Jump to content

Talk:List of Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign endorsements

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

Connotation

[edit]

The word "endorsements" has a specific connotation within the political realm -- it's a public declaration of support, not merely a public positive statement about a candidate. Perhaps the threshold for inclusion on this list should be an official endorsement (as suggested by the title) -- especially for organizations? Bluestategirl (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate to include political appointees currently serving in the administration

[edit]

The article currently includes a section for "National political figures and cabinet secretaries." While it would be fine to include former cabinet secretaries among figures declaring their support for a candidate, it is wholly inappropriate to include political appointees who are currently serving in the administration. Of course an appointee who serves at the pleasure of the president is going to endorse their boss for re-election. Do they really have any other choice?

Accordingly, I am removing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from the list. And I am changing the title of the section to "National political figures and former cabinet officials." Dezastru (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Boo Boo

[edit]

While she's only seven and won't be eligible to vote for the President until the 2024 election, Honey Boo Boo is a public figure and her endorsement on Jimmy Kimmel was picked up by national news organizations. [1] Gobōnobō + c 05:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements, not celebrations

[edit]

I removed some entries just now, ones that were clearly about notable people who were happy that Obama won. I think that this article should not be about people who celebrated late on election day but about those who made their views known before the issue was settled. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement=vote=support. This isn't just a list of endorsements, it's says in the top paragraph supporters. So it's only right to add these as it shows their selection won. Why else would they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.81.1 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The people who kept quiet until late on election day did not "endorse" Obama. They may have voted for him, they may have celebrated his win, but the point of this list is that a number of people stuck their necks out ahead of time and said they were for Obama. If someone else played it safe until after the results were announced, they cannot be called an endorser. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But they can be called a supporter as they lent support to the candidate by voting for them. And this is a list of endorsers AND candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.81.1 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet is right, see the article this is a "List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements". Not Reactions to the result.Lihaas (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree.

From thefreedictionary.com:

'en·dorse (n-dôrs) also in·dorse (n-)

4. To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction: endorse a political candidate.' Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

The "Free" dictionary is not the best source. Try a dictionary that is published on paper. Even so, your example does not address the problem of support coming before the election or after the votes have been shown to be conclusive one way or another. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the scope?

[edit]
Consensus favors options 1 through 4, with some possible allowance for 5 under specific requirements (announced before results made public). --Nouniquenames 20:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is the scope of this article? What of the following groups should it include?

  1. People who publicly communicated their support for Obama prior to election day
  2. People known to have worked on Obama's campaign
  3. People who were observed at a pro-Obama event prior to election day
  4. On election day, people who encouraged others to vote for Obama
  5. On election day, people who communicated that they had voted for Obama
  6. On election day, people who celebrated the voting results
  7. After election day, people who said they voted for Obama
  8. After election day, people who expressed happiness for his win

Discussion

[edit]
  • 1, 2, 3, and 4. I don't think this article should include anybody beyond the time at which the voting results were positive for Obama. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no scope for people's support. How is someone who's happy that Obama won, albeit joyful and cheering abroad Twitter different than someone cheering them on prior? If someone is showing joy afterwards, it means they voted for them, meaning they were supporting them prior. Unless they're Republican. Then you'd get a Donald Trump meltdown. As long as it is sourced, it should be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.192.145 (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd include everyone who fits into the first four points, and I'd even be willing to include 5 provided that the person mentioned they had voted for President Obama before any of the results came through (I think Mandy Moore was one such person). As for the last three points, if we are to include them they should really be in their own section to separate the pre-election endorsements, which helped towards getting Obama re-elected, from those who said "yay! He won/I voted for him" after the election was over. Acalamari 14:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An endorsement is characteristically given in advance of the thing being endorsed. For example, a check is endorsed prior to being cashed, an insurance policy is endorsed against future claims. The International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium stipulates that "a candidate must be endorsed by another (ISC)² certified professional in good standing before the credential can be awarded." A similar standard applies to endorsing a political candidate. Once in office, the measure becomes an approval rating. Therefor I agree with Acalamari that 1 thru 4 are intuitive, while 5 would only apply if verifiable mention occurred prior to an official announcement, or concession from the opponent. IMO, My76Strat (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An endorsement shouldn't depend on when it was made. As long as it clarifies that the person expressing it is indeed in support of the candidate. Why would these people come out and say "Hurray, Obama got re-elected" if they voted Romney, they evidentally voted Obama, and saying so or celebrating demonstrates that they were in support of him. We wouldn't see Elisabeth Hasselbeck or Clint Eastwood, Brad Thor or Ted Nugent celebrating his win if they weren't in support of him, that's illogical. So why is having Yvette Nicole Brown or Hugh Hefner added to the list as being jubious of Obama getting re-elected not an endorsement or a sign of support? This list isn't just "endorsements", it's supporters. It's quite unfair to exclude these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.71.227 (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthurmore, it feels as if by them announcing their support afterward, you deem their input doesn't matter, which it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.192.145 (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1, 4, 5, 7 as the title indicated this is a list of campaign endorsements. Celebrations are reactions not indicativeof support. Using that logic the hordes onf international "congratulations" messages are endorsements? Although it should technically be endorsements which means to encourage them to buy into campaign X/Y, but voting intentions for thiswould be a good compromise.
The IP comments ("then who did they vote for? Romney, then cheer for Obama? When someone votes and cheers for the winning subject, they SUPPORTED them. So they get added") are pure synthesis. If the warring goes on we will have to semi this page.Lihaas (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only reverted back because the matter was still being discussed. In my opinion, they count as they show that they supported this candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.192.145 (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is clearly shaping in favor of 1 through 5, not 6 through 8. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why else would someone celebrate his win? In part to the fact they voted for him. Why would a Romney voter celebrate Obama's win? Binksternet, why are you quashing these peoples input? They're clearly in support of Obama. They count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.192.145 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of reasons for after the fact celebrations. 4 years to go and for some reason or the other (a future want to run for office perhaps?) need to side with the status quo or flow with the tide of celebrations. Romney endorsers dint post their deafeat/mourning for the same reason as not to highlight theyre out of the status quo or not with the tide.
I think 2/3 are not good enough. Working for the campaign is not strong cause people can drop/change (as did some Lib/Ron Paul supporters who worked elsewhere in years gone by). 3 could be okey, but we should have it supplemented by more than an appearanceLihaas (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So in summary, you are saying 1 and 4 are certain, but 2 and 3 are not strong enough by themselves, needing additional support? I can see the logic of the first part. For the second part, additional support would usually put the 2/3 people in the 1 category, right? Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, im saying it would probs need more explicit reference. (esp. for 2)Lihaas (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Candid observation

[edit]

This list is in danger of becoming a list of registered democrats who are notable. It is full of original research, reference synthesis, and unsupportable inclusions. Nice approach. I'm sure the Romney list is no better, but don't really care. Cheers, My76Strat (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why i said what i did above, needing more explicit mentionLihaas (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Originally I had stated this as a level two thread. After realizing that in fact you had addressed the root of my observation, I moved it in as a level three. I hope a consensus forms around the sensible things you have stated. My76Strat (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Penn

[edit]

I've just looked at the cited article and there's no Obama-endorsement there. It seems that whoever included it, deemed criticism of the opposition as a tacit support for the incumbent.Beingsshepherd (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

Penn endorsed Obama in 2008.[2] In 2012, however, Penn played his cards close the chest, criticizing the president and calling for him to act on various issues.[3][4] Nevertheless, a few sources put Penn in the endorsement category without quoting him directly.[5] I think a direct statement of endorsement is required here to list Penn, and I don't think one of those will be found. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Include donations?

[edit]

Please see the discussion at Talk:List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign supporters, 2012#RFC: Should a list of endorsements include people who quietly donated?
Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opensecrets as a source

[edit]

See WP:BLPN for discussion of opensecrets.org as a source. Binksternet (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012. 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) 07:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012. 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) 13:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Barack_Obama_2012_presidential_campaign_endorsements&oldid=1241584293"