Jump to content

Talk:Perennial candidate

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

American Presidential Election

[edit]

Don't you think we need a sentence amounting to "Due to the nature of the voting system used any person persistently running for office as a third party/independent is going to be perennial candidate"? RlyechDweller (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True as it might be, the statement reads more like commentary than an encyclopedic statement, so I don't think such a sentence is needed.--JayJasper (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Rossi

[edit]

I don't think he is a perennial candidate since the elections where actually close. A perennial candidate is someone who has little to no chance of ever getting elected. He was the republican nominee and appeared in many debates. I'm gonna remove his name from the list. --Brian Earl Haines (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is:

  • Dino Rossi, a former Washington State Senator of the Republican party, narrowly lost the 2004 election for governor to Democrat Christine Gregoire. Rossi challenged Gregoire again in 2008 and lost. He lost a race for United States Senate in 2010 to incumbent Democrat Patty Murray.

Also, he has won elected office before which this entry didn't mentionBrian Earl Haines (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to restore the entry. Chance of success isn't the issue. It's the repeated failures that matter. But even more to the point, he's been called a "perennial candidate" in multiple sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources I could find calling Rossi a "perennial candidate" were hostile, such as opposing campaigns or their surrogates, as part of an obvious attack strategy. It's not a legitimate evaluation. Brian Earl Haines was correct about what makes somebody a "perennial candidate" --- it's a term for Harold Stassens and Jimmy McMillans and Screaming Lord Sutches. The forlorn hope aspect is essential. It's not for guys with a serious chance of victory who just fell short. For that reason William Jennings Bryan and Henry Clay don't belong either, and I removed them. 69.108.12.58 (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Perennial candidate" is a term that should have objective thresholds rather than simple number counts or party affiliations applied. In addition, recent elections in which the candidate has come within very few percentage points of winning should invalidate the perennial tag. Finally, if a candidate is designated as a perennial candidate, then the candidate must be included on the main perennial page with his candidacy history, or if the candidate has a page, then the list of the candidate's candidacy history can be provided to validate the designation. Bottom line: without objective threshholds, then the term is both meaningless and disingenuous to the individual, the political office, and to Wikipedia's ostensibly strict editing standards. Michaelopolis (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do need to establish clearer and stricter standards for inclusion here

[edit]

Seems to me that to qualify as a true perennial, somebody needs to have run for at least five or more races without a victory, or seven or more in which they only won once (especially if that sole victory was some kind of fluke). Harold Stassen was a serious candidate at one time, and did hold some offices. An reputable officeholder with the guts to try for higher office a few times is not the kind of person we're talking about here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stassen was a serious candidate for any offices in the first two decades of his political career, but then continued to run for office for another 40-plus years with no serious chance of being elected. He was long removed from even being so much as a "reputable officeholder" by the late 1950s, yet kept on running well into the 1990s. Several years ago, I got into a dispute with someone who was defending this list when it included Henry Clay, who was a reputable officeholder (and then some) until the day he died, but ran five times for President without ever winning; the three times he was nominated, each by a different political party, were the only elections he ever lost. I'm grateful that someone with an ounce of sense finally removed Clay from this list. To some extent, determining who is a "perennial candidate" is subjective, but most of the time, common sense provides the answer. Stassen didn't start out as a perennial candidate, but he became one by continuing to run when it was clear he had long ago become unelectable.Jsc1973 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many names in the United States section. Unless someone has something to say, I'm going to make some reduction. TomS TDotO (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "To some extent, determining who is a "perennial candidate" is subjective, but most of the time, common sense provides the answer."If the term is subjective in any way, then "common sense" itself is subjective in the interpretation. While there may be initial circumstances where "common sense" may prevail, such as Pat Paulson, or those individuals who pluck down $200 to file for running for president every four years without seriously running, any term that describes a candidate's inclusion in a race must be objective. For instance, a candidate who may have run twice for office decades ago as a third party candidate, but runs again recently in a new party (one of he main ones), and actually comes close to winning (within 3 percentage points), should automatically be taken off the perennial list until the candidate runs consecutive races with low performance. Agreed? Michaelopolis (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Perennial candidate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Perennial candidate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Perennial candidate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES, WP:CCC

[edit]

The consensus to keep perennial candidates has changed to delete them, absent lots of coverage. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corky_Boozé. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perennial_candidate&oldid=1198282217"