Opothleyahola

	This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The current table format does not allow for candidates who are currently seeking their party's nomination. If table 3 were changed from "Unsuccessful candidates for party nomination" to "Candidates for Party Nomination" these people could be be included in this list as soon as their candidacy was announced. The text of the section could clarify that those individuals who won their party's nomination are located in the above tables. This proposal would also reflect a situation where a person sought the presidency, was unsuccessful, but was picked as the VP nominee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.8.106 (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea. I've changed that table's heading to "Other candidates for party nomination" and explained in the header that it may also include candidates who are currently campaigning for their party's nomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cool. a column next to the number of votes each candidiate got w/ the percentage of the popular vote would be cool. I'm sure that'd be a lot of work. I like this page Headlikeawhole (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but I'm going to skip doing that simply because most of these candidates received less than 0.1%. In fact, I don't think any of them received even 0.5% in the general election except for Obama. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might check out my comments about Taylor, Bruce, and Foote as well as Douglass' Liberty Party connection at Category talk:African American United States presidential candidates. Nice job here though! Шизомби (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Coretta Scott King. It was reported that the NY Peace and Freedom Party had a ticket of Dr. Spock and her for P/VP respectively. It says the "more than 300 delegates made the nominations by acclamation." Not sure if that ticket made it to the ballot."Group Picks Spock for U.S. President". New York Times. June 3, 1968. p. 40. Strangely, a later article had Spock campaigning on behalf of splinter Freedom and Peace Party candidate Dick Gregory on WXQR.

Martin Luther King had been proposed for the People's Party and/or P&FP but declined, but he may have still been on the ballot somewhere; there had also been a Republican dirty tricks campaign of fliers and radio ads to get blacks to vote for him in the hopes of depressing Democratic votes.

And while it wouldn't make sense IMO to change the lede to allow subjects of draft campaigns in the tables, maybe they could be briefly mentioned in the lede itself if significant enough. I think both Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell were proposed. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter E. Fauntroy needs to be added. I may get to it relatively soon. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links is bad. Googling her turned up info here http://uis.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_archive.html including websites for her (http://www.angelrocker.com and http://www.angeljoyrocker.com/ : both down, but accessible via Internet Archive) and the fact that she died in 2003; SSDI confirms this: 29 Apr 1966-25 Feb 2003. Sad. She'd been a candidate in a South Carolina straw poll too, but got no votes.Willis, Pat "Aiken County GOP picks Nix to be chairman" August Chronicle October 17, 1999 Шизомби (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 GP VP candidate, not sure how far her campaign went http://gp.org/greenpages-blog/?m=200712&paged=2 Шизомби (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various Minor Parties Start to Choose Stand-ins For President & Vice-President February 4th, 2008 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/02/04/various-minor-parties-start-to-choose-stand-ins-for-president-vice-president/ was PA Green Party stand-in for VP

Democrats, Retreating On Troop Withdrawal, Impeachment, Don't Deserve Votes in 2008 July 26, 2008 http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0726-13.htm was a GP VP hopeful

"D.C. Statehood Green Members Say Paper 'Ignores' Candidates" Friday, August 1, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080100153.html was Cynthia McKinney's campaign manager Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:African-American gospel which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into a debate over whether Lincoln was in fact bi-racial, but it clearly states that he "will not be included in the charts below" (because he identified as white) but then he is in fact included in the charts. Which is it? Asaturn (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to unify the dates used in the article to one coherent format, but I'd like to build consensus here first (per MOS:DATEVAR). It seems the first format used was yyyy-mm-dd, as in January 2009. However, since then, a mix of formats has been used, giving us (if I count correctly): 8 ×  yyyy-mm-dd, 8 ×  mdy, and 1 case of dmy. I currently happen to prefer mdy (e.g. August 22, 2020), which would be appropriate for a US-centric article such as this, but it would technically mean a change from what was once established usage (against MOS:RETAIN). All usages are solely in the references, btw (which, as usual, we could use more of).

I'll be glad to correct the dmy usage (9 November 2012) to something, if I were only sure what that'd be. What do you (all) think? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to remove the new section which was recently added, § U.S. major party presidential and vice-presidential nominees as I had enough trouble understanding this page when I first came to it, without the extra confusion of this first section. The section has two tables containing three table-rows of content, plus a little other text (headings), but it seems a lot of overhead to talk about just 2 AAs. And Obama and Harris are already included multiple times in the other tables below. It's not like we have sooo many AAs who've achieved nominations to the many "major" parties. (And besides, I chafe at the idea that there can be only these two parties; my POV.) Such a section might be useful someday, but I think that time is far away. In the meantime, readers can see the "Democratic Party" in the other tables.

I see user Yeungkahchun (who added this section 14 August 2020) has a topic ban, so can't contribute here, but what do others think? Is it okay to remove the section so as to simplify the article? Feedback welcome. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Harris is not even black 2601:84:8B80:3BD0:484F:1E54:11F7:ABF3 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]