Talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 1

3257:

name was forced onto the primary ballots by draft supporters and he ended up winning New Hampshire and other big primaries, all the while he was saying that he "would not seek any political nomination." Likewise, Barry Goldwater was saying things like "I'm not a candidate. And I'm not going to be. I have no intention of running for the Presidency" and "Draft, nothin'—I told you I'm not going to run" before he was drafted as the 1964 Republican nominee. And the argument that candidates aren't drafted in this day and age is also a fallacy--consider Wesley Clark in 2004. If the Internet and Knowledge (XXG) had been around in 1952, and Eisenhower had been kept off the list of potential Republican candidates just because he had not formed a PAC to raise money for his campaign and because he had denied interest in it, it would have been historically ridiculous. Eisenhower was shown to have a clear popularity amongst voters and he was shown to have a clear electability in both the primary and general elections. Therefore, in 1952, even while Eisenhower was denying he wanted to run, I would hope those hypothetical Wikipedians would have included Eisenhower as a "Candidate who has not expressed interest, but for whom there is significant support." Goldwater and Clark are other examples. So, really, what I'm saying is, just because Rice has said "It's not necessarily what I want to do with my life," she has always stopped short of giving the Sherman Oath (which many others, including Cheney, have freely given), which reads: "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve." She has never been able to make that statement, and, as a result, she keeps coming out on top of polls--both nation-wide public opinion polls, and local insider straw polls alike. Because of the large chance that she could very well be the nominee in spite of her denials of interest, I sincerely believe she must be included for the sake of comprehensive and accurate discussion of the topic at hand. --

3328:

early on, NOBODY is officially announced. Plus, Rice has consistently left the door open. She has never given the Sherman Oath and she has never said she would never run under any circumstance. She's merely said she doesn't see herself running and doesn't want to. In spite of all of this, she's got as much '08 buzz as any other big-name presidential contender and she keeps coming out on the top of polls. This has happened several times before in very recent history. Eisenhower, Goldwater, and Clark were all drafted into their respective races--all within the last 50-some years. In this day and age, to leave someone out of consideration just because they've said they "don't intend to" is ludicrous. Newt Gingrich has said he will only run if nobody else champions the issues he wants the 08 election to address. Therefore, should we leave Newt off this page until it becomes clear that nobody is talking about the things Newt wants talked about and that Newt will in fact run? No... even though all the issues Newt wants to be addressed ARE being addressed, and therefore every indication is that Newt will not run, he's still on the page. If this page is really about giving serious consideration to viable presidential candidates, why are jokes like Chuck Hagel, George Pataki, and Tom Tancredo given more attention than Condoleezza Rice, who ALWAYS beats everyone but Rudy and McCain, and, who, many times, beats even those two? Rice needs to be listed among the candidates--she's not like Jeb Bush or Dick Cheney who basically said, "I'm not running--not just no, but hell no, etc." Rice is not going away. There's something huge in the American electorate that we can't just overlook. She is such a pivotal factor in the 2008 race at this point that it would be insane not to include her on this page. --

3237:

know about a lot of average Joes who are basically the town dog-catcher and have "formed their own exploratory committee and expressed interest." Why aren't we listing them there? I think the reason we don't list these guys is because they're honestly not feasible, realistic candidates. So, then what should the qualifications be for listing a potential candidate in this article? I think in this case, the qualification should be: Is there a decent chance that this person could actually be elected President in 2008? If this is the qualification for discussing potential candidates on this Knowledge (XXG) article, then Condoleezza Rice should definitely be included and discussed as a possibility. Note that the section listing Republican candidates is for "potential candidates," because, realistically, at this time, there are no actual candidates for 2008 yet. Except for a few exceptions like Gravel, Cox, etc., no real candidate has announced. For example, everyone thought Rick Santorum and Haley Barbour were going to run just a few months ago, and then it turns out they weren't. Chuck Hagel and Newt Gingrich gave incidations they weren't going to get involved in the 2008 race, but then it turns out they are seemingly moving toward doing so. So the thing is, the field of candidates is so fluid at this point, that we can't really look for "official candidates," because there basically are none. At this point, we have to look at -- who's being talked about in terms of a likely future President? Who does the GOP

1397:(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 3276:

The odds are far more likely that Rice will be persuaded to enter the race and win than the odds that Pataki or Tancredo, even as active candidates, could ever make it past the primaries and win the general election. Rice consistently polls high (and often on top) in all kinds of polls--from the scientific nation-wide public opinion polls down to the local county straw polls, and from the online/blogger oriented polls to the GOP insider straw votes, indicating that her polling success is NOT just name recognition. From the general public to the informed democracy-nerd voters, Rice is very often touted as a serious presidential possibility. Rice gets more press as a potential 2008 contender than half of the "announced" candidates listed (even though practically nobody has actually announced yet, AND Rice has never definitively closed the door on the option and has consistently refused to give the Sherman Oath). Rice needs to be listed as one of the possibilities in some form or another. It's ridiculous to have an objective article on the 2008 US Presidential Election and to not include Condoleezza Rice at this point. --

1186:), 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. -- 4622:

dropout candidate when he was never actually a candidate. In fact, I think that once we're a couple of weeks into 2007, we should even get rid of the "expressed serious interest lists". The "Conditions for listing a candidate" section says "Private Official Campaign Web Site" which seems to me to imply that all candidates regardless of list are actively campaigning enough to have a web site, but we're only listing PAC websites which aren't even close to the same thing and this may mislead the reader. At the very least, we should get rid of the whole "Conditions for listing a candidate" part because it misinforms the reader that the following lists have some sort of rigid criteria when they do not. The individual "lists within a list" (i.e. Filed with FEC, expressed serious interest, etc.) actually give the conditions for listing a candidate. What do you all think?

1177:

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

3728:

be involved in personal problems, due to close relationships with immigrants or labor. The hispanic vote will be watching the immigrant problem closely, and politicians pursuing the hispanic vote have to be careful. What is the solution to the apparently unstoppable illegal immigration? Many answers have been mentioned back and forth, but you have to be in power to be able to take the necessary steps, and the risk. I, as a writer, have ventured forth a hero with possible upward mobility, the son of immigrant parents, raised in an immigrant community, who as an attorney claims to have a solution, but it is only fiction. And I write in a humourous vein. But the politics in Miami, Florida, where I live, do reflect the controversy and difficulty that awais the next presidential elections. Juan del Cerro, Sept.21,2006

3187:

and scientific nation-wide opinion polls, she almost always comes out either #1 or at least in the top three. There's tons of buzz going on about drafting Rice into the race amongst GOP grassroots and half the time Rice's interviewers are asking her about 2008 possibilities. Regardless, she's being talked about a lot and needs to be discussed. I don't think Rice belongs in the same group as other undeclared candidates (i.e. Pawlenty, Santorum, etc.). While politicians like Pawlenty and Santorum, for instance, have also stated that they will not run for President, nobody's really opposing that. However, there is a rather massive Draft Rice for President movement going on right now. Has anyone else seen all the "Condi '08" bumper stickers, television/radio ads, and billboards? Go to

3617:

little conversation contained in an hour segment. Anyways never mind all that. I have listened to Stern for 10 years. When he is making a joke or just thinking freely he doesn’t bring it up throughout the show over and over again. The difference between the first two quotes and the last (from the clip) was three to four hours later. Also, he brought it up again today, but I am not going to cut another six hour show again. Right now I have provided a good enough source to back up my statement. Remember it does say “interested in candidacy” and my source does prove he is interested. I am not saying he is going to run because if I did, I would not have placed him under the “maybe” category. Let’s not forget he did run for Governor of New York once.

4437:

enough indication about who is and who is not a candidate. The candidates themselves will always claim they haven't announced so that they can save it for an optimal time when the press will most benefit the campaign. Because of the vague definition of announced, I don't think it is a very encyclopedic criteria. Why not wait until they've either filed as official candidates or formed exploratory committees? I personally would prefer not to even have an "expressed serious interest" but I'm will to keep it as an umbrella for candidates who are clearly running but haven't done anything official yet. Then all the supposed announcements and non-announcements can fall in to that category. What do you all think?

4448:

like Joe Biden who have "announced their intentions" but have not "announced" and others who might be stuck in the Seriously Considering category when they've already pretty much reached a decision. In those cases, we just leave them in the Considering category until they make a formal move. It's easier that way than creating an Announced category for any and every candidate who formally announces just a few days before the file with the FEC. Since the term "announce" is so nebulous in this context and since candidates would likely only be in the "Announced but not filed" category for a few days before they got moved again, I think it's wise to simply do away with the Announcement category. --

2217:

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.

4571:

would be a serious contender for President anymore, but people seriously considered Tom Daschle as a prospect for the Democrats this season (up until he dropped out last week, that is) and he had just been ousted in 2004. I guess I'm leaning toward keeping Allen on the list until he officially gives some indication that he's not still wanting to run for President in 2008. As absurd as the idea of an '08 presidential run by Allen might be at this point, who knows, an ousted Allen might still have a better chance at bagging the nomination than a RINO like Hagel or an unknown like Hunter. Thoughts...? --

3712:

some amendments are not enacted or repealed; and so forth. If Bush does not serve out his term, then this article will change and indicate that the 44th President may be re-elected or the 45th President would be elected (after all, couldn't we repeal the 22nd Amendment and let Bush be re-elected?). If the pending law that hasn't even been enacted yet is challenged in court, then the article will be changed to reflect that (after all, couldn't the court system be dissolved by aliens in the next two year?). It's clutter and doesn't belong at this stage.

3247:

general public, either. Look at the grassroots GOP straw polls amongst likely voters and party representatives. Rice, the so-called "noncandidate", came out the frontrunner in the key California GOP State Convention straw poll, she came out in the upper tier of the D.C. Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll (the biggest gathering of conservative activists in the nation), and--as a writein candidate--Rice even bested the likes of Giuliani and Gingrich in the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll. The fact is that in

3210:

universal qualifications should be (1) whether the candidate has actually expressed interest (Rice has repeatedly denied interest, as linked above), or (2) whether the candidate has formed a leadership PAC (which Rice has not done). I think that should close the case for Rice. The entire country may want Bill Clinton to run again despite the Constitution, or Lance Armstrong, or Arnold Schwartzenegger, or Mickey Mouse, or Warren Buffet, but it doesn't mean they meet the requirements to list them here now.

4748: 31: 1521: 1286: 3290:

unified, national consensus, only after he'd been placed on the New Hampshire primary ballot, and only after a series of unique personal circumstances intervened. You think Rice is the next Eisenhower? She's not a bona fide hero, she's not pursued by the Democrats, and she's not been placed on a primary ballot. She has a draft movement, but so do dozens of others. She's among the top candidates in polling when named, but

3871:

along the process and started with less name recognition. Powell was used as an earlier McCain-like example where the moderate is desired by all, but getting past the primaries is always tough for centrists. The same thing was true later when there were talks of him as Bush's running mate. I can't find any of this info now, so don't trust me unless I can find something to back it up. --

1908:

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?

1526: 1291: 1918:

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).

1016:

run again in 2008. You can't advocate suggesting it is a possibility because you feel some extremely rare event will occur...maybe aliens will come down from space and take over the country and not even let us vote. The Vice President has expressed on several occasions that he has absolutely no intention of running for President, and he won't. Don't be an idiot. -

2393:

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.--

4537:

a statement to this effect, but North Dakota Governor John Hoeven, say, would not, because he never had to disavow interest because there was no great collective speculation that he would be a candidate. Seems like it would be valuable to know that there was a movement backing, say, Mark Warner for the job, and to now know that he's not running.

2533:

the office of the President more than once." So theoretically one could be President for 10 years, if one took over with two years less one day to go in the current term and then was elected twice. So if Cheney becomes President any time in the remaining term, he actually can run two more times. But we don't have to think about that now.

3591:

he said he's interested (which you've now provided a source for) but because his statement doesn't in my mind imply it's even likely that he'll run. He's a humorist, speaking freely on his show--that's a far way off from a formal declaration of intent to run. I'd hold off on including him in the article for now, but that's just my 2 cents.

2125:? 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. -- 1148:

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.

3295:

have conformed with 1952 expectations, not 2008. The political realities of a candidate running for office are much different and require much more coordination. I will continue to affirm keeping Rice, and any other "popular" candidates who don't fit the criteria, off the main page until she gives any inkling of considering running.

1853:

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.

2633:

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.

3432:

Just another note marksfriggin.com is run by Mark who listens to the show and does a write up. He is not always accurate. Just because he has a big long archive of his wrap ups doesn’t mean he is a creditable source. I am not saying Mark makes things up, but he got it wrong. Maybe he was not listening fully.

4520:

Wouldn't such a list have the potential to get very very long? What criteria does someone have to meet in order to be important enough to make the "not running" list? Every current and former Governor, Senator, House member, Cabinet member, etc? Wouldn't a reader just assume someone who is not on one

4436:

Rather than bickering about who has "announced" and who hasn't, I say we get rid of the designation all together. Does anyone remember the 2004 election? Kerry, Edwards, Dean, etc. all announced in the summer of 2003 long after it was apparent that they were running. I think the other categories give

4269:

I think listing the candidates with a state is sufficient. Their Wiki page can give biographical information. If someone thinks otherwise, we can discuss it, but it seems unnecessary to include notable elements of a person (particularly 3rd party candidates) if they can have a Wiki page should that

3531:

Here is the clip. I only included quotes about him running and cut out stuff like his views on Bush and Iraq. So you can tell when a quote is skipping ahead five – ten minutes in the conversation by a little “ping” I put in to separate the quotes. The final quote happened at the very end of the show,

3472:

the caller said “impeach Bush.” Howard said “By the way, I am toying with the idea of running for president. I don’t have a lot of time to do it, but if people will vote for me… okay.” The cast then went on to talk about other potential candidates. After that his exact quote was “I think I might run.

3298:

I'm weighing in because I think I was largely responsible for removing the 'potential canditates' section. I realized after I did so that along with all the junk that got removed were two very viable candidates, both of whom are trading solidly on tradesports--Rice (5.3% for Repub nomination, 294000$

3294:

The criteria are whether the person has formally announced, or whether candidates have formed exploratory committees or expressed serious interest. Rice fits neither. So lobby for a change, but the consensus now is to keep it as is. Finally, this is 2008, not 1952. Knowledge (XXG) standards would

3289:

In the contemporary political era, Rice is nowhere in the same league as Eisenhower in terms of popular acclaim - he was the victorious general of World War II and a decorated bona fide American hero; he was sought actively by both political parties; and he was drafted in 1952 only after significant,

3256:

an exception to this rule. She has the name recognition, favorability, and electability of a non-candidate that hasn't been rivaled since Ike in 1952. Did you know that Eisenhower himself was drafted as an unwilling candidate, a mere few weeks before the Republican National Convention of 1952? His

3135:

If someone has a PAC, is that enough to move them from the "other" to the more significant "involved" category? Do we distinguish the kinds of PACs, look to see if they're 2006 or 2008 oriented, etc.? I don't feel like there's a definitive source on this, but I feel like our list is pretty close to

2977:

I don't believe the punishment of booting is given in the constitution. Also, the question was on the probability of a woman being the next president, not of Senator Clinton being the next president. If a woman who is conservative, over 60, and without a radical youth runs for the nomination of the

2963:

I think that this scenario is more likely than Hillary winning the 2008 Democrat primaries (and this scenario is pretty far out there). My money is on Bill Richardson, with about 10% of me thinking that ol' Feingold will pull off something special. (Although I hope Feingold wins). The odds are that

2753:

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 Knowledge (XXG) is a place people come to

2305:

I am a third party activist. We are all oppressed by the controls that the status-quo-two-party-controllers put on our lives and rules. The FEC has strict criteria to announce, which can intimidate citizen candidates. I think it is partly to make it initimidating to announce. Anyone should be able to

1907:

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.

1897:

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

1689:

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

1181:

abortion and "does not see 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

1130:

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.

1015:

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. There is no way that the Constitution will be amended to allow for more than two terms, and even if it was amended the amendment would not be completed in time for the 2008 election cycle. Based on the Constitution, the President can not and will not

626:

I was happy to see that someone corrected the line "44th President of the United States" to "Next President of the United States". After all , it's presumptious to say the 2008 election would decide the 44th Prez, after all President Bush (during his second term), could die, resign or be removed from

356:

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

248:

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

237:

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

4536:

But no one would have assumed "every current and former Governor, Senator, House member, Cabinet member" to have been running. How about including only those individuals who have made a formal statement that they are not running? For example, Mark Warner would be on this list since he had to make

4532:

That's exactly the problem, as discussed exhaustively in this thread. Perhaps once candidates have officially formed exploratory committees but dropped out of the race, then we might think about adding them to a "not running" category. But foo much farther back past that is too ambiguous, lengthy,

3962:

I agree. Their titles should indicate titles they currently hold not what they will be in the future. Furthermore, just because the Virginia race has been called by the AP, the race hasn't been certified and could possibly be overturned with a recount. I say just wait until they are out of office to

3888:

Within the context of discussing a specific election the also-rans and notable didn't-quite-runs are significant. The speculation on who might run is part of an election. Colin Powell is an excellent example of someone who never ran but was notable in the race. Mark Warner never formally declared

3665:

I'm aware that national polls aren't the best indicator, either, but to single out a poll from the State of New York, which contains only 5% of the total electoral votes in the country, and where two of the "leading candidates" indicated in the polls are New York natives, is just not that useful (a)

3644:

It seems like a New York State poll is pretty absurd to include in the polling results. Not only is it skewed because of candidates that would come from New York (e.g., Clinton and Guiliani), but it's also the results for only a single state, which at this point is much less helpful in "projecting"

3275:

And the entire "Draft movements" section is now missing. Per all of the extensive and logical reasons given in my above comments, Condoleezza Rice really needs to be given the same amount of examination as a candidate that probable "no-chancers" like Tom Tancredo and George Pataki are being given.

3236:

I think the issue to be resolved here is what the purpose of this article is. Is this article's purpose merely to list anybody who has an exploratory committee and have said that they want to be President? In that case, why aren't we listing any and every joker who has registered their own PAC? I

3186:

The "Possible Candidates" sections were removed, which specifically took out Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from the list of potential Republican presidential candidates. She has stated she does not intend to run, but she has consistently left the door open. When she's included in straw polls

2632:

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

2178:

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

1978:

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

1879:

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

1225:

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.

492:

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

480:

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

167:

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

4659:

Thanks, guess I was incorrect in my earlier post. So we should put him under Former Candidates? Candidates Who Dropped Out Before the Primary? I don't know a good way of making a category, or a way of making one distinguishing primary contenders with those who dropped out before. Zz414 12:14, 18

3786:

I don't know that this is a meaningful category to have. It's not going to be significant in the future. Candidates who expressed interest, but then decided to back out and not pursue the nomination are not that significant. It's only when you actually enter the primary or official announce that

3727:

The US presidential elections will have all candidates facing the enormous problem of immigration. This issue is affecting the country today and will go on day after day, probably reaching an upward surge as the elections get near. All the candidates. apart from party politics and reasonings, will

3590:

Whoa whoa, I'm not accusing you of lying. Knowledge (XXG) is a secondary source, which means that all content should be verifiable through other sources. (This isn't always the case, but it is always the objective.) For now I would favor leaving Stern out of the article, not because I don't believe

3209:

and she doesn't even have a PAC yet. While potential candidates have been scouring New Hampshire and Iowa, she's remained on the sidelines. She should NOT be placed on this list without any other indication that she's running. Can I get some support from other folks on this one? I think the two

3111:

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

2532:

Wrong again. The 22nd Amendment states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to

2142:

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 Knowledge (XXG) page,

1157:

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"

1033:

Let's look at the text of the actual amendment, though: "No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice." George W. Bush has been elected twice; therefore, he cannot constitutionally be elected again barring a repeal of the amendment. There's nothing to say he can't run for

771:

The convention text just added is full of opinion, not facts. What's the basis for calling Denver and New Orleans the front runners? The statement, "many, many cities are bidding for the convention" is false. No city has stated they're going to submit a bid, much less actually submitted a bid. The

363:

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."

4447:

I see your point and concur for the most part, since making a formal announcement means nothing if you haven't filed with the FEC as a candidate. And you're likely not going to announce if you haven't already formed an exploratory committee. Either way, that would help solve the problem of those

3797:

I agree. I don't think any drop-out candidate can really be considered significant as drop-out candidates if they don't at least participate in a few primaries (or third-party nominating convention). (And there's plenty of time before those will take place.) At that point, of course, they'll be

3616:

I know. I was just mad that I had to cut a six hour show. I provided exact quotes and there was no reason for me to lie. I felt I was being told “He did not say that, you’re lying” from people who didn’t even hear the show. Those quotes where not made in a row and the conversation was not just one

3431:

Mark got it wrong. His exact quote was “I am considering running.” He talked about it twice. Once at the beginning of the show and the second at the end. The second time Robin asked him if he was serious and if he knew he had to submit his financial records. He said he knew and was considering it.

3403:

Per show summaries on MarksFriggin.com, "The caller had mentioned that Howard should run for President so Howard spent a short time talking about how he just doesn't have time to run but he thinks he could do a better job than Bush is doing." That's not an indication that he should be listed as a

3327:

With all due respect, it is absolutely ridiculous to not include Condoleezza Rice in a Knowledge (XXG) article about the 2008 presidential election. At least 1/3 of the time, she comes out #1 as the Republican nominee. It doesn't make a difference that she's said she doesn't intend to run. This

3285:

Look, go ahead and call for a vote, try to convince people that a "draft movements" section should exist. But the political reality of Rice's situation is very different from Eisenhower. Once again, Rice reaffirmed her refusal to run today, reinforcing the decision to keep her off the main page.

3251:

of Condoleezza Rice's claims of disinterest concerning 2008, she is a much-talked-about candidate who, despite the falling out of candidates like Santorum and Barbour, remains in the news, remains high in the polls, and continues to generate buzz amongst party insiders. Usually, I would say, if a

2560:

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

1580:

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.

1544:

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.

1176:

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

960:

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

808:

Because the statements in the text are easily missed. For example, if you're editing the Dem Other Potential Candidate list, you can easily miss the note 20 lines above. Also, it was never stated on this talk page until now. I wasn't even aware of the rule until the 12/10 changes with the comment.

564:

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

4621:

Why was he listed as having formed an exploratory committee when he actually hadn't? How many other candidates are mislabeled because they "announced" some intention that they have yet to follow up on? Shouldn't we be able to verify activity with the FEC? Certainly I don't think he qualifies as a

4570:

I saw someone just re-added recently-ousted VA Sen. George Allen to the list of Republican candidates. What's the deal with him? Should he be kept on the list, since, technically he hasn't ever announced that he wouldn't run for President yet? I mean, yeah, it's basically inconceivable that he

3870:

He never ran (but then neither did Warner). There was a lot of discussion of him running and (I believe) eventually a formal decision not to. Polls all showed him walking away with the election assuming he received the Republican candidacy. Similar to Warner, except that Warner made it further

3711:

I removed a couple of the recent "ifs" and "assuming" language, because it's entirely superfluous to the article. The article assumes dozens of things are currently true but that may not be true in 2008: that the United States remains a sovereign nation; that it still has exactly 50 states; that

3246:

article. Look at all the Republican polls where Rice is included. In virtually every one, she either comes out #1, #2, or #3. I'm not sure if she's ever come out any lower than that in scientific, nation-wide public opinion polls. And it's not just because she's got name recognition among the

2392:

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

1917:

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

1852:

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

528:

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

383:

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

370:

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

349:

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

280:

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

4351:

It is silly to have a listing for "announced candidates" when there are none who have not also filed as official candidates. Editors have on several occasions moved candidates from "filed" to "announced" when the candidate has done both because the editors do not realize that "filed" is a higher

3787:

it matters once you drop out. At this stage, it's so early and speculative that a drop out isn't really a worthy event because, after all, they've "dropped out" only from, what, exploring the possibility of running? I don't think it's a good category, but I look forward to hearing from others.

1927:

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

1418:

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

141:

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

99:

Nice cleanup here, Rob. Man it is tempting to include the in graf about 9/11 that she was the one who delivered the intelligence report titled "bin Laden determined to attack in the US" to Bush. Just to say she was in the office doesn't really balance her successes and failures. I'm also very

4414:

Don't you think it should be indicated somehow that this is not quite official yet? Regardless of its chances of being passed by the other half of the legislature (and one would presume signed by the Governor? - not sure how this works exactly in NJ), it is still speculative to change it on the

4164:

If Hillary Clinton were to win the 2008 Presidential Election, the Presidential line-up since 1989 would be (George)Bush, (Bill)Clinton, (George W.)Bush, (Hillary)Clinton. If she wins a second term, it would mean that from 1989 to 2016, the office of President of the United States was filled by

3317:

No need. Gore and Rice are both listed on their respective party potential candidates articles which are linked to this one. Any further discussion of them or their status can take place there, where all candidates are given equal billing, instead of here, where they would be singled out for

2216:

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

1147:

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

4615:

Wow, that's a big surprise. Now we have to have the discussion: Bayh had announced a plan to form an exploratory committee, but he never actually did so. Does he warrant mention as a drop-out candidate? We've been pretty strict so far in refusing to include such candidates, but no one had

3191:

for an example of what I'm talking about. In any case, I think Rice needs to be mentioned as a candidate in spite of her current denials of interest. A lot can change, especially for such a widely known and widely supported person (remember the drafts of Eisenhower, Goldwater, Clark, etc.)

2730:

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

3913:

Obama has repeatedly expressed that he is not interested in running in 2008. He has a PAC, but he has declined interest. While there's recent fueled speculation he may run, or greater public pressure, he's still in the Gore category of "possible but still not really exploring" candidates.

3453:

I just figured that was the best source around to verify what happened on his show. If you can find a better source, I'd like that and put Stern back on the list. Otherwise, without even a "Stern 2008" site or a news article detailing the possibility, it's probably best left off the list.

3823:

One could argue that Colin Powell's decision not to run in 2000 was a noteworthy dropout. These things can be noteworthy. A slightly reworded section that would also those candidates (such as Cheney) whose forceful statements that they will decline the nomination may be useful. Warner's

1034:

president, and for that matter there's nothing to say he can't run for vice president and then become president when the other guy dies, but he can't be elected twice. Thus, while it's possible Bush will run, he can't win, and hence any mention of Bush as a potential candidate is silly. -

3655:

Any nation-wide poll is more likely to be "skewed" about the result of presidential election than fifty state-wide polls. Since New York has a large number of electoral votes, it is a worthwhile poll. Polling of people across the country in a single measure is an odd method for the U.S.

309:

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

2309:

So, I want a "people's page" for presidential contendors. Where there is nothing about having announced or the FEC, etc. I think that it would be freeing to at least have a side page where we can post about anyone who has expressed interest or anyone we dream would run for president.

1216:

Condi Rice could be "drafted" in the same way D.D. Eisenhower was. If enough people got her name on the ballot in the primary and got enough votes. She would not be legally obligated to run in such a circumstance but she might be persuaded to run which is what happened to Eisenhower.

2253:

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

220:

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

2010:

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.

149:

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?

4079:

During this year's invisible primary, you have three kinds of candiates: The wannabees, who really have no chance, the possibles, who might catch fire, like Gary Hart and Jimmy Carter, and then there's the elephants in the room, Al Gore and Hillery Clinton, for example.

2334:

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.

115:

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:

3388:

This site is clearly just another generic Internet polling station, with one of the relevant polls relating to 2008. It's unscientific, does not contain news stories, and is mostly unrelated to politics, let alone the 2008 election. It does not belong on the links

1669:

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.

594:

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"

2382:

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

2313:

Part of the reason is I have a candidate in mind I like. But, also, I think that Oprah Winfrey for President fans should be allowed to express their political wishes and that there should be a place for regular people to support each other and mention each other.

4083:

I'm sorry that someone took off the "Iowa I" straw poll from the page. In 1999, it was pivital to several campaigns, and got George W. Bush on track to actually win. Iowa needs the money and so there's going to one--everyone's going to be there on the GOP side.

843:

I removed Jack Thompson as a possible canidate for the republican party. I've checked multiple sources, and no where does he state he intends to run. Also, his name was added NOT in alphabetical order, which would lead to the assumption that it was vandalism.

918:

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.

3889:

his candidacy but did in fact go down the pre-declare path of floating his candidacy. Certainly Mark Warner's efforts are more notable than the efforts of the various third party candidates who get virtually no attention at all outside of Knowledge (XXG).

3495:

You nonetheless need a verifiable source in order to include this in the article, as per wikipedia policy. Otherwise, what's to stop me from saying I listened to some obscure radio program in New Jersey today where the host said he would run for president?

4463:

Just a suggestion: shouldn't there be a section of candidates who have publicly stated they will not run? (such as Dick Cheney) It could be added under list of parties as "Candidates who have denied serious interest" or something like that. For example:

1047:

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.

2955:

A) The Democrats win the 2006 elections (take both houses) B) Nancy Pelosi is appointed Speaker of the House C) Cheney is impeached (and then booted) D) Bush is impeached (and then booted) E) As Speaker of the House, Pelosi becomes President

3241:

to be the nominee? What names are grassroots voters floating around frequently? This article should take a comprehensive look at all the major possibilities for 2008, and doing so necessitates that Condoleezza Rice be included. Why? Look at the

658:

This is not a joke, I have spoken with this gentleman, he seems to be very serious. I added him under the potenials for independent. I'm sure this will probaly be removed, but to me it seems appropriate. He is an independent, and he IS running.

2959:

If Cheney is removed, wouldn't Bush simply replace him with a new Vice President? As far as I know, the only possibility for the Speaker of the House to become President is if the sitting President and Vice President both die at the same time.

437:

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 Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox. If you have anything to say about this, please let me

3942:

Since the 2006 election is now over, I added the word "former" to the titles of a whole bunch of people who are leaving office between January 1st and 2nd of next year. If they actuallly run,it'll be as a former governor or senator, not as an

3509:

Are you accusing me of lying? I will grab the audio and upload the clip of his quotes if it will make you feel better. It will take me few minutes to grab the full show and then some time to cut it up. I’ll have it on in a few hours or less.

1808:

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.

1182:

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

3473:

I am being serious.” Mark is wrong. You haven’t heard the show and I just wrote this as the replay was happening. I didn’t put him under confirmed; I put him under possible candidates. So a site confirming he is running is not needed. Mark

190:

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.

2518:

I remember Bush winning the Electoral College vote to serve his first term. That's the only election that matters. Anyway, the 22nd amendment refers to serving as president, not winning (or not winning) a certain number of "elections".

2197:

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.

982:

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.

3985:

Yes, and in the United States, your term does not expire until January 3, 2007. His concession means that he'll no longer serve as Senator on that date. So update this page on January 3, but he's still a Senator for two more months.

2712:

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

226:, 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. 524:

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.

2463:

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!

4381:

The proposal to move NJ's primary to Feb 5, 2008, has passed the state Senate by an overwhelming margin and now just needs to be approved by the state Assembly. If the Assembly passed it, we can move it to the official Feb 5.

3136:

accurate right now. If people feel like throwing random names in the "other potential candidates" list, fine, but I wonder how we can distinguish just any old potential candidate from one actually exploring the possibility. --

1340:

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.

3734:

I'm removing the speculation that Cheney will resign after the midterm elections. If something perks that interest again, then maybe it can be included. Until then, it's just more rampant speculation that takes up space.

2766:

I disagree. Considering that he is a former Vice President and Presidential candidate, it bears mentioning if there is any possibility he may run. He should stay on the list until he explicitly states he is not seeking the

1562:

I removed the polling data. Knowledge (XXG) 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.

4208:

Excuse me, but what does this have to do with editing the page on the topic at hand?? Plus, as long as our leaders are elected by the public, you can't blame it on the Bush family or the Clinton family. Simple as that.

2317:

I am going to try and study how to start a page. But, I wish someone would start a new, "People's President 2008 Page" where we can list anyone who is being thought about or considered. I don't like the current criteria.

4521:

of the "running" lists is by default "not running"? The case of Dick Cheney not running is likely notable, but that's already taken care of in the main part of the article. I personally would be against such a category.

1826:

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...

1200:

4633:

I think it would be valuable to keep lists of people who expressed interest or were talked about in the media. It would be interesting historical information. I wish this kind of thing was available for past campaigns.

380:, 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. 3675:

I'll agree that just one state-wide poll is inappropriate, but I'd argue for more state-wide polls, not none. Are Senator Clinton and Mr. Guiliani that much more popular in New York State than the rest of the nation?

1226:

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.

345:

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.

2093:

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.

4001:

This needs active policing. He's stated, "And remember, I haven't announced. What I said is, I'm making preparations to run. The second announcement comes later so you can get a second press conference, or course."

1401:

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.

2978:

Republican Party, she may get it and win the election. It depends on the other candidates. I don't think a member of any demographic is totally excluded from having a good chance at winning the U.S. presidency. -

1377:. 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. 450:-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.) -- 1880:

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.

1000:

that the sitting president will run. You also must take into accout the (even less likely but still possible) chance that a new constitutional ammendment will allow a president to serve more than two terms.

2116:

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

809:

Finally, its alot easier to just add a name to this list than to do a detailed addition to the subpage list, and hope someone else does the detailed addition. So there's a few reasons why it's been ignored!

4026:

21:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Biden has said that he INTENDS to seek the nomination if he has a shot at it by the end of last year. He hasn't actually started yet. John Edwards has basically moved to Iowa.

3722:

Further DC Fair Vote Act conditionals are unnecessary. It's already given an entire section. Also, it would add only 1 electoral vote (applicable to Utah in this case), meaning a majority would still be

3243: 541:

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 Knowledge (XXG) will speak of him as such. --

1569:

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

2409:

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.--

4337:

Would it hurt to remove the Potential Candidates sections and just leave the main article links to the potential candidates pages? It doesn't take much work for readers to click on another article.

3799: 2646:

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.

3749:

Can we verify if she's a Socialist or a true Independent? Her website suggests she's a Communist or a Socialist, but it doesn't seem to indicate that she's seeking a party-affiliated nomination.

2685:

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. --

2657:, 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. 2179:

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.

1928:

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.

826:

This has gone from silly to absurd... Cindy Sheehan? Susan Sarandon? Anyone over 35 is potentially a candidate, is there a point to include this section? Shouldn't we stick with facts? --

3666:

this far out from the election, and (b) given the abundance of national polls that are surely more indicative of a "national consensus" or "leading candidate" than a single state's polling.

2754:

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?

776:, which is already covering the Dem convention, including site selection. Whatever information, at least for the Dem convention, which makes sense, should go in that article, not this one. 3150:

These are just speculation and really anyone can be included here. Until a candidate forms a PAC or website documenting intention to run, I think they should be excluded from the article.

2763:

Just so we're clear, Gore has not closed the door to running, but that's a far cry from expressing interest in running. He should remain off the list. Zz414 18:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

2484: 2347: 2331: 1072:

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.

521:

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?

3195:

Rice is really the only one I can think of right now who fits this category for the Republicans. Al Gore might fit the ticket on the Democratic side, but I'm not sure about that one. --

4097:

It's not a term found widely, there isn't even a Wiki page on it, and you seem to be the only one using it from an archaic and obscure book on a single election. It shouldn't be used.

4796: 4788: 4783: 4076:

The term comes from a book by Arthur Hadley, who wrote about the 1974-75 phase of the 1976 election. It seems that the front runners at the time were Henry Jackson and Lloyd Bentsen.

206:

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:

79: 71: 66: 4718:

I don't think he's official until he announces. Federal election law allows an individual to travel and gauge the level of support without formally declaring his or her candidacy.

2350:

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? --

118:

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.

3112:

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). --

4244:

Giuliani has not announced yet; he has just formed an exploratory committee. Please do not move him to announced candidates. I placed a warning, keep him in Potential Candidates.

367:

Of Nixon's presidency, Woodward said, "The real chill goes down your spine when you see the smallness of Richard Nixon. Too often the power of the presidency to settle a score."

3765:"We are a group of political activists who have come together to build a campaign support network that is large enough and serious enough to convince Lisa Weltman to declare her 1632:

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. --

462:

You've convinced me. You should know Knowledge (XXG) is not your personal opinion center. If you want that, get a blog. But until then, follow the rules like the rest of us. --

1303:

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.

3841:

I wasn't aware that Colin Powell even ran for President in 2000 -- how can one drop out if one is never even in the race? Perhaps the title of the section is confusing me. -

473:

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

635:

But in this case, the Vice President Dick Cheney would also become the next president, as well as the 44th. So the 2008 election might not decide the next president either.

1619:

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.

4121:

23,000 really isn't much in Google terms. Nevertheless, if there's a separate Wiki page for it, and if someone uses it better than the original writer did, it may appear.

1709:

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. --

2786:

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. --

1992:

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. --

4188:

And just think - after Hillary we'll probably elect Jeb Bush so we can have Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush. And I'm sure that by the time he's served two terms

1742:. 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. -- 2474:

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. --

1102:

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--

4296: 3374:

What kind of a fool would vote for Hillary Clinton, when she is even more pro-war than Bush by her track-record, and yet has all the same bad ideas as he does?

2157:

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. --

4764: 47: 17: 2504:

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? ;-)

1870:

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.

818:

I'm more interested in finding out why candidates who already have 2008 presidential websites up, like Webster Brooks, have been removed from the listings.

3685:

More or less popular, this is a difficult question. But I think we'll all agree that Clinton and Guiliani are much better known in NY than elsewhere. --

3532:

about four hours after the first two. Also here is one of the quotes from the one minute clip “I want to run for President. I am really giving it thought”

353:

Using numerous anecdotes from his 35-year journalism career, Woodward didn't make definitive conclusions about issues but let facts speak for themselves.

3299:

wagered) and Gore (17.2 for Dem nomination, 445000$ wagered). I would supporting including both, as well as any candidate who's polling higher than 3%.

4385: 4109:, for example), it is an often used term for the 12-24 months before the first real caucus/primary. And it probably does deserve a wiki page of its own. 4051: 3213: 2078:, specifically crystal ballism. "Announced candidates" seems ok, but "likely potential candidates" seems to be inherently unverified. Any thoughts? -- 2306:

say, "I am running for office." For any office, but if you say it for president and someone gives you some money, you could get in trouble (I think.)

2048: 556:

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. --

100:

curious why we have such a detailed sections in both parties for candidates who aren't running yet (especially Rice who has stated it emphatically). -

4650:

Regardless of whether he actually formed it, he took official steps towards running for President, and he deserves listing as a drop-out candidate.

2575:). All it does is present candidates currently perceived as frontrunners and other people mentioned by as possible candidates by reputable sources. 470:

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.

1266:

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.

95:

I changed "balancing" to "elimination," for grammar only. One doesn't "balance" debt. In fact, Stanford's budget turned from deficit to surplus.

2654: 893:"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 92:

The Republican frontrunner section states that Dr. Rice was a "child prodigy." Including that completely destroys the neutrality of this article!

4254:

Thanks. Boy, based on the number of rvs required in the past week, I feel like this article should go to semi-protected until Election Day 2008.

2345:

The two-term tradition had been an unwritten rule since the 1790s, but Roosevelt, after blocking the presidential ambitions of cabinet members...

458:

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.

772:

Democrats just sent out invitations to bid on the conventions, and the Republicans haven't even picked a date yet. Finally, we have an article,

4199:

What's wrong? This is a common practice in other fine examples of democracy... Singapore (well there it's just on dynasty), India, Pakistan...

581:

personally, i seriously question whether he is actuallly planning on running if this is his only action that says he is planning on running. --

612:

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.

374:

Woodward's half-hour talk, punctuated several times by well-received jokes, was followed by 11 questions from the audience. He theorized that

3953:

Please sign comments. They're currently still Senators and Governors. Their titles should not be changed until after January 3. Reverted.

2676: 2487:. 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 537:

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

2170:

In "American Theocracy," Kevin Phillips, author of "American Dynasty" suggests that the Republican ticket in 2008 would be McCain-Jeb Bush.

1446:

I've removed the front-runner section, since the vote is 5 to 1 in favor of removal, and this vote has been here for several months already.

4055: 3645:

candidates or an ultimate results. While I agree that only 2 or 3 recent polls should be listed, I don't think this poll deserves a spot.

3338: 184: 2964:

we will see Bill Frist v. Bill Richardson (and perhaps GOD will force McCain and Feingold to run on the same ticket as independants....:)

2364:

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. --

3848: 3809: 2823: 1791: 1760: 1727: 1650: 1607: 773: 1167:

IMHO, if the polls are placing her at the top then she is the frontrunner. A candidate could be drafted/pressured into the presidency.

2744:

As of early 2006 Gore is no longer "counting out" the possibility of running. He also appears to be positioning himself for a run.

2240:

Allen has been mentioned by several major polls as a candidate, so compared to the great majority listed he appears notable enough.

4376: 1476:. Failing that, they might dispute the election results, stop recounts and simply get their candidate appointed to the Presidency." 4811: 1465: 277: 273: 4148: 565:

suggest intention to run for president in the upcoming election. Whether Hagel is really planning on such a run, I do not know.

2866: 2601: 2163: 2302:

Hope I am putting this in the correct place. Kind of new to this. I am frustrated about the criteria used to list candidates.

518:

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.

3252:

candidate says "No, I'm not going to run," then we shouldn't bother talking about them in an article like this. But Rice is

2987:

Well, what about a black female Arabic homosexual atheist? I don't see that happening, or maybe that's just the cynic in me.

183:

Anonymous editors have been removing mention of Feingold's divorce from this article. When it was last removed on Monday by

529:(which measures fiscal conservatism) hmm? They're not just anti-Democrat...they gave Bill Richardson and Phil Bredesen B's. 3169:

Don't forget that (notable) people who have made a declaration of intent to run should also be included in the article. --

533:

I was just about to fix that myself. As a Virginia Democrat, let me put this simply - Virginia doesn't elect liberals. And

357:

spoke of Bush's intense belief that what he is doing is right and how overcoming obstacles made him even more determined.

216:

His name recognition gives him significant support in early polls (he shows up in the top three in most of the early polls)

210:

There exists widespread speculation that he intends to run (as seen from the fact that most of the major polls include him)

4397: 3002:

I definately don't see a liberal northeastern atheist winning any kind of nation office, irrespective of qualifications.

570: 4735: 4722: 4712: 4694: 4680: 4654: 4638: 4626: 4609: 4584: 4575: 4559: 4541: 4525: 4512: 4452: 4441: 4423: 4401: 4365: 4356: 4341: 4322: 4313: 4274: 4258: 4248: 4234: 4213: 4203: 4181: 4169: 4153: 4141: 4101: 4091: 4063: 4041: 4031: 4020: 4009: 3990: 3979: 3967: 3957: 3947: 3931: 3918: 3903: 3893: 3875: 3853: 3828: 3814: 3791: 3775: 3753: 3739: 3716: 3694: 3680: 3670: 3660: 3649: 3625: 3595: 3573: 3543: 3518: 3500: 3489: 3458: 3440: 3393: 3378: 3345: 3332: 3322: 3312: 3308:

I put both Gore and Rice in the "opinion polling" section with "draft movements" attached. I think that's sufficient.

3303: 3280: 3270: 3261: 3199: 3173: 3164: 3154: 3140: 3125: 3116: 3106: 3006: 2996: 2982: 2970: 2947: 2932: 2922: 2891: 2841: 2790: 2771: 2758: 2748: 2717: 2694: 2565: 2545: 2523: 2512: 2494: 2478: 2468: 2457: 2442: 2422: 2413: 2402: 2387: 2373: 2354: 2339: 2244: 2235: 2210: 2183: 2152: 2134: 2107: 2098: 2087: 2060: 2015: 2001: 1983: 1972: 1941: 1932: 1922: 1912: 1902: 1898:

has some relevence (additionally, independent candidates have, on occasion, had a major impact on Presidential races).

1884: 1874: 1839: 1820: 1797: 1766: 1733: 1694: 1674: 1656: 1623: 1613: 1549: 1529: 1496: 1484: 1450: 1436: 1423: 1406: 1381: 1358: 1345: 1329: 1307: 1294: 1258: 1249: 1211: 1190: 1171: 1162: 1152: 1142: 1109: 1097: 1085: 1076: 1067: 1056: 1020: 1010: 987: 965: 947: 934: 923: 909: 875: 871:

08:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC) I think the current format of alphabetical order is sufficient (DNC, RNC, Third Parties).

858: 848: 830: 813: 803: 789: 780: 761: 735: 722: 706: 695: 675: 639: 616: 599: 585: 574: 545: 510: 423: 405: 391: 298: 285: 253: 172: 104: 3420: 3225: 2103:

The likely potential candidates needs to removed though, that is POV. They should be moved to potential candidates.

124:

I'll ask: Why not now? He's already proved he can attract the votes of whites as well as blacks and other minorities.

2438:

There's no way the Twenty-second Amendment could get repealed in time for 2008. Bush is not an eligible candidate.

515:

No one is more upset than me that the Republican Party has become the big-spending party. Don't change the subject.

419:

hoax? His reps denied it, but people still believe it's true. I'm not 100% it's relevant, but I was just wondering.

4755: 4292:

etc. Make sure these are wikilinked at least once as most non-American readers are unlikely to know what they are.

4289: 4003: 38: 3563: 757:

names have announced they are running while the ittalics are speculation. I suggest merging it into this article.

627:

office, thus making the next in-line (as of Oct 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney), the 44th President of the USA.

2672: 222: 4555:

Something for all of you to keep in mind, I am not currently running for president, nor am I old enough too. --

2660:(It's also nearly impossible that Ford, Carter or GHW Bush will be president again, but that's another matter.) 2465: 4603: 4352:

category than "announced". I removed this category to avoid confusion. Why have both categories at this point?

4059: 2044: 1205:

Once again, Rice reaffirmed her refusal to run today, reinforcing the decision to keep her off the main page.

187:, it was with the edit summary "corrected typos", which seems to me to be an attempt to remove it unnoticed. 4690:

Biden's filed with FEC? I'm still under the impression he's waiting to file with FEC and is just "annouced"

2819: 2490:

You're right. What I remembered about the 22nd Amendment from Civics in 8th grade was apparently wrong ;p --

1781: 1750: 1717: 1640: 1597: 1514: 1279: 1244: 1137: 566: 507: 282: 224: 4328:

Semi-unrelated, but thanks for finding that Gilmore article. Nice find. Zz414 18:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

4113: 3408: 3375: 2854: 2811: 2735: 2664: 1739: 213:

He has not acted to dampen such speculation (this is a negative assertion, so hard to give evidence for it)

4309:, Frist will announce later today that he is not running. Just waiting for a good source before deleting. 4106:

Try a Google search - 23,000 hits. For people who closely watch the process, such as ABC's The Note, (see

1835: 1342: 1006: 120: 4192:

will be holding public office somewhere and we can just keep doing this forever. And don't forget about

3342: 3319: 2595: 2584: 2271: 2266: 1830:

I agree that Bush messed things up pretty bad, but Hillary's not the one who will make things better. --

1447: 4731:

I know. They didn't source it, though so I think that he is still Expected or not annouced or whatever.

4616:

previously announced an intention to form an exploratory committee. Zz414 11:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

4285: 3122: 3113: 3103: 2815: 2562: 2509: 2206: 2064: 1980: 1433: 1168: 1149: 1094: 758: 628: 582: 295: 4581: 2967: 1856: 1255: 1017: 905:. Barring a constitutional amendment, he is prohibited from being a candidate in the 2008 election. -- 786: 3618: 3566: 3536: 3511: 3482: 3433: 3287: 2943:

With current knowledge, what is the probability that a woman will become the nation's new President??

2882:

Aha, now I see... he was removed at some point and then readded in the last couple of days. My bad --

1319:

2 more years? The upcoming midterm election can't even be accurately predicted at this pooint in time.

1206: 434: 2929: 2668: 2336: 2327: 1929: 1909: 1881: 1420: 1403: 1355: 1159: 1106: 1103: 962: 944: 906: 4134:

Just so we're clear, it appears that McCain is still just exploring and has not formally announced.

3763:/Green Party), but her website makes clear that her possible presidential candidacy is independent: 2589: 2579: 2261: 2063:

Is this a new "expression of interest," or this too coy and Gore-like to count as serious interest?

4362: 4338: 4245: 3890: 3732: 2755: 242: 195: 4572: 4509: 4449: 4389: 3329: 3277: 3258: 3196: 1187: 433:

I'm seriously considering putting the person who keeps vandalizing the Mark Warner section on the

401:

Who put the link to the AFP on here? I have a feeling that this is just a joke so I deleted it. --

4228:

Just so we're clear, Tancredo's mostly ruled out a bid, so he's no longer "expressing interest."

3842: 3803: 2862: 2705: 1502: 1267: 845: 718: 157: 132: 4377:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/16166181.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_local

1774: 1743: 1710: 1633: 1590: 1239: 1132: 685: 2714: 2118: 1969: 867:

Shouldn't the D/R candidates be even? How about a table that places them evenly on the page? --

4812:

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-00939sy0dec09,0,7941135.story?coll=dp-news-local-final

4393: 3690: 3170: 2887: 2837: 2832:

Hm, I'm a bit confused by this comment. He is mentioned as a "likely potential candidate". --

2690: 2453: 2398: 2369: 2255: 2231: 2223: 2148: 2130: 2083: 1997: 1831: 1002: 799:

Any addition or removal should be placed on the subpages first. Why are users ignoring this?

501:"If you have something to prove, try making the Republican Party produce a real conservative." 377:

Hillary Clinton would earn the Democratic nomination in 2008 and would run against Dick Cheney

2850:

It seems that Romney was added after the original suggestion, so all is well in the universe.

1432:

on here, and then put the remaining on a seperate page unless a popular independent pops up.

3041: 2992: 2944: 2912: 2787: 2650: 2505: 2439: 2199: 1938: 1919: 1899: 1871: 1810: 1691: 1469: 1429: 1378: 1082: 1073: 800: 732: 613: 330: 292: 249:

a place to start since it's too early for any of them to have actual campaign committees. --

4361:

Makes sense. I agree. "Announced" can be added on when a candidate has actually announced.

2572: 2075: 4648: 4623: 4522: 4438: 4420: 4353: 4189: 3964: 3925: 3416: 3221: 3081: 3051: 2768: 1817: 868: 117: 3731:

Update on Cheney: Bush has asked him to stay through 2008, and it appears he will do so.

360:"It was almost a mind trip on how he looks at things and what he values," Woodward said. 4580:

Just this past weekend he announced he wasn't going to run. I'll take him off the list.

4135: 2807:. It seems from articles and info on his site that his hat is flying toward the ring. 1052:

But Carter only served one term. (I'm not arguing he's a serious candidate, though). --

901:

that a sitting President will not be a candidate. There is only one sitting President,

4671: 4293: 4210: 4200: 4193: 3592: 3497: 3300: 3151: 3095: 2919: 2541: 2158: 1546: 1481: 1304: 902: 703: 672: 636: 319: 239: 229: 192: 2074:

This has been bugging me for a while, but it sort of seems that this section violates

1520: 1468:

and their allies by using rigged electronic voting machines and removing thousands of

1285: 854:

Similar case seemed to appear with Chuck Norris. That smelled of vandalism as well. --

123: 4319: 4038: 3182:

Candidates who have not expressed interest, but for whom there is significant support

2858: 2745: 2491: 2475: 2057: 1965: 1493: 984: 810: 777: 713: 596: 420: 311: 269: 250: 169: 151: 126: 3533: 2326:

Is it theoretically possible to electe him third and fourth time like Roosevelt? --

1968:

who claimed about a new poll leading by Edwards and McCain, shall we update polls?--

684:"You should never say never. But for the 2008 election, my answer is definitely no," 333:

but I will also include the text of the article as you have to register to read it.

4732: 4719: 4709: 4691: 4651: 4606: 4310: 4229: 4178: 3686: 3677: 3657: 3091: 3065: 2979: 2883: 2833: 2709: 2686: 2520: 2449: 2419: 2394: 2365: 2241: 2227: 2194: 2180: 2144: 2126: 2104: 2095: 2079: 2012: 1993: 1671: 1620: 1577: 1566: 1559: 1473: 1326: 1090: 1041: 931: 920: 855: 315: 265: 143: 4107: 4037:

Using the Hunter precedent, Biden gets moved to the "thinking about it" category.

1589:

Will the map have the same blue = Dem , red = Repub colors or will they change? --

1574:, the organization recognized by the FEC as the Reform party to verify this fact. 3016:

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

2418:

George P. Bush will be 40 in 2016. That's only 1 two-term administration away. -

1854: 4763:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4635: 4556: 4538: 4166: 4137:

I expect some folks to try to move McCain up, but he should remain where he is.

3872: 3825: 3061: 3021: 2988: 2908: 2804: 1064: 1053: 692: 557: 447: 323: 101: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3564:

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=ACCD9820187FD4B6

3121:

Never mind about that, by the way - I saw the rules for declaring a candidate.

864:

bloomberg/mccainn is definetly a possible matchup for a 2008 election campaign

4677: 4271: 4255: 4231: 4150: 4147:

Even clearer: "The senator has made no decision about running for president."

4138: 4098: 4088: 4028: 4023: 4022:

has announced. Scouring the news, Dodd has not. Hunter has not (see above).

4006: 3987: 3976: 3954: 3944: 3928: 3915: 3900: 3788: 3772: 3750: 3736: 3713: 3667: 3646: 3455: 3412: 3390: 3309: 3267: 3217: 3161: 3137: 3071: 3031: 3025: 2554: 2410: 2384: 2351: 2036: 1979:

I don't think we should worry too much, about who is leading until late 2007.

1208: 827: 463: 451: 439: 402: 3824:

announcement is certainly noteworthy, at least for the short-term future. --

1492:

The text does have a ring of truth in it, but it's definately unencylopedic.

3559: 3085: 3003: 2535: 2122: 1773:

I went ahead and removed her from the list of potential Green candidates. --

872: 506:

Oh, and last time I checked, fiscal responsibility is a conservative value.

482: 388: 3266:

She's been added to the "Draft movements" section. That should be enough.

1525: 1290: 4594:

Do we know he's filed FEC papers or just that he has announced candidacy?

4307: 4177:

Just being picky, if the aboved occured? the dates would be 1989 to 2017.

493:

has to pay sooner or later. Would you like to pay any part of that debt?

3075: 3055: 3035: 2612: 2027: 1460:

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

671:

as a pontential candidate even though he is includedin alot the polls? --

668: 542: 474: 3802:). There doesn't really seem to be much point to the category itself. - 3656:

presidential election, since that is not how the president is decided. -

2561:

all predictions of the future are usuall wrong in some way or another.--

1393:

I think the information on likely candidates should be available. As of

3045: 2281: 885:

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

702:

Well didn't Dick Cheney say he will never run, but he's on the list? --

2571:

This page doesn't predict anything (if it did, it would be violating

2143:

the entry should be removed. I'll start doing that sometime soon. --

755: 4647:

Bayh filed the necessary paperwork to form an Exploratory Committee.

4602:

The Indianapolis Star has the story, including a statement from Bayh

1325:

This is opinion and not fact. Does not belong on a wikipedia page.

4375:

I moved New Jersey's GOP primary date to Feb 5 "Unofficial". See:

3899:

Please refreain from including Warner or Feingold, per discussion.

2952:

I would say that it is more likely that the following will happen:

2222:

And in any case, should we cross-post, or move, this discussion to

1464:"In actual fact, the 'election' will very probably be fixed by the 3760: 3468:

Mark did get it wrong. The replay just ran the beginning segment.

2907:

A group of Harvard government students has predicted that Senator

2616: 2285: 486: 4415:

schedule especially when the source you cite has the title "N.J.

1158:

that we will have a female president is far, far from the martk.

3244:

Opinion polling for the 2008 United States presidential election

2619: 2288: 2040: 1571: 651: 121:

I said to myself, "You're looking at our first black president."

4318:

AP and CNN now reporting the same thing. I have removed him.

3562:

because GeoCities thinks 5 megs is too much space. Here it is:

291:

I concur - I have seen both mentioned as potential candidates.

4742: 4672:

NBC News is reporting it through the AP, the campaign confirms

3477:. He is not a creditable source and this situation proves it. 2623: 2292: 1859: 1813: 25: 4706:

The committee filed papers with the FEC on November 22, 2006.

1081:

Not that Carter is a plausible candidate, for other reasons.

992:

The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter. Even if it is

496:

And once again, I should make reference to my edit comments:

3160:

Sounds good to me. Can we get someone to make this official?

1428:

Yeah, it might be best to put only the parties mentioned on

416: 168:

Dick Cheney probably don't belong as more than footnotes. --

4676:

I've edited the page accordingly (although not signed in).

2056:

We should update this article to reflect that, somehow. --

3924:

And shortly after I write this, he does express interest.

3481:. I just listened to the replay and provide exact quotes. 2174:

Poll: Indicating if candidates are registered with the FEC

1501:

Yup. It was, at best, heavy POV and, at worst, vandalism.

2485:

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

2348:

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

2332:

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

943:

Thanks. I have to admit that I didn't think of that. --

3188: 897:

that a sitting President will not be a candidate, it is

446:

Wow, just hours after I posted the orginal comment, the

4279: 188: 142:

think he should be mentioned as a potential candidate.

238:

though he's in the polls at the bottom of the page. --

1183: 2911:

will be the winner of the 2008 Presidential election

1988:

Speaking of polls, I notice that we always keep the

4533:and unhelpful. Zz414 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 2731:

potential candidates due to their name recognition.

4508:Who's not running is just as important as who is. 4284:There are a lot of words which prop up a lot like 4087:It's a really good term, which is why I used it. 3534:http://www.geocities.com/username550/stern08.html 3337:What's wrong with the way she's currently listed 3012:Other potential Democrat or Republican candidates 339:Woodward offers insight on Bush, Nixon, politics 3318:recognition and promoted above other candidates. 4486:Candidates who have expressed serious interest 2483:How sure are you? I'd suggest you read here: 272:should be added, respectively, to the lists of 4048:Biden hasn't formed an exploratory committee. 3769:candidacy for President of the United States." 3206: 1197: 4280:Don't forget wikilinks for important concepts 3558:I hate Geocities. Okay, I have to host it on 1419:here, because that's what the race is about. 729:Other people mentioned as possible candidates 18:Talk:2008 United States presidential election 8: 4499:Candidates who have denied serious interest 3759:She previously campaigned as a "Red/Green" ( 3207:breitbart.com/news/2006/01/16/D8F5QUU81.html 1198:breitbart.com/news/2006/01/16/D8F5QUU81.html 2378:Never thought about mentioning it, but the 1221:Poll to remove "about frontrunner" sections 4708:Does this mean he's an offical candidate? 4288:(which I believe is a legal requirement), 3798:discussed in the primaries articles (like 384:responsibility of getting all the facts. 1690:and Democrats will continue to be blue. 711:Yes. Agreed that he should be included. 4804: 4473:Candidates who have filed with the FEC 4761:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4704:Taken from the Rudy Giuliani article: 3470:No caller suggested anything to Howard 371:them, and then you destroy yourself." 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4019:Most media reports are wrong. Biden 3292:that's not the criteria for the page. 1848:Third Parties, Conventions, Primaries 7: 4196:. Fine democracy we've got here... 2070:section on Speculation on candidates 2066:Zz414 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 1472:voters from the voting rolls in key 415:Should something be added about the 3975:Allen conceded about five hours ago 3146:Remove possible candidates sections 774:2008 Democratic National Convention 3619: 3567: 3537: 3512: 3483: 3434: 3205:She has repeatedly refused to run 3102:Are they said they won't running? 3020:Gov. and former Sen., Billionaire 1196:She has repeatedly refused to run 489:doesn't just come out of nowhere. 342:By Catherine Lutz August 10, 2005 24: 4005:Keep him in the latter category. 2189:How notable are these candidates? 4746: 1524: 1519: 1289: 1284: 281:significant chance of running. 29: 3782:Significant drop-out candidates 2653:is usually counted as both the 1893:until it can be confirmed that 1740:NEWSMEAT Campaign Contributions 795:Rules of listings being ignored 442:10:46, September 9, 2005 (UTC) 4015:Biden, Dodd, Hunter, and Media 3776:21:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC) 3754:21:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC) 3346:03:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 2642:I don't understand this note: 881:Omar Epps, potential candidate 681:Jeb Bush is quoted as saying: 575:22:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC) 546:13:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 511:00:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC) 466:21:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC) 454:20:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC) 1: 4736:22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 4723:21:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 4713:17:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC) 4695:03:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 4681:21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 4655:03:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 4639:15:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 4627:11:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 4610:05:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 4585:21:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 4576:20:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 4542:03:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 4526:00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 4513:20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 4323:16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 4314:15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 4297:15:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC) 4275:17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 4259:23:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 4249:22:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 4235:19:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC) 4214:16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC) 4204:15:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC) 4170:05:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 4154:02:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 4142:23:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 4102:20:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC) 4042:09:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC) 3991:03:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 3904:19:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC) 3475:does not provide a transcript 3333:22:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 3323:02:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2997:03:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 2207: 1798:02:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1789: 1778: 1767:23:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1758: 1747: 1734:23:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1725: 1714: 1695:18:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 1675:22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 1657:19:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 1648: 1637: 1624:19:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 1614:18:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 1605: 1594: 1572:http://www.reformpartyusa.org 1550:00:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 1530:19:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 1497:19:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 1485:19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 1382:18:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 1153:02:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1021:03:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC) 831:19:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 814:21:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 804:20:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 762:00:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC) 736:22:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 723:01:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 707:04:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC) 696:05:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC) 652:http://www.PresidentAdams.com 640:23:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC) 4560:07:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 4453:13:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 4442:03:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 4424:21:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 4402:20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 4366:22:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC) 4357:22:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC) 4342:21:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC) 4182:00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 4165:either a Bush or a Clinton. 4092:17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 4064:16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 4032:17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 4010:17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 3980:17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 3968:17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 3958:17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 3948:17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 3932:21:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC) 3919:12:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC) 3894:17:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 3876:22:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 3854:22:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 3829:22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 3815:21:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 3792:17:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 3740:03:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 3007:08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 2902:A group of Harvard Students? 2772:16:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 2546:07:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 1840:22:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 1346:02:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 1308:12:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 1295:19:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 1259:18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 1250:02:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 1143:02:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 1011:22:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 966:18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 948:18:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 935:15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 924:15:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 910:13:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 876:08:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 859:18:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 849:18:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC) 790:21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 781:03:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 767:Convention stuff just added? 676:01:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC) 162:) 22:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC) 105:14:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC) 4371:New Jersey GOP primary date 4116:comment added by ] (] • ]) 3717:02:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 3695:22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3681:22:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3671:21:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3661:17:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3650:09:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 3626:20:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3596:15:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3574:01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3544:00:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3519:23:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3501:22:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3490:22:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3459:21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3441:21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3394:20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 3379:16:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 3313:16:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 3304:16:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 3281:01:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 3271:03:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 3262:19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 3200:03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 3174:19:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 3165:16:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 3155:16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 3131:How to classify a candidate 3126:22:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 2983:15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 2971:15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 2738:comment added by ] (] • ]) 2524:20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 2423:20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 1451:04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 1212:00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 930:I edited to clear this up. 617:20:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 600:13:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 586:13:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 424:22:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 406:19:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC) 392:17:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC) 254:00:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC) 245:17:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC) 198:17:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC) 173:00:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC) 146:21:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC) 137:) July 5, 2005 18:58 (UTC) 4830: 4290:Political action committee 4265:Information for candidates 4160:Bush/Clinton, Bush/Clinton 3141:14:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 3117:02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 2782:Average of All Major Polls 2108:21:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 2099:21:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 2088:05:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 2061:15:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 2045:denied interest in running 1984:22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 1973:23:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 1942:20:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 1933:01:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 1923:01:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 1913:00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 1903:23:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 1885:22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 1875:22:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 1821:11:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 1437:23:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 1086:01:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 1077:01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 1068:01:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 1057:20:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 988:19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 654:Doesn't look like a joke. 485:, and therefore know that 299:04:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC) 286:04:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC) 3107:22:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 2948:19:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 2933:21:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 2923:17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 2892:02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 2842:00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 2184:13:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 2016:12:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 1424:23:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC) 1407:23:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC) 1359:23:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC) 1330:11:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 1172:16:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 1163:13:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 650:Have you seen this one? 417:http://www.walken2008.com 4419:move up primary again". 3228:) 03:44, 11 August 2006. 2928:I agree. Should delete. 2791:21:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 2759:01:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 2749:20:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 2718:00:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 2695:03:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 2513:20:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 2340:13:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 2002:21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 1238:per my reasons above. -- 1191:20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 1110:13:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 1063:Uhh...it does? Explain. 663:The Other President Bush 646:Another President Adams? 3707:Contingencies and "ifs" 2655:22nd and 24th president 2566:19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 2495:19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 2479:16:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 2469:13:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 2458:16:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 2443:15:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 2414:16:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 2403:16:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 2388:14:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 2374:13:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 2355:08:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 2245:22:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2236:13:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2211:00:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2153:03:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 2135:13:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2030:article, you see that: 1352:Keep, but clarify/move. 1098:19:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 1093:only served one term.-- 667:How come we don't have 631:15:55, 27 October 2005 411:Christopher Walken Hoax 4459:Candidates not running 4270:person be so notable. 3640:State of New York poll 2918:Hardly seems notable. 2826:) 19:28, June 13, 2006 727:Please add him to the 397:American Facist Party? 232:; originally unsigned) 4759:of past discussions. 4388:comment was added by 4286:Exploratory committee 4072:The Invisible Primary 4054:comment was added by 3927:So he's on the list. 3216:comment was added by 3189:http://www.4condi.com 2466:American Patriot 1776 1336:In support of keeping 42:of past discussions. 4432:Announced Candidates 4347:Announced Candidates 4333:Potential Candidates 4306:According to Hotline 2679:) 22:10, May 9, 2006 2328:User:TimothyHorrigan 2322:Third term for Bush? 1889:I prefixed the word 1104:User:TimothyHorrigan 822:Potential candidates 481:be knowledgeable in 314:under the headline " 4660:December 2006 (UTC) 2638:Previous presidents 1254:Sounds fine to me. 1230:In favor of removal 387:(end of article) - 260:Clark and Santorum. 3963:call them former. 2803:Why no mention of 2538: 1184:http://www.apri.us 961:you never know. -- 750:More complete list 629:Mightberight/wrong 4802: 4801: 4771: 4770: 4765:current talk page 4405: 4302:Frist not running 4118: 4067: 3852: 3813: 3425: 3411:comment added by 3229: 2939:Woman probability 2871: 2857:comment added by 2828: 2814:comment added by 2740: 2708:is keep removing 2681: 2667:comment added by 2544: 2534: 2330:: No, unless the 2256:Talk:George Allen 2224:Talk:George Allen 1866:Some 3rd parties 1796: 1787: 1765: 1756: 1732: 1723: 1655: 1646: 1612: 1603: 1518: 1283: 326:Race In 2008..." 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4821: 4814: 4809: 4780: 4773: 4772: 4750: 4749: 4743: 4468:Republican Party 4383: 4117: 4110: 4049: 3845: 3806: 3623: 3571: 3541: 3516: 3487: 3438: 3424: 3405: 3384:Opinion Republic 3376:Matthew A.J.י.B. 3211: 3042:Dave Freudenthal 2870: 2851: 2827: 2808: 2739: 2732: 2680: 2661: 2651:Grover Cleveland 2626: 2608: 2604: 2598: 2592: 2587: 2582: 2540: 2337:Timothy Horrigan 2295: 2277: 2274: 2269: 2264: 2208: 2204: 2166: 1795: 1788: 1786: 1777: 1764: 1757: 1755: 1746: 1731: 1724: 1722: 1713: 1654: 1647: 1645: 1636: 1611: 1604: 1602: 1593: 1528: 1523: 1512: 1510: 1506: 1470:African American 1466:Republican Party 1430:Template:USParty 1391:Keep but clarify 1293: 1288: 1277: 1275: 1271: 1126:Condoleezza Rice 1107:Timothy Horrigan 996:unlikely, it is 435:Clueless newbies 336:THE ASPEN TIMES 179:Feingold divorce 160: 135: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4829: 4828: 4824: 4823: 4822: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4810: 4806: 4776: 4747: 4702: 4688: 4669: 4600: 4592: 4568: 4461: 4434: 4384:—The preceding 4373: 4349: 4335: 4304: 4282: 4267: 4242: 4226: 4190:Chelsea Clinton 4162: 4132: 4111: 4074: 4050:—The preceding 4017: 3999: 3940: 3911: 3851: 3812: 3784: 3747: 3709: 3642: 3406: 3401: 3386: 3372: 3370:Hillary Clinton 3212:—The preceding 3184: 3148: 3133: 3082:Lamar Alexander 3052:Rod Blagojevich 3014: 2974: 2957: 2941: 2930:Still A Student 2904: 2852: 2809: 2801: 2784: 2733: 2728: 2703: 2669:Still A Student 2662: 2640: 2610: 2602: 2596: 2590: 2585: 2580: 2576: 2558: 2324: 2279: 2272: 2267: 2262: 2258: 2200: 2191: 2176: 2167: 2162: 2072: 2026:Looking at the 2024: 1962: 1930:Still A Student 1910:Still A Student 1882:Still A Student 1850: 1806: 1804:Hillary Clinton 1707: 1587: 1508: 1504: 1458: 1421:Still A Student 1404:Still A Student 1372: 1367: 1356:Still A Student 1343:128.220.183.124 1338: 1273: 1269: 1232: 1223: 1160:Still A Student 1128: 1045: 891: 883: 841: 824: 797: 785:I removed it.-- 769: 752: 665: 648: 624: 622:44Th President? 610: 554: 431: 413: 399: 307: 262: 204: 181: 158: 133: 113: 90: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4827: 4825: 4816: 4815: 4803: 4800: 4799: 4794: 4791: 4786: 4781: 4769: 4768: 4751: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4726: 4725: 4701: 4698: 4687: 4684: 4668: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4630: 4629: 4599: 4596: 4591: 4588: 4567: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4551: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4529: 4528: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4460: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4433: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4408: 4372: 4369: 4363:Open poppyseed 4348: 4345: 4339:Open poppyseed 4334: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4303: 4300: 4281: 4278: 4266: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4246:Open poppyseed 4241: 4238: 4225: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4194:George P. Bush 4186: 4185: 4184: 4161: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4131: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4073: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4056:152.42.190.239 4045: 4044: 4016: 4013: 3998: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3939: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3910: 3907: 3897: 3896: 3891:SnappingTurtle 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3847: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3818: 3817: 3808: 3783: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3746: 3743: 3725: 3724: 3708: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3641: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3504: 3503: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3400: 3397: 3385: 3382: 3371: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3343:151.205.101.62 3320:151.205.101.62 3231: 3230: 3183: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3147: 3144: 3132: 3129: 3101: 3099: 3098: 3096:North Carolina 3088: 3078: 3068: 3058: 3048: 3038: 3028: 3013: 3010: 3000: 2999: 2985: 2966: 2954: 2940: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2903: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2845: 2844: 2800: 2797: 2795: 2783: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2756:SargeAbernathy 2751: 2727: 2724: 2722: 2702: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2648: 2647: 2639: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2629: 2628: 2557: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2527: 2526: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2461: 2460: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2323: 2320: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2248: 2247: 2238: 2219: 2218: 2190: 2187: 2175: 2172: 2161: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2111: 2110: 2101: 2071: 2068: 2054: 2053: 2023: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 1961: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1849: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1805: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1770: 1769: 1706: 1705:Susan Sarandon 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1627: 1626: 1586: 1583: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1494:Wouter Lievens 1478: 1477: 1457: 1454: 1448:151.205.101.62 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1412: 1410: 1409: 1386: 1371: 1368: 1366: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1337: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1320: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1298: 1297: 1261: 1252: 1231: 1228: 1222: 1219: 1203: 1202: 1127: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1100: 1044: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 953: 952: 951: 950: 938: 937: 927: 926: 903:George W. Bush 890: 887: 882: 879: 862: 861: 840: 837: 835: 823: 820: 796: 793: 768: 765: 751: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 689: 688: 687: 664: 661: 657: 647: 644: 643: 642: 623: 620: 609: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 589: 588: 578: 577: 553: 550: 549: 548: 504: 503: 468: 467: 456: 455: 430: 427: 412: 409: 398: 395: 306: 303: 302: 301: 261: 258: 257: 256: 246: 218: 217: 214: 211: 203: 200: 185:205.188.117.67 180: 177: 176: 175: 165: 164: 163: 112: 109: 108: 107: 89: 86: 83: 82: 77: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4826: 4813: 4808: 4805: 4798: 4795: 4792: 4790: 4787: 4785: 4782: 4779: 4775: 4774: 4766: 4762: 4758: 4757: 4752: 4745: 4744: 4737: 4734: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4724: 4721: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4711: 4707: 4700:Rudy Giuliani 4699: 4697: 4696: 4693: 4686:Biden and FEC 4685: 4683: 4682: 4679: 4674: 4673: 4666: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4653: 4649: 4646: 4640: 4637: 4632: 4631: 4628: 4625: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4608: 4604: 4597: 4595: 4589: 4587: 4586: 4583: 4578: 4577: 4574: 4565: 4561: 4558: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4543: 4540: 4535: 4534: 4531: 4530: 4527: 4524: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4511: 4501: 4500: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4488: 4487: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4475: 4474: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4465: 4458: 4454: 4451: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4440: 4431: 4425: 4422: 4418: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4406: 4403: 4399: 4395: 4391: 4387: 4379: 4378: 4370: 4368: 4367: 4364: 4359: 4358: 4355: 4346: 4344: 4343: 4340: 4332: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4321: 4316: 4315: 4312: 4308: 4301: 4299: 4298: 4295: 4291: 4287: 4277: 4276: 4273: 4264: 4260: 4257: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4247: 4240:Rudy Giuliani 4239: 4237: 4236: 4233: 4230: 4223: 4215: 4212: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4202: 4198: 4197: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4180: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4168: 4159: 4155: 4152: 4149: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4140: 4136: 4129: 4120: 4119: 4115: 4108: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4100: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4090: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4071: 4065: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4047: 4046: 4043: 4040: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4030: 4025: 4021: 4014: 4012: 4011: 4008: 4004: 3997:Duncan Hunter 3996: 3992: 3989: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3978: 3969: 3966: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3956: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3946: 3937: 3933: 3930: 3926: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3917: 3908: 3906: 3905: 3902: 3895: 3892: 3887: 3886: 3877: 3874: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3855: 3850: 3844: 3843:David Schaich 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3830: 3827: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3816: 3811: 3805: 3804:David Schaich 3801: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3790: 3781: 3777: 3774: 3770: 3768: 3762: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3752: 3744: 3742: 3741: 3738: 3733: 3729: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3715: 3706: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3679: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3669: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3659: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3648: 3639: 3627: 3624: 3622: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3597: 3594: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3575: 3572: 3570: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3545: 3542: 3540: 3535: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3520: 3517: 3515: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3502: 3499: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3488: 3486: 3480: 3476: 3471: 3460: 3457: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3442: 3439: 3437: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3398: 3396: 3395: 3392: 3383: 3381: 3380: 3377: 3369: 3347: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3331: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3321: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3311: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3302: 3297: 3296: 3293: 3288: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3279: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3269: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3260: 3255: 3250: 3245: 3240: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3208: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3198: 3193: 3190: 3181: 3175: 3172: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3163: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3153: 3145: 3143: 3142: 3139: 3130: 3128: 3127: 3124: 3123:Pallas.athene 3119: 3118: 3115: 3114:Pallas.athene 3109: 3108: 3105: 3104:83.24.217.252 3097: 3093: 3089: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3011: 3009: 3008: 3005: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2984: 2981: 2976: 2975: 2972: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2953: 2950: 2949: 2946: 2938: 2934: 2931: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2921: 2916: 2915: 2913: 2910: 2901: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2816:66.151.81.244 2813: 2806: 2798: 2796: 2793: 2792: 2789: 2781: 2773: 2770: 2765: 2764: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2757: 2752: 2750: 2747: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2737: 2725: 2723: 2720: 2719: 2716: 2711: 2707: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2658: 2656: 2652: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2637: 2631: 2630: 2627: 2625: 2621: 2618: 2614: 2607: 2605: 2599: 2593: 2588: 2583: 2574: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2564: 2563:216.7.248.254 2556: 2553: 2547: 2543: 2537: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2525: 2522: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2511: 2507: 2496: 2493: 2489: 2488: 2486: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2477: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2467: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2441: 2424: 2421: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2412: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2386: 2381: 2380:war president 2377: 2376: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2362:theoretically 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2353: 2349: 2346: 2342: 2341: 2338: 2333: 2329: 2321: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2296: 2294: 2290: 2287: 2283: 2276: 2275: 2270: 2265: 2257: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2246: 2243: 2239: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2220: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2205: 2203: 2196: 2188: 2186: 2185: 2182: 2173: 2171: 2168: 2165: 2160: 2159:Nick Catalano 2155: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2109: 2106: 2102: 2100: 2097: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2069: 2067: 2065: 2062: 2059: 2052: 2050: 2049:2008 election 2046: 2042: 2038: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2029: 2021: 2017: 2014: 2009: 2008: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1982: 1981:12.220.94.199 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1971: 1967: 1959: 1943: 1940: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1931: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1921: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1911: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1901: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1883: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1861: 1857: 1855: 1847: 1841: 1838: 1837: 1833: 1832:דניאל - Danth 1829: 1828: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1803: 1799: 1794: 1793: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1776: 1772: 1771: 1768: 1763: 1762: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1745: 1741: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1730: 1729: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1712: 1704: 1696: 1693: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1676: 1673: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1658: 1653: 1652: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1635: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1625: 1622: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1610: 1609: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1592: 1584: 1582: 1579: 1575: 1573: 1568: 1564: 1561: 1551: 1548: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1531: 1527: 1522: 1516: 1511: 1507: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1495: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1483: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1455: 1453: 1452: 1449: 1438: 1435: 1434:12.220.94.199 1431: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1422: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1408: 1405: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1384: 1383: 1380: 1376: 1369: 1364: 1360: 1357: 1353: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1344: 1335: 1331: 1328: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1315: 1314: 1309: 1306: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1296: 1292: 1287: 1281: 1276: 1272: 1265: 1262: 1260: 1257: 1253: 1251: 1248: 1246: 1241: 1237: 1234: 1233: 1229: 1227: 1220: 1218: 1214: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1199: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1189: 1185: 1180: 1179:partial-birth 1174: 1173: 1170: 1169:12.220.94.199 1165: 1164: 1161: 1155: 1154: 1151: 1150:Nosimplehiway 1145: 1144: 1141: 1139: 1134: 1125: 1111: 1108: 1105: 1101: 1099: 1096: 1095:216.7.254.254 1092: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1084: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1075: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1055: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1043: 1040: 1032: 1022: 1019: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1003:דניאל - Danth 999: 995: 991: 990: 989: 986: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 967: 964: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 949: 946: 942: 941: 940: 939: 936: 933: 929: 928: 925: 922: 917: 914: 913: 912: 911: 908: 904: 900: 896: 888: 886: 880: 878: 877: 874: 870: 865: 860: 857: 853: 852: 851: 850: 847: 846:Lightdarkness 839:Jack Thompson 838: 836: 833: 832: 829: 821: 819: 816: 815: 812: 806: 805: 802: 794: 792: 791: 788: 783: 782: 779: 775: 766: 764: 763: 760: 759:12.220.47.145 756: 749: 737: 734: 730: 726: 725: 724: 720: 716: 715: 710: 709: 708: 705: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 694: 690: 686: 683: 682: 680: 679: 678: 677: 674: 670: 662: 660: 655: 653: 645: 641: 638: 634: 633: 632: 630: 621: 619: 618: 615: 607: 601: 598: 593: 592: 591: 590: 587: 584: 583:86.130.25.204 580: 579: 576: 573: 572: 568: 563: 562: 561: 560:September 22 559: 551: 547: 544: 540: 536: 532: 531: 530: 526: 522: 519: 516: 513: 512: 509: 502: 499: 498: 497: 494: 490: 488: 484: 478: 476: 471: 465: 461: 460: 459: 453: 449: 445: 444: 443: 441: 436: 428: 426: 425: 422: 418: 410: 408: 407: 404: 396: 394: 393: 390: 385: 381: 379: 378: 372: 368: 365: 361: 358: 354: 351: 347: 343: 340: 337: 334: 332: 327: 325: 321: 317: 313: 312:Drudge Report 304: 300: 297: 294: 290: 289: 288: 287: 284: 279: 275: 271: 270:Rick Santorum 267: 264:I think that 259: 255: 252: 247: 244: 241: 236: 235: 234: 233: 231: 225: 223: 215: 212: 209: 208: 207: 201: 199: 197: 194: 189: 186: 178: 174: 171: 166: 161: 155: 154: 148: 147: 145: 140: 139: 138: 136: 130: 129: 125: 122: 119: 110: 106: 103: 98: 97: 96: 93: 87: 81: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4807: 4777: 4760: 4754: 4705: 4703: 4689: 4675: 4670: 4601: 4593: 4582:Mattrcoulter 4579: 4569: 4566:George Allen 4550: 4507: 4502:(Candidates) 4494: 4489:(Candidates) 4481: 4476:(Candidates) 4467: 4466: 4462: 4435: 4416: 4407: 4380: 4374: 4360: 4350: 4336: 4317: 4305: 4283: 4268: 4243: 4227: 4224:Tom Tancredo 4163: 4133: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4075: 4018: 4000: 3974: 3941: 3912: 3909:Barack Obama 3898: 3785: 3766: 3764: 3748: 3745:Lisa Weltman 3730: 3726: 3710: 3643: 3620: 3568: 3538: 3513: 3484: 3478: 3474: 3469: 3467: 3435: 3402: 3399:Howard Stern 3387: 3373: 3291: 3253: 3248: 3238: 3194: 3185: 3171:Tim4christ17 3149: 3134: 3120: 3110: 3100: 3092:Richard Burr 3066:North Dakota 3015: 3001: 2968:72.33.11.200 2962: 2958: 2951: 2942: 2917: 2906: 2905: 2802: 2794: 2785: 2729: 2721: 2710:John Edwards 2704: 2659: 2649: 2641: 2609: 2578: 2559: 2503: 2462: 2437: 2379: 2361: 2344: 2343: 2325: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2301: 2278: 2260: 2201: 2195:George Allen 2192: 2177: 2169: 2156: 2141: 2073: 2055: 2035:However, on 2034: 2025: 1989: 1963: 1960:Latest Poll? 1937:Fair enough. 1894: 1890: 1867: 1851: 1834: 1807: 1790: 1780: 1779: 1759: 1749: 1748: 1726: 1716: 1715: 1708: 1649: 1639: 1638: 1606: 1596: 1595: 1588: 1576: 1565: 1558: 1503: 1479: 1474:swing states 1459: 1445: 1411: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1385: 1374: 1373: 1351: 1339: 1322: 1316: 1268: 1263: 1242: 1235: 1224: 1215: 1204: 1178: 1175: 1166: 1156: 1146: 1135: 1129: 1091:Jimmy Carter 1046: 1042:Jimmy Carter 1018:68.32.34.152 1005: 997: 993: 915: 898: 894: 892: 884: 866: 863: 842: 834: 825: 817: 807: 798: 784: 770: 753: 728: 712: 666: 656: 649: 625: 611: 569: 555: 538: 534: 527: 523: 520: 517: 514: 505: 500: 495: 491: 479: 472: 469: 457: 432: 414: 400: 386: 382: 376: 375: 373: 369: 366: 362: 359: 355: 352: 348: 344: 341: 338: 335: 328: 308: 266:Wesley Clark 263: 227: 219: 205: 182: 152: 127: 114: 94: 91: 60: 43: 37: 4753:This is an 4130:John McCain 4112:—Preceding 3767:independent 3479:He is wrong 3407:—Preceding 3404:candidate. 3062:Kent Conrad 3022:Jon Corzine 2945:Georgia guy 2909:Chuck Hagel 2853:—Preceding 2810:—Preceding 2805:Mitt Romney 2799:Mitt Romney 2788:Alan McBeth 2767:nomination. 2734:—Preceding 2706:User:RIAUSA 2663:—Preceding 2506:Ground Zero 2202:NoSeptember 1939:Anarchist42 1920:Anarchist42 1900:Anarchist42 1872:Anarchist42 1692:Andros 1337 1395:the present 1379:Chronicler3 1365:Indifferent 889:Bad Wording 801:Andros 1337 733:Andros 1337 614:Andros 1337 558:User:Mu Cow 552:Chuck Hagel 448:Ann Coulter 278:Republicans 36:This is an 4667:Edwards in 4624:Alienmercy 4523:Alienmercy 4439:Alienmercy 4421:Alienmercy 4354:Alienmercy 3965:Alienmercy 3943:incumbent. 3072:Tom Carper 3032:Brad Henry 3026:New Jersey 2769:Trojanpony 2555:Futurology 2037:October 17 1818:Esquizombi 1775:Revolución 1744:Revolución 1711:Revolución 1634:Revolución 1591:Revolución 1585:map colors 1354:See below 1240:Revolución 1133:Revolución 963:Descendall 945:Descendall 907:Descendall 869:The_stuart 571:talk to me 4797:Archive 5 4789:Archive 3 4784:Archive 2 4778:Archive 1 4294:Nil Einne 4211:ThePacMan 4201:Nil Einne 3593:Doctofunk 3560:YouSendIt 3498:Doctofunk 3301:Doctofunk 3152:Doctofunk 3086:Tennessee 2920:Doctofunk 2448:Agreed.-- 2123:Roy Moore 2119:Titus Nez 994:extremely 754:The bold 731:section. 704:kralahome 673:kralahome 637:Richard B 595:section-- 483:economics 429:Vandalism 318:Foresees 274:Democrats 230:Willhsmit 80:Archive 5 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 4598:Bayh out 4590:Kucinich 4398:contribs 4386:unsigned 4320:Valadius 4114:unsigned 4052:unsigned 4039:Calwatch 3723:270-269. 3421:contribs 3409:unsigned 3226:contribs 3214:unsigned 3076:Delaware 3056:Illinois 3036:Oklahoma 2973:Thoolie 2867:contribs 2859:Bytebear 2855:unsigned 2824:contribs 2812:unsigned 2746:Sir hugo 2736:unsigned 2677:contribs 2665:unsigned 2622:@ 23:36 2613:Saturday 2603:contribs 2492:Disavian 2476:Disavian 2291:@ 21:06 2058:Disavian 2028:Jeb Bush 2022:Jeb Bush 1964:I found 1509:american 1375:Question 1370:Comments 1274:american 1201:running. 998:possible 985:Albanaco 669:Jeb Bush 597:Smegpt86 535:everyone 475:centrist 421:Morhange 331:the link 329:Here is 316:Woodward 251:Tomhanna 202:Giuliani 170:Tomhanna 4756:archive 4733:Carpet9 4720:Macduff 4710:Carpet9 4692:Carpet9 4652:Simon12 4607:Simon12 4573:Ai.kefu 4510:Bredd13 4450:Ai.kefu 4390:Ai.kefu 4311:Simon12 4179:GoodDay 3938:Formers 3687:Deville 3678:Acjelen 3658:Acjelen 3330:Ai.kefu 3278:Ai.kefu 3259:Ai.kefu 3254:clearly 3197:Ai.kefu 3046:Wyoming 2980:Acjelen 2884:Deville 2834:Deville 2726:Al Gore 2701:Edwards 2687:Deville 2521:Acjelen 2450:Deville 2420:Acjelen 2395:Deville 2383:III).-- 2366:Deville 2282:Tuesday 2242:Falphin 2228:Deville 2181:Zzmonty 2164:contrib 2145:Deville 2127:Deville 2105:Falphin 2096:Falphin 2080:Deville 2047:in the 2013:Zzmonty 1994:Deville 1836:eman531 1672:Jpers36 1621:Jpers36 1578:Zzmonty 1567:Zzmonty 1560:Zzmonty 1456:removal 1327:Zzmonty 1188:Ai.kefu 1007:eman531 932:Jpers36 921:Jpers36 899:certain 856:Charron 608:Al Gore 438:know.-- 350:minds. 320:Clinton 144:Rhobite 39:archive 4636:Frankg 4557:Kalmia 4539:Qqqqqq 4167:Mirlin 3873:Aranae 3826:Aranae 2989:Veinor 2713:run.-- 2573:WP:NOT 2440:john k 2360:It is 2076:WP:NOT 1990:latest 1782:hablar 1751:hablar 1718:hablar 1641:hablar 1598:hablar 1323:Remove 1317:Remove 1264:Remove 1236:Remove 1083:john k 1074:john k 1065:Frankg 1054:Aranae 916:Likely 895:likely 693:Aranae 324:Cheney 305:Cheney 102:Jcbarr 4678:iKato 4272:Zz414 4256:Zz414 4232:Zz414 4151:Zz414 4139:Zz414 4099:Zz414 4089:Ericl 4029:Ericl 4024:Zz414 4007:Zz414 3988:Zz414 3977:Ericl 3955:Zz414 3945:Ericl 3929:Zz414 3916:Zz414 3901:Zz414 3789:Zz414 3773:Sesel 3761:SPUSA 3751:Zz414 3737:Zz414 3714:Zz414 3668:Zz414 3647:Zz414 3456:Zz414 3413:Zz414 3391:Zz414 3389:list. 3310:Zz414 3268:Zz414 3249:spite 3218:Zz414 3162:Zz414 3138:Zz414 3090:Sen. 3080:Sen. 3070:Sen. 3060:Sen. 3050:Gov. 3040:Gov. 3030:Gov. 2617:6 May 2581:Cuivi 2411:Stone 2385:Stone 2352:Stone 2286:2 May 2263:Cuivi 2043:, he 1547:lethe 1505:young 1482:lethe 1305:Ender 1270:young 1209:Zz414 828:Jbamb 714:Andre 487:money 464:D-Day 452:D-Day 440:D-Day 403:D-Day 240:Baron 193:Baron 153:Andre 128:Andre 111:Obama 16:< 4495:... 4482:... 4394:talk 4060:talk 3849:Cont 3810:Cont 3800:this 3691:Talk 3417:talk 3339:here 3239:want 3222:talk 2993:ヴエノル 2888:Talk 2863:talk 2838:Talk 2820:talk 2715:Sina 2691:Talk 2673:talk 2620:2006 2597:talk 2542:talk 2536:Tvoz 2454:Talk 2399:Talk 2370:Talk 2289:2006 2232:Talk 2193:The 2149:Talk 2131:Talk 2121:and 2084:Talk 2041:2004 1998:Talk 1970:Sina 1966:this 1891:most 1515:talk 1399:move 1280:talk 1245:talk 1138:talk 811:Matt 778:Matt 719:talk 567:~GMH 508:~GMH 389:Jord 293:john 283:~GMH 276:and 268:and 243:Larf 196:Larf 159:talk 134:talk 88:Rice 4417:may 3621:550 3569:550 3539:550 3514:550 3485:550 3436:550 3094:of 3084:of 3074:of 3064:of 3054:of 3044:of 3034:of 3024:of 2624:UTC 2591:nen 2293:UTC 2273:nen 2226:?-- 1895:all 1860:PDF 1814:PDF 1792:ver 1761:ver 1728:ver 1651:ver 1608:ver 1256:Rob 787:Rob 543:BDD 539:and 4793:→ 4605:. 4400:) 4396:• 4062:) 3693:) 3423:) 3419:• 3224:• 3004:須藤 2995:) 2890:) 2869:) 2865:• 2840:) 2822:• 2693:) 2675:• 2615:, 2611:, 2508:| 2456:) 2401:) 2372:) 2284:, 2280:, 2234:) 2151:) 2133:) 2086:) 2039:, 2000:) 1868:do 1862:) 1816:) 1131:-- 1001:-- 873:須藤 844:-- 721:) 691:-- 477:. 191:-- 76:→ 4767:. 4404:. 4392:( 4066:. 4058:( 3846:/ 3807:/ 3771:— 3689:( 3676:- 3415:( 3341:? 3220:( 2991:( 2914:. 2886:( 2861:( 2836:( 2818:( 2689:( 2671:( 2606:) 2600:• 2594:( 2586:é 2577:— 2539:| 2519:- 2510:t 2452:( 2397:( 2368:( 2268:é 2259:— 2230:( 2147:( 2129:( 2082:( 2051:. 1996:( 1858:( 1812:( 1545:- 1517:) 1513:( 1480:- 1282:) 1278:( 1247:) 1243:( 1140:) 1136:( 717:( 322:- 296:k 228:( 156:( 131:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index