Talk:List of candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I like it[edit]

This article (and the 2004 version) are very informative. There's no disputes over who belongs & who doesn't; neat. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's clear and concise, with little room for controversy. A couple of questions, though; would this list from the FEC be a better source than the New Hampshire Department of State? And can we get a citation for the candidates who are "on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win a majority in the U.S. Electoral College"? AnturiaethwrTalk 23:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list from the New Hampshire Department of State is only cited in reference to the list of candidates with ballot access in the New Hampshire primary. The FEC list does not contain this information. The table in the ballot access section indicates which third-party presidential candidates are on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win a majority in the US Electoral College. Most of the information on it comes from Ballot Access News, linked below. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 04:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! AnturiaethwrTalk 13:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite sources[edit]

Please provide sources when you add ballot status listings to the article. I realize it can be problematic, given the article's layout, to add reference tags in the main text. However, you can cite the source in the edit summary (as some editors already do). This is of particular concern because, as I write this, Ralph Nader is listed in the article as being on 29 states. Yet, Ballot Access News, which is supposedly the primary source for this information, only lists him as being on 16 states. What are the sources for the other 13 states?--JayJasper (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the main source for Nader information is http://www.votenader.org/action/ which includes states where petitions have been turned in but Nader's access has not yet been officially confirmed by the states themselves. These seem to be listed as "finished" on the BAN chart, and not counted in the "already on" total. I'm not too concerned about this right now, because one way or the other, it will be sorted out before too long. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 19:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that whenever that particular anonymous editor posts an update to the Nader column, it is always added to the VoteNader.org map soon after. He or she definitely knows a lot more than most of us do about what is going on, in terms of ballot access. I definitely appreciate his/her valuable edits to this page. Regarding the Ballot-Access News website list, that is not always updated as immediately as the relevant campaign sites are. If there are any successful challenges to the signature turn ins, we can always remove them from the list closer to the election (when there will be a final list available from BAN). Cmrdm (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ballot access[edit]

Can candidates who don't have a numeric possibility of winning (as listed in the ballot access table) make up for their deficiency by running as independents in other states, and thereby still theoretically win? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All states where the candidates have ballot access are shown on the chart, regardless of whether they are on the ballot as an independent or with any party labels. For example, Nader is on the California and Iowa ballots as the Peace and Freedom Party candidate; the Socialist Party ticket is on the Vermont ballot as the Liberty Union Party candidates. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 19:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I now see that it's spelled out in so many words, right above the chart, for dummies like me who only skim articles while doing ten other things. D'oh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Barr is listed as being on the ballot in 48 states (inc. DC) counting write-ins, but there are 4 blank spaces, meaning the chart only covers 47 of the 48. Is there a state missing that he is on the ballot of or is 47 the correct number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.84.210 (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. The number was not changed when Barr lost his Louisiana ballot access (diff), but it should have been, since it was then too late for Barr to get write-in status in LA. I'll fix it. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 00:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LP in PA[edit]

I believe there is an error in the list for Pennsylvania. There is no Libertarian party candidate in that state. Since the deadline for candidates passed on August 1st the Pennsylvania board of elections has released a list of all candidates for office but there are only three names on the list for President: Obama, McCain, and Nader. Here is a link: http://www.dos.state.pa.us/bcel/lib/bcel/elections/petition_filers.pdf Poplinre (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The LP web site says they've got the signatures. Maybe they forgot to file? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My best guess is that the LP filed a ballot access petition but it was contested. Unfortunately Pennsylvania is well known for having restrictive ballot access standards. In the entire history of the state there has been only one candidate who has been able to overcome a ballot petition challenge. You can read about it here: http://www.votenorth.org/node/50 Poplinre (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd. They claim to have submitted over 51,000 signatures, and what media I can find reports that they weren't challenged. At this point, Ballot Access News shows the Libertarian Party on the ballot in PA, while the LP itself doesn't. The petition filers pdf is still labeled as unofficial, so let's wait and see what it looks like when it becomes official. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 01:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should wait until the list is marked official. That will happen on August 26th. Poplinre (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe I've figured out the mystery. Apparently a local LP member, Rochelle Etzel, did submit over 51,000 signatures and was placed on the ballot. She then on August 7th withdrew her name from the ballot so that the national candidate could be substituted in for that party. August 21st is the "last day to file substituted nomination certificates to fill vacancies caused by the withdrawal of candidates nominated at the primary election or by nomination papers." Poplinre (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas[edit]

The article says that the Democratic and Republican parties are on the ballot in all 50 states and D.C., but this says they're not on the ballot in Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article says they missed a deadline to get on the ballot. It also predicts they will make it on to the ballot one way or another: "no court would order that Obama and McCain be kept off the ballot." -David Schaich Talk/Cont 00:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did read it. It makes a statement of fact and a prediction, as you said. As of now, it appears that these parties are not on the Texas ballot, and this article should reflect that. I'll make the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Texas Secretary of State now includes both the Democratic and Republican presidential tickets as 2008 November General Election Candidates. See http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/general/2008gensbs.shtml -David Schaich Talk/Cont 02:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like they found an escape hatch. Incidentally, I wasn't trying to be a pain, just accurate. Those parties don't deserve a pass on the rules just because they're the predetermined winners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of parties and ballot labels[edit]

Do we really want to list all the party labels candidates are running under in different states? In addition to those already in the table, Nader running under the Populist label in New York and the Natural Law Party in Michigan, while Brian Moore is on the ballot in Mississippi through the Natural Law Party and in Vermont through the Liberty Union Party. And those are just off the top of my head. Listing all of that could get unwieldy -- is it really necessary? -David Schaich Talk/Cont 02:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing nothing, how about noting the single-state parties in a footnote? -David Schaich Talk/Cont 01:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure It makes sense to me to list this information; why not in the table at the beginning? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a "sure" to my proposal? The rest of your comment makes it sound otherwise. Because I have a wide screen, the table looks rather awful with one line stuffed with half a dozen parties (not yet including Populist in New York). It could also be misleading to represent a candidate as running for a party that may have no connection with him other than allowing him to use a ballot line. Is it best to describe Ralph Nader as an Independent candidate, or as an Independent—Peace—Peace and Freedom—Populist—Natural Law—Ecology candidate? Using footnotes would allow all that information to be presented in a more accessible and informative way. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 00:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other third party candidates[edit]

Some of the ballot line numbers in this category seem to be inaccurate. For example, I could find no evidence of the Boston Tea Party being listed on the ballot in Texas (as opposed to having filed for write-in status). The figures for the Prohibition, Reform, Socialist and Socialist Workers parties also do not match Ballot Access New's data: http://www.ballot-access.org/ballot-chart.html I think adding the write-in status was a good idea though. Cmrdm (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure You're probably right. I took data from ballot-access and politics1 and it's entirely possible I added them up wrong. If you want to take a look and revise the numbers, go for it. Otherwise, I'll do it sometime, but probably only after one of those sites actually changes their figures. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to move Lyttle and the Pacifist Party to the final list, and reserve the second chart for candidates that are on the ballot in multiple states (at least). Thoughts? -David Schaich Talk/Cont 02:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I'd prefer to see it stay as-is. I'll grant you that having an entry with one amongst 51 options is a bit silly, but it is also silly to have entries with two through four. Lyttle is trying to establish an actual party, whereas the only member in the list below the table that has a party is a person who has formed a vanity party for ballot access. It seems substantial enough to me to leave it in the table, considering the legitimacy of the campaign and the fact that Lyttle has run before (I know he did in 2000.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polachek, Boss, and Allen are all on a single state's ballot with a party label, just like Lyttle, while McEnulty chose to be on the ballot as an independent despite running as a party's nominee (Duncan, Koenig, and Lloyd-Duffie are on the ballot as independents). Unless we have a reliable source explaining how all of their parties are simply vanity parties while Lyttle's is not, I find it inappropriate to give Lyttle special treatment.
I agree it is also silly to include in the chart candidates on in only 2-4 states, and I would be happy to move them to the final list as well. However, that should probably be a separate conversation, as it involves deciding what our standards actually are. Lyttle's case involves only consistent treatment of candidates with the same status as party candidates on the ballot in a single state. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that being on the ballot in more than one state is a fair minimum requirement for being listed on the chart. Cmrdm (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True You're probably right; it's essentially editorializing to say that his party is legitimate and the others aren't without some clear definition of what that means. Go ahead and move him to the list below. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops Reviewing my comments above, I'm tacitly bossing you around; I did it myself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collation[edit]

Ugh Amongst the four third-party candidates who can win (Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, and Nader), I initially tried to have some logical scheme for arranging their names, but it quickly fell apart. Alphabetical order? Alphabetical order by party? In order of descending ballot access? (Including or excluding write-in access?)In order of descending potential electoral votes? (Including or excluding write-in access?) Eventually, I gave up and just made it how it is. For the other third-party candidates, I arranged them in alphabetical order by last name (with Calero, not Harris for the SWP.) If someone wants to change it, I suppose I won't object, but any collation scheme is entirely arbitrary and it's not clear to me which one is preferable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp=Awesome[edit]

Can I just say whoever changed this the improvement is amazing!98.27.144.126 (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'm glad you like it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was you? YOU ROCK MY SOCKS LIKE CHICKEN POX (VACCINE)Chastayo (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly I'll take that as a compliment. It's all there in the "history" tab up at the top. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Write-in subtlety[edit]

I see that the SP's write-in status the minor parties chart has been updated to match the sidebar at http://www.votesocialist2008.org. I exchanged some emails with the SP ballot access coordinator about that sidebar's recent expansion. It seems that several of the states listed there have no filing (or other qualification) process for "official write-in status". Alabama, Delaware, New Hampshire and Rhode Island are legally required to count all presidential write-in votes ("although usually don't"), while Oregon and Wyoming have the candidates file after the election if they win (Oregon) or meet some unspecified threshold (Wyoming). Pennsylvania doesn't have any filing process either, though there it looks like the decision to count write-in votes is made county-by-county, apparently depending on how often and aggressively the campaigns themselves contact the county administrations.

So that kind of raises a question of what we mean by (write-in) in the charts, since all campaigns seem to be qualified by default in those seven states. We can either list them all that way, or only list the ones that actually seem to be running write-in campaigns in those states. The fact that the Socialists' campaign site lists those states suggests they are running write-in campaigns of a sort in all of them, though I don't know if they have anyone actually "on the ground" in Wyoming. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 01:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True This is a good point and one that I had not considered... For the states that have open-ended write-ins, they should probably be included in the totals at the top of the table; it would be difficult to know which parties have some sort of campaign in those states and it is likely that at least some votes will be cast for any of those candidates in those states. If the purpose of the tally is to determine how many electoral votes a candidate could get, then we would be obliged to include Alabama, Delaware, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. I honestly don't know what to make of Oregon, Pennslyvania, and Wyoming's bizarre write-in schedules; maybe this is something that should simply be mentioned in the text. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, we may as well wait and see whether any candidates got write-in votes recorded in any of these states. I'm not sure how long that will take, though, since states are generally slow to count and report write-in votes. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 02:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul[edit]

Why is Paul not on the write in list he was a certified write in in California and I believe some other states as well? BenW (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is discussed specially above the charts in the ballot access section. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 02:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_candidates_in_the_2008_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1203545065"