Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I think the biggest negative about John Thune (other than the fact that he's not really well known right now) is that he supported the McCain-Feingold bill. He's since admitted that that was a mistake, and no one is perfect, of course, but if he does seriously run in 2012, people are going to bring that vote up.--Whizkid 22:56, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Good point, I'll add it. I don't think it disqualifies him.--Andy Schlafly 22:58, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Is Mitt Romney "regularly" on Fox? I haven't seen that, but I don't watch it regularly.--Andy Schlafly 09:44, 15 February 2010 (EST)

If no one can vouch for Mitt Romney being "regularly" on Fox, then I'll revert it back to something like "rarely" on Fox.--Andy Schlafly 16:45, 15 February 2010 (EST)
While "regularly" is obviously a subjective measure, he's been on Fox a lot lately. He was on Hannity on January 20th, on "On the Record with Greta van Sustern" on January 11th, and on Hannity again on December 18th. Of course, a lot of that was to discuss the Scott Brown race. Sean Hannity also had him on a lot in 2008 after John McCain got the nomination to analyze the presidential race. While I don't have an opinion as to whether or not that counts as regularly, I thought you might like to know.--Whizkid 17:23, 15 February 2010 (EST)
That's helpful, but doesn't seem to be nearly as much as the Fox favorites of Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich. So perhaps "on occasionally" might describe this best. 2008 is ancient history and not relevant to appearances in connection with 2012.--Andy Schlafly 17:54, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Hillary Clinton

Of all potential candidates, Obama, Palin, McCain, Romney, et all, Hillary Clinton currently enjoys the highest approval ratings at 58%. It is hard not to believe the Clintons are not seriously mulling thier options at the moment. This article should note the distinct possibility of a Democratic Primary challenge in 2012 as US News has reported. [1] Obama recently remarked on the possibility of being a one term president in his Diane Sawyer interview and Hillary stated she cannot see herself being Secretary of State after 2012. Rob Smith 10:02, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Sarah Palin

Is "irrational liberal hatred of her" really a con? It seems it will just make the Democrats look foolish when they foam at the mouth and drive more voters to the Republicans. DouglasA 13:40, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

You may be right, but it could be a hurdle. The liberal media are losing market share but still have some.--Andy Schlafly 17:00, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
I'm guessing it'd come down to her performance. If she does well in debate and interviews, the rage will look silly. DouglasA 17:10, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
People resent seeing those like them being attacked. They look at Palin and see someone they know IRL. We all have family dramas and tribulations. Those outside the political world don't see her quitting as Governor to be as bad a thing as the media and political world make it out to be, to use but one example. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:20, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

Ken Cuccinelli

Why is "effective critic of Obama" under cons? I have a feeling that might have been vandalism. Does anyone oppose if that is moved to a pro?--IScott 18:45, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Please do. Great point, thanks.--Andy Schlafly 19:06, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

A concern

Does anyone feel like having so many potential Republican candidates is a detriment? It just feels like the Republican Party is so divided these days. As for Clinton and Obama, if Clinton wins over Obama I'd be thoroughly surprised. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the incumbent president has never been beaten in the primaries by someone else in their own party. Also, I think Obama has kept a lot of moderates on his side. However, he's never been a friend of the right, and he's alienating the left. Just my 2 cents. --JasonN 12:40, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

In 1968, incumbent Lyndon Johnson felt compelled to withdraw from the race after being humiliated by the strong showing of Eugene McCarthy against him in the first primary.
As to the large number, that's appropriate at this stage so that no one is missed. Competition is a good thing!--Andy Schlafly 13:14, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

Rubio and Experience

I'm curious what you all think about Rubio in 2012. The article says "Will face liberal double standard: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a conservative." But it seems to me that by pushing him in 2012 we might be equally guilty of a conservative double standard: Obama was quite rightly attacked by conservatives for inexperience. But what's not OK for Obama is OK for Rubio? My perspective is that Rubio should serve out his term and consider a run in 2020, probably holding a high office (maybe VP) during the 2017-2021 term of whoever ends up beating Obama. Thoughts? --LanceS 22:31, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

Most conservatives criticized Obama for being too liberal. I don't think Obama's inexperience was the major basis for criticism, but it will be when liberals criticize Rubio.--Andy Schlafly 00:47, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
Obama was criticized, and rightly so, for absolutely no executive experience. He had experience as a legislator, but had never actually held a job that required executive experience, running a company and meeting a payroll. Since that criticism was rejected by the Obama camp, one would think it would be off-limits for them to use it against Rubio. But since liberals don't think logically, and only care about smearing their opponents, as Andy said.....of course they will use it! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:08, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

"New" president

I just made a minor edit, but have a feeling it may be contentious, so I'll explain a bit here. The opening sentence said the election is when the U.S. "picks a new president." I removed "new" because, inasmuch as it's likely that Obama will not be re-elected, it's still possible, meaning the country may not have a new president, but rather the same old one. EMorris 13:34, 15 November 2010 (EST)

Thanks for your clarifying edit.--Andy Schlafly 13:45, 15 November 2010 (EST)

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin did appoint a judge who is not pro-life, but with the way the Alaskan Constitution is written she had to appoint one of the people nominated by the Judicial council. Her choices were anti-life, more anti-life, and most anti-life. She chose anti-life. --AlaskanEconomy 21:45, 6 February 2011 (EST)

I don't agree. Palin picked the more anti-life candidate, and of course she did not have to pick anyone at all. Moreover, good politicians anticipate tricks by the other side and advert crises before they occur ... if they want to, that is.--Andy Schlafly 16:45, 17 February 2011 (EST)


I understand that the Republicans are ordered by likelihood of success, but have you done the same for the Democrats? If so, I really don't see Mike Gravel having any chance of winning the nomination. He is too far left for most of the democratic base and he is an incredible flip-flopper (he ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2008). Otherwise, this is a fascinating article. JimFullerton 13:23, 17 February 2011 (EST)

Excellent point. I've improved the ranking on the Democratic side. Please feel free to improve further.--Andy Schlafly 16:42, 17 February 2011 (EST)
The new ranking is great. It would be very interesting to see Hillary Clinton attempt another primary run against Obama. JimFullerton 16:56, 17 February 2011 (EST)
That would be silly of her. She'd have to resign as SoS to do so effectively since all Obama need do is keep her bogged down with impossible tasks. She'll bide her time until 2016. DevonJ 18:05, 17 February 2011 (EST)
She'd have to pick a fight with the Admin, claiming the President is to soft on Iran or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for instance, and she's unable to continue her duties as SoS. In reality, this in unlikely, for the simple reason she doesn't have any fresh faces to bring into a Hillary Administration; Obama pretty much fired all his old Chicago mafia after the midterm fiasco and replaced them with Clinton retreads. Rob Smith 14:51, 19 February 2011 (EST)
SoS used to be the place to gain experience for POTUS position but that was "back in the day" right after the Revolution. Who was the last President that held the SoS job in a previous administration? James Buchanan? DevonJ 20:40, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Mitch Daniels

His star is dropping rapidly among conservatives. Recently, he spoke well of Democrats fleeing their duties, then backtracked. He was behind stalling the right to work legislation for another date. He called for social conservative issues to be put aside while we work on the economy. Liberal press all buttons on all fronts, they don't say hold off and focus here or there. Daniels needs to drop on our list. --Jpatt 20:46, 25 February 2011 (EST)

I agree. I don't see any plausible scenario now in which Mitch Daniels could win the nomination. Pawlenty, unlikely himself, has a far greater chance of winning the nomination than Daniels. Please downgrade Daniels as you think best.--Andy Schlafly 20:54, 25 February 2011 (EST)

Dropping Christie

Swapping Palin with Christie in the ranking makes sense. The rumor in New Jersey is that Christie is going to run candidates in the primary against incumbents more conservative than he.--Andy Schlafly 01:27, 6 March 2011 (EST)


Should Trump's 2 divorces and his much younger wife (24 years difference) be listed as cons when Gingrich's are? SharonW 16:27, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Good question. Maybe it should be. But one difference may be this: Trump may have converted to a churchgoing life after his divorces, unlike Gingrich. Also, the circumstances of Trump's divorces may have been significantly different from Gingrich's.
Reagan's first wife left him. Is that something voters should have used against him?--Andy Schlafly 20:34, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
Trump cheated on his first wife with his second one. I'm not sure about the circumstances behind the second divorce. As to his religion, I haven't read anything stating when he converted.
There is certainly a huge difference between one's spouse leaving and being unfaithful. If Reagan's wife left for reasons other than him cheating on her or abuse, then no, it shouldn't be held against him. SharonW 10:25, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
I thought a precedent had been established that what a person does in their private life is nobody's business? Were not holding Republicans to a different standard than we would Democratic officeholders, are we? Rob Smith 23:43, 15 May 2011 (EDT)
Then we should either remove the mention of Gingrich's multiple marriages or add Trump's multiple marriages. It shouldn't be considered a negative for one and ignored for the other. SharonW 13:55, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

the republican table

I was wondering, for ease of viewing, if we could make 2, one for those who have and those who have not announced they are. Or is that not a good idea?--SeanS 10:01, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

Ideas for improvements are welcome, but I'm not it is meaningful whether someone has formally announced or not. Mitt Romney, for example, has not announced yet but he's the clear frontrunner. Meanwhile candidates who announced long ago have almost no chance of winning.--Andy Schlafly 10:09, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
You never know. But it might help, if we won't do a separate table, to at least make them be more noticeable, since at the moment I can't actually tell who's running and who we think might run--SeanS 10:11, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

Idea for improvement

Hi, this is my first edit, though I have occasionally browsed Conservapedia in the past. I was linked to this page from the front page news item about George Will. From reading the page, it doesn't seem clear to me what the methodology of the rankings are. For example, New Gingrich is listed as second most likely to win the nomination. Most polls I have seen show him far behind Mitt Romney, polling close to candidates like Ron Paul or Tim Pawlenty. It also seems odd to me that Donald Trump is number three, as only a few polls have shown him with a lead, and recently that lead has disappeared. It seems a bit unencyclopedic to rank candidates by likelihood without clearly saying what the methodology is.

By the way, the article about George Will seemed to imply that he believed that Pawlenty and Daniels were the only Republicans who could win the general election, not that they were the Republican frontrunners.

I apologize if I sound like I'm telling editors how to run this wiki. However, I think many readers would appreciate seeing where this ranking comes from. DaleHoward 22:57, 15 May 2011 (EDT)


"In trademark Trump fashion, he maintained he could have won the election if he wanted to."[2] LOL! Maybe Richard Dawkins, "the Donald" of atheism, will say he could win a debate against William Lane Craig if he wanted to! :) conservative 15:40, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio

Let's face the facts, Marco Rubio's parents weren't citizens when he was born. Nevertheless, he was born in Florida, grew up in the USA, and cannot fairly be called anything other than a natural born citizen. That may not stop some liberals from raising the issue out of spite. By the same laws, Obama is a natural born citizen too. Or, they're both not. There's no logical way you can claim that one is and the other isn't. So let's emphasize the positive here. Rubio's immigrant background makes him a uniquely American success story. JDWpianist 09:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Rubio's parents were refugees who unambiguously sought to be Americans and fully subjected themselves to American jurisdiction immediately. Not so for both of Obama's parents.--Andy Schlafly 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
Does the Constitution make express claims about a child's parents' behavior/intentions? LloydR 11:09, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
That's the debate. So the question is: Since Obama's father did not submit his-self to U.S. jurisdiction - in that he did not seek citizenship and was merely a student visiting - would that affect whether Obama was born "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]"? (Citizenship Clause) (His mother, it should be noted, was an American citizen.)--IDuan 11:42, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
Iduan states the issue well. The real issue is whether the family subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the United States. Visitors, diplomats, students on visas and (200 years ago) Native Americans typically do or did not.--Andy Schlafly 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
No, but American citizens -- like, say Anne Dunham and her child, Barack Obama -- are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Where exactly in the case law or the Constitution is there a provision that BOTH parents or even the father must be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when ascertaining whether or not an individual is a natural-born citizen? LloydR 13:10, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
"Subject to the jurisdiction" can't have anything to do with a person's actions but his status. If you're in the US on a visa you're subject to its jurisdiction - you can get sued, you can get arrested, etc. Diplomats and foreign heads of state can't. Please show us one single case that says visitors are included in the list with diplomats and foreign heads of state. Nate 13:22, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
Exactly -- people on an F-1 visa have to file tax returns with the IRS, obey US law, fill out census forms, etc. etc. In what way, exactly, are they not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? LloydR 13:26, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
Andy, with all due respect, the issues you're bringing up have nothing to do with the natural born citizen requirement. The most obvious definition of the term in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA. There is not and has never been a tradition of jus sanguinis in the USA, so the parents' status in the overwhelming majority of cases plays absolutely no role in the child's status. The exceptions and gray areas to this are very narrow indeed, and none of them apply to either Obama or Rubio. You're simply inventing ambiguity where there is none. JDWpianist 16:48, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
JDW wrote, "The most obvious definition of the term [natural born citizen] in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA." Right, no problem there. But implicit in that concept -- and made explicit by the 14th Amendment -- is that the family submit to the jurisdiction of the United States as its national sovereign. That's what is lacking in births to diplomats, visitors, Native Americans circa 1800, students on visas, etc. There is nothing "very narrow indeed" about those exceptions. The Native American population was large, for example.--Andy Schlafly 20:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
Seeing as the words "parent," "parents," "mother," "father" or "family" do not appear in the 14th Amendment, where do see the question of a familial commitment to US sovereignty coming into play? Also, in what ways do students on visas not submit to the US as national sovereign? Are filing tax returns, being subject to the law of the land, obliged to fill out the census and other obligations not an aspect of their being subject to US sovereignty for the duration of their stay in the US? LloydR 21:38, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
Many visitors insist on being deported rather than being subjected fully to U.S. laws. When those visitors take that position -- or act in a way indicative of that position -- then they do not submit fully to the jurisdiction of the United States and their children born during their visit are not "natural born citizens" of the United States.--Andy Schlafly 22:17, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

That does not answer the more substantive point of my argument -- the fact that the 14th Amendment says nothing about parents or family. Moreover, the fact that some people get legally deported only speaks to the fact that they are subject to US sovereignty, as it's American law that determines their status in the country. LloydR 22:23, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." (emphasis added). Many people have been born here who do not accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.--Andy Schlafly 22:45, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
Really? Who? And more to the point, does the refusal of some people to recognize US sovereignty has anything to do with any particular individual's eligibility? Is there any evidence that Anne Dunham's baby boy did not "accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States?" LloydR 22:53, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
Andy, from the opinion in Wong Kim Ark:
"The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.
"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States' who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
From that legal precedent set by the opinion of the Supreme Court, I think the case is settled that being born in the US means you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". BradB 00:11, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
If you were right, then no one born on American soil would ever be deported. But this has been done by government, including high-profile cases.--Andy Schlafly 00:43, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
So your argument here is that because some people born on American soil are subject to deportation (which demonstrates that they are subject to US law, as it is US law that is determining where they might live), a child of a citizen and a non-citizen born on US soil may not qualify as "natural born," and this is backed up by the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about a child's parents or family. Moreover, because of the preceding, a child born to two non-US citizens has a greater claim on being a natural-born citizen than does the child of the American citizen. And Anne Dunham's baby may not have accepted US sovereignty, though you still have not provided any evidence for that claim. Do I have that right?LloydR 09:06, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Vague anecdotes fail to persuade. Binding legal precedent set by the Supreme Court clearly says you're wrong. BradB 11:52, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

Isn't one of the main rationales to keep those detainees at Guantanamo Bay that they would become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if they ever set foot on American soil, as they owe allegiance to no other sovereignty (most obviously, they aren't soldiers)? Whether they were willing to accept this or not? And isn't that the idea behind the “wet feet–dry feet” policy, too? AugustO 10:44, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

My point exactly. Since when is national sovereignty/jurisdiction something that an individual can choose to recognize or not. Here's a thought experiment: ask someone from another country to come to the US and do something in the US that is illegal in America, but legal back home. When they are arrested and tried, go with the defense of "My client doesn't recognize US sovereignty or jurisdiction, and should be released." See how far that goes with a jury, if the judge even allows such a defense. With the very narrow and specific exception of diplomatic immunity, which is not really relevant in this case, anyone entering the US implicitly recognizes US sovereignty and jurisdiction. LloydR 11:02, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

".... giving him a greater claim to being a natural-born citizen than Obama has."

So the child of ZERO American citizens is more likely to be a citizen by birth than is the child of ONE American citizen? Seriously, Andy, I think you need to reconsider this position -- or at least show us something in American citizenship laws that backs this up. LloydR 10:46, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

See above.--Andy Schlafly 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
Where does the law say that any of that is relevant? LloydR 11:07, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Separating out the Real Presidential Candidates

Now that several republicans have declared that they will run in the primaries, is it appropriate to remove the non-declared candidates to a new table? BenDylan 09:04, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

No, I don't think so. Whether someone has declared or not is only one factor -- and not the most significant factor.--Andy Schlafly 10:24, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
Nevertheless, don't you think it would make this table clearer? Perhaps the easiest thing would simply be to add a 'Declared?' column that has an 'X' or something in it - because even though it's not the only factor, it is a very important one? This is certainly the case as time marches on? JanW 17:29, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
Do you think it is a good idea to explicitly state what the factors are / what criteria is used to rank the candidates? Even if the ranking is just based on the sum of "pros" vs. the sum of "cons," I would think that some issues receive heavier weighting than others, and it might be helpful to readers if this were made clear. --AaronT 12:04, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
Obvious factors would include:
  • a political base
  • a principled stance on issues
  • ability to distinguish oneself from other candidates
  • ability to obtain financial backing for a presidential campaign
  • articulate
  • ability to handle the hostile press
  • proven electoral success
Perhaps others can add or reorder the list.--Andy Schlafly 01:00, 31 May 2011 (EDT)
Yes, I think we could add a few more columns to the table. Right now, each candidate has just two very general paragraphs about their pros/cons, but most of this information is opinionated and while I think the rankings are fairly accurate, I think we could increase the precision of the rankings (or just further justify what we already have) by being much more specific as to examples of each candidate's abilities in each area. Perhaps, like Aschlafly said, we could have a column for "X Candidate's ability to handle the press" and give links or examples of when they successfully managed a hostile situation with the media. That way we're not just throwing out opinions.
Also, forgive my boldness, but should Jeb Bush really still be second on the list? I do believe that with his name recognition and history in politics he could have a good chance at winning if he were to run, but since he has not declared I think the liklihood that he wins the nomination is decreasing quickly. There is a fast-moving trend in the media to say "Okay, this is our field. Let's work with what we have." And so if Jeb Bush is going to run, the longer he delays now the more he is going to hurt his own campaign. I would suggest keeping him in the Top Five or Top Seven, but moving him out of the second spot, just because he hasn't declared. Texas Governor Rick Perry should probably be moved up a little since the common stance is that he will be running, but I wouldn't put him in the second spot. Maybe move Bachmann up after her excellent performance in the debate? And then Gingrich in third? Jpope1487 10:48, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
You make good points and feel free to add information as long as it does not obscure with less significant complexity. Note, however, that this is not merely a mirror of the lamestream media. Jeb Bush would objectively be the second most likely to win the nomination, whether he's running now or not. I don't see anyone else at this time (other than Romney) who has a higher likelihood, although obviously that will change as the deadlines for candidates to formally file election papers approach.--Andy Schlafly 13:27, 18 June 2011 (EDT)


Why are those other than Obama included? It is highly unlikely that there will be a primary challenge to Obama. If no one opposes I say this section be removed. TheoCaldwell 23:32, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

At this early stage, it makes sense to include many possible candidates. There is time to trim the list of candidates as primaries approach.--Andy Schlafly 23:59, 31 May 2011 (EDT)


I would like to move Huntsman up. Somewhere around number ten. Does anyone mind? I don't think it makes any sense to have him at number twenty-nine (assuming I counted correctly) behind Dick Cheney. --JustinD 22:30, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Bump paper tiger RHINO Romney from #1, replace him with Bachmann

Conservative populism is on the rise. Bump the paper tiger RHINO Mitt Romney from the #1 position and replace him with Michele Bachmann. Plus, setting aside whether it is right or wrong, a significant number of Christian evangelical Republicans in Iowa, the South, the Midwest and elsewhere are less favorable to Romney because he is a Mormon (about 30%).[3] It's probably going to be a horse race and in horseraces, winner often win by a nose so that 30% could make a difference. Plus, on the very important likability factor (I like Ike, Reagan, etc.), Bachmann wins hands down.[4]P Also, she did very well in the debate and is surging in the polls.[5] conservative 01:32, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

I must agree here. Though Romney isn't exactly a liberal, he's definitely not a true conservative either. Here at conservapedia, we like real conservatives. MeganH 01:36, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
The observations above are astute but we strive for objectivity here and it seems Romney is still in first place, though obviously rankings will change weekly or even daily.--Andy Schlafly 10:03, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
I don't think Republicans as a whole are very happy about the present field. The either have to know more about the existing candidates (Bachmann) or they want better choices (Perry/Christie). I also don't think Romney will be able to handle conservative political punches when they come his way and it will be a repeat of 2008. Hard to predict what is going to happen. Usually for Republicans, by now things are a lot more settled in terms of who is going to win. conservative 17:31, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

Jeb Bush/John Huntsman/Rand Paul

I'm new here, so I just wanted to give individuals a chance to object before I made these changes. In light of Jeb Bush's own son endorsing John Huntsman today it seems appropriate to move Jeb Bush down the rankings list, and it seems to make sense to move Huntsman up as well, I would suggest either right before or after Sarah Palin's current position. In addition, as Rand Paul has been actively campaigning for his father, and has been unequivocal in stating he will not run against his father, I propose he be moved farther down the list. --Krayner 16:27, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

I have made the changes, if any objections emerge, I am more than open to discussing them.--Krayner 17:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
You're welcome to make changes - the entry, like other entries here, is a work-in-progress benefiting from the best of the public. But I think you've moved Jeb Bush far too low. While candidates listed above him struggle to get 50%, Jeb increasingly looks like he could be the star player who enters late in the game to win it.--Andy Schlafly 17:39, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
I moved Jeb Bush up a couple more spots in light of your suggestion. I placed him just above Chris Christie, another candidate who could be a star player if he entered late in the game. While I agree that if he were to enter Jeb Bush would be a major contender for the nomination, I believe this needs to be balanced against the actual likelihood that a candidate will enter the race. Jeb Bush has not expressed any willingness to run in this election, and his son's endorsement, and now position with the Huntsman campaign, seems to be another indicator that Jeb Bush will not be entering the race. It is possible that others believe Jeb Bush is more likely to enter, and if that is the case, as you suggest, they are welcome to move him up accordingly. I apologize for how long this is, I just want to make sure a change on an article such as this is acceptable.--Krayner 18:25, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
I welcome your edits and comments, but honestly I just don't see Huntsman or even Perry having a greater chance of winning the nomination than Jeb. Note that Perry, like Jeb, has not announced yet either.
The endorsement by Jeb's son of Huntsman looks like an obvious attempt to keep Romney from winning the nomination at Jeb's expense. Jeb's son will surely endorse his dad once Huntsman gives up.--Andy Schlafly 19:08, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Given recent Gallup poll of Republican voters, it is time to remove Romney from front runner status

Given recent Gallup poll of Republican voters, it is time to remove Romney from front runner status: The spread is significant, plus Gov Rick Perry's state has grown jobs and people don't like Romney's history when it comes to important issues to Republicans: healthcare, etc. Perry appears to be the front runner unless a scandal breaks or the electorate becomes significantly more conservative and moves towards Michelle Bachmann. I do think the biggest concern to voters is jobs and Perry seems to have the strongest public perception of strength on this issue. Conservative 19:15, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Perry has been impressive so far, but he needs to take more questions and provide good answers before he can surpass the top candidates as the likely nominee.--Andy Schlafly 20:56, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
I certainly didn't foresee Perry snatching defeat from the jaws of victory vis a vis an unpopular immigration related policy statement during a time of high unemployment. I thought he was enough of a political veteran to avoid that. Conservative 04:40, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Not running

With the field appearing mostly set (excepting the possible inclusion of Palin) shouldn't those who are not running or have made no indication that they will run be removed from the list? As of now it's a mess to navigate and I have no idea how you can even rank those near the bottom of the chart. I propose that the table be drastically trimmed to include only Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul, Johnson, Huntsman, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and the possible candidates of Palin and Giuliani. Those who have given absolutely no indication that they will run, like Peter King (for example) should not be in the grid. AaronL 21:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, since no one has voiced their objection I'm going to go ahead and reduce the Republican list to the 10 mentioned above. I hope this is OK with everyone. AaronL 11:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
Also, the list of possible Democratic's evident that Barack Obama will be the 2012 nominee. There has not been a word from any of these people about a primary challenge, only MSM speculation. I'm going to remove them too. AaronL 11:30, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

This is a list of the likelihood of someone winning, not a list of who has announced or not announced. Rick Perry was in the top ten before he announced, for example, and rightly so. Others could still announce in the future as well. The conventions that actually nominate the candidates are still about a year in the future.--Andy Schlafly 11:55, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

But how can you even organize the bottom of the list? How can one intelligently say, for example, that Ken Cuccinelli is more or less likely to win than Mitch Daniels, when both are not running? That is why my list removed all of those who clearly are not going to be nominated, and kept in Giuliani and Palin, who both have not announced but may in the near future. Plus, the last time the presumptive nominee of either party was not finalized before the convention was 1968, a political lifetime ago, and the last time a dark horse took the nomination was Wendell Willkie in 1940. The convention is a formality in modern politics. If anyone other than the candidates I kept in my revised list is the Presidential nominee in 2012 I'll eat my hat. AaronL 12:01, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
I don't think the Ford-Reagan contest in 1976 was truly finalized until the convention, or the Taft-Eisenhower contest in 1952. So that would be 4 times out out of the last ten or so contested primaries when the convention picked the nominee. That 40% chance of the convention picking the nominee is very significant, particularly when none of the front-runners seems able at this time to win the support of a broad spectrum of Republican voters.--Andy Schlafly 12:10, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
But that was before the maturity of the current primary system. 1952 is ancient history as far as primaries are concerned, and I will grant you 1976 but it is clear that Gerald Ford had the advantage of incumbency, and there were only 29 primaries. Since the current primary system has reached maturity, (the 80's), no convention has gone down to the wire. I, and an extremely large majority of election-watchers, just can't foresee the nominee being anyone not on my revised table. AaronL 12:15, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
The primary system is certainly changing, but perhaps back towards the old model, when a challenger party picks its nominee as late as possible. Hence the surprising delays already seen in the campaign season for the Republicans, which hardly any expert predicted. Those delays may continue until the latest possible time: the convention.--Andy Schlafly 12:25, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
I disagree. The primary system has been remarkably stable for the past 30 years. Also, I'm surprised you are OK with the convetion picking the candidate, as in all likelihood the delegates would not pick a Tea Party-friendly candidate. The delegates are party insiders, and are most likely closest politically to Mitt Romney. There is just a complete lack of evidence that anyone not on my revised list will be the nominee, and absent entirely unforeseen circumstances, I don't see how it is possible for the majority of delegates, which in 2012 will total around 1200, to cast their votes for someone who did not run in the primaries and not expect a complete disaster of a convention. AaronL 12:33, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

@Aschlafly- Back on the original topic of my edit, would you at least agree that the table needs some trimming? By my count there are 37 Republican candidates listed. If someone came to the article page for information on the election and candidates, would you expect them to read about all 37? Again, I propose trimming it back to the list I had of 11 or 12 viable, declared (or possible, like Palin and Giuliani) candidates. AaronL 18:21, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

I do disagree with removing so much information, and disagree with the criterion of whether a candidate says he is running. Note, by the way, that this information is useful in considering who is likely to be picked as the vice presidential nominee.--Andy Schlafly 20:00, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
Then perhaps there should be a separate table for possible VP candidates. Also, I still stand by all of the edits I have made, although I am more than happy to engage in debate with you. AaronL 21:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
OK, let's debate whether Jeb Bush might be nominated. Even though hasn't declared his candidacy, he's also refused to rule it out. If no other candidate wins a majority of delegates, then Jeb Bush could easily be a compromise nominee.--Andy Schlafly 22:45, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
Here is an excellent news story that backs up my position that one of my 11 or 12 will be nominated: [[6]]

Separate section for declared and undeclared

I would suggest splitting the names into a list of declared and undeclared, as well as removing those that have declined to run. I would think that (with the exception of former-Governor Palin) there is a considerable jump in likelihood between those declared and those undeclared. Particularly because the only way an undeclared candidate can be nominated is in the nominating convention, when (from my understanding) every nomination in the past 50+ years was decided before the convention because someone achieved enough delegate votes beforehand to secure the nomination. - JamesCA 08:26, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

This article isn't worth debating over. A few sections up Andy made it very clear that he sees no difference between declared and undeclared candidates, hence why Jeb Bush is ranked #2, ahead of 10 people who are actually running. And you're mostly correct about conventions being formalities, the only nomination decided at the convention was in 1976 (Republicans nominated Ford over Reagan). If you actually do the work and separate them or eliminate those definitely not running (as I did) it will just be reverted. AaronL 09:01, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
The table is a ranking by likelihood. Whether someone has officially declared or not is only one of many factors affecting likelihood. We had Rick Perry high on the list well before he declared, and rightly so. Likewise, Jeb Bush should remain high on the list because he could still decide to enter the race and would immediately become the frontrunner if he did.--Andy Schlafly 09:22, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
But the difference is, there were rumblings of Perry running for months before he declared. That has not been the case with Jeb Bush, as it is highly unlikely he will run. You claim that "whether someone has officially declared or not is only one of many factors affecting likelihood"; I would like to see your paramaters for determining this likelihood. Do you have a formula? AaronL 09:37, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
The introduction and table in the entry explain the factors and reasons, and you're welcome to improve them, while adhering to the concise, informative format of the entry.
Politics is like an iceberg: 90% is below the surface. Conservapedia is not limited to the 10% that occurs above the surface.--Andy Schlafly 09:45, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
A few points for Mr. Schlafly...
  • A list of 37 when 12 would suffice is hardly concise. And a list of 10 Democrats when 1 would suffice is the opposite of concise. Your speculation on the Democrats dumping Obama is just that, speculation. The mainstream media speculates about hypotheticals like this and you jump on them for it. The fact that Ralph Nader is listed is absolutely laughable, considering that A) he likely tipped the 2000 election to Bush, and B) he's not even a member of the Democratic Party.
  • I still don't understand why you are unwilling to at least remove those who have explicitly stated they are not running, e.g. Thune, Trump (whose reputation is shot), Pawlenty, Pataki, etc.
  • Some you have listed will never be nominated by the Republican Party. Dick Cheney is still deeply unpopular within the party; he will not be the nominee, and wouldn't be even if he was in good health (which he is not). Ken Cuccinelli will not be nominated because he is only a state-level elected official. These are just two.
  • You claim that 90% of politics is under the surface. While it is true that there are backdoor machinations and such that the public may not see, this is like claiming that the 90% of the iceberg below the surface is colored like a rainbow and is home to a society of firebreathing elves. Your talk of stalking horses and "Team Newt" (who is holding on for dear life and is having no clear influence on this race) and other nonsense hurts Conservapedia's credibility.
  • If you are so confident in your methodology, then please explain to me why, to pick one of many possible examples, Fred Thompson is exactly 4 spots ahead of Jan Brewer, no more, and no less. I am eager to hear your answer to this and my other points. AaronL 17:25, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
The list should be updated as the race progresses. But the goal is to be over-inclusive rather than overlook a potential contender completely. The full list also serves as a set of prospects for VP, both Republican and Democratic.--Andy Schlafly 23:49, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
You did not address any of the points I made. And the race has progressed: Pawlenty dropped out, Trump rose and fell, Bachmann tailed off (recently at least) and Perry entered the scene. Your goal of over-inclusiveness is admirable, but you have included every single Republican the average person has heard of as a potential nominee. And no matter what you say, the Democrats will not be naming people like Ralph Nader as VP, and the Republicans won't be naming the Attorney General of Virginia as nominee for anything anytime soon. I'd like to see an explanation of your methodology, and why Fred Thompson is 4 spots ahead of Jan Brewer. AaronL 00:37, 17 September 2011 (EDT)


I removed many candidates discussed earlier who, by all indications, will not be nominated for President. Since you have deemed yourself in charge of this article you can make a VP table if you would like. I and users should feel no obligation to work on this article if you are going to revert back to your, frankly, pretty awful version. AaronL 12:36, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Your comments your welcome, and your additions would probably be welcome also. But deletions of information are generally disfavored on this site.
In response to your question about Fred Thompson and Jan Brewer, Fred Thompson has run before and that gives him an edge over Jan Brewer. Whether someone has run before (or has name recognition due to a family member running before) is a big factor.--Andy Schlafly 13:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
You didn't fully answer it. If you ae so confident in your ranking, then please tell me why Fred Thompson is exactly #31 and Brewer is exactly #35. AaronL 13:34, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Ron Paul taken seriously by the media now?

I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I contributed the maximum allowable contribution to his presidential campaign this go round and last one. The media does not take him seriously, he is very serious but the media is not. Even FOX treats him like a joke. I apologize for the quality and the fact that it's the Daily show but take a look at this piece right after the Aimes Iowa straw poll. --DrDean 16:45, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Moving to United States Presidential Election 2012 ?

Because Presidential Election 2012 may also refer to Finnish Presidential Election 2012, French Presidential Election 2012, Indian Presidential Election 2012, Mexican Presidential Election 2012, Russian Presidential Election 2012, Taiwanese Presidential Election 2012, Venezuelan Presidential Election 2012--ARamis 22:57, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Does anybody care ?--ARamis 16:27, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
Be Bold! Atleast wikipedia would say that haha. I'd say move this and then make this article a disamb.--SeanS 16:29, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
ARamis, this isn't Wikipedia. We're not trying to be "globalist". I think people know to which election this entry is referring.--Andy Schlafly 16:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
Oops, already did it. Revert if you think it is better the other way.--ARamis 16:37, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
By the way, why not trying to be globalist ? What's wrong with it ?--ARamis 16:38, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
I get what you mean, although if we kept it with the US election the primary,we could give the disamb be its own page, linking to all of them (with a "If your looking for others, go to here") at the top to take you there? Fair compromise.--SeanS 16:42, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
In response to ARamis, globalism is counterproductive when it causes more confusion than progress, as illustrated by requiring visitors to click twice in order to find the "Presidential Election 2012" in the U.S. that most will be looking for. Another example of misguided globalism was the failed effort to convert the U.S. to the metric system.--Andy Schlafly 16:55, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
Here I created a new page Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation) with a link in this page.--ARamis 17:07, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

Jeb Bush?

I'm going to revert BrentH's edit...he should know this article is Mr. Schlafly's domain and any attempt to change it is forbidden. GeraldA 18:53, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

Since WHEN?--SeanS 18:54, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
Have you observed this article? I have, as a long-time lurker. Andy Schlafly rejects any attempt by any editor to change the article. Another user tried to trim it and Andy refused to consent. It's not a de jure policy, but it most certainly is a de facto one. GeraldA 18:57, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
Edits to this and other entries are welcome if they have a logical or factual basis (and comply with the simple Conservapedia Commandments).--Andy Schlafly 18:59, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
But edits have not been welcome to it. There have been attempts to remove people who are not running, and they have been rejected. Are you OK with the ranking as of BrentH's last edit, which has Jeb Bush (who is not even running) in 1st ahead of numerous declared candidates? GeraldA 19:01, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

When will Jeb be moved down the list?

I think the chances of Jeb running are extremely slim, How long should we wait (with out him making any moves) to move him down? --DrDean 21:57, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

Sarah Palin not running

She just announced. --CalebN 18:45, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

It's time to downgrade Cain - third woman has come forth accusing him

It's time to downgrade Cain - third woman has come forth accusing him of harassment.[7] I think the voter "three strikes and your out" rule now kicks in. :) I never liked Cain as he is a bankster sympathizer who formerly worked the Federal Reserve. WorldNetDaily recently had an article declaring the race is now going to be a battle between Ron Paul and Rommey as they have firm supporters. Conservative 16:50, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

Democrat list

Is it time to remove the section on possible Democratic challengers? If someone were going to run against Obama in the primaries they would have announced by now. Seems they're dumb enough to back an obviously losing horse this time. AngusT 09:37, 6 December 2011 (EST)

Long Form Republican Nomination

It says that Mitt Romney can't win Iowa even though he did...this should be updated.


I reverted the deletions of both Republicans and Democrats. Instead of deleting, they should be segregated into different categories - still in race, dropped out, considered but didn't run, never thought about it. --SharonW 14:30, 19 January 2012 (EST)

Can someone explain this to me...

Romney "won" Iowa by 8 votes, but when the count is finished and certified, it is considered a "virtual tie" when Santorum wins by 34 votes? Sorry, Romney lost and Santorum won - by a bigger margin than Romney's declared win. --SharonW 14:48, 19 January 2012 (EST)

Democrat list again

I'm sorry but the list of potential Democrat challengers at this stage looks silly. Other than a few joke candidates, no Democrat is running against Obama, and it's really too late for anyone to get in the race. Barring something like a photograph of him praying to Mecca or his Kenyan birth certificate surfacing, he will be the Democrat nominee. Some of the polls cited in that section are almost two years old, and no longer relevant. Time to trim the section. AngusT 15:23, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ?

Shouldn't we reorganize the Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ? I believe Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin do have less chances to win than Ron Paul or Rick Santorum. --PhilipN 21:33, 5 February 2012 (EST)

What about moving info about Republican candidates to 2012 Republican Primaries ?--PhilipN 21:44, 5 February 2012 (EST)
No, it's best to keep key related information in one entry, like a real encyclopedia.--Andy Schlafly 00:37, 9 February 2012 (EST)


There's seems to be two users on this site both named Aschlafly. Both Aschlafly's like making presidential election predictions. But they can't seem to agree with each other. One says it's Jeb Bush. The other thinks it's Newt. One predicted Sarah Palin wouldn't run. Meanwhile, the other ranks her fourth in line for the nomination. So which Andy Schlafly should we be listening to? And is it possible that they both might be wrong? --JoshuaB 00:34, 9 February 2012 (EST)

Predictions should improve as new information is obtained.--Andy Schlafly 00:37, 9 February 2012 (EST)
Correct. It's obvious that as new information is made available, it's only natural for your predictions to evolve. But at this moment, you are making two contradictory predictions. On this page you're making the case that Jeb Bush will be the likely nominee, while at the same time you're taking credit for Conservapedia being proven right for predicting it will be Newt Gingrich. And as the convention nears I am sure that the actual nominee will find his way to the #1 slot on this page. Here's a prediction I have for you: That regardless of the eventual nominee, Conservapedia will be " proven right" yet again. --JoshuaB 01:04, 9 February 2012 (EST)
Predictions should change over time, taking into account new developments. It would be silly to pretend otherwise. If you see a contradiction somewhere, then please quote it and let's review it.--Andy Schlafly 22:12, 9 February 2012 (EST)
"If you see a contradiction somewhere, then please quote it and let's review it." If you will follow the links in my initial post, you will see that I linked to the "diffs" of the various seemingly contradictory predictions you have made. At the time of this writing, this page states that Jeb Bush will be the likely nominee. While this site's "proven right" page takes credit for accurately predicting Newt Gingrich to be the eventual nominee (an event that hasn't even actually occurred). I'm not sure how I could make it any clearer. Also, if Newt fails to get the nomination (or any other Conservapedia prediction fail to pass, will a Conservapedia proven wrong page be created? Otherwise how can readers gauge this site's overall predictive accuracy, if they have no hit-to-miss data? Anyway, I enjoy the site, and keep up the great work! --JoshuaB 00:17, 10 February 2012 (EST)
The Conservapedia proven right takes credit for predicting Newt's surprisingly strong showing -- which included winning the South Carolina primary by a landslide. Obviously the Conservapedia proven right does not claim that a nominee has been selected yet. Predictions can be partially correct.--Andy Schlafly 00:34, 10 February 2012 (EST)
"Predictions can be partially correct." That is true in cases where a prediction has multiple conditions to satisfy. For example picking the winner of a horse race, and the exact time it will take the horse to cross the finish line. You may pick the right horse, but your estimated elapsed time was off. That would be a partially correct prediction. Yet what you're essentially doing on the Conservapedia proven right page is as soon as your horse takes the lead, you declare victory. So even if that horse stumbles before the finish line,and ends up coming in last, would you then go onto declare partial victory? "Well I was correct for the first 95% of the race..." That's sort of like jumping off the Empire State building and saying "so far so good" after the first 10 floors. --JoshuaB 01:06, 10 February 2012 (EST)

Reduce size of tables?

Isn't it time to trim the list of Republican contenders? Now that the nominee is apparent, I think the list should be pared down to just those who were actually serious contenders for the nomination. Democrats who might have run is useless speculation. CasparRH 12:44, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

Obama Social Issues

I changed the table on Obama where it said he confronts social issues directly. That's completely inaccurate. Obama you'll recall avoided the issue of abortion by saying it was above his pay grade. The only time he was direct in confronting the issue was when talking in front of favorable supporters like Planned Parenthood. Likewise how he didn't bring up guns or religion with Pennsylvanians, only when thinking he was talking privately to a supportive, liberal crowd in California behind the backs of small-town conservatives. Obama lacks courage and this should be reflected on the page. --Joshua Zambrano 09:23, 4 September 2012 (EDT)