Talk:2008 United States presidential election

Archives: /Archive1

Other potential Democratic or Republican candidates

What about other people medioned as potential democratic or Republican candidates:

• Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma
• Gov. Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming
• Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois
• Sen. Kent Conrad od North Dakota
• Sen. Tom Carper od Delaware
• Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
• Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina

Are they said they won't running? 83.24.217.252 22:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why no mention of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a possible candidate? Perhaps I'm more exposed to media speculation of his candidacy because I live in New York, but I think, given that he's included in so many New Yorker polls (indeed, quite a few show he can hold his own against Hillary and Giuliani), he should be mentioned in the article. His close aide, Kevin Sheekey, has been spreading rumors of a third-party run (since neither Dems nor Reps would take him). --Pallas.athene 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Omar Epps, potential candidate

Riiiiiiight. Deleted pending sourcing. -- 18:54, 7 February 2006 (PST)

Bad Wording

"The 2008 race will therefore likely be a non-incumbent or "open seat" election in which a sitting President is not a candidate." Not only is it likely that a sitting President will not be a candidate, it is certain that a sitting President will not be a candidate. There is only one sitting President, George W. Bush. Barring a constitutional amendment, he is prohibited from being a candidate in the 2008 election. --Descendall 13:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Likely is correct, because the article is taking into account the (slim) possibility that Bush will not be the sitting President in 2008, due either to impeachment, incapacitation, or death. This used to be explicitly in the article; I'm not sure when it was removed. Jpers36 15:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited to clear this up. Jpers36 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to admit that I didn't think of that. --Descendall 18:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, though, it's even more unlikely than it first seems, because even if Bush were to die, the sitting president would become Cheney, who almost certainly would not run as his health is bad and he is unpopular. I guess lightning could always hit the two of them, however, so you never know. --Descendall 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Although it wouldn't seem now that VP Cheney would run for President, if he were to actually assume office due to changing circumstances, then he might have a different perspective, particularly if the nation were seen to be in crisis. Albanaco 19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

I have removed Jimmy Carter from the Other Possible Candidates section. He is explicitly barred by the Constitution from serving a third term, and there is no prospect that the Twenty-Second Amendment will be repealed, especially by the 2008 election.

But Carter only served one term. (I'm not arguing he's a serious candidate, though). --Aranae 20:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhh...it does? Explain. Frankg 01:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't. All it does is prohibit someone from being elected president more than twice, or from being elected a second time if they've served for more than a term and a half. john k 01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that Carter is a plausible candidate, for other reasons. john k 01:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter only served one term.--216.7.254.254 19:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The term limit doesn't kick in till Carter runs for and gets elected to a second term. He was only elected ONCE: he did run TWICE, but he lost one of those times--User:TimothyHorrigan Timothy Horrigan 13:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice

She hasn't even said she is going to run, why is she listed as a frontrunner for the Republican nomination? Is it allowed for people who have no intentions of running to be listed as frontrunners? Opinion polling listed here should only be based on those who have stated they are pursuing a candidacy. --Revolución (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents: Whether she has announced or not... even if she has definitely said "no, no and hell no"... the fact that she still shows up well in polls *means* something. Republican primary voters going out of their way to woo blacks in the general? Disaffection with the other potential candidates? Deep affection for the Bush administration? Simple lack of interest among the general public, which leads to a big name polling well versus a less well-known name, albeit more likely candidate, like Frist or Allen? Who knows, probably nobody knows why she polls well, but as long as she does, we should keep her listed here. Nosimplehiway 02:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

She polls well because she has name recognition. I agree that she should be included in the list, because she is being talked about. And the polls are interesting because they are polls. But she is PRO-CHOICE. That kills her nomination. So I think the recent add that there is a "strong possibility" that we will have a female president is far, far from the martk. Still A Student 13:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, if the polls are placing her at the top then she is the frontrunner. A candidate could be drafted/pressured into the presidency. 12.220.94.199 16:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If Condoleezza Rice cannot be considered a "real" candidate for her party's nomination, then neither should have Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, Barry Goldwater in 1964, or Wesley Clark in 2004. All three of those candidates denied interest in running within several months of the primaries (Ike and Goldwater denied it even more fervently than Rice did). "Draft"/write-in candidates have been drafted into presidential races frequently throughout the past century. George Washington might even be considered an example. Also, Rice is not truly pro-choice. She said on one occasion that she was "reluctantly pro-choice", which, as she then went on to explain, means that she disagrees with abortion on a moral basis, but does not think a constitutional amendment banning all abortion is a realistic political option at this point in time, and therefore she believes some abortion must still be legal for the time being, thereby making her "reluctantly pro-choice." In the actual sense of the words, she is really "pro-life". Besides, even if she was actually pro-choice, wouldn't that also then disqualify Rudy Giuliani, who is on record as saying he supports even partial-birth abortion and "does not see [his] opinion on that ever changing" (my paraphrase). Also, George H.W. Bush was pro-choice before he campaigned for President in 1988, and Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney (even as a religious Mormon) used to be pro-choice, but has since changed his position. Rice says she has the same view on abortion as President Bush. Rice has polled consistently well, and the voting public has shown that they are welcoming of presidential draft campaigns as evidenced by the latest nation-wide, scientific poll taken on it by APRI (see http://www.apri.us), in which 1,001 respondents (all registered voters) overwhelmingly say that draft candidates can still possibly win an election, that they would consider supporting such a draft candidate, and that there is still plenty of time to convince Rice to run. Also note that, among registered Republicans, 29% said they are "likely" to support the Draft Rice movement, 53% said they will consider supporting the movement, and only 2% said they would never try to draft Rice into the 2008 race. Of the only three Republican candidates who can realistically beat any Democratic candidate, Rice appeals to conservatives the most. And if Republicans can only field three contenders who could win the general election, then they're not going to take any options off the table--even if they have to draft one of them. She also comes out on the top or near-top of every Republican nomination poll. I say keep her name on the page. --Ai.kefu 20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll to remove "about frontrunner" sections

This section is ridiculous! If people want to learn about any of the frontrunners from any of the parties, they should read the articles written about them. Frontrunners can change with time, but having a section like this assumes it will set in stone that the person written about will be nominated. Otherwise we will have to write a million "about frontrunner" sections if they change. So I am proposing that they be removed. This is not merely a vote, this is to build consensus, so feel free to give your thoughts.

In favor of removal

• Remove per my reasons above. --Revolución (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds fine to me. Rob 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Remove i don't mind a mention of the two main party frontrunners at any given moment, but much more than a wikilinked mention seems to be a bit overkill. youngamerican (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's way too early to be emphasising any particular candidate as a presumptive nominee. Neither of the two ladies concerned have expressed any intention to run at this stage. Ender 12:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Remove 2 more years? The upcoming midterm election can't even be accurately predicted at this pooint in time.
• Remove This is opinion and not fact. Does not belong on a wikipedia page. Zzmonty 11:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In support of keeping

I think that they are useful sections since future versions of the article will certainly have equivalent information about the nominee. It is a large chunck to have to update though, perhaps they could be paired down a bit. 128.220.183.124 02:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but clarify/move. See below Still A Student 23:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Question. Who is the Tony M. Sanders who is listed as a potential candidate in 2008? I did a Google search for him, and the closest thing I found to him as a candidate was this page. He is not listed at Politics1, either. Chronicler3 18:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but clarify I think the information on likely candidates should be available. As of the present (the momemnt someone is reading the encyclopedia), one important aspect of the 2008 election is speculation about who the nominees will be. However, the article should more clearly distinguish between a poll leader and a front-runner. The presidential nomination is not given to the candidate who gets the most votes across the country. Nominees have to collect delegates at the state-level, and the "frontrunner" is the subjective term we would use to describe the candidate who has the best chance at doing that. Poll standing is informative, but it's not the same thing, and the political insiders understand that. The article would be misleading if it doesn't acknowledge that experts know the limitations of polls. Condaleeza Rice is simply not the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, and not merely because she is not running. Her strength is based on name recognition, and that's going to change. The Republican "frontrunner" is probably Allen or (less likely) McCain. Similarly, HRC might be the Dem "frontrunner," but Warner is much closer to her than the polls indicate. I would suggest that instead of saying "Frontrunner" at all, we move the material to the section on "Speculated candidates" (which I would rename "Potential candidates" to discourage the wild speculation) and simply provide the polls as information to help organize those candidates. Still A Student 23:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

While we are at it, the section on "third party candidates" sure is long. A third party candidate is not going to win in 2008. They are interesting, especially if one is popular enough to be a spoiler, but couldn't all of that go on the separate page? The major party candidates deserve a mention here, because that's what the race is about. Still A Student 23:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be best to put only the parties mentioned on Template:USParty on here, and then put the remaining on a seperate page unless a popular independent pops up. 12.220.94.199 23:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

removal

I've removed the following text, which seems to be rather inappropriate:

"In actual fact, the 'election' will very probably be fixed by the Republican Party and their allies by using rigged electronic voting machines and removing thousands of African American voters from the voting rolls in key swing states. Failing that, they might dispute the election results, stop recounts and simply get their candidate appointed to the Presidency."

-lethe ^{talk +} 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The text does have a ring of truth in it, but it's definately unencylopedic. Wouter Lievens 19:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup. It was, at best, heavy POV and, at worst, vandalism. youngamerican (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You think it has a ring of truth? It's basically making a prediction of widescale voting fraud. It's not even eligible to be true, since it's a prediction about the future, but if it were, say, about the 2004 election, it would have the ring of nutty left-wing conspiracy theory to me, not truth. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Zzmonty I removed the polling data. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia of unbiased data. By giving polling data it will indirecty affect the outcome of the election by subconciously planting data into voters heads.

Zzmonty Removed Wyatt Chesney from the Reform party. He is a ficticious person who is suspected of being a teenager playing pranks. He is the one who keeps readding his name. Check with Rodney Martin of the http://www.reformpartyusa.org, the organization recognized by the FEC as the Reform party to verify this fact.

Zzmonty Removed button purchasing. It is polling data and it is an advertisement. Does not belong in an encyclopedia. Removed predictions. These are opinions, not facts, and they can indirectly affect the outcome of the elections, especially when only Republican and Democratic parties are talked about.

map colors

Will the map have the same blue = Dem , red = Repub colors or will they change? --Revolución hablar ver 18:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no single map -- each television network has its own. In 2000, and I believe even in 2004, many networks did not adhere to the red=Republican, blue=Democrat meme. Jpers36 19:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In 1992 and 1996, the Democrats were red and the Republicans were blue. Following this pattern, in 2008 the Democrats will be red again and the Republicans will be blue again. --Revolución hablar ver 19:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Which map are you referring to? There is not now, and never has been, any accepted standard coloration. I believe the red state vs blue state idea comes completely from CBS's coverage, while other networks (NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, BBC) used their own coloring schemes. Jpers36 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Before 2000, there was no universal color-coding for election maps. There never was such an incumbancy convention. For example, ABC used blue and yellow for the 1992 and 1996 elections. Since the current colors used now are fixed in our minds, I am 85% sure that Republicans will continue to be red and Democrats will continue to be blue. Andros 1337 18:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Susan Sarandon

I know she has been involved in some left-wing causes, but a claim like she is a potential candidate for the Green nomination might need to be sourced with something. --Revolución hablar ver 23:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

NEWSMEAT Campaign Contributions. She does give a donation to the Green Party at one time, and the Nader campaign, but on the other hand, most of her contributions are to Democratic candidates. --Revolución hablar ver 23:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed her from the list of potential Green candidates. --Revolución hablar ver 02:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

This is trivia I suppose, but in 2004 she received 34 write-in votes in the Massachusetts democratic primary, 52 write-in votes in the Rhode Island democratic primary, and 8 write-in votes for president in Rhode Island, according to the FEC. [1] (PDF) Esquizombi 11:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I really would like for her to run, but I do not think she would win. I think she is a great person I really do just with how bad Bush messed things up for the united states...it would be impossible for her to fix it...

Third Parties, Conventions, Primaries

I removed this addition: "(the 3rd parties nominate by convention and do not use caucuses nor primaries)". It is inaccurate on two counts. First, the Dems and Reps also nominate by conventions. It's just that since the vast majority of delegates are elected through primaries and are loyal, we can determine who the nominee will be from primary outcomes. Second, many third parties do, in fact, use primaries, although most of those primaries probably serve a role more like the one primaries served in the major party races before the McGovern-Fraser reforms. Here are links to some third-party primary results from 2004. [2][3](PDF)

Some 3rd parties do appear on a few state primary ballots (sometimes against their will due to state election laws), but the delegates are actually chosen by state conventions. Anarchist42 22:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Some major party states also use state conventions in that way. And state election laws are why Dems and Reps have to hold primaries in most states. It's not as different as the line suggests. It remains true that both the major parties and these parties nominate by convention. And it's an odd thing to make such a blanket statement about all third parties. It's also a bit of a non sequitur where it is. But I'm not terribly particular about it. The whole article has too much on third parties for my tastes. Still A Student 22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefixed the word most until it can be confirmed that all 3rd parties don't use primaries to choose their nominee. The difference between how the main parties and the 3rd parties choose their niminee is indeed significant. Considering that most Americans don't vote, and that about a third of voters are 'independents', the inclusion of 3rd party information has some relevence (additionally, independent candidates have, on occasion, had a major impact on Presidential races). Anarchist42 23:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the prevalence of independents or non-voting has much to say about the relevance of third parties. The literature on this is extensive, and that's not the conclusion you would draw from it. The relationship is tenuous at best. Third party information should be included in the entry. And I do think you are really overstating the differences between how the parties choose their nominees. Is there an entry on third-party nominations that we could direct people to? It's just dropped in to the middle of the sentence, implying, falsely, that the major parties don't use conventions. They do. The entire paragraph is about the major party primaries. Maybe a separate paragraph? Still A Student 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph in question discusses how the major parties use caucuses and primaries to choose convention delegates (unlike the 3rd parties) and how the major partiy's nomineees are "effectively chosen by the March primaries" (again unlike the 3rd parties). Thus, it is not false to imply that the major parties "don't use conventions" to actually choose their nominees (although they used to). I agree that a better-organized description of how the 3rd parties select their nominees (and how significant independent candidates enter the race) is needed - each 3rd party does so differently, and some have divisive battles over procedure (such as Reform and Green). Anarchist42 01:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

But the paragraph is not about how the major parties differ from the Green or Reform parties. It's about the candidates will be selected. It would really bog down the article to add a parenthetical about how minor parties do things to every sentence. It is also not true that the Democrats or the Republicans do not use state conventions to select delegates -- at least in some states. And they argue over procedure too. All the time. I'm going to make a change. See if it satisfies you. Still A Student 01:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.Anarchist42 20:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest Poll?

I found this who claimed about a new poll leading by Edwards and McCain, shall we update polls?--Sina 23:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• A poll from the 26-28 shows Condi as the leading candidate. One thing is Condi isn't included in all of the polls meaning that other candidates appear to be leading, but when she is included she seems to almost always be the leading Republican candidate. But this is all a bit crystal ballish, and so I don't think we should worry too much, about who is leading until late 2007. 12.220.94.199 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speaking of polls, I notice that we always keep the latest poll and delete earlier ones. Does it make sense to simply retain all the polling data in a bigger table? This both contains more data and is easier to maintain. -- Deville (Talk) 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• How about making a new page called "2008 Presidential Election Polling Data" and then replace this section with a link to that page. Then those people who are interested in that data can go to that page and those who just want the facts and only the facts can just look here. Zzmonty 12:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeb Bush

Looking at the Jeb Bush article, you see that:

However, on October 17, 2004, he denied interest in running in the 2008 election.

We should update this article to reflect that, somehow. -- Disavian 15:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

section on Speculation on candidates

This has been bugging me for a while, but it sort of seems that this section violates WP:NOT, specifically crystal ballism. "Announced candidates" seems ok, but "likely potential candidates" seems to be inherently unverified. Any thoughts? --Deville (Talk) 05:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest only keeping candidates that have been cited by the media as potential. For example Condoleeza Rice would be included simply because she is cited in almost every major poll about the Republican nomination. Falphin 21:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• The likely potential candidates needs to removed though, that is POV. They should be moved to potential candidates. Falphin 21:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree here. Some candidates, even ones who haven't actually announced that they are running, have been the subject of a lot of media scrutiny on this; Guiliani, Rice, Evan Bayh come to mind. But Titus Nez and Roy Moore? C'mon, now. How about the following (loose) standard: someone can be represented as a potential candidate if their name appears in a major poll. Technically, anyone can run for President, so of course a list of people who may one day run for President is pretty open, but we really should be hewing to some objective standard here. --Deville (Talk) 13:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see much comments about this, but I still see some really unnotable and speculative candidates up there. Omar Epps? So I think a standard should be that if there isn't some sort of reference that someone will run by a quote here, or by something on that person's Wikipedia page, the entry should be removed. I'll start doing that sometime soon. --Deville (Talk) 03:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added Democrats who have exploratory committees/PACs or have been included consistently in polls. Not sure about Boxer, but she has a PAC so who knows. --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk

Poll: Indicating if candidates are registered with the FEC

Should we indicate if a candidate is registered with the FEC by putting "FEC Registered" next to the name or indicate a candidate is not FEC registered by putting "NON-FEC Registered" next to the name. Then add a page called "2008 Presidential Election Non-FEC Registered Candidates" where it can be indicated exactly why the person is not FEC registered. This is not important now, since almost everyone on the list is not FEC registered, but as the election goes on it will become important. Zzmonty 13:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How notable are these candidates?

The George Allen page is a disambiguation page. Should this be the case, or should it link directly to the article about Senator Allen? When someone searches for George Allen, I would expect that most of the time this is the person they are looking for. NoSeptember ^talk 00:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my guess is that this discussion is probably more appropraite on the talk page of the dab page, not here. That being said, I'm not sure that we should change the disambiguation page yet. I can say that personally when I hear "George Allen" I still think of the Skins coach. And I would imagine that to Australians the name brings up other ideas altogether. I'd say that right now in 2006 the Senator isn't that well known even in the States, and I'd dare say completely unknown outside of the U.S. Now, of course, if he ends up winning the nomination, or even doing well in the primaries, then this is another story: he'd be the one we should link to. On the other hand, let's say that his nomination tanks, or he doesn't run becasue of a scandal, or any of a number of things. Then 10, 100 years from now, he will be completely unknown, whereas the other George Allens have historical records. In any case, my feeling is that we should leave it the way it is for now.

And in any case, should we cross-post, or move, this discussion to Talk:George Allen?--Deville (Talk) 13:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Allen has been mentioned by several major polls as a candidate, so compared to the great majority listed he appears notable enough. Falphin 22:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly he is far more notable than an Australian politician from the 1800s, a deceased American football coach and an American ambassador to Iran in the 1940s even just on the merits of being a current US Senator. I would support such a move. I've also copied this discussion to Talk:George Allen —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 @ 21:06 UTC

Third term for Bush?

Is it theoretically possible to electe him third and fourth time like Roosevelt? --User:TimothyHorrigan: No, unless the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution was amended. However, Bush has proposed many amendments in the past, so amending the Constitution is by no means unthinkable. And, this amendment would actually have bipartisan support: bills to do so have in fact been introduced in several recent sessions of Congress. Timothy Horrigan 13:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The two-term tradition had been an unwritten rule since the 1790s, but Roosevelt, after blocking the presidential ambitions of cabinet members... Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution is against it but with a war with Iran and North Corea would make him a war president, which changes alot in election attitude, and would make a change of the Amendment possible? --Stone 08:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is theoretically possible, but so are a lot of things. For what it's worth, such an occurence is so unlikely to happen that it's not worth mentioning. --Deville (Talk) 13:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Never thought about mentioning it, but the war president Roosevelt was always a thing I never got. But with the Amendment, this possibility has decreased significatly, and brother and father are still there run for president, but then the democracy looks more like a kingdom (Bush I, Bill (the easygoing), Bush II and Bush III).--Stone 14:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, what is it that you don't get? He was a president during a war, making him a war president, no? And in any case, I wouldn't worry about the next president being any kind of Bush, if I were you. The father is of course right out, and Jeb is not being taken seriously as a candidate right now. I think he's got a vague outside chance at some point in the future, but not in 2008. And in any case, I think Clinton is way more of a viable candidate this time than Jeb, so you're more likely to see Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, Clinton II than your scenario. FWIW, Clinton has a steep uphill battle herself, but it's more resonable than Jeb.--Deville (Talk) 16:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes would also give a nice list with Clinton I and II (maybe a Bush after that?). War president, as the third and fourth time because of the war, which was a decision at that time, which was right.--Stone 16:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no way the Twenty-second Amendment could get repealed in time for 2008. Bush is not an eligible candidate. john k 15:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.--Deville (Talk) 16:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The world could explode and there would be no election but we don't have that in there. :) Btw, great article you have here, but I don't think it will pass FAC due to the highly unstable nature of it. But keep it up! American Patriot 1776 13:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the 22nd Amendment allows for a third term if it is non-consecutive with the first two. So, if Bill Clinton ran and won, it'd be constitutional. --Disavian 16:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How sure are you? I'd suggest you read here: Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The language of the amendment is pretty clear on this. Clinton is ineligible, as will GW Bush be when his term ends in 2009. --Some Dude

You're right. What I remembered about the 22nd Amendment from Civics in 8th grade was apparently wrong ;p --Disavian 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But since he didn't really win the first election (2000), shouldn't he be able to run for re-election in 2008 having won only one election (2004) so far? ;-) Ground Zero | t 20:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Futurology

Can anyone REALLY know the future, especially in a nation, such as the United States? There are so many potential candidates (at this time) and citizens of this country that it is hard to tell who will even get nominated. Thus one should not really put too much stock in this web page. I mean after all predictions of the future are usuall wrong in some way or another.--216.7.248.254 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This page doesn't predict anything (if it did, it would be violating WP:NOT). All it does is present candidates currently perceived as frontrunners and other people mentioned by as possible candidates by reputable sources. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Saturday, 6 May 2006 @ 23:36 UTC

   I don't know why you would think like that? A third turn for Bush? First, I think they should have a age limit for the oldest candidate, any one who is over 70 should not run at all, because of possible death.  Second, since Bush's approval rating is not good right now, I don't think he would likely to want to run for a third term.  Thrid, Unless the Constituation can be change which means 2/3 or vote from both House and Senate and adopted from every state. I strongly thinks you guys are crazy Bush supporters that ignore the facts on his poor desicion to solve most problem on national and international affairs.  

Previous presidents

I don't understand this note:

The person elected in 2008 will be the 44th President, provided that a President who has so far served only one term (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, or George H.W. Bush) does not win the 2008 Election.

Grover Cleveland is usually counted as both the 22nd and 24th president, so the person elected in 2008 would be the 44th, regardless of who it is. If we think we shouldn't count Cleveland twice, then Bush is the 42nd president, and the note still needs correction.

(It's also nearly impossible that Ford, Carter or GHW Bush will be president again, but that's another matter.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Still A Student (talk • contribs) 22:10, May 9, 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly right. Even in the unimaginably unlikely case that one of those three were elected president in 2008, they'd be counted as the 44th as per Grover Cleveland. I'll fix the text. --Deville (Talk) 03:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Edwards

User:RIAUSA is keep removing John Edwards from Likely potential candidates of Democratic Party and claimed he will not run in 08 without any sources. Edwards has not stated anything about his decision for 08 but last week announced that he is thinking seriously about another run.--Sina 00:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore

Al Gore said at Middle Tennessee State University in 2006 that he would definitely not run for 2008. He should be removed as a "likely candidate." Likewise, Howard Dean (Democratic Chairman) and Condi Rice (Secretary of State) have also said they're not running, yet they are also listed as potential candidates due to their name recognition.

As of early 2006 Gore is no longer "counting out" the possibility of running. He also appears to be positioning himself for a run.Sir hugo 20:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think by next year when the major contenders annouce their intentions, people like AlGore and Dean and Rice will be taken off the wikipedia pages as energy is spent on catching up with the actual condidates. For right now 2008 is a bunch of speculation and Wikipedia is a place people come to for answers. For now, while they're all playing words games, they should be kept in an "Others" list to show how popular they were or americans during the 2004-08 era. I dunno, thoughts? SargeAbernathy 01:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Average of All Major Polls

I'm removing the "Average of All Major Polls" sections. They are original research. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reinsert them and please discuss why here. -- Alan McBeth 21:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Why no mention of Mitt Romney. It seems from articles and info on his site that his hat is flying toward the ring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.81.244 (talk • contribs) 19:28, June 13, 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I'm a bit confused by this comment. He is mentioned as a "likely potential candidate". --Deville (Talk) 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Romney was added after the original suggestion, so all is well in the universe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytebear (talk • contribs)

Aha, now I see... he was removed at some point and then readded in the last couple of days. My bad --Deville (Talk) 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A group of Harvard Students?

A group of Harvard government students has predicted that Senator Chuck Hagel will be the winner of the 2008 Presidential election[4].

Hardly seems notable. Doctofunk 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Should delete. Still A Student 21:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Woman probability

With current knowledge, what is the probability that a woman will become the nation's new President?? Georgia guy 19:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)