Talk:2019 Chicago mayoral election

Hypothetical polling section must not include References section and Reflist ... how to correct?

Hypothetical polling section must not include References section and Reflist ... how to correct? X1\ (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rhian2040: before reverting the visibility of the Reference section, see my edit summaries, and discuss here before more reverts. X1\ (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

New poll

chicago.suntimes.com/news/flash-poll-no-clear-favorite-chicago-mayoral-race/ SecretName101 (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Kass For Mayor

John Kass running for mayor is really Kass satirizing the state of Chicago politics. He is not serious. Amcalabrese (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm rather sure that Kass is not really running for mayor. He wrote a column saying that he is, but apparently it's intended to be taken as satire. So, in my opinion his name should be removed from this article, or at a minimum it should be noted that his declared candidacy is not serious. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

References

He'd be thrilled to have been elected, and would trump up his part. Liberty5651 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Major vs. Minor candidates

What is the criteria for a candidate being a "Major" candidate and a "Minor" candidate? I think we should come up with a consensus definition or else treat all candidates equally. I do appreciate the work folks have done with this page since the Rahm announced he was not running.-TenorTwelve (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion the distinction between major and minor candidates is subjective, and/or arbitrary. Therefore the article should not make the distinction. Instead there should be just one list of candidates. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward (towards November)

Looking forward towards November, specifically between November 19 and 26 (the filing period for nomination papers), I propose that there should (during that time) be multiple sections listing/categorizing "active" candidates: one for those who have been granted ballot access, one for those who have have submitted papers and are pending certification, and one for those that have not yet submitted papers. Additionally, there should also be a section for those whose candidatures were rejected by the elections commission (a note can be made for any who are contesting their rejection). These sections should only be created if there are candidates that can be listed under them. For example. on November 19, there will almost certainly be sections for those pending certification and those who have not yet submitted papers, but it is possible that there might not yet be any candidates to place under the sections for certified and rejected candidacies (in which case we will hold off on creating those sections).
At the end of the period (after November 26), the section for candidates who have not yet submitted their papers will be retitled (and perhaps moved) to indicate the past tense, candidates who failed' to submit petitions. This is because any candidate who missed the deadline would, at that point, be considered "out of the race". Additionally, after the end of the filing period we should probably merge the "potential candidates" section and the "declined" section. SecretName101 (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I've begun this in earnest. There is currently no need for a category for certified candidates (as none have yet to be certified). Currently it is simply between candidates whose petitions are pending approval and those who have yet to submit petitions.SecretName101 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• McCarthy Headshot.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Candidate format and Emanuel polling

I think it is unnecessary to have the Declared candidates sorted through those who have not submitted petitions to those whose petitions are pending. I find it tedious and it is unlike other Wikipedia election articles. I think the declared candidate section should simply be how it was: candidates who are actively running (have websites, merch, appear on polls, gaining publicity. Basically how it was before this format was inserted). Seeing that the candidate deadline is approaching, we could re-format it.

Secondly, I think it is unneeded to have Emanuel included in the overall poll because he is not longer an active candidate. If anything, that portion of the polling data should be under hypothetical polling. When Orrin Hatch retired he was excluded from polling data from the U.S. Utah senate race. I think that the current polling numbers should only focus on active candidates. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I beleive we should, after more polls come in, spin most of the polls listed currently into an "early polling" table. That will not only eliminate Emanuel from the main table containing the rest of the polls, but also would remove speculative candidates included in early polling such as Chuy Garcia, Luis Gutierrez, Valerie Jarett, Rick Munoz, and Kurt Summers (unless, perhaps any of them are included it future polls for whatever reason). However, removing Emanuel entirely is a ridiculous notion. Polls are a snapshot of the state of the race at a particular given time. To remove Emanuel would diminish the accuracy of that snapshot and remove significant context. Additionally, there was nothing hypothetical about it (unless, of course, you characterize all polls as "hypothetical"). Emanuel WAS running at the point in time such polls were taken. SecretName101 (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

However, I would contend that what you are suggesting with re-structuring the declared candidate list might serve to decrease the degree of information provided by this article/ usefulness and accessibility of that information within this article. This will, anyways, somewhat null and void by approximately 5:00 CST tonight, when it will be settled who has and has failed to submit petitions. SecretName101 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Once the final list of candidates who submitted petitions is announced, I suggest we should then, perhaps, undivide the "declared candidates" section. List those who submitted petitions (both approvrd, pending, and contested). Parenthetical or itallized indications should be provided to note those with pending or contested petitions.
Those, non withdrawn candidates that did not submit petitions (or those who have not withdrawn after having it be officially decided their petitions are invalid) should perhaps be listed under a "write-in" subsection SecretName101 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ricardo Munoz

Where is a citation that states Ricardo Munoz declined to run? At the very least he appears to be a potential candidate that is not/has not run. At this point, he has not formally declined to run (even if it appears evident that he likely will not). SecretName101 (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Order of declared candidate names

I reverted an edit which had arranged the names by the order they would appear on the ballot, per the ballot lottery. Seems more encyclopedic and useful to order the names alphabetically. Do others agree with this? Any objections to this? SecretName101 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Runoff Polling

Why are we keeping polling for candidates that aren't in the race specifically Emanuel? I tried to edit it out but was reverted by SecretName101 with no explanation. Psalms79;6-7 (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ogfen & Fry poll

The Ogden & Fry poll I removed the other day does not seem to have any detailed reliable citation for it. Only sources found for it are https://twitter.com/CatholicClinger/status/1094789287252496384 and https://www.williewilsonformayor.com/national_poll_cements_mayoral_candidate_s_position?locale=en SecretName101 (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Endorsements

Has Richard M. Daley campaigned on behalf of his brother or come out with any public indication of support for him? If so, we might want to add him to Daley's endorsements.SecretName101 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Turnout

Preliminary turnout for the February election is at 34.1%. This is subject to change, depending upon the number of mail-in ballots yet to be counted. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019-mayoral-election-voter-turnout-record/ SecretName101 (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The turnout is currently listed as 35.22%. This is the number indicated at the top of the Board of Elections' unofficial report, but this counts all ballots cast, including those where the mayoral race was left blank. Counting only ballots with valid votes for mayor (provided in the same report), the turnout percentage should be 34.97%. Kumar R (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Results by ward

It would be a lengthy task (considering the total number of candidates), but if anyone is interested in doing so, they could create a table for the first round results by ward now that the final results have been reported. SecretName101 (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Proper Citations and References

I'm seeing way too many unfinished citations, many just being ref names floating around with no links. Whoever put them in place probably intended to go back to place the proper links but don't be surprised if they start getting replaced with .

BWellsOdyssey (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)