Why are some candidate names on the state pages colored blue
but all the others are written in red? Why are a few candidate
names are written in black?
of the pages use the same HTML coding as to the links. A
link will appear in red
if you have not recently visited the linked site. However,
if you recently visited a link, it will appear in blue.
Your net surfing history -- not anything done by Politics1
-- determines the colors of the links as they appear on
your computer screen. A name will appear in black
only if we cannot locate either a web site or email link
related to the named candidate.
Many candidates throughout the site are referred to as being
a "Frequent Candidate." What does this mean?
get LOTS of emails related to this issue (usually from people
who have had this term applied to them). Here's our policy:
We like to identify all non-incumbent candidates -- when
possible -- by an occupational or political activity description.
Likewise, we find it useful to mention when a person has
previously been a candidate for office. Space permitting
on the description line, we like to identify the specific
past political races in which a candidate has previously
sought elective office without success. We quickly discovered
that there was rarely room to mention the specifics of more
than two prior campaigns. Some individuals, however, have
run very often for office without any electoral success.
Thus we developed the "Frequent Candidate" description and
apply it uniformly to all candidates (regardless of political
party) who have unsuccessfully run for office three or more
times in a row in their most recent streak of candidacies.
Here are some fictional examples:
Smith ran for Congress in 1976 and 1982 and for Mayor
of his hometown in 1996. He lost each of those races.
He is now running for Congress in the current election
cycle. Joe Smith = Frequent Candidate (even though the
runs were spread over 25+ years).
Gold lost for Congress in 1990, but was elected to Congress
for three terms starting in 1992. She lost her race
for re-election in 1998. She lost a race for State Treasurer
in 2000 and is now running for Congress again. Mary
Gold = NOT a frequent candidate (because she's only
lost two in a row in her most recent streak of candidacies).
However, if she loses this race and runs again for any
other office, we will apply the frequent candidate moniker
to her in her next race.
McCandidate lost a race for state senate in 1994 and
a race for Congress in 1996 as a write-in candidate.
In 2000, he ran for Congress again but was disqualified
from the ballot because some of his petition signatures
were declared invalid. Now he is again running for office.
Steve McCandidate = Frequent Candidate. Write-In bids
(even as a protest candidate) and runs when a candidate
was disqualified count as prior candidacies. FYI: So
does dropping out of the race after losing for the a
party's official endorsement at a nominating convention.
suggestion of a few of these candidates, we discontinued
using the "Perennial Candidate" term back in 1998 in favor
of our current Frequent Candidate tag. Further, we still
suggest you visit the pages of all candidates (including
the "Frequent Candidates") as each may offer good ideas
and be well qualified to serve. Finally -- if you're still
not happy with this policy -- we guess it goes to show a
person can never entirely escape their past.
On a state page, I see a person in italics -- which signifies
the person is a "Potential Candidate." What does this mean?
is a an entirely speculative listing. Then again, all political
prognosticating and punditry involves speculation. A person
identified in italics is listed because there has
been at least some suggestion that the person may be a possible
candidate to that office in the next election. Also, any
person the subject of an ongoing Draft effort is also listed
in italics (even if the person has openly tried to discourage
the Draft effort). Any person identified in a published
news account as merely "thinking" about a race is also identified
as a potential candidate. Sometimes, a person is listed
as a potential candidate because they directly emailed Politics1
and asked that we list them as a potential candidate --
possibly so that they can test the public reaction to the
idea. Once the formal candidate filing period closes in
a state, we remove all remaining potential candidates from
our listings. Note: if your name is listed as a potential
candidate and you'd like it removed, simply email
On a state page, I see a candidate listed in bold identified
as an "Active Candidate" -- but he only has an Exploratory
Committee formed. He has made no decision about whether or
not he will run. Why is he listed as "active"?
note that we use the term "Active Candidate" -- not "Announced
Candidate" or "Official Candidate." Our policy: an "active"
candidate includes anyone who has publicly announced their
intention to seek the office and anyone who has filed papers
to form a committee and/or raise money for a possible bid
the office (regardless of whether the filed committee is
a Campaign Committee or an Exploratory Committee). Likewise,
anyone circulating candidacy petitions on their own behalf
is also regarded as an Active Candidate on Politics1.
"You have a major mistake on the Bush Administration Cabinet
page! You forgot to list Tony Snow [or whomever] in the Cabinet
and he's very important. Please correct immediately!"
that is NOT a mistake. All heads of the various federal
departments (State, Treasury, HHS, Justice, etc.) -- but
NOT the heads of federal agencies -- are automatically accorded
Cabinet rank. Thus, the Attorney General, Secretary of Commerce,
etc., are all members of the President's Cabinet. Additionally,
the President may grant Cabinet rank status to other high-ranking
Administration officials. To date, President Bush has officially
extended this status to the White House Chief of Staff,
the EPA Director, the OMB Director, the US Trade Representative,
and the "Drug Czar" (ONDCP Director). Excluding the above,
no others are in the Cabinet. We have however, expanded
the list there with a special second section further down
on the page to include a few other key sub-cabinet level
"I announced my candidacy for Congress two days ago. Why am
I not yet listed on Politics1?"
Politics1 trying to track races in 435 Congressional seats,
100 Senate seats, and statewide races in all 50 states --
meaning that we are literally trying to stay on top of thousands
of candidates and potential candidates -- there is no way
we can know about everyone who announces for office. Obviously,
we always check official filings with state agencies --
but this info often appears long after a candidate launches
a bid for office. If your name is missing from our list,
simply send us an email
identifying your name, state, race, district, party, occupation/office
(for our descriptive tag) and -- if available -- a campaign
website URL or email address. We'll get it posted as soon
"But I emailed you my information three days ago and it is
still not online. Are you trying to discredit my candidacy?
If you don't post it within 24 hours, I'll be contacting my
attorney about possibly taking legal action against Politics1!"
is largely a one-person operation (with lots of volunteer
help emailed by our readers) so we can not always get everything
posted immediately. We promise to get it posted as soon
as we can. We are not trying to discredit or slight you
-- in fact, we've probably never even heard of you until
now (but we're still sure you'd make a fine candidate --
something that will, presumably, be readily apparent to
us just as soon as we get around to visiting your excellent
campaign web site). And -- as for suing us -- you might
want to research the first amendment and the heavy protections
it grants us (remember: Politics1 is not government owned
nor government funded, so "equal protection" arguments,
etc., don't lawfully apply).
Where are the listings for state senate and state house candidates?
Politics1 is largely a one-person operation, we find it
a challenge to just stay current with the thousands of candidates
in the races we currently cover. At least for now, it is
simply impossible for us to track the state legislative
and local races in various cities and towns. Once in a while
we add special sections on certain "Big City" mayoral races
-- particularly those held in odd-numbered years -- but
that has been the only exception (to date) to our rule.
do you get the information for the candidate descriptions?
How do you decided what terms to use in the description?
review a candidate's web site (when available) as a starting
point. Failing that, we obtain info from published news
reports on the race and Internet searches of older materials
that may enable us to identify the person. The descriptive
tag is not meant to describe the totality of a candidate's
career -- but rather is a starting point for our visitors.
Hopefully -- if they follow all the links to the various
candidate sites -- they can read more complete bios on each
of the contenders. We also try to use neutral and more general
terms in our descriptive tags. Here are some examples:
use the general term "Attorney" -- but not more specific
terms like "Law Firm Partner" or "Trial Attorney" or
"Civil Rights Attorney" or "Corporate Attorney." However,
we will use specific governmental titles for attorneys
when applicable, such as "Assistant District Attorney"
or "Ex-US Attorney" or "Johnsonville City Attorney."
use the term "Accountant" rather than "Certified Public
Accountant" -- simply because it is shorter and conveys
the same meaning.
use the term "Ex-" (rather than "Former") -- as in "Ex-Congressman"
or "Ex-Teacher" -- simply because it is shorter. Readers
should understand we intend it to convey the same meaning
as if we had used "Former." However, "Ex-" is not the
same as "Retired." When we use the term "Retired Army
Officer" or "Retired Civil Servant," we intend to convey
not merely that the person once held the job in the
past (i.e., when we use "Ex-") but that the person worked
at that position for a long enough period of time as
to actually have reached retirement (qualified for a
pension, etc.) from that job.
or "Businesswoman" is a term that we dislike simply
because it is so vague and could include -- without
distinction -- everyone from a street corner hotdog
cart owner to a billionaire computer magnate. When we
can better identify the nature of the business and the
person's position, we will always do so. Also, we do
not use the term "Small Business(wo)man" or "Small Business
Owner" -- because nearly EVERYONE seems to claim this
vague title and it is of little use to our visitors.
applies to any type of medical doctor (both MDs and
DOs). When more specific information is known (i.e.,
Ophthalmologist, Surgeon, Emergency Room Physician,
etc.), we will use it. We use the term "Chiropractor"
for all DCs.
will not print outlandish titles, even if a candidate
claims them on his/her web site. Thus -- and this is
a real example -- we declined to list a Congressional
candidate in 1998 as "God's Second Son" (even though
he repeatedly emailed us asking that we do so). Likewise,
"Genius" is not an occupation.
do not use descriptions to help one side make political
points. Thus, we will not use terms like "Carpetbagger"
(even when requested to do so by an opposing candidate).
the "Frequent Candidate" tag, see above. We also do not
use any adjectives in the tags. None of the terms used are
meant to be derisive or show any preference on the part
of Politics1 for any of the candidates in any races.
You use the "Activist" descriptive tag a lot -- often attached
to other terms. What does this mean and where do you get this
"Activist" tag is used when it seems to accurately describe
a candidate who has a history of involvement on a particular
cause (or causes). Often, this information is culled from
news reports and info on a candidate's own website. To remain
neutral and objective, we typically use the terms that each
side favors for describing themselves. Here are some examples:
"Liberal Activist" is one who has been involved in a
broader variety of mainstream liberal causes (environment,
pro-choice, gun control, peace, civil rights, etc.).
"Conservative Activist" is one who has been involved
in a broader variety of mainstream conservative causes
(anti-tax, pro-life, gun rights, increased defense spending,
property rights, etc.).
"Religious Right Activist" is one who has been involved
in a broader variety of social conservative causes with
an underlying religious foundation to that candidate's
activism (pro-life, anti-gay rights, prayer in school,
Christian Coalition, etc.). The term is not meant as
a perjorative, but simply as a way to distinguish this
form of conservative activism from the more secular
form of conservatism.
"Gun Rights Activist" is someone who has been active
in the NRA or similar groups. By contrast, a "Gun Control
Activist" is someone who has been active in the Million
Mom March and other similar groups.
"Pro-Life Activist" is one who has been involved in
the anti-abortion movement. A "Pro-Choice Activist"
is one who has been invovled in in the abortion issue
through NARAL, NOW, and other similar groups.
"Republican Activist", "Democratic Activist", "Green
Activist," etc., is used to describe a candidate with
a history of involvement in partisan campaigns, party
organizations, fundraising, etc.
Activist" is a more general term we use to describe
someone active in neighborhood groups, charitible and
civic groups, local causes, etc.
Organizer" is one who professionally devotes most of
their time to (and, typically, earns a living related
to) grassroots political activities.
"Left-Wing Activist" or "Right-Wing Activist" is one
who has been involved in political groups or causes
generally viewed as outside the mainstream of typical
left/right American politics. Examples would include
invidividuals generally active in the John Birch Society,
Marxist or socialist groups, Militia or Patriot groups,
etc. However, we sometimes will refer to an individual
who fits these descriptions more precisely as a "Marxist
Activist" or "Militia Movement Activist," etc. Important
note: these terms are never used on our site to describe
individuals who believe in the violent overthrow of
the American government -- it simply means these people
are much further left or right than their more mainstream
Does Politics1 ever endorse or recommend any candidates?
Never has and never will. We are not trying to influence
votes, only encourage a better educated electorate. Follow
the links to all of the races in your area and make up your
own mind about the candidates.
I saw a banner ad for a candidate (or campaign consultant)
on one of your pages. Isn't that an endorsement by Politics1?
You'll notice it also says "ADVERTISEMENT" immediately below
the banner -- because the banner is a paid political advertisement
by the campaign. Politics1 is simply a media outlet that
the campaign used for that banner -- and the space on the
same (and other) pages would be readily sold to any and
all other campaigns if they too wanted to buy ad space on
Politics1. A paid advertisement on Politics1 should never
be interpreted as an endorsement on our part -- just as
a paid full-page ad in a printed newspaper or a paid 30-second
spot on a TV station is not any form of endorsement of a
campaign by the newspaper or TV station.
"Can you please explain how the rise of political consultants
in the 20th Century has caused the decline of power of the
political parties. Please explain in 3-5 pages, double-spaced,
with specific examples, if possible."
we won't do your school or college homework for you. (FYI:
This question came from an actual email sent to Politics1.)
However, if you're looking for a good basic intro to Congress
-- as to history, procedure, party organizational stuff,
and more -- visit the Center
on Congress at Indiana University website.
"No, seriously, I'm just curious about that question. It's
really not a homework assignment."
we still won't do your school or college homework for you.
How many votes did Harry Truman win in the 1948 Presidential
I want to run for Congress. What do I need to do and what
are the filing requirements?
Constitution sets the basic requirements to seek the
job (at least 25 years old and a resident of state from
which you are seeking office), ballot qualifying requirements
vary from state to state. They also can be governed by additional
party nominating rules. A good starting point is to contact
the Elections Division of the Secretary of State's Office
in your state (or whatever the State Elections Office is
for your state -- they're all listed near the bottom of
each of our state pages). They can
probably point you in the right direction. In some states,
you need to pay only a few hundred dollars in filing fees
or file as few as 150 petition signatures to run. In other
states, unfortunately, you may need to pay a filing fee
of well over $10,000 or collect thousands of valid signatures
just to get listed on the ballot. The rules can often be
even tougher (if not impossible) for third party and independent
candidates in some states. Some states even place extra
obstacles in your way -- in NY, for example, an entire page
of petition signatures is entirely void if even just one
signature on the page is invalid. You will also need to
file paperwork with the Federal
Elections Commission. There are lots of other paperwork
and financial reporting requirements -- but these are good
starting points. See ... this is why many campaigns have
to consult with attorneys and accountants to keep their
campaign on the correct side of the law and meet complicated
I want to start a new political party. What do I need to do?
are already LOTS of established political
parties out there representing many different views
across the political spectrum. Thus, here's some good advice
if you're thinking of starting a new party: DON'T DO IT!!
Why? Because it is a lot easier to find a party you like
(or that has weak leadership) that already has qualified
for ballot status ... and to then try to take over that
entity (at least, at the state or local level). Pat Buchanan's
social conservative activists did this in 1999-2000 to Ross
Perot's centrist Reform Party ... radical Soviet-style Marxists
have grabbed on-and-off control of the leftist Peace & Freedom
Party in California ... plus there are many examples of
failed attempts to do this. It may sound tough to do this,
but it is a lot easier than starting a new party from scratch!
Remember, parties routinely write the rules that control
their own nominating process -- so be sure to review the
already established party by-laws, rules, procedures, etc.
However, if you are intent on ignoring our advice, then
keep reading this answer. If your new party plans to support
the election of federal candidates, you usually need to
contact both the Federal
Elections Commission and all applicable State Elections
Offices in the states where you intend to run candidates.
Ask each of office about the initial registration and ongoing
financial reporting requirements -- plus candidate filing
requirements. If your new party plans to support only state
or local candidates, contact just your State Elections Office
and ask them the same questions. As above, there are lots
of other paperwork and financial reporting requirements
-- but these are good starting points. Also: All federal,
state and local political parties that raise or spend or
intend to raise/spend at least $25,000 may also be required
to file regular paperwork with the I.R.S.
as a "527 organization."
If Politics1 is a really one-person operation, why do you
use the plural "we" so often?
the "we "is actually me (Ron Gunzburger) and the entity
comprising the site itself (Politics1). Here's the formula:
Ron + Politics1 = We. We -- I mean -- I do not want
to imply anything approaching the royal use of "we."
This is such a corporate site in appearance, etc. I don't
buy this "one-person operation" stuff. Who really owns and
ha. Politics1 is a sole proprietorship operated by Fort
Lauderdale attorney and community activist Ron Gunzburger.
That's it. No other investors or stockholders. No professional
programmers or graphic artists -- although this last part
may be rather obvious!
Can I copy the graphics of the old campaign buttons for use
on my site? Can I add a link to Politics1 from my site?
(so long as you give us credit -- somewhere on your site
-- as the source of the graphics), and Yes. You cannot,
however, copy whole paragraphs or pages of our content for
your site. If you'd like to do that, we insist that you
simply provide a link from your site pointing to our relevant
content ... or display our content (unaltered) within a
frame on your site.
Is there a more printer friendly version of some of your pages?
Is the candidate data on your pages available in a database
format or on mailing labels? Do you keep online archived versions
of your pages from past elections?
Politics1, what you see is what you get. We have no other
materials available other than in the HTML form and format
currently displayed online. We don't even keep archived
versions of our pages from past election years (or past
versions from even last week). However, if you're looking
for older versions of our pages from the 1998, 2000, past
pre-primary pages, and info, check out the amazing Internet
Archive site at www.archive.org.
Simply go there, enter our politics1.com name and view all
the old, archived versions of our pages that they keep online
(along with archived versions of millions -- maybe even
billions -- of other web pages).
"Although I will only be 23 years old during the next Presidential
election, I still plan to run as a write-in candidate. Please
add me to your list of candidates -- because I stand as a
good of a chance of winning as some of the others you've already
listed on your P2004 pages."
but we won't include you in our listings. Likewise, we wouldn't
include you in our Congressional listings, either, if you
were running for Congress (as you'd also be Constitutionally
too young). The same applies to dogs, cats, trees, cartoon
characters, etc., that are "running" for office.
We only list candidates who are legally eligible for the
offices they are seeking -- regardless of whether or not
they are politically viable candidates. The only clear exception
that comes to mind would be a candidate who lawfully qualified
for a spot on the ballot, subsequently died before the election,
but state law kept the deceased person's name on the ballot.
Don't laugh -- this usually happens once or twice around
the nation every election year (Note: In Oklahoma in 1998,
deceased candidate Jackie Leatherwood surprisingly won a
run-off spot in the Democratic primary for US Senate --
but she lost the run-off to her still-living opponent).
When this situation occurs, we change the descriptive tag
to reflect the candidate's lack of respiration (to wit:
"Died, but name remains on primary ballot").