Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Speculation?

What is all this "speculation" stuff? This is not Wikipedia. I might as well throw my name into the ring as speculative. Just the facts, mam'. Of all those listed, I'll bet very few (if any) declared with certainty that they will run in 2016. --71.82.65.187 (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is the consensus of editors that speculation of potential candidates is notable if it comes from reliable media sources. Only those who are speculated about in at least 2 different media sources within a 6 month period are included.--Cjv110ma (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion on this page is also restricted to speculative candidates who meet Wikipedia's notability threshold for a stand-alone article.--Rollins83 (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Right you are, Rollins. Thank you for clarifyig that important point.--Cjv110ma (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why two sources?

I respect that we need to keep speculation at a minimum on this page, but Roseanne Barr herself has said in a published interview that she is running in 2016. What is the point of removing her from the page?--TM 13:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't see where she specifically mentioned 2016 in that article. The statement "I will keep running until I win" certainly implies she will run next time, but I think we need a definitive statement about 2016 in particular.--Cjv110ma (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, now I see....."By the time I run again in 2016......" she did specifically mention 2016. Still, for the time being, the consensus is 2 sources for potential candidates. Maybe there's another source within past 6 months to be found? --Cjv110ma (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would also include Jill Stein's interest in running. She said she is open to it in a published interview.--TM 13:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

She did say she's not ruling out a run in 2016, but I think we should get a consensus before usurping the 2-source rule.--Cjv110ma (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

404 error

One of the sources for Barr is a 404 error, just FYI Howicus (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Paul Ryan, Gov. David Beasley and Mike Huckabee should be added to publicly expressed interest

Due to this website, [1]. This should also be used as the reference. -- Billybob2002 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That site wouldn't be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, and 2 references are needed anyway.--Cjv110ma (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Cory Booker, Democratic candidate for United States Senate special election in New Jersey, 2013

A thought on Cory Booker; shouldn't it be included that he is a likely candidate for the US Senate given that it is more or less a foregone conclusion that he will be the nominee for the Democrats and is favored to win the seat over the Republicans according to the polling? If Booker runs for president, it will likely be as a US Senator rather than as Mayor of Newark, so wouldn't it be more informative to include his current electoral ambitions as well? AngryHatter (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as a Senate candidate, without the speculation on whether he would win. I will make the change. - Nbpolitico (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Gillibrand

Kirsten Gillibrand endorsed Hillary- should she even be on this? SOXROX (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, she should remain listed. She is considered a potential candidate should Hillary (who's not an official candidate at the moment) decide not to run.--Dwc89 (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is the rest?

After the six months period expires on a source, where is the individual then placed? Surely, they would not be deleted completely since that would be a grave example of recentism. If this is the current practice, I suggest, a new section or page be created with the header "Previously received speculation" or something similar. This was done in 2012.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. They shouldn't be completely eliminated from the article due simply to expiration of sources. --Ariostos (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Given how far we are away from the election I disagree. I'm not sure how historically relevant it is to consider who has been speculated about 4 years before the election. ObieGrad (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would coverage at any time not be relevant? Any and all coverage (including speculation from four, eight years ago) should be here. The question is whether you want an exhaustive list or a scoreboard?--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be a "previously speculated" section for those with expired sources as was done before in 2012 articles.--Cjv110ma (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's do like we've done before and have a seperate section for the "expired" candidates. At the very least, we should keep the ones speculated about from 2013 onward. That seems reasonable.--NextUSprez (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a seperate section for the potential candidates whose sources have become outdated by the "2 citations in 6 months" rule. I recall this being done previously and see no reason to discontinue doing so.--I.C. Rivers (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Julian Castro

Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio, should be added to the Potential Democratic Candidates section. He was the keynote speaker at the 2012 convention, the same role as Obama had in 2004. He has been cited by Texas media as a potential 2016 candidate, and many Texas Democrats are working for that prospect to materialize behind the scene. Here is one article that expresses this view: Texas Dems prepping Julian Castro for 2016 presidential ticket Here's Huffington Post's take on the same issue: Julian Castro For President? San Antonio Mayor Possibly Being Molded By Texas Democrats For 2016 Presidential Election And here is USA Today: Julian Castro positions himself for 2016 2016election.com writes this: Will Julian Castro Run for President in 2016? NBC Latino suggests a joint ticket with Hillary: Opinion: Clinton/Castro 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.72.187 (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

He was on that list previously. The sources must have become outdated and fallen outside the 6 month time frame. I don't know why else he would have been removed.in--I.C. Rivers (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

He was removed because there were not two sources from the past 6 months. I looked at the sources above and all fall outside the 6 month time frame except the Huff Post Latino and Voxxi stories but these two are the same content.

Maybe this is a source good enough: http://www.latinodecisions.com/files/9113/7269/7724/AV_LD_2016_Presidential_Toplines_Release_July_1.pdf It's a poll released yesterday which cites Castro as a possible VP choice.

Latino Decisions appears to be a polling consultant firm. I'm not sure this qualifies as a "reliable media source". If there is a media source that has cited this poll I think that would count.ObieGrad (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Link to policy page

Can we please remove the link to WP:NOTE? There's a general rule against self-references in Wikipedia. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is this link? I can't find it on the page.--JayJasper (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps he is referring to the (now removed) link in the "Candidates" section.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Rule for those who publicly expressed interest

In an edit summary, Tiller54 asks, "She has expressly indicated that she's running. Does the 6-month rule apply here?" IRC, it did, but I never understood why. I move to change consensus to throw out the 6-month rule for those who publicly express interest.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll second that. Those who have "publicly expressed interest" should remain listed as such until they either declare or decline a candidacy or, if they have not declared one way or the other but it has - for all practical purposes - become too late to mount a campaign (e.g. primary filing deadlines have passed).

Also, I propose that "Publicly expressed intention" be added as a category. That would apply to Roseanne, as a prime example. She has clearly stated that she plans to run in 2016, but has yet make to make an "official" announcement to that effect, so technically she's not "declared". Stating that one plans to run is quite different than expressing a possibility that one might run, so a distinction between expressing intention and expressing interest should be noted. --JayJasper (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with William and Jay, and fully support both proposals.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above. If a candidate expresses interest, that should be good enough. Jill Stein of the Green Party should be readded too.Are you going to run again for president in 2016? As a party and an opposition voice, we are just getting started. It doesn't end in 2016. I'm in this for the long haul and as 2016 comes closer, we'll see. I haven't ruled it out.--TM 21:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I also agree, with some minor reservations. Once it is passed the 6th month threshold, I think it has to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Barr should still be included (and in a new category), but I don't think so many of those Republicans (Peter King, Ted Nugent, PLEASE GOD not Rick Santorum or Donald Trump) will still be a part of that category within a few months. As to the proposal of a new category, I completely agree. PrairieKid (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of scrapping the 6 mo. rule for candidates who express interest, and support the new category idea as well.--Cjv110ma (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the distinction between intention/interest. I think the 6 month rule should apply for interest (as interest can most definitely fade), but intention should carry on. Perhaps the rules should be as follows:

Running: FEC filing or official announcement - No time limit

Intention: Statement saying "I will run" or something similar in a least 1 reliable source - No time limit

Interest: Two sources in the past 6 months, at least one of which much express the potential candidate's interest

Speculated: Two sources in the past 6 monthsObieGrad (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Not Running: Statement saying "I will not run" or something similar in a least 1 reliable source, or official announcement - No time limitObieGrad (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with ObieGrad. I favor keeping the 6 mos. rule for expressed interest (after all interest can fade, as Obie points out) but would require only 1 secodary reliable source within 6 mos. That should be adequate to WP:VERIFY the interest, whereas multiple sources are needed to confirm that someone is being speculated about by more than just one pundit or media source.--Rollins83 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Obiegrad has the best idea. I think that should be implemented. PrairieKid (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, after reading the above comments, except that I would change the rule for candidates who have expressed interest to only 1 reliable citation in past six months, per rollins83.--NextUSprez (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm with NextPrez on this. Implement Obie"s proposed rules with the rule for "expressed interest" changed to 1 citation per 6 months.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sold on changing the interest rule.ObieGrad (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sold on it as well. I support implementing ObieGrad's proposed rules with the "interest" rule changed to "one reliable source in the past 6 months, which must express the potential candidate's interest".--JayJasper (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Is college newspaper RS?

I found this article in The Daily Iowan on Jill Stein as potential candidate in 2016. The Daily Iowan is a college newspaper (U. of Iowa), would that be considered a reliable source? If so, Stein should be added to the page along with this.--Cjv110ma (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I*m leery about using a college paper as a source. However, there seems to be a consensus in above thread that just one source is needed for candidates who express interest, so the other source you provided might be enough by itself.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem with including this source in particular. The Green Party just had their annual meeting in Iowa City. As a rule, I would cautious.--TM 01:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"Previously Speculated" Candidates List

Can somebody please provide a list of those candidates whose sources have expired so one of us can add a section of previously speculated candidates? Mhoppmann (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is consensus to include this, here is a list (not 100% sure it's complete).

Democrats: Evan Bayh, Mike Beebe, Julian Castro, Chris Gregoire, Kamala Harris, Tim Kaine, John Kerry, Michelle Obama

Republicans: Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, Mike Huckabee, Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, Tim Pawlenty, David Petraeus, Mike Sandoval

Other: Michael Bloomberg ObieGrad (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Gregoire is still currently listed.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)I

Thanks Mhoppmann (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Actual candidates

The following notable individuals have filed with the FEC to run for president of the United States:

• Jeff Boss - Democrat
• Jack Fellure - Republican
• Terry Jones (pastor) - Independent
• Robby Wells - Independent

If independent sources cannot be found, I see no reason why the FEC report or candidate websites cannot be used. According to WP:RS, when independent sources have already determined notability, both primary and self-published materials (campaign websites) may be used for non-contentious information on the individual. I see no reason why these individuals should not be listed here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Support inclusion.--TM 19:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I am running for president of the USA for 2016 as the youngest candidate ever at 32 born July 16th 1981 and have a youtube channel. I wanted to ask what would merit my being put on this part of the list or if I can be in the expressed interest category. I will be calling the FEC to learn more about their guidelines, and I'm an outsider but not new to politics, thank you.--Keenan Dunham (Keenan Dunham) 11:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keenandunham (talk • contribs)

The primary requisite to be listed on the main election page is that you must have a stand-alone article of your own on Wikipedia. To learn what is needed to qualify for an article, see WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:42 . It should also be noted that Wikipedia strongly discourages auto-biographical articles (see WP:COI).--Cjv110ma (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Cory Booker rules out 2016 bid

Cory Booker is definitely not running in 2016. “Absolutely yes, unequivocally,” (from Politico)Link: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.207.126 (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So noted, he has been moved to the "Declined" section.--JayJasper (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Shumlin Declined

An edit recently was placed for Shumlin declining to run. I'm not sure that any notable individual declining to run is sufficient for inclusion in the article. I'd argue that they should be listed under declined only if they were previously speculated (or expressed interest/intention). Consensus?ObieGrad (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The "declined" section should list only those who previously met the criteria for inclusion (whether or not they were acutally listed) as potential candidates.--JayJasper (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed Shumlin. PrairieKid (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

But the speculation was there, it was just overlooked. For example, here. If it was an oversight not including someone as a speculated candidate, as it seems to be in Shumlin's case, that shouldn't be a reason to not include him. Tiller54 (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Was there more than just that one source, which only mentions him in passing, that speculated on him as a possible candidate? If not, he didn't previously meet the criteria (minimum 2 reliable sources in 6 month span) and shouldn't be listed on the page at all.--NextUSprez (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am removing Shumlin as he had not previously met any of the criteria to be included in the article.ObieGrad (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

According to this, this, and the bottom of this, Warren has denied she will run in 2016. Of course, just like the others, the media has pointed out that nothing is final, ya da dada da. Should we add her to the list of declined? PrairieKid (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

She seems to have stopped just short of definitively ruling out running for president, and the speculation about her seems to becoming more persistent. So, I would leave her where she is for the time being.--Green4liberty (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What links are "valid" for External Links column?

A few days ago I posted a link from Politcs1.com, which seemed to be relevant to this a article as it listed potential 2016 candidates. However, the addition was promptly reverted with the explanation that it was "not a valid link". Not a big deal, but it would be helpful to editors like myself who are not "in the loop" on these things to what is a valid link to post there and what isn't. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobfromtheBeltway (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ted Cruz Legitimacy

Could Ted Cruz even run? I think it should be noted he was born in Alberta, Canada which violates Clause 5, Section 1, Article 2 of the US Constitution. Should there be some notice to this? 68.192.201.174 (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional scholars generally agree that Cruz is eligible to be president because his mother is a native and citizen of the U.S. See the previous discussion on this issue: Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Archive 1#Ted Cruz born in Calgary?.--Earlgrey T (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if he was not qualified, he should still appear on the page since he received speculation in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Some candidates have run, and even received votes, when they are not eligible to actually be president. Peta Lindsay is an example from 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad (talk • contribs) 14:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

He is ineligible to run for President if he wasn't born here. You have to be a naturally born citizen of the United States. Obama proved he was born in Hawaii for that reason even though his mother was an American citizen thus making him one, but if he was born overseas he wouldn't be a naturally born citizen. So even if his mother is a citizen, he would still be ineligible to run. I would have to disagree with that previous decision, as Obama had the Kenya conspiracy for that reason, and if he was eligible because his mother was American, that just wouldn't add up, and the birthers wouldn't even have any reason because if he was born overseas he would still be eligible. Also I would like to see a citation before we start throwing 'Constitutional scholars generally agree.' It's just a little too bold on such a topic. 68.192.201.174 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we should at least note he was born in Calgary and thus ineligible to run for President. 68.192.201.174 (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

He's not ineligible to run. Maybe he's ineligible to take office and maybe hes not, be regardless, he is more than welcome to run. Even if everyone agreed that he couldn't take office, he'd still be listed as long as speculation existed. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Vinnyvinny2 is right, but FWIW, here are some of the citations, requested by 68.192.201.174, to support the notion that "Constitutional scholars generally agree" that Cruz is eligible to be president: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think if BOTH of his parents were born the U.S. then that would possibly give him a better chance but with just his mother isn't enough. His father was born in Cuba, does that make him a citizen of Cuba then. Bottom line just his mother isn't enough his father should have been born in the United States too. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Our opinions about his eligibility are completely unimportant. Reliable sources have said he may run, and nothing else matters for his inclusion on the page. Ratemonth (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Shouldn't we add Clinton to the "Declined" section? She has stated on multiple occasions that she has no intentions. Just one example is Clinton: 'No Plans or Intentions' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneydearboy (talk • contribs) 23:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

For presidential elections, "no intention" is not good enough. It has to be a Shermanesque statement. In the case of Clinton, she may have no intention, she has also done nothing to tamp down speculation and continues to allow Ready for Hillary PAC to raise money on her behalf. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Clinton recently said she is thinking about running so that means she has expressed interest am I right? House1090 (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that verify she said she is thinking about running, she should be placed in the "expreased interest" section.--Cjv110ma (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Peter T. King

I don't believe that Peter King should be listed as running. We do not have an FEC filing, nor do we have a campaign website. He has not performed the act of starting a campaign (FEC filing), He has just said that he IS running for President, but has he actually made it official?

Mhoppmann (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It is an official announcement even if the campaign infrastructure is not there, the legal matters unsettled. He has a year and a half before he has to worry about any of that, so I don't really expect anything except maybe a bare-bones campaign till the Spring of 2015 and a lot of visits to Iowa and Hampshire. However, he is determined to seek the Republican nomination, at least for now. --Ariostos (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think he should be listed as "expressed intention to run" until he formally begins his campaign--NextUSprez (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

I think he should be considered running if he says he is. If he said "I will start my campaign at a later date" that would be an intention to run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.183.141.65 (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Are we sure he's "declared"? The statement he made last week does indeed sound affirmative, but this Politico article, which is more current, reports that King said "that he’s 'seriously' looking at a run but hasn’t decided yet". He seems to be giving mixed signals, which makes it difficult to determine how he should he should be listed on this page.--JayJasper (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I made a notation about King's conflicting statements in the article. Does that suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jggxx11 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Can a citation be provided for the conflict?ObieGrad (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a recent citation that says "he will make a decision about a 2016 presidential run in the next 12 to 18 months." Maybe he misspoke or was taken out of context when he "declared" his candidacy? Dosen't seem to have been his intention.--Cjv110ma (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Major/Minor Candidate

There has been an effort to separate Peter King from the other candidates. Should there be criteria for who is a major or minor candidate and should they be identified separately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad (talk • contribs) 12:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. The prevailing standard is for the major candidates/gallery section to include only those candidates who qualify for inclusion in the official primary debates and/or those who appeared on enough primary/caucus ballots to mathematically have a chance at winning the number of delegates needed to secure the party nomination. Obviously, such criteria is not applicable at this early stage. I propose that another criterion be added: include any candidate that has been listed as a candidate on major nationwide polls such as those found on Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016, regardless of percentages. Ideally, this should be listings by at least five different polling firms, as that is the minimum number of listings generally needed before a candidate can even theoretically qualify for inclusion in the debates (I believe an average of 1% in five different polls is the standard benchmark for debate participation). However, maybe in the early stages such as this, we could require just one such poll listing and upgrade to the five-poll listing when the primary debates get started.

Also, I would the use term "other candidates" rather than "minor candidates" for those who do not qualify for the "gallery" section, as it sounds more NPOV.--JayJasper (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, it does not appear that Peter King has been listed as a candidate in any of the major polling for 2016 Republican presidential candidates as of yet, but given his recent statements and activities relevant to the '16 race, he likely will be very soon.--JayJasper (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree and disagree, JJ. I like your idea for inclusion (the polling requirement), but I disagree with the changing of the section name. I think "other candidates" is more POV than "minor candidates." But, again, I like the standard you suggested. PrairieKid (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the poll-listing criteria for inclusion in major/gallery. I also agree with JJ that "other" is a more general and objective term than "minor".--Rollins83 (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I support JayJasper's proposal for poll-listing as criteria for the major candidate section and gallery. I also agree with Jay and Rollins that "other" is a more neutral sounding term than "minor".--Cjv110ma (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that "minor" is POV, it is no more POV than "major". Perhaps if the criterion above is to be used to break them, it should be "polled candidates" and "other candidates"? - Nbpolitico (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point. "Polled candidates" would be more NPOV than "major".--Cjv110ma (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Polled" and "other" candidates sounds much more npov than "major" and "minor" candidates, imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcc7292 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hilary Clinton, Round II

I'm not sure Hilary Clinton should be listed under "publicly expressed interest" yet as the articles say she will "think seriously about it sometime next year", suggesting she's not saying one way or another just yet. Does this count as having actually expressed interest, or is she just acknowledging people want her to run? Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think our current rules for including people in that section are a little lax any way. "OH! They made a joke about moving in a few years! They must be talking about the White House!" (...Yes, that's the best I can come up with...) If a candidate says anything about 2016 besides a definitive NO!, then they're added to that section. I don't like the method, but it was agreed upon, and I'll adhere to it. Under that criteria, she should be there. But thanks for bringing this up. It might bring about a much-needed discussion on our system here. PrairieKid (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren revisited

Elizabeth Warren is double-listed in the article. Has she declined, or is she in the potential candidate realm? Which category does she belong in? User:PrairieKid and User:Fhkung, I'd appreciate some input from y'all here. —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

See this section above for more information. She has not unequivocally denied she is running. She stays under the Potential Candidates Section. 19:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought. She's still listed there; I've removed her from the Declined section. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What constitutes declined?

To be considered "declined", does a candidate need to make a Shermanesque statement or simply state they are not running? I think we need to reach consensus on this. Looking at Warren's sources illustrates this question. One has her saying she is "not running" another has her endorsing Clinton.

My question is about the first source, the second does not provide evidence because Clinton is not a candidate at this stage.

My opinion is that a potential candidate must make a Shermanesque statement, otherwise if there is media speculation they should remain in the speculation section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad (talk • contribs) 18:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the potential candidate must make a Shermanesque statement in order to be placed in the Declined section.--Cjv110ma (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree to that the Declined section should be only for candidates who have made a Shermanesque statement. As for Elizabeth Warren, she's come close but hasn't quite done so AFAICT. See this, "Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has been widely touted on the left as a worthy liberal alternative to Clinton, and she hasn’t explicitly ruled out such a candidacy." This in an article reporting of her support of Clinton's potential candidacy.--NextUSprez (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Al Gore?

Why isn't former vice president Al Gore on the wiki page as a potential democrat candidate? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidcrossland/al-gores-washington-homec_b_4023509.html) (http://therecoveringpolitician.com/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.65.51 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Two reliable sources within past six months are needed for inclusion. The second citation you linked to is a blog that does not appear to meet WP:RS criteria.--JayJasper (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

HP is definitely RS. Nothing wrong or made up or deceitful about their post. He is a potential. In that case remove all the speculation in the media.(Lihaas (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)).

Lihaas, take another look at JayJasper's comments. He said the second citation posted by the IP is not an RS. He clearly wasn't referring to Huffington Post. which is the first one linked above.--Rollins83 (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Rollins has it right. I agree that the Huffington Post is an RS. The self-published blog cited above is the one I was specifically referring to as non-RS.--JayJasper (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Kathleen Sebelius

Kathleen Sebelius is mentioned as a potnential candidate in two sources. There's an NBC News story from May that mentions her, and then this mention from the New Yorker in September:

[T]here are now twenty women in the Senate, five women governors, and other experienced figures, like Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius, whose credentials, on paper, are not so different than men who run for President—or from Clinton’s résumé, minus the celebrity. [8]

On what basis, then, should Sebelius be removed from the article? —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm rolling in a CBS news story to replace NBC's May story. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The basis was the removal is that the May, 2013 article was more than 6 months old. Two articles must be from the last six months. As an article from August has been added she qualifies for the list.ObieGrad (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger

I added Arnold Schwarzenegger to "publicly expressed interest" for the Republican Party. I'm an doing so with the understanding that he cannot run for president because he is not a "natural born citizen." However, Schwarzenegger may be seeking a challenge to the US Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause V, as both liberal and conservative news sources are reporting (Huffington Post, The Blaze, NY Post, etc.). I think we could debate this and I may be wrong to include him, but since he's expressed interest in running in 2016 and changing the rules, I think he deserves to be on the list. Thoughts? Rab1130 (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It makes no difference if he is qualified or not. If he publicly expressed interest then he should be included.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Similar to Ted Cruz, who we're not absolutely positive about. If there is a major news story or a decision on a court case deciding he (don't make me spell out his last name) can't run, that's one thing. With what we know, he stays. PrairieKid (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! If Ted Cruz is on the list Arnold Schwarzenegger should be too because there stories are very much a like (and I mean very a like)Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ted Cruz has been widely noted to be eligible. Iit is WHOLLY possible for him to legally be president . Arnold is NOT. He has no capacity to run, no change is yet forthcoming, there is no movement towards an amendment (and if it involved him and the pre-governor scandals, etc is less likely to happen). When he get eligible we can always add him here. just because something is in the news doesn't make it encyclopaedic. This is an encyclopaedia and should report on fact. If there is ABSOLUTELY 0% chance then its irrelevant. There are plenty of people who want to lead the usa.(Lihaas (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)).

I agree, the two situations are completely different. Ulike Cruiz there is no question that Schwarzenegger is illegible to run for President so the inclusion of Cruz does not mean that Schwarzenegger has to be listed.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes; WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." For most people, two RSs are enough. For someone claimed to want to overturn the Constitution, I think we need a bit more. – Ypnypn (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't bother me if Ted Cruz or Arnold Schwarzenegger were born in the United States or not because different US states have different Governors born in a different state (and if not country). So they BOTH should be able to run for President of the United States. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That's factually incorrect. The United States Constitution specifically forbids those born in another country from being president. There's no such rule about governors. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Being ineligible to serve in office does not necessarily make one ineligible to run for the office. Several states allow candidates on the ballot regardless of their eligibility to hold office. Some recent examples includes Róger Calero and Peta Lindsay, both appeared on several state ballots in a presidential election despite not meeting the constitutional requirements to be president. As long as there are reliable outside sources verifying speculation and/or expression of interest on the part of the person in question (and they meet the general notability threshold), they should be included as a potential candidate on the page. Schwarzenegger meets that criteria, so he should remain on the list with no special "exceptions" for inclusion.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I was just expressing an opinion, I was not being serious.Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ted Cruz and Arnold Schwarzenegger

Ted Cruz is getting better treatment here than Arnold Schwarzenegger because people think his mother being born here makes him able to be President, I disagree. He falls under the same category as Arnold Schwarzenegger therefore I think we should have an "(expressed interest, although he cannot hold the office by current law)" next to Ted Cruz name like Arnold Schwarzenegger has. I'd put one next to his name but someone would remove it but he needs one next to his name to like Arnold Schwarzenegger has. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Most sources disagree and classify Cruz as able to run. See discussion above. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, the US Constitution does not state that a person has to have been born in the US to be eligible to be president. It says that one has to be a birthright citizen of the the US. See the article Birthright citizenship in the United States, particlularly the section "Children born overseas to married parents", to see why Cruz falls under a different category than Schwarzenegger.--BobfromtheBeltway (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your inputs C. Fred and BobfromtheBeltway. I did cross the line a little bit but you two helped me. There is some talk that Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to have the law changed but I have no clue about how the status of that is right now (I'm not sure if he will be able too, because it's not up to me). We'll see what happens in the future. Once again thank you C. Fred and BobfromtheBeltway you too did a good job. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Peter King is NOT a declared candidate

This has been discussed in an earlier thread, but it's obivious that Peter King's earlier statements about "running for president" were either taken out of context or were misstatements. I had shown this earlier, which says ("Rep. Peter King said Monday that he will make a decision about a 2016 presidential run in the next 12 to 18 months."). Here's a fresher source which says "[King] said on Friday that he wouldn't make up his mind about a presidential run for 'another year-and-a-half,' but said he understood how this latest trip to New Hampshire would further fuel speculation.". Both of these are more recent than the citations given in the article which supposedly "verify" his candidacy. There are other more recent citations out there as well that clearly state he is still "considering" a run. He really should be moved back to the "Expressed interest" column.--Cjv110ma (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Here's a citation from The Hill dated 12/9/13: "King announced his interest in the race earlier this year, but hasn't yet made an official decision to enter". Whether or not King had earlier intended to "declare" his candidacy, it is clear he is not presently claiming to be a declared candidate. Therefore, I support moving him back to the Expressed Interest section.--Rollins83 (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I moved him back to the expressed interest list based on this discussion, and on 3 recent citations that clearly state that he is "considering" a run for president. Recent sources are not saying he's an declared candidate, and so far he has not taken any official actions to establish himself as one.--Dwc89 (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Mosca

I understand why he was taken down in the past, but Mr. Mosca, from Midland, Michigan, is really running for President. Here in Midland, there have been public outcries for his running of office. I find it offensive that people believe that it is not a real thing, when he seriously is running, and going to campaign for the seat of president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalwart89 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Too many people run for president for all of them to be included on this list. For inclusion, the candidate must be independently notable to already have a page on Wikipedia, and it appears Mr. Mosca does not have the notability for it. Whether he is running for president or not is not relevant. It's his notability that is in question. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Why should they not be allowed to be listed? These people, represent the needs of the people, and the public needs to know all candidates that are vying for the seat of President. Are you implying that those who cannot afford to spend millions of dollars on ads should not be able to be listed publicly so people actually know they exist? Why discriminate against those who better represent the American public? This is a chance for the United States to realize that it money is not the only thing that constitutes your ability to express your freedom of speech. This is not an attempt to vandalize a webpage, but a chance for candidates who are truly of the people, to be recognized by the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalwart89 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's policy on undue weight as well as WP:TOOLONG.--Dwc89 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

And after the candidates are recognized, then they can be listed; the standard for recognition is coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. Wikipedia may not be used as a soapbox from which the candidates may look to build a following. —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@Stalwart89: RE: "Are you implying that those who cannot afford to spend millions of dollars on ads should not be able to be listed publicly......?" It seems highly doubtful that Jeff Boss, Robby Wells, Jack Fellure, Josue Larose, Terry Jones can spend millions of dollars on ads, and they are listed in the article. That's because they pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It is a matter of notability as to who is listed here, not "those who better represent the American public", which is a highly subjective contention. For what it may worth, the complete listing of all presidential candidates who file with the FEC is posted under External links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcc7292 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles on primaries?

What do y'all think of making two new articles for the Dem/Rep presidential primaries? I think it is almost that time. PrairieKid (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can find enough information from reliable sources, be bold and go for it. You may have a difficult time though, seeing as those primaries are nearly two years away. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Clinton’s Unlikely Money Man Invests Adulthood in Her Bid (Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)).

Table for Elections (based on 2012 table)

Major candidates

Candidates		Mitt Christie	Rand Paul	Paul Ryan	Ted Cruz	Marco Rubio	Jeb Bush	Bobby Jindal	Totals
Total delegates (Projection) (Total: 2,286, Unprojected: 2,286)		0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Superdelegates (Pledged) (Total: 120, Unprojected: 120)		0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0%)
Projected delegates (Total: 2,166, Unprojected: 2,166)		0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Popular vote totalsb		0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0)
Jan. 3	Iowa Nonbinding Precinct Caucuses
Jan. 10	New Hampshire Binding Primary
Jan. 21	South Carolina Binding Primary
Jan. 31	Florida Binding Primary
Feb. 4	Nevada Binding Precinct Caucuses
Feb. 7	Colorado Nonbinding Precinct Caucuses
	Minnesota Nonbinding Precinct Caucuses
	Missouria Nonbinding Primary
Feb. 4–11 (Jan. 29 – Mar. 3)c	Maine (disputed) Nonbinding Municipal Caucuses
Feb. 28	Arizona Binding Primary
	Michigan Binding Primary
Feb. 11–29	Wyoming Nonbinding Precinct Caucuses
Mar. 3	Washington Nonbinding Precinct Caucuses
Mar. 6 Super Tuesday
	Alaska Binding Legislative District Conventions
	Georgia Binding Primary
	Idaho Binding County Caucuses
	Massachusetts Binding Primary
	North Dakota Binding Legislative Districts Caucuses
	Ohio Binding Primary
	Oklahoma Binding Primary
	Tennessee Binding Primary
	Vermont Binding Primary
	Virginia Binding Primary
Mar. 10	Kansas Binding Precinct Caucuses
	Guam Territorial Caucus
	N. Mariana Islands Convention Caucus
	U.S. Virgin Islandsf Territorial Caucuses
Mar. 13	Alabama Binding Primary
	Hawaii Binding Precinct Caucuses
	Mississippi Binding Primary
	American Samoa Territorial Caucus
Mar. 18	Puerto Rico Binding Primary
Mar. 20	Illinoise Binding Primary
Mar. 24	Louisianae Binding Primary
Apr. 3	Maryland Binding Primary
	Washington, D.C. Binding Primary
	Wisconsin Binding Primary
Apr. 24	Connecticut Binding Primary
	Delaware Binding Primary
	New York Binding Primary
	Pennsylvaniae Binding Primary
	Rhode Island Binding Primary
May 8	Indianae Binding Primary
	North Carolina Binding Primary
	West Virginia Binding Primary
May 15	Nebraska Nonbinding Primary
	Oregon Binding Primary
May 22	Arkansas Binding Primary
	Kentucky Binding Primary
May 29	Texas Binding Primary
June 5	California Binding Primary
	Montana Nonbinding Primary
	New Jersey Binding Primary
	New Mexico Binding Primary
	South Dakota Binding Primary
June 26	Utah Binding Primary
Withdrawal date

Legend:		1st place (popular vote)		2nd place (popular vote)		3rd place (popular vote)		Candidate has withdrawn		Candidate unable to appear on ballot

Notes

^*   State whose delegate total has been halved due to violation of Rule 15 of the RNC rules.

^**  Vote totals in brackets consider votes for minor candidates, as well as votes for "uncommitted", "no preference", "write-ins" or other options.

^a   Missouri's February 7 primary has no bearing on the allocation of the state's 52 delegates.

^b   Vote totals (except for percentages) don't consider votes for minor candidates, as well as votes for "uncommitted", "no preference", "write-ins" or other options.

^c   The Maine Republican Party encouraged all municipal committees to hold their caucuses between 4 to 11 February, but some were held outside this date range.

^e   Delegates selected with combined way - binding primary and state convention (Indiana, Illinois, Louisiana) or summer meeting (Pennsylvania).

^f   Table contains only popular votes gained during the caucus (read more).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.100.32 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Gary Johnson

Should Gary Johnson be added to "Publicly Expressed Interest" for the Republican nomination as well? The article used for him in the Libertarian nomination says that he left the door open for 2016, but does not specify a party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrus138 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party is mentioned in the first paragraph, the Republican Party not at all. The implication of being a potential 2016 Libertarian candidate is obvous. Republican, not so much.--Newbreeder (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Questionable inclusion of Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Cathy McMorris Rodgers was added to the list of potential candidates with these 2 citations: [9], [10], Neither says anything specific or definitive about her being a potential 2016 presidential candidate. In fact, there is no mention whatsoever of 2016 in either article. When I reverted the addition, explaining this in the edit summary, I was in turn reverted with the explanation "Both [articles mention the rebuttal being used by potential candidates]". That's actually a debatable point. The first one merely says that giving the response to the State of the Union speech "can be a public relations dream for many politicians", the second one says only "The State of the Union response is considered an honor for rising stars in either party in opposition to a sitting president". I was always under the impression that there had to a be clear indication in the citations that the person in question is a potential presidential candidate in the specific election year in question. If that not the case, it should be, in my view. Certainly we need more than mere subtle hints or suggestions (which is, at best, what the above citations provide) of a possible candidacy. I think Rogders should be clearly be removed given the utter lack of clear presidential speculation in the sources provided. So, fellow editors, am I right about this or am I missing something? If it's the latter, please fill me in. Thanks in advance for feedback.--Newbreeder (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right, Newbreeder. The sources should have a clear indication that the person might run for president specifically in 2016. I agree that the links provided do not qualify for listing as a potential candidate.. We should probably keep an eye on her, though. If her response to SOTU address goes well, I expect there will be presidetial speculation about her very soon.--Cjv110ma (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I Agree that Rodgers should be removed unless sources can be found that give clear indication that she might run in 2016.--Rollins83 (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In agreement with all the above, and will add WP:SYNTH as a basis for removal.--NextUSprez (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

This article says that Warren has made a Shermanesque statement and has unequivocally declined that she would run. She has not made a Shermanesque statement. She has simply said she would serve out her term - the same thing President Obama said three years before the 2012 election. 66.224.70.107 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That statement is actually indirectly Shermanesque because a Senator's term is 6 years. So, if she is not re-elected in the election of 2018, her term will end in 2019. This means she won't be running in 2016. It doesn't mean she won't run in 2020 or 2024, but her statement prevents her from being able to run in 2016 and this article is strictly about 2016 and not any other election years. So, based upon that I agree with her removal from this article. --Diamond Dave (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A Shermanesque statement is absolute: "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve." Saying you intend not to run is not nearly that unequivocal. If we keep her on the list of candidates who are not running, we should take out the word "unequivocally" and remove the link to Shermanesque statement. 66.224.70.107 (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"I am not running for president" is a direct quote from her in the Boston Globe article. That, combined with her pledge to serve out her term, sounds like a definitive denial that she is going to run 4 prez.--NextUSprez (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Does Romney need listed?

Mitt Romney has been added and removed from the article several times. Has he stayed so clear of the election that he shouldn't be listed? Has he made a Shermanesque statement, where we should list him as declining to run? Or has he made no such statement, so he should be listed as a potential candidate?

How should we treat him, why, and what reliable sources support that position? —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Howdy- Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. The basic rule here is- I need a source. I can't find anything to say he has made a Shermanesque statement. The only thing I found was an interview with him saying "no, no, no, no," which, IMO, isn't enough. He needs to say "I will not run, nor consider running in 2016" or something along those lines. Now, for a nobody candidate, it is a little different because they don't have as much speculation. But, google Romney 2016 and you'll find dozens of articles talking about how well he's doing in polling and saying he has a better chance in 2016, some going so far as to call him the frontrunner. Having just Googled, I also saw just one article that says no in the title (sorry I didn't look at the content of each person) and it only quotes his advisers as saying it is not likely. It doesn't say a clear no.

tl;dr There is still a ton of speculation about him and I have yet to say a clear Shermanesque statement from him denying any chance for a run. I think he should stay. Cheers! PrairieKid (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's the Shermanesque statement [11]--Cjv110ma (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I still think it is fair to put him in the "declined" section as opposed to removing him completely. PrairieKid (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Romeny is in the "declined" section at Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#Declined.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger

First, the three sources [12][13][14] given are basically duplicates of each other and should not be considered separate sources; they are just derivatives of the single New York Post story, which would not meet our inclusion criteria. Second, if he has been "talking openly" about it, why are there no quotes from the man himself? Only "a source" is cited without any verifibility, and clearly nothing has happened since then. Anything else is a few years old. Finally, they lose credibility by making the statement "If allowed, Mr. Schwarzenegger would face off against Hillary Rodham Clinton, The New York Post reported." I see no reason why he should continue to be listed. Reywas92^Talk 05:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The New York Post is a tabloid, not RS. He shouldn't be listed as a potential candidate unless better sources can be found to substantiate it.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The New York Post is reliable, but Arnold isn't eligible, so it's not something that's relevant until the law changes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

After reading up on the New York Post, I agree with Reywas92 and Nextprez that it shouldn't considered an RS. Especially in light of all the controversies and numerous times it has had its credibility called into question. Since that is the main source of the speculation of Schwarzenegger, absent more credible sources saying he's a potential candidate, he shouldn't be listed.--Cjv110ma (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. He has been removed. Other users are trying to revert those edits, but I'll try to contain it. Thanks all for the consensus. PrairieKid (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Two electoral maps

So, it just occurred to me that we have two maps of the US featuring the electoral college in this article. Personally, I see no point in it. I think we should remove the one in the first section while keeping the map in the infobox. Thoughts? PrairieKid (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. - Nbpolitico (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.-NextUSprez (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think 3 is good enough. Done. Y PrairieKid (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Declared Michael Kinlaw for President

I notice that their is no personal page for Michael Kinlaw, as well he is not listed on the 2016 Presidential Election page either. He has a website up at http://www.kinlawforpresident.com He is active on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/kinlaw2016 He is active on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/kinlaw2016

Their is a politico article about him from Patrick Gavin located at http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/2016-election-fringe-hopefuls-100473.html

He is listed as a candidate at http://2016.republican-candidates.org/Kinlaw/

He is listed as a candidate at http://www.theranking.com/who-should-be-the-2016-republican-presidential-candidate_r53972

I do not know how to create a page or edit a page, but if someone could add him to the "declared republican's" it would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.184.12 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

He does not have a Wikipedia page and is therefore not notable. Only notable candidates are listed. Ratemonth (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources for Rick Snyder

I noticed that about half of the sources on Rick Snyder are way past 6 months. And one of them seems to be a blog or user-created site, not an actual media source. Somebody should fix that. I would, but can't at the present time because the page is semi-protected. Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyko1 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Rollins83 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Most Democrats Want Clinton to Run in 2016[>> Republican Presidential Hopefuls in Vegas to Woo Donor Adelson(Lihaas (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)).

Franken

One of the sources for Franken is a blog and not only that it doesn't even report that Franken is thinking of running, but instead includes him on a laundry list of people that the author would like to see run. Is there a better source? If not, he should be removed. - Nbpolitico (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. He has been removed.--Rollins83 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2014

put Kathleen sebelius in the declined section. Put mitt Romney in publicly expressed candidates and put sam Brownback in other potential candidates

74.192.161.145 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --ElHef (Meep?) 04:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiple Sarah Palin Listings

Delete multiple Palin listings. We only need one! Mhoppmann (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done by User:Jhs2419.--Rollins83 (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Mike Rodgers might run in 2016

Rep. Mike Rodgers (R-MI) seems to be leaving door open to 2016. See links here and here. I don't know if its "expressed interest," but I think this warrants inclusion.Mhoppmann (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

He should definitely be included in "Expressed Interest".--2600:1003:B12E:B956:7E59:429F:D7B7:7543 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Add Columbus, Sacramento, and Atlanta as possible Democrat convention sites

Linkhere. Also what happened with St Louis,I thought they were interested?Mhoppmann (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added those 3 cities with the link you supplied. As for St. Louis here's what happened: http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/nick-pistor/st-louis-declines-invitation-to-bid-for-democratic-national-convention/article_9fd09f66-d269-5e2c-8d2e-133e29f99773.html?mobile_touch=tr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4scoreN7 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What Happened to the "Declined" Section?

I'm just curious because some candidates who are oft discussed, Elizabeth Warren for example, are no longer included in the list with that section now missing. They are, however, listed in the article regarding the primaries for each party. A bit confusing really. --Ariostos (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2014

Sebelius should be in the declined section. Brownback should be in the other potential candidates section and Romney should be in the publicly expressed section 74.192.161.145 (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or deleted from, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't Edit, But Kathleen Sebelius No Longer HHS Secretary

Kathleen Sebelius is labeled as the "United States Secretary of Health and Human Services since 2009; Governor of Kansas 2003–2009."

She's no longer HHS Sec., so that should be edited to reflect her resignation (i.e., "2009-2014"). Thanks!

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/us/politics/sebelius-resigning-as-health-secretary.html?_r=0 http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/politics/kathleen-sebelius-resigning/

Jewelsp123 (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Her resignation has yet to take place. She just briefed the media on Obamacare enrollments as HHS secretary earlier today. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)