, certainly won't run. I don't think he should be mentioned as a potential candidate. Rhobite 21:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Well Cheney was on the list at the time that I wrote that message, with a thing about him being a possible "dark horse" candidate. Gore and Clinton have both denied running just as much as Obama, and both have as much speculation about them. What, exactly, is the distinction? Andre (talk) 22:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Hillary Clinton is also far and away the lead Democratic candidate in the polls, the most talked about Democratic candidate. As far as many are concerned, the nomination is hers to lose or refuse. At this point, it would not even be that out of line to call her the "presumptive nominee". Al Gore and Dick Cheney probably don't belong as more than footnotes. --Tomhanna 00:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Feingold divorce
Anonymous editors have been removing mention of Feingold's divorce from this article. When it was last removed on Monday by 205.188.117.67, it was with the edit summary "corrected typos", which seems to me to be an attempt to remove it unnoticed. [1] I believe that, if this article is truly to be about the election, events which adversely affect a candidates chances in the opinions of major media outlets and other respected sources should be at least briefly mentioned in a NPOV manner. --BaronLarf 17:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Giuliani
IMHO Giuliani should remain in the list. Although he hasn't formally announced, neither have many of the others in the list. What he has in common with the other members of the list:
- There exists widespread speculation that he intends to run (as seen from the fact that most of the major polls include him)
- He has not acted to dampen such speculation (this is a negative assertion, so hard to give evidence for it)
- His name recognition gives him significant support in early polls (he shows up in the top three in most of the early polls)
I'm not sure what evidence the person who deleted his name was seeking -- are we only including people who have formally announced, or are we including people who are considered possibles by a variety of sources? I could link to any number of sites that include him in speculation [2] [3], but polls and announcements are the only things that could be considered hard facts. Nonetheless, it seems strange to list polls at the bottom of the page and not include someone who is winning a significant fraction of the polls. (Willhsmit; originally unsigned)
- We've been down this road before; see the archives to this talk page. Giuliani hasn't either 1) announced or 2) made moves as though he were planning to run (making frequent visits to NH or Iowa, hiring veterans of presidential campaigns, etc). You don't see Jeb Bush listed on this page either, even though he's in the polls at the bottom of the page. --BaronLarf 17:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Giuliani has a federal PAC that is raising funds. "Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's PAC raised $292,857 and spent $120,428, leaving it with $366,980." A Gallup poll August 3 showed Guiliani or McCain beating Clinton or Kerry. Just food for thought. In fact, the federal PAC lists might be a place to start since it's too early for any of them to have actual campaign committees. --Tomhanna 00:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Clark and Santorum.
I think that Wesley Clark and Rick Santorum should be added, respectively, to the lists of Democrats and Republicans potentially running in 2008. While I don't have any solid information about either candidate, I do remember seeing Clark 2008 stickers already being available online. The justification I would cite is the fact that they have been included in a number of polls, and are therefore seen as having a significant chance of running. ~GMH 04:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- I concur - I have seen both mentioned as potential candidates. john k 04:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Cheney
I withdrew from editting this article due to the infighting at the time over the criteria for who to include and not include in this article. There was fairly wide consensus that Cheney should not be included, however I thought I would share the below article which appeared today on the Drudge Report under the headline "Woodward Foresees Clinton-Cheney Race In 2008..."
Here is the link but I will also include the text of the article as you have to register to read it.
THE ASPEN TIMES
Woodward offers insight on Bush, Nixon, politics
By Catherine Lutz August 10, 2005
Noted journalist Bob Woodward offered his insights on topics ranging from Nixon to Bush, current political issues and the role of journalism during a speech to an overflow crowd at Paepcke Auditorium on Tuesday night.
Not once did he mention Mark Felt, the former FBI assistant director nicknamed "Deep Throat" who was Woodward's key anonymous source in uncovering the Watergate scandal. Woodward's latest book chronicles the story of "Deep Throat," but the audience members clearly had more current issues on their minds.
Using numerous anecdotes from his 35-year journalism career, Woodward didn't make definitive conclusions about issues but let facts speak for themselves.
Interviewing President George W. Bush for his book "Plan of Attack" was "not typical," said Woodward, who is assistant managing editor at the Washington Post. Answering 500 questions, the president was very direct and used weighty words like "duty" and "zeal" to describe "liberating people." Woodward spoke of Bush's intense belief that what he is doing is right and how overcoming obstacles made him even more determined.
"It was almost a mind trip on how he looks at things and what he values," Woodward said.
Woodward refrained from ultimately judging Bush, noting that, "If you go back into history you'll find many instances of presidents making unpopular decisions. History teaches you that the most important trait a president can have is simply courage, and courage often means walking the road alone."
Of Nixon's presidency, Woodward said, "The real chill goes down your spine when you see the smallness of Richard Nixon. Too often [he used] the power of the presidency to settle a score."
Nevertheless, Nixon was a very intelligent president, Woodward said. "He understood that the hating is what had done him in." Woodward quoted the president's farewell speech to his staff, in which he told them, "Always remember others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself."
Woodward's half-hour talk, punctuated several times by well-received jokes, was followed by 11 questions from the audience. He theorized that Hillary Clinton would earn the Democratic nomination in 2008 and would run against Dick Cheney, and he rejected the likelihood of a third party being a threat to Democrats and Republicans. He discounted the fear that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts would help overturn abortion rights if elected to the bench.
He spoke of his continuing faith in the press, which depends on owners who support their newsrooms and reporters who are driven to get to the truth. Decrying the impatience of today's journalism, with its fixation on up-to-the-minute updates, Woodward said that news services should stick to their responsibility of getting all the facts.
(end of article) - Jord 17:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
American Facist Party?
Who put the link to the AFP on here? I have a feeling that this is just a joke so I deleted it. --D-Day 19:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Christopher Walken Hoax
Should something be added about the http://www.walken2008.com hoax? His reps denied it, but people still believe it's true. I'm not 100% it's relevant, but I was just wondering. Morhange 22:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism
I'm seriously considering putting the person who keeps vandalizing the Mark Warner section on the Clueless newbies section. Mark Warner is not a tax-raising Democrat. But before I do so, I want to know if anyone has tried reasoning with this person. And showed them that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you have anything to say about this, please let me know.--D-Day 10:46, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, just hours after I posted the orginal comment, the Ann Coulter-in-training distorted it for their own point of view! I'm not sure I'm going to wait for opinions on this. Let me know what you think any how though.(Except for the vandal with the Mark Warner fetish anyways.) --D-Day 20:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Warner did raise taxes liar. So did the Republican legislature....I'm not forgiving them either, but they aren't running for president. Grow up.
- You've convinced me. You should know Wikipedia is not your personal opinion center. If you want that, get a blog. But until then, follow the rules like the rest of us. --D-Day 21:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
152.163.100.13: Benjamin Franklin once said that there would be two certainties in life--death and taxes. Try having a problem with death instead.
I'd also point out that experienced political commentators and scholars have (from what I've read) a consensus that Mark Warner is politically moderate and can be considered centrist.
Also, if you really have a problem with governments levying (reasonable) taxes, then you'd better have a problem with governments maintaining roadways, providing public schools, providing police forces, and maintaining the armed forces. If you're really mature enough to debate this, you should also be knowledgeable in economics, and therefore know that money doesn't just come out of nowhere.
Now, a country can go into debt, like the one the US is currently deep in, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Do you like to go into debt? Would you like yourself, or your family, or (if you own one) your business to go into debt? Going into debt is not a good feeling. It means that someone has to pay sooner or later. Would you like to pay any part of that debt?
And once again, I should make reference to my edit comments:
- "If you have something to prove, try making the Republican Party produce a real conservative."
Oh, and last time I checked, fiscal responsibility is a conservative value. ~GMH 00:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
No one is more upset than me that the Republican Party has become the big-spending party. Don't change the subject.
Gee where do I say that we shouldn't have any taxes? Can you point me to where I said that? Because I don't recall saying it.
This is the typical liberal response: just because we complain that taxes are too high means we're against all taxes. Hey, do you know this country used to not have a federal income tax?
However, the tax increase Warner signed was completely unnecessary. Virginia's spending had gone up at a double-digit rate in the Gilmore years, and the state was just about to be awash in revenue when Warner signed the increase.
Both of you pseudointellectuals have failed to name a single issue that Warner is moderate/conservative on. You have also failed to name a single scholar who considers him a moderate. If Warner is a fiscal conservative, then why did the Cato Institute give him a D on its Fiscal Policy Report Card (which measures fiscal conservatism) hmm? They're not just anti-Democrat...they gave Bill Richardson and Phil Bredesen B's.
- I was just about to fix that myself. As a Virginia Democrat, let me put this simply - Virginia doesn't elect liberals. And everyone worth his salt considers Warner a moderate or centrist. I'm so sorry he supported a tax increase that a powerful majority of the legislature and population also supported. So sorry he deprives us of Gilmore fiscal disasters. Grow up and keep your POV out. Warner is generally considered a moderate, and Wikipedia will speak of him as such. --BDD 13:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Chuck Hagel
I was curious as to why Chuck Hagel is included on the list of possible candidates. I can find nothing saying that he is pursuing the nomination. -- User:Mu Cow September 22
- It may be due to his criticism of the Bush administration. It is reasoned by some politics scholars that such an action--a senator criticizing a commander-in-chief of the same party--may in some cases partly be an attempt of the senator to garner attention for himself/herself, and therefore would suggest intention to run for president in the upcoming election. Whether Hagel is really planning on such a run, I do not know.~GMH talk to me 22:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- personally, i seriously question whether he is actuallly planning on running if this is his only action that says he is planning on running. --86.130.25.204 13:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- removed chuck hagel. everyone else either has set up a PAC or has a source which explicitly suggests they are running. Criticism of one's superiors does not always indicate that you want their job. If you want to keep him in, move him to the "other people mentioned" section--Smegpt86 13:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Al Gore
I recently moved Gore back to other potential candidates. As far as I know, Gore has barely taken any action as if he were preparing to run. Andros 1337 20:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)