Talk:2012 United States presidential election

Edit request on 21 March 2012

Please add Tiffany Briscoe to the list of of independent candidates.

75.192.71.179 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, is she actually going to be on any state's ballot, or is she a write-in candidate? Looks like her home state is classifying her as a write-in candidate only. I'm not sure this is a serious enough campaign to be included here. Just a few days ago she was dropped by the Boston Tea Party as their nominee, perhaps we should wait a little while to see if her independent campaign actually has teeth. Feel free to ask for another opinion if you disagree. —SW— ^yak 18:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Waiting is good. On the other hand, giving it a second-look and a second-consideration, she seemed more serious than most of those on the current list, and this is (of course) an online encyclopedia of History. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Points in favor of listing her are: she meets the prerequisite of having a WP article (and one that has withstood an afd at that); she is registered with the FEC. While that is not a prerequisite for inclusion, it is preferred.; she was previously included on the page as the nominee of the Boston Tea Party prior to her removal from that post. The main point against listing her at this time is the minimum 2-reliable-secondary-sources standard, which she does not appear to meet as an independent candidate. I can find nothing other than the blog post from her campaign website, which is cited on her article, about her independent/write-in campaign. And that, of course is a primary source. So, while having no strong objection to including her on the page - given that she meets much of the inclusion criteria - I am hesitant to do so at this time given the apparent lack of secondary sources to verify her status as an indie candidate. If such sources can be found, then by all means add her.--JayJasper (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

the RS do not consider her worth their attention, and that is an ironclad Wiki requirement. leave her out until the Reliable Secondary Sources validate her. Rjensen (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

FSP Campaign

Stephen Durham is running as the presidential candidate of the Freedom Socialist Party. His vice presidential running mate is Christina López. I think it might be a write-in campaign but, seeing as how this article mentions the Socialist Equality Party's candidates (also a write-in campaign), I feel Durham and López should be mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.85.71 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Per longstanding consensus, candidate listings on this page are limited to those who meet the general standards of WP:GNG and/or WP:POLITICIAN, and have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Durham does not presently have an article, but if one is created that meets the aforementioned criteria, he will be included. Traditionally, the WP community has determined that nominees of notable parties (however obscure) are notable enough to merit an article. The FSP has its own WP page, and is therefore presumably notable. So the odds of a reliably sourced article on Durham surving an Afd - in the event that notability is challenged - would seem to be favorable.--JayJasper (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Striking previous comments, I stand corrected - Durham does have a WP article, which for some reason didn't show the first time I searched for it. So yes, he can be included.--JayJasper (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Obama Clinches Nomination

By winning the primaries in D.C. and Maryland, Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination, so I think we should edit the box to list Obama as the official Democratic candidate and keep the Republican part of that box as TBD.Interstate373 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't become the official candidate until the convention actually votes for him to be the official candidate. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Last time around, he was listed in the infobox as the presumptive nominee prior to the convention after he had clinched the minimum number of delegates needed to secure the nomination.--JayJasper (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It was premature then and it's premature now, though probably to a lesser extent. Just because a Magic 8-Ball was correct once in the past isn't a good reason to keep relying on it. Granted, recent political conventions haven't been as wild and wooly as they were in the old days – and Sirhan Sirhan is safely tucked away – but things can still change in five months. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily suggesting it be done that way this time, as there are reasonable arguments to be made for holding off on placing candidate photos in the infobox until the nomination is official, I was just putting it out there for discussion. That said, it would not be at all premature to refer to him as the "presumptive nominee" (whether in the infobox or elsewhere in the article), since the term - by definition - refers to the candidate who has acquired the minimum delegates needed to secure the eventual nomination.--JayJasper (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be completely reasonable. Certainly in the text; I'm not sure how gracefully it could be put into the infobox, and I'm still opposed to including one picture in the infobox without one of the opponent also (at least for any longer than the small gap between conventions). Fat&Happy (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should not put one candidate in the infobox without at least one opponent also placed, lest it give the appearance of favoritism by giving one candidate the "jump" on the competition.--JayJasper (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It should definitely be added to the article:

• http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/04/this-just-in-obama-clinches-democratic-nomination/1
• http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/04/obama-clinches-democratic-nomination/

--141.152.79.93 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've marked him as the presumptive nominee on the page, and added the sources provided by the IP user (thanks). I agree it's too soon to put him in the infobox. We should at least wait until Romney also gets the minimum # of delegates he needs to be the presumptive nominee as well, and we can put both of them in the box. Or maybe better still, we could wait until both are officially nominated at the conventions.--NextUSprez (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Once Romney gets to 1144 both should be put in the infobox, as I agree it can show both or neither. Fat&Happy, things can change even after the conventions too. I don't like this logic that because change is possible, a reasonable assumption can be discounted for crystal balling. It was a reasonable assumption to include Obama back in January when no one challenged him, and calling him the likely nominee wouldn't be an inappropriate prediction. Reywas92^Talk 04:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoever is not calling President Obama the Democratic Nominee is a silly goose. He's the Democratic nominee and has more than enough bound delegates to put him over at the convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.105.44 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

He is acknowledged as the presumptive nominee in the Democratic candidates section.--JayJasper (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting ready for the general

Okay, as you can see I've done some housecleaning. As Obama has gotten enough delegates to win the nomination, I've tried to make the Democratic section look like the 2004 and '08 articles. The same with the GOP. With Santorum out, and Gingrich basiclly giving up, I've consolidated the gallery to have all the candidates who got on the ballot in at least three states plus Pawlenty, who was invited to the debates early on. "Commentary" looking like '04 and '08 will follow.Ericl (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I also think it is time to put some faces in the infobox, since we have two presumptive nominees. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As long they are clearly identified as "presumptive" nominees (as was done previously), I'd be okay with that. Although I'd add that, in the interest of neutrality and fairness, we should also list the other candidates who attain ballot status in enough states to theoretically win the minimum number of electoral votes needed to win the election. Typically, the Constitution, Green and Libertarian parties attain such status, and it appears that Americans Elect will too this time. The infobox can now hold as many as nine candidates, and likely there won't be that many attaining the aforementioned ballot status. Of course, the major party candidates would be listed at the top, per the policy of due weight.--JayJasper (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Romney, presumptive nominee?

I thought a candidate had to get a majority of delegates, before being called the party's presumptive presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think our article presumptive nominee makes it very clear. Although he does not quite have a majority, he has indeed secured "enough delegate commitments...to be assured - barring unforseen events - of the eventual nomination." There is absolutely no reason to believe he will not be nominated - there are no remaining major competitors, and Romney will not withdraw or be usurped - so we can safely assume he is the presumptive nominee. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a safe assumption, indeed. Also quoting from the aforementioned article: "A candidate may be considered a presumptive nominee after all other major competitors have dropped out and it is considered unlikely that the candidate will withdraw, be usurped, or be otherwise removed from the race." That certainly applies to Romney. That said, we should probably get a consensus on this before identifying him as the presumptive nominee on the page. If, for no other reason, to head off potential edit wars.--JayJasper (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that no media organization (or RS if you will) says he isn't the nominee should be evidence enough. Hot Stop 18:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The RNC have no declared him the presumptive nominee Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Right you are, Jack. Now we have the sources to verify it.--JayJasper (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the benefits do not out-weight the un-encyclopedia-ness of including speculation. I can foresee events that would allow the other remaining candidate to win the nomination.Antony.trupe (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Until he secures a majority of delegates he should not be the presumptive nominee. Beside Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.BenW (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The RNC does not decide who the presumptive nominee is, and it's actually illegal under GOP rule 11A to help a candidate while there is still opposition. The delegates decide, and the delegates have not spoken

Both Obama and Romney's picture need to be removed until both are NOMINATED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.237.222 (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's still too early to tell who the nominee will be, especially with Paul on the rise with gaining delegates (who I'm not saying will win, but still has a chance of beating Romney with the primaries still months away from ending). This seems way to much like something you'd see on CNN or some other old media station, and it's incredibly unencyclopedic to be placing speculation of nominees in the infoboxes. Please make it empty for the time being. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Calling Romney the presumptive nominee at this point is no more speculative than the networks calling Washington D.C. for Obama in 2008 with 1% of the precincts reported. The vast majority of the media (mainstream or otherwise) is in general election mode and so are both Obama and Romney. Hmmmmm, if this website had been around in 1996, I wonder if we'd get LaRouchies complaining about Wikipedia 'prematurely' referring to Clinton as the Democratic nominee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjs501180 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The probability of Romney getting the nomination, while high, is not high enough for Wikipedia to use the word "presumptive" because nobody knows for sure what the delegate numbers are (the media reports some numbers, but they're not true--and yes, the media lies sometimes, it's not free from bias or corruption). I request that the pictures be removed on the basis of excessive speculation. --Coching (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Coching. We should not be giving a false impression here that Romney is the "presumptive" nominee, because guess what, he's not. This would pretty much be like the media, telling lies and giving wrong information just to boost a candidate, in this case, Romney. JDC808 (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Guess what? He is! The media's not lying, as much as you would like to believe: the RNC has indeed declared Romney the presumptive nominee! JayJasper has kindly provided sources confirming this above. Reywas92^Talk 02:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Remember the time the Newspaper said "Dewey defeats Truman" and Truman won? Remember the time they called Iowa for Romney but then later called it for Santorum? Just because the media says something will happen does not make it so. BenW (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This is directed at Reywas92. The RNC officials don't decide who the nominee is. Whether or not the RNC says someone is the presumptive nominee before the national convention is irrelevant (it's actually illegal by GOP rule 11A). The RNC is fraught with corruption and bias as well, and have engaged in election fraud this election cycle, so they are not a trustworthy source. Delegates pick the nominee, and the delegates have not spoken yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coching (talk • contribs) 16:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)