Talk:2012 United States presidential election

Template:U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link

Fathers

Not sure if belongs in main article, as could be just interesting trivia, but this is the first US Presidential election in 156 years where both major candidate's fathers were born outside the United States. Obama's father was born in Kenya, and Romney's father was born in Mexico. Last election it happened was 1856 where James Buchanan (D) father was born in Ireland, and John C. Frémont (R) father was born in France. Sheppa28 (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Might be worth adding after Romney becomes the official candidate. Mr. Anon515 04:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Worth adding if there are reliable sources that discuss this fact.--JayJasper (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And just how does that significantly relate to the candidates themselves? Under the U.S. Constitution, they're still eligible to run for the presidency, regardless of which country(ies) their fathers were born in. —stay (sic)! 07:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not an eligibility issue, just an interesting bit of trivia. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a pretty cool fact, but I have heard much media coverage of it. So it would be a little to undue at this point. Hot Stop 17:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Bill O'reilly

Resolved

This article says Bill Oreilly is the leading republican candidate, and it won't let me edit it to Mitt Romney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.191.191 (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The vandalism has been reverted. If you'd like to edit this article I encourage you to create an account.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Info box and the candidates, II

Presumptive presidential nominees, shouldn't be included in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for a logical argument why not, all you've said so far is just rude and silly. Ratemonth (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you and others, in such a 'bleeping' hurry to place Obama/Biden & Romney in the 'bleeping' infobox, when they're not yet NOMINATED by their parties. PS: PLEASE don't tell me about the presumptive stuff, as I already understand it. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If you already understand it, then neither of us likely have anything else to say to each other about it. Ratemonth (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So you only think the third party candidates should be in the infobox? (the green party have its convention this week). Wouldnt it look confusing if the two main candidates for President wouldnt be in the infobox? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Republican & Democratic parties prez nominees can be added, when those parties have prez nominees. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no interest in discussing the logic behind the two different wievpoint it really comes down to who support or opposse that the Dem and Rep presumptive candidates should stay in the infobox. Both candidates have by now secured a majority of delegates and I guess we have been discussing this in depht before. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The logic is before us, neither party has nominated anyone for President or Vice President. My goodness, anyone the 3 forementioned individuals could die or drop out of the race before the delegates cast their votes. Therefore, why the rush to place Obama/Biden & Romney (for example) into the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A candidate that have been nominated can die too Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We'd deal with that after the nominees are chosen. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why can't it be dealt with just as easily before the nominees are chosen if someone were to die or drop out? -- 70.57.74.73 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support for keeping the Republican and Democratic parties presumptive nominees in the infobox. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of candidates, until they're actually nominated by their respective parties. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support keeping it as it is. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support keeping the presumptive nominees in the infobox. Ratemonth (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support keeping presumptive nominees in this infobox, and elsewhere that GoodDay seems to want to be disruptive about this issue and ignoring consensus. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support keeping the major party presumptive nominees in the infobox, in keeping with WP's policy of reflecting the consensus of reliable sources. Besides, it is abundantly clear that neither of the upcoming major party conventions is a brokered convention, and it would misleading to imply such.--JayJasper (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Of course they should be included. Wikipedia is the source millions of Americans will use to find out about candidates. Pedantically pretending that Romney and Obama aren't candidates helps nobody. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's fine as is, as long as the "presumptive" labels remain where appropriate. Now, there is some room for debate on the definition of "presumptive nominee" (an objective vs. subjective one), but the time for that discussion has, for now, passed- it is clear that Obama/Romney have committments from the majority of their party's delegates. Barring something dramatic & unforeseen, that won't change. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support keeping the Democratic and Republican presumptive candidates in the infobox; also support removing any irrelevant third-party candidates from the infobox. Seriously man, wake up. You would certainly be living in Imaginationland if neither Obama or Romney wins the election. —stay (sic)! 03:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• support no reason for removing them has been given. Its been well established at this point that they'll be the nominees. Also, I'd support removing the also-rans. Hot Stop 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Snowball support It is common sense to include the presumptive nominees in the infobox. So you think that because of the miniscule chance that someone will die, they still are not the presumptive nominee? Should we just delete most of United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics because these athletes could die before actually competing? Nonsense. Reywas92^Talk 18:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Support keeping the presumptive nominees in the infobox, as long as they are clearly tagged "presumptive" and the link to Presumptive nominee page is provided for clarification to anyone unclear of the meaning of the term. Kind of a no-brainer, really. We'd look silly if we didn't include them. As for the possibility that one of the candidates could "die or drop out" before the convention, I think the PN article covers it: "the presumptive nominee is the candidate who has not yet received the formal nomination of his or her political party at the party's nominating convention, but who has acquired enough delegate commitments through the primary elections and caucuses to be assured – barring unforeseen events – of the eventual nomination at the convention". I also support keeing all candidates who have a mathematical possibility of winning the election based on ballot access per the current consensus (see top of this page).--Rollins83 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012

lp.org/2012-ballot-access shows that Gary Johnson does not have ballot access in either Maryland or Michigan. The electoral vote total for Gary Johnson is 325. For the Peace and Freedom party, there are 55 electoral votes in California. For Americans Elect, they have 265 electoral votes. Peta Lindsay has 32 electoral votes.

Bradyolson18 (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll make the necessary changes. Americans Elect I'm not so sure of though, so I'll have to do some digging to confirm beforehand. --Ariostos (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Obama is a definite canidate not presuputive candidate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.0.232 (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

He's only listed as presumptive because he hasn't officially been nominated by the Democratic Party yet. Now, we all know he is going to be nominated, there are no doubts, but we keep to the book so to speak. Until he is nominated at the DNC, he will remain listed as the presumptive nominee. --Ariostos (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't even say that he's a presumptive candidate. It says he's the presumptive nominee. There's quite a difference there. -- 70.57.74.73 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2012

Chuck Baldwin gains ballot access in Kansas since he received the nomination of the Reform Party of Kansas which already has ballot access in Kansas.

207.177.29.217 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)