Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Superdelegates

Unless I improperly recall, the number of totally independent "superdelegates" in 2020 should be reduced compared to 2016, contrary to what this article currently seems to imply. Master of Time (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This is correct. the subcommittee of the DNC formed by the 2016 convention, called the Unity Reform Commission, has been tasked with reducing the number of superdelegates. The article could soften the language such as "or potentially less, if the number is reduced" etc. 50.34.138.191 (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)partyinsider

Bernie Sanders?

He isn't a Democrat, should he even be on the list of potential candidates? Nicholas S8 (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

He ran as a Democrat in 2016. He caucuses with the Democrats in Senate, adding to the number total that gets the Dems the majority gavel. He may run as a Democrat in 2020. His positions almost perfectly match the actual platform that actual Democrat voters around the country support, when compared to many major elected Democrats such as Feinstein and Tim Kaine who skew and veer far from many major Democratic party key policies. Bernie disambiguates himself from the Democrats in name only, by not carrying the brand name, and instead actually carrying the platform policy that Democrats support. But I think you knew all that. 50.34.138.191 (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Reporting delegate totals

For the 2020 Democratic Party primary season it is important that this Wikipedia page not make the error that was made in the 2016 page of reporting a "popular vote total" for the nomination contest. This is a highly misleading mixing of apples and oranges, since the Dem party nomination process has 15 or more contests that do not do a full ballot primary, but instead do a very small sample size caucus, which is more like a straw poll of more engaged activists. Imagine if half the states just did a poll of 100 persons, and the other half of the states did a full ballot primary, and the Wikipedia page mixed those figures together... a candidate with 99 out of 100 votes in New York State being compared to a candidate that got millions of votes in California, as if the popular vote was the common denominator. No, the delegate count is what the rules and the game is. It is dishonest to mix caucus and primary states into one popular vote total. The majority of wiki editors who somehow won that edit war in 2016, could be perceived to have been trying to inject bias to support a narrative that Hillary was overwhelmingly the right candidate for 2016, by spinning the numbers. If a candidate wins all the caucus states, the number of participants will be low, but the number of delegates and states won might be high. Delegate count is the relevant count. 50.34.138.191 (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)partyinsider

I disagree. It wasn't an issue specific to the 2016 page; all of the other Democratic party primary pages in recent years list a popular vote total. I support a footnote indicating which states (if any) are excluded from a popular vote total. However, I still think that a popular vote total (backed up with reliable sources) is relevant as long as it is clear what is being included. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Speculatives?!

There are 24 speculative Democrats. Why so many? Every single one cannot possibly be viable options. The Democrats aren't going to run 40+ candidates in the primaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.171.38 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We list people based on what reliable sources. Our opinions of these peoples' chances are not important. Your opinion of whether they're viable or not is completely unimportant. Letupwasp (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

And these "reliable" sources' opinions ARE important - as opposed to anyone else's - because...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.171.38 (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Because that's the way encyclopedias work. Your opinion is not important. My opinion is not important. No editor's opinion is important.Letupwasp (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And you keep doing it! Stormy Daniels? Seriously? Can I put down my grandfather's name in the list? Come on, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.171.38 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Should any candidates be listed yet?

The primaries haven't even started yet. Should candidates even really be listed on this page at this time?
I believe the most correct thing to do is to provide a link to Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2020 and leave it at that until we're closer to the actual primaries/debates and more information is known about the playing field. Right now its all too speculative and is likely to lead to confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endymon (talk • contribs) 18:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Alan Howe

Alan Howe, former candidate for the Democratic nomination in PA's Redrawn 10th Congressional District, has announced a campaign to run in 2020: https://www.facebook.com/Howeforpa10/posts/2063648390628337 Seems quixotic to me, but it's serious enough. What Seems To Be The Officer, Problem (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't have a Wikipedia page, so he's not notable enough. 74.110.185.157 (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Intro section: entirely opinions

The first two to four paragraphs are a compilation of opinions, and cite only opinion pieces. This should be completely rewritten on a factual basis, shouldn't it?

Forward Looking?

The introduction reads more like opinion and analysis, especially since the 2020 Presidential Primaries are a future event. As noted, the citation included in the introduction is to an analysis piece of a poll, with a small sample, that was provided exclusively to the publisher of the citation.

Elizabeth Warren

I noticed yesterday that Elizabeth Warren was not listed anywhere in this article, so I added her to the "Declined" section. However, the source stating that she had declined to run in 2020 (which had previously been used in the United States presidential election, 2020 article) was the Daily Mail, not considered a reliable source. If she has really declined to run in 2020, we should be able to find a better source. Or if she hasn't declined, then she should be moved to one of the other sections of the article instead of the "Declined" section. I will leave it up to the editors here to decide the best way to fix this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed the Daily Mail citation; we have two other sources saying the same thing. — JFG ^talk 03:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren has declared her intentions to run for president in 2020. There are multiple sources for this and she even has started her campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.183.247.14 (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

She has formed an exploratory committee; she hasn't decided to run just yet. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

page needs to be locked

Or at least have restricted access. A user has been putting minor candidates in the "Major Candidates" section, and playing havoc with the "Minor Candidates" section.2602:306:365A:2F30:9D7A:F404:9E6B:4EF1 (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Neil Abercrombie

I'm not going to edit war over this, but the sourcing is extremely far from what is expected for additions here. We have a single web forum, where most of the members are mocking the idea. @Westroopnerd: for explanation of their revert. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I for one agree with the revert. Abercrombie has been heavily speculated by multiple people as a potential Democratic candidate in 2020. The sourcing is solid and I won't hear a word otherwise. MB298 (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

What sources? Please give a link? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

After further investigation, I've reverted again. The "sources" are so far from reliable that this borders on a BLP violation in introducing deliberately false information. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Candidate Listings

For the categories Individuals who have publicly expressed interest and Speculative candidates the list essentially appears twice. This is redundant and makes the page look untidy. The Declined to be candidates list does not have a text based list and then an image based list and it is far more comfortable to read. I propose we remove the first text based list as from the first two catergories mentioned. BRFC4104 (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Polling tables

A recent CNN poll included 6 candidates who do not have columns of their own in the table, whom I have listed in the "Other" column. I suggest that we may want to remove the existing columns for some of the candidates who have only been rarely included in polls, and move them to the "Other" column so as to reduce the amount of left-to-right scrolling needed. Those candidates could include Sherrod Brown (mentioned in 2 polls, never over 2%); Julian Castro (1 poll, 0%); Tim Ryan (1 poll, 1%); and probably others. Of course, the table could also be split up chronologically so that candidates' columns can be added or removed as they enter or leave the race, as was done in Nationwide opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2016 presidential primaries, but at this point we generally don't know who is going to join the race and we can base the table columns on who is polled frequently. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree to simplify the polling reports. Any candidates under 5% should not have their own columns. — JFG ^talk 22:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have started working on reducing the number of columns. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for speculative candidates

Under the heading "Speculative candidates", we have a comment that states some rules for inclusion, notably that at least two sources be provided discussing the potential candidate specifically, not as part of a list. I would suggest specifying that such sources should be less than 6 months old, the same criterion we have for listing interested candidates. Opinions? — JFG ^talk 08:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, the Blumenthal case is being disputed today. The only source provided is a poll from August 2017. Are we going to base our article on the whim of one pollster a full year ago? — JFG ^talk 21:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Well two months have passed, and again we see names in the list of speculative candidates with only sources older than 6 months, sometimes much older. Shall we agree to remove them and enforce the criterion that two separate sources of speculation fresher than 6 months must be provided? Pinging every contributor since September: @AlAboud83, Alexf, Auric, Benwitt, BRFC4104, Cartoon Boy, Closeclouds, Curdlash, David O. Johnson, Dwo, EditDude, GVOLTT, Haakonsson, Hewkiivorox, Huff slush7264, I dream of horses, IntoThinAir, IOnlyKnowFiveWords, Jjj1238, Letupwasp, LightandDark2000, Mélencron, Metropolitan90, Michelangelo1992, Mr. Guye, Namcoloden, NDACFan, Ponydepression, QuartierLatin1968, Raymundmitchell, Reywas92, Rhian2040, RobbieFal, Shellwood, SuperMarioBrosMuseum, TheXuitts, Walk Like an Egyptian, What Seems To Be The Officer, Problem, and Ymblanter: comments please; edit wars and discussion via editsums are not productive. — JFG ^talk 10:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be removed. It wouldn't really be considered a 'speculative candidate' if nobody from the media is speculating regarding it. The criteria should be enforced; it's either we find new sources to replace old ones, or we remove the candidate from the list. This may upset supporters of a certain politician, but, well, it's the criteria needed to prove that they're being speculated. — Hewkiivorox ^talk 11:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The speculative candidates criteria should stay the same, except with regards to polling. Candidates who are there simply because they're mentioned in a poll or two is not substantive enough to prove the *media* is speculating their candidacy. But in my opinion, candidates who are rightfully on the speculative list should stay there until they've declared interest, an actual candidacy, or a declination. The two sources rule absolutely should be enforced, however. - EditDude (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: It is my opinion that such "speculative" candidates who have declined should run be removed entirely from the list. Anyone else who is left can only remain if there are reliable sources backing up a fair or strong possibility that they will consider running for President. The sources should also be relatively recent (within the past 6 months), with the possible exception of just a few "favorites" who have not publicly declined to run. The list is far too speculative at this point, and portions of it appear to be violating WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. The list needs to be slimmed down to the individuals who are likely to actually run, not just anyone the media puts forward. the same should also apply for the Republican primaries, though the Democratic primaries list is clearly much more problematic in this regard. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I think we should just remove the speculative candidates section altogether. How would we know who is "more likely" to run? It would just be a guessing game at this point. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment:Agreed with David O. Johnson. If it risks straying into original research, then it's best we do not accidentally contribute any pressure onto people to run for president.

On that note, is this appropriate for a request for comment? The feedback request service is quite effective at getting peoples' attention without violating anti-canvassing policies, and I think that's what JFG meant to do.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

An RfC would be much too slow, due to the upcoming midterm elections. This is why I pinged all editors who have shown interest in this page over the last two months. From the comments received so far, it appears that most people agree that speculative candidates should be backed up by recent-enough sources. Some people advocate removing them entirely, but I think we should proceed one step at a time. Unless strong opposition emerges in the coming few days, I will remove the candidates who have only older-than-6-months sources. — JFG ^talk 19:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing candidates from the "speculative" section if there are no sources from the last 6 months speculating about their candidacy. After all, if we can't find evidence that people are still speculating about a candidate, why are we still considering them a speculative candidate? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Feels lighter! — JFG ^talk 15:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

McAulliffe, O'Malley, and Williamson have refs from late spetember an early october of 2018, therefore, qualify to be on the expressed interest section. If you are tryinh removing old refs from the page, then why the hell are you removing Steve Bullock, but not Rahm Emanuel? Rhian2040 ^talk 15:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Williamson is listed. O'Malley probably should be; this April piece is substantive, and this QCTimes article from September says he's "thinking about giving it another try in 2020" is sufficient. No idea why you think McAuliffe should be included. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Rahm Emanuel has two speculative sources from September 4, 2018, that's why he's still around. I'll add O'Malley back. — JFG ^talk 20:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, after reading the QCTimes source, I'm not convinced. He is not quoted as expressing interest, rather as supporting local candidates and discussing the election cycle. The April thing is too old. I'd wait for more recent and clearer news to include him back. — JFG ^talk 21:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Political journalist Josh Kraushaar said on Twitter Just off the phone with former Maryland Gov. O'Malley -- seriously considering a 2020 prez run -- who had some choice criticism of former AG Eric Holder for saying "when they go low, we kick 'em" in Georgia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I added McAuliffe back, based on a September 19 source. — JFG ^talk 21:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Al Sharpton

I moved Sharpton from "interested" to "speculative" and was reverted by Rhian2040. My rationale was that the only source cited[1] does not indicate a clear expression of interest by Sharpton. Quote: “I never rule anything out,” said Sharpton, adding that he isn’t currently exploring a run for the nomination. Only the Buzzfeed headline translates this to "Sharpton won't rule out a bid for President in 2020". That's just sloppy clickbait, hence better placed in the "speculative" section unless better sources emerge. Opinions? — JFG ^talk 16:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hewkiivorox, EditDude, LightandDark2000, David O. Johnson, I dream of horses, Metropolitan90, Rhian2040, and Power~enwiki: What's your take on Al Sharpton? I'd move him to the "speculative" list unless a recent source can quote him as clearly expressing interest. — JFG ^talk 22:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If "I never rule anything out" is all there is to go on, don't include it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The speculative section fits Sharpton best. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd classify him as speculative, too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 14:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove Hillary Clinton

Clinton did not say she was thinking about running in 2020. All she said is that she wants to be president, and that she won't decide anything about 2020 until after the midterms (probably regarding whom to support in primaries). Prcc27 (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton has an uncanny ability to say one thing and the opposite within 30 seconds. The same quote can be cited to say she won't run and she considers running again. Obviously she's now "interested", although she earlier "declined", so ket's keep her interested for now. — JFG ^talk 14:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions

Please note that the following sanctions have been applied to the top of this talk page and affect all users editing this article:

• Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.
• Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).
• Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

~Awilley (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Should Jeff Boss be on the list of declared candidates?

Jeff Boss has declared that he will stand, but no media source has picked this up. While he has his own article and is notable as a conspiracy theorist, is he really notable enough to be listed here without a secondary source? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

He, Robby Wells and a few other hobbyist/perennials aren't really candidates. they just file with the FEC or say they are on their websites and really do nothing about it. Wells did a bus tour in 2014 and then followed it up with nothing (he sent a letter to Florida's Secretary of State, but didn't follow up). Boss has gotten on the ballot for New Jersey state offices, and thus we know he knows what to do, but he's not doing it and didn't do it last time. Arglebargle79 (talk)

Beto 2020?

So Beto O'Rourke said during the Senate campaign that he wouldn't be a candidate for president in 2020. He has not said anything to that effect after the race ended (which, to be fair, was less than 48 hours ago).

However, there is now massive speculation that he's going to run from basically everyone: [2] [3] [4]

Should he be moved to "speculative" candidates? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say leave him in the declined section. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A lot of people who "declined to run" are going to be interested now that the 2018 election is over. I agree that we should leave people where they're at until they state otherwise. Froo (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Excessive polls

I suggest criteria to trim the section "Primary election polling":

• Remove all polls prior to 2018: looking two years ahead of an election is plenty, three years is just grotesque
• Remove individual columns for speculative candidates who poll nowhere above 5%; group their numbers in an "others" column

This would make the table less cluttered, more realistic, and therefore more informative to our readers. — JFG ^talk 03:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Once we start getting polls in 2019, I expect that the table for earlier polls will be collapsed (rather than removed altogether). But for now, we don't have that many polls at all (15 in a period of 23 months). As to the second point, I have removed individual columns for many of the candidates who have never polled above 5%, but retained them for some candidates who have been included in a fairly large number of polls (Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand). Also, I retained the column for Terry McAuliffe because one of the polls he was included in was one where "Other" tied for tops in the poll at 25% and is shaded, and I didn't know how to handle the display of that information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for condensing some columns. I have boldly removed polls from 2017, because they cluttered the space with unsupported speculative candidates (e.g. Marc Zuckerberg, Michelle Obama), and one of them was sponsored by O'Malley in Iowa. There's plenty enough polling from 2018 onwards. — JFG ^talk 10:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to remove any of them – there is historical value in retaining the data, at least. I would suggest merely collapsing the lists of pre-2019 polls instead. (For candidates polling <5%, I'd move them into an "others" column using {{efn}} and {{notelist}} in order to retain the information without leaving excessively wide tables.) Mélencron (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we could collapse anything older than 6 months. However, 2017 stuff is totally preposterous. I approve of the {{efn}} footnotes when low-polling candidates get added to "others". — JFG ^talk 12:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's my attempt at trimming, by the way: User:Mélencron/sandbox7 (formatted to be more consistent with other U.S. election articles). I might take a further look at this after next Tuesday for completeness as well. Mélencron (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd remove further columns for whoever polls at 1 or 2% (Klobuchar, Patrick, Delaney, Holder, Hickenlooper, Ryan). — JFG ^talk 21:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea – I'll revisit this and the other 2020 polls after tomorrow, since the existing lists are incomplete and I prefer to compile my own lists and cross-check (as I've done with historical French polling). Mélencron (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Implemented (pending PC approval since I don't have reviewer rights); I've tried to move marginal candidates and those not included in most polls to the "other" column notes (so that they're preserved and can be moved back into a separate column again if they're included in additional polls or rise to a more significant level in primary polls). I'll probably do the same on the Republican side later as well as with general election polls, as there are definitely some that were either missing or shouldn't have been included (the Rasmussen question wording was about which candidate Democrats thought was best against Trump in 2020, which is not a primary poll). I'm not sure how to get the |group= parameter working using the {{efn}} and {{notelist}} templates, though. Mélencron (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

On campaign websites

While the likes of Jeff Boss, Harry Braun, and Geoffrey Fieger don't have any campaign websites (although one could argue that Boss' "BossForSenate.com" could apply as one, as it features prominently "CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 3RD TIME ON THE BALLOT 2020" at the top of the homepage. It's very possible that he simply never updated the domain name since his initial Senate run, since he also promotes his runs for Congress and Mayor of NYC on the same website), why aren't these candidates listed towards the bottom of the declared candidates list? I believe Jack Fellure and Jonathan Sharkey were also removed from the Republican primary page. Wasn't there some kind of agreement somewhere where candidates with Wikipedia articles would still be listed with no photos or any fancy formatting in a sort of "oh yeah, these guys are also there" section.

On another note, why is Michael E. Arth being excluded? His website literally reads "2020 CAMPAIGN WEBSITE" and "MICHAEL E. ARTH for PRESIDENT" at the top. He seems to fit the bill for a minor candidate, as he has a biographical Wikipedia article. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The website on United States presidential election, 2020 is sufficient to include Arth on this list; the initial website was not sufficient but a link to a campaign-specific website is now present. I find the entire premise too absurd to make the change myself, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2018

Remove Michael Avenatti from the list. Justification: Arrested by Los Angeles Police for domestic abuse. Source: NBC news 2601:5C2:0:F7CF:39A9:5E51:48A3:2818 (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Avenatti has clearly hinted at the possibility of running. Until this is no longer a possibility, he should be kept. Also, please include a link to the source next time. DannyS712 (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Richard Ojeda

Ojeda, a West Virginia State Senator has filed with the FEC. Should we add him in? http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00691444/1291151/ However, I can find no articles actually saying he is running. What should we do?

Baconheimian (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Not yet, wait for a websitke or some press coverage that's talked to him. It could be a procedural thing for some other run. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Now we have local news and The Intercept saying he's running, and there will apparently be an official speech tomorrow. I've self-reverted my removal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

As if there was any more question, he has retweeted statements saying he is running, and has changed his Twitter handle to @VoteOjeda2020 . I'd say that's pretty clear. WizardKing 04:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have a lot more questions about this, but Wikipedia isn't really the forum for them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I've never wanted a West Virginia Democratic primary poll as much as I do now. Mélencron (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone put him in the Declared major candidates section, but I'm not sure if he meets the criteria of being in five polls. Does anyone know if he definitively has or not? David O. Johnson (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson: he has not been in 5 polls to my knowledge, but the header states "have held public office and/or have been included in a minimum of 5 national polls". He meets the first criteria so therefore I believe he should be a Major candidate. (No pun intended) WizardKing 17:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm somewhat wary of the public office piece. I imagine there has to be some city councilman or county commissioner somewhere that will run, yet that does not make them notable enough for this section. I think inclusion in this top tier should be determined by public awareness of one's candidacy. Baconheimian (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "has been covered by 5 major news agencies" would work? Being on CNN, Politico, and The Intercept (just from page 1 of Google search results) should clearly be enough to be in the "major candidates" section, at least for now. Andrew Yang would probably be a major candidate by that standard as well; there's coverage of him (538, CNBC, NYTimes) that isn't there for Robby Wells or Ken Nwadike (who both clearly meet the lower threshold of Wikipedia-notable people with campaign websites). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

My issue is how do we define "Major news source?" What if some high school history teacher decides to run, and the school newspaper reports on it? Do we include that? What if we change the header to read "have a Wikipedia article, have held elected public office and/or have been included in at least 5 national polls" or similar? That would be clear cut and unambiguous. WizardKing 19:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest going a different route. For the 2016 primary and pre-primary season, the only criterion we used to determine the major candidates was whether they had been included in at least 5 national polls. This worked pretty well. John Delaney has been in the presidential race for 15 months, and he's been included in only 3 national polls so far. However, that includes 3 of the most recent 4 polls, so it looks like he is on track to meet the 5-poll requirement. Yes, imposing the 5-poll requirement now means that Delaney would be relegated to non-major status for the time being -- but that's how he's being treated now by pretty much everyone but Wikipedia. (The 538 article cited by Power~enwiki above says, "Remember, Rep. John Delaney of Maryland has been an official, declared candidate for over a year. The third-term congressman is not being taken too seriously — many outlets doing polls of the 2020 field aren’t including him.") I doubt that Richard Ojeda will get included in any national polls, but if he does get into 5 of them, then he should be listed as a major candidate. Until then, I don't think so. So I'm saying, let's drop the "hold elected public office" criterion and use only the 5 national poll requirement. Yes, that means there would be no candidates that we call "major" in the Democratic race yet -- but I don't think that's a problem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I always viewed the idea of a "Major Candidate" as someone who had held a high-ranking public office within the federal government (such as Senator, Representative, or member of the cabinet), was the governor of their state, or was mayor of a city with at least 100,000 people in it (though at least 50,000 would work too). If I remember correctly, in 2016 when potential candidates started announcing their candidacies, we did that rule. Any other candidate would be moved to minor-candidate status (although we didn't have the website rule, which I honestly like). I say, move him to minor status until he is included in at least five major national polls. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I should be agreeing or disagreeing with you, but please keep in mind that the current President of the United States is someone who had never held any public office before he was inaugurated as President. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That was one of the problems brought up too. But that was remedied by the "Five Polls or Less." Trump had been included by the time he announced, so he was officially a major candidate. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I agree with this solution, that state legislators and similar are not considered high-ranking public office. It's not too bad if Ojeda is the only one, but this category starts multiplying then definitely we should move them all to minor. Also, Delaney has a large full-time staff in Iowa, and that should be a factor too, perhaps we should consider a financial factor related to campaign spending.--Pharos (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Another possible solution: remove the distinction between Major and Minor candidates and just have a "Declared Candidates" section, and use the Wikipedia article, FEC filing and website as qualifications. That would prevent situations like this in the future. WizardKing 14:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

But when major candidates actually start getting into the race over the next few months, I think we're going to want to separate the Cory Bookers and Kamala Harrises of the world from the Ken Nwadikes and the Robby Wellses. The 5-poll criterion will be a good way to do that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The main problem with this is that you can't conduct a poll with 30 candidates. You have to pick-and-choose, and apart from the top 4 or 5 candidates, the selection will be entirely arbitrary by pollsters who may have biases of their own (or the polls may be done by campaigns who want to influence the field). I suspect that what I will support is that "major" candidates are anyone who has received >5% support in at least 2 polls (either national or of a specific state) and any other candidate described as a credible candidate in reliable sources should also be listed in "other candidates". This will likely force the Delaney's of the world into the second tier unless they seem some support from the voting public. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Exploratory campaign

How do we handle these? Marianne Williamson has announced an exploratory committee, but isn't technically a declared candidate. [5] power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

We could add a new section. Something like "Exploring candidates." David O. Johnson (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with David. See, for example, this version of Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016 in January 2015. The "Formally exploring a candidacy" people were listed below the declared candidate but above the "Publicly expressed interest" people. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I added it, so it's a start. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

If they have an exploratory committee, then they're candidates. PERIOD.It's an accounting trick. They may be ephemeral, but they're still candidates. Bill Clinton was still exploring a run until three days prior to the convention.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson? She's a minor candidate. She may be technically notable, but geez...she has NOT been mentioned at all by the MSM.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Vanity Fair and Politico are certainly the Mainstream Media. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

At this point, she is a minor candidate. It seems premature to create 'Formally exploring a candidacy' at this stage if it's just her.--Pharos (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that if she declared her candidacy, she would be a minor candidate (at least as of now), but I do think we should have a "formally exploring a candidacy" section because it represents an advance over just publicly expressing interest. And Williamson is at least a notable person; she's had a Wikipedia article since 2004. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

help

having some trouble reformatting the section on declared candidates. apologies --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm being sanctioned?

whyArglebargle79 (talk) 14:34, 31 December 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:

• Joseph Sanberg 2019.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Individuals who have publicly expressed interest

Somebody had added to the heading for Individuals who have publicly expressed interest the sentence shown here in italics: "Individuals in this section have expressed an interest in running for president within the last six months. This has been reported in the mainstream media and they've been included in at least two major polls." I removed that sentence because (a) there was no consensus here (nor even a proposal on this talk page) to require 2 polls for a person to be listed as publicly expressing interest, and (b) the criterion was not being applied, as could be seen from the fact that Michael Bennet, Pete Buttigieg, Bob Casey Jr., Oscar De La Hoya, and others were on the list although they have been included in no major polls. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this would disqualify way too many people on the existing list.--Pharos (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If anybody wants to suggest a change of inclusion criteria, they should first lay out their case and get consensus on the talk page. Reverting was the right thing to do. — JFG ^talk 04:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Oop, She's Runnin'

This should be added to the timeline and calls for a change in our declared major candidates:

Liz Warren's Running!

Make sure y'all confirm this and that it's not just the NYT jumping on the exploratory as an "announcement," but I can't totally say I'm surprised/I'll be surprised if she has officially entered the running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HDarby (talk • contribs) 12:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• The article says, "In an email to supporters on Monday — 13 months before votes will be cast in Iowa — Ms. Warren said she was forming an exploratory committee, which allows her to raise money and fill staff positions before a formal start of her presidential bid." So that puts her in the exploratory category, not the declared candidate category, for the time being. When she officially declares, we can move her to the declared major candidate category. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Martin O'Malley declines

Prefers Beto. Official announcement at https://twitter.com/MartinOMalley/status/1080834113760886784 for linkage into the declined section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.246.254.12 (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft Movements

Hi all,

I have been following this topic for quite some time now, and one particular subject is that of "draft movements" for certain candidates. Would it be possible to include a section, or at least a paragraph listing these? Highlighting these grassroots movements is a fascinating topic, and I believe could further expand this page.

I am new to editing Wikipedia and hoped to post here instead of moving forward with it myself. Thank you.

For example: Draft Beto 2020, Ready For Schultz, Organizing For Bernie. Mainbasher (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, as none of these movements are notable in themselves yet, i.e. they do not have an independent Wikipedia article like Draft Eisenhower movement, and the news sources that are in-depth enough do not exist.--Pharos (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Pete Buttigieg Official Portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Kirsten Gillibrand - Running/Exploring/Impending?

I think Kirsten Gillibrand is falling into a complicated middle ground here. Her website states she is "preparing to run for President" and last night on the Late Show she said she will be running for President. She has formed an exploratory committee but she has already decided to run.

The provided source next to her candidacy links to the Late Show.

Technically speaking, she probably does not belong in the candidates list because she is not officially running, yet. I'm OK with a standard that says one who says they will run is a candidate, but is that what we are going with?

If not, we should probably put her in exploring. We should include a note saying she has stated she intends to run or something similar.ObieGrad (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I personally think that if a candidate has publicly and definitively announced that they will be running and have a running campaign website, then listing them with declared candidates (even if they are not officially declared candidates) makes the most sense because they are, for all practical purposes, in the race. They did the same thing with Tulsi Gabbard when she informally but publicly announced her candidacy. SCC California (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If she is exploring a run, then she is exploring a run. That's where she currently goes, IMO. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It's an exploratory committee [6]. She should be listed there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct. That's what the section is for. Jonathunder (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rhian2040: Pinging user to loop them in this discussion. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

She has announced during an event, you can watch it here --> https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/now-2020-candidate-gillibrand-builds-campaign-gender-60423209

That source you cite states: "But Gillibrand, who announced the creation of a presidential exploratory committee Tuesday on CBS' "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert", meaning she still goes in the "formally exploring" section. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rhian2040: has violated WP:1RR on this issue and is close to 3RR. Jonathunder (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, Gabbard and Gillibrand have DECLARED. It says DECLARED, not formally declared

Gillibrand is not yet past the exploratory committee stage, while Gabbard has an announcement pending. Do you mind signing your comments? David O. Johnson (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

What is the point in waiting for Gabbard's "official" announcement. Clearly, she already announced it. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard has an announcement pending. When the facts change, we'll be justified in changing her status. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Gillibrand announced on January 15 (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/15/kirsten-gillibrand-i-am-going-to-run-for-president-in-2020.html). I moved Gillibrand to the declared candidates section. SunCrow (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The intro you cite states "The New York Democrat says she is launching an exploratory committee for a White House run." She's still exploring a run at this point. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, not running yet. She will make an actual announcement later, and that will be a milestone that gets covered too.--Pharos (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The cited source quotes Sen. Gillibrand as saying, "I'm going to run for president of the United States." That seems crystal clear. I do not see why that isn't enough of an announcement. SunCrow (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

Should we move Kamala Harris into the impending declaration category,due to the fact that she stated that she will make an announcement by MLK Day.Alhanuty (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

A reporter for Politico has disputed this: Harris will not be announcing her candidacy at an Oakland rally on MLK weekend, per a person close to her. A formal announcement date is not settled, they said. [7] . power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

What about this one.Alhanuty (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC) https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/424674-kamala-harris-to-enter-presidential-race-on-or-around-mlk-day-report?fbclid=IwAR19HsxgjE_5vYNRwABSftPDrKrSOi-erN8l9zwfNwAAJ88ev-ZiU-_UxM4

It says she will "probably" make an announcment "on or around MLK Day". Which isn't enough for Announcement Pending, IMO. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay,then. :) Alhanuty (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Can this be changed in the text to read "January 19-21, 2019"? MLK Day is on 1/21, not 1/19. Given that she has not given a date certain but only MLK Day weekend (or day), it makes better sense to have a range. Just a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.246.254.12 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

An official list of candidates

The following is from DEMLIST, an official Newsletter of the Democratic party:

Although the numbers of candidates haven't shifted, the major players have. All are included in our update.

Long list of potential candidates

Potential 2020 Democratic Presidential Contenders Contenders (Potential) Background State (Home) The Rundown Joe Biden Former US Vice President (Obama) Delaware The former Vice President, 76, scores high in national polls, and garnered rave reviews during his national book tour, Promise Me, Dad about the loss of his son Beau to brain cancer. He was active in fundraising for candidates through his American Possibilities PAC but observers question whether he will take the plunge. Michael Bloomberg Founder & CEO of Bloomberg L.P., a global financial services, mass media, and software company New York The former New York Mayor, businessman and philanthropist, 76, teased the public with potential independent presidential runs in 2008, 2012 and, prior to his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, in 2016. He poured $80 million into electing Democratic candidates in 2018, and has an estimated networth of $51.7 billion. Most recent book: Climate of Hope: How Cities, Businesses, and Citizens Can Save the Planet (2017) Cory Booker US Senator (elected 2013) New Jersey Booker's meteoric rise from a mayor of Newark, NJ (2006-2013) to US Senator and national figure puts him on everyone's list. The 49 year-old toured key candidate and primary states through 2018. His book: United: Thoughts on Finding Common Ground and Advancing the Common Good (2016) Sherrod Brown US Senator (elected 2006) Ohio Brown, 66, was on the shortlist for Clinton's 2016 running mate. Ohio, which Trump won in 2016, is a critical battleground state and Brown safely won reelection in November. His progressive, populist politics and strong labor support paint an appealing picture. Julián Castro Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary under Obama Texas Castro, 44, was on Hillary Clinton's VP shortlist. The former San Antonio mayor first drew national attention as the first Hispanic to deliver the keynote at a Democratic Convention (2012). He launched the Opportunity First PAC this year, has been hitting key presidential primary states, and is expected to announce a decision soon. His book: An Unlikely Journey: Waking Up from My American Dream (2018) John Delaney Congressman (elected 2012) Maryland The three-term Congressman from Maryland, and author of The Right Answer, officially declared his presidential candidacy in July of 2017. The 55 year-old millionaire and entrepreneur has since visited all 99 counties in Ohio and shows no sign of slowing down. Kirsten Gillibrand US Senator (elected 2010) New York The 52 year-old, who succeeded Hillary Clinton in the Senate, is a leading voice on women's rights and has a PAC, Off The Sidelines, which recruits and supports women candidates for office. Her public tangling with Trump has raised her profile, and her ability to go toe-to-toe against the terrible tweeter. She starts her book tour for Bold and Brave: Ten Heroes Who Won Women the Right to Vote" next year. Kamala Harris US Senator (elected in 2016) California The freshman Senator, 54, is a visible member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a vocal Trump opponent. Harris, who actively raised funds for candidates during the midterms, is considered a top contender. The first US Senator of Jamaican and Indian descent, Harris' book, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, will be released in January. California's early March primary is a major plus for anyone running from the state. Eric Holder Former US Attorney General (Obama) New York The former US Attorney General, who now leads the important National Democratic Redistricting Committee, has touted his resume as a non-politician during his own swing through early primary states. His book, Pursuing Justice is due out in 2020. Amy Klobuchar US Senator (elected 2006) Minnesota Klobuchar, 58, was reelected last month by a 24 point spread in the heart of the Midwest which will be crucial to a 2020 victory. The pragmatic and popular Senator has been a frequent visitor to Iowa, and is more centrist than many of the other contenders. Her 2015 memoir: The Senator Next Door: A Memoir from the Heartland. Terry McAuliffe Governor (elected 2013) Virginia A popular former Governor of Virginia, McAuliffe, 60, a former DNC and Presidential Campaign Chair, and successful businessman, is known as an inexhaustible political and fundraising force. He dedicated his midterm efforts to electing Democratic governors under the auspices of the National Democratic Redistricing Committee, headed by Obama and Holder. A new PAC, "Tenaciously Moving for American Change in 2020" (playing on McAuliffe's "TMac" nickname) was formed in October to encourage him to run. Beto O'Rourke Congressman (elected 2012) Texas O'Rourke became a phenomenon with his unsuccessful bid to unseat Republican Senator Ted Cruz, losing by just three points and, in the process, raising $70 million. The charismatic 46 year-old infused much-needed young blood into the national political scene, prompting a call for him to run for higher office. He tops the most recent poll among progressives. Bernie Sanders US Senator (elected 2006) Vermont With the launch last week of "Organizing for Bernie" by senior staffers from his 2016 run presidential run, Sanders appears closer to a 2020 bid. Officially an Independent, the 76 year-old veteran Senator has continued to lead from the left through his Our Revolution movement, but many fear would split progressive support fellow New Englander Elizabeth Warren. His last book, Where We Go from Here: Two Years in the Resistance came out this year. Howard Schultz Starbucks Founder & Former CEO Washington State Schultz's retirement in June as Chair of Starbucks, and the build up of a PR team that includes Trump critic and former John McCain advisor Steve Schmidt, has increased speculation he will run. His book From the Ground Up: A Journey to Reimagine the Promise of America" is due out in February. As a non-politician with an estimated network of $2.6 billion he could prove to be a formidable contender. Elizabeth Warren US Senator (elected 2012) Massachusetts Warren, 68, is at the top of many presidential picks list and a darling of the national progressive community. A proven fighter and Trump foe, she was fundraising on behalf of candidates nationwide, and has been reaching out in early presidential primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Most significantly she is openly building a campaign infrastructure, with 50+ people on her payroll and hunting for a HQ in Boston. Other names in play include US Senators Jeff Merkley (OR), Chris Murphy (CT), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Governors John Hickenlooper (CO), Steve Bullock (MT), Jay Inslee (WA) and Martin O'Malley (MD), Congresspersons Tulsi Gabbard (HI-2), Seth Mouton (MA-6), Joe Kennedy III (MA-4), Tim Ryan (OH-13) and Eric Swalwell (CA-15). Also included are Mayors Eric Garcetti (Los Angeles) and Peter Buttigieg (South Bend), former Mayor Mitch Landrieu (New Orleans) and attorney Michael Avenatti. Former 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry has also been mentioned, but unlikely to throw his hat in the ring. Those who have taken themselves out of the running include New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, former VP Candidate and US Senator Tim Kaine, former Massachusetts Deval Patrick, businessman and philanthropist Tom Steyer, actor Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, and media mogul Oprah Winfrey. Latest Standings An early straw poll of members of the liberal group, MoveOn, shows the fight for the progressive vote is still wide open. Among the 30 candidates cited in the poll, Beto O'Rourke (15.6%) narrowly edges out Joe Biden (14.95%), followed by Bernie Sanders (13.15%), Kamala Harris (10.02%), Elizabeth Warren (6.42%), Sherrod Brown (2.92%), Amy Klobuchar (2.75%), Michael Bloomberg (2.71%) and Cory Booker (2.63%). 17.89% were undecided or preferred someone else.

Maybe we could use it...Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have collapsed the full text that you copied from the newsletter. Do you have a publicly-accessible URL for this? It does not seem to add any information not already covered in the article, but we could certainly cite it as a snapshot of Dem Party thinking as of today. — JFG ^talk 18:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The website is: [8] Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

MoveOn straw poll

Not a scientific poll, but still possibly useful information: [9]. It demonstrates the difficulties in polling a field of 30 candidates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Right; this is only a name recognition contest at this stage. — JFG ^talk 20:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Note that this is a member survey of subscribers to MoveOn, not an actual poll. Still it's interesting that O'Rourke is top despite being a mere Representative; and after him, highlighting the more marginal candidates, come Williamson, Ojeda, and then Delaney.--Pharos (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's split off the "candidates section" and leave it truncated here

As I wasn't informed that the Democratic Candidates, 2020" article" was destroyed and redirected here, I wish to formally discuss why that was and why I wasn't informed about it. There is no actual reason mentioned on the discussion as to why, except that there is (or rather WAS) a short list here while the whole humongous 175 person list (including around 50 who have said that they weren't running) was in the other article and has now been returned to muck up this one here. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Had I been informed of this travesty, I would have given the following arguments:

• It's not too early. There are at least 30 "Qualified" candidates with PACs running around and this particular article should be limited only to THEM, with the other article having the entire list of NEVER-Candidates or SPECULATIVE candidates or what have you to the other article.
• This one needs ROOM, NOW. There are going to be debates and forums. The tentative Schedule was released by the DNC yesterday. Half a dozen major hopefuls have already announced that they will make a decision of their candidacy NEXT MONTH. That means that the timeline, before IT's split off, will start getting longer an longer and will wind up being unmanageable on this page by the end of March. This is not WP:Crystal, because that's what happened last time, and I presume, the time before.
• There is going to be lots and lots of changes in the next month or two and we need to get ready. We don't need wasted bandwith.

Unless you guys can give me a really good reason to keep all that muck HERE, I want to bring back the article because it's necessary. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

First, there was a week-long discussion. Second, it is WP:CRYSTAL, because we can't put "most of these people will likely announce next month" in the article now, we need to wait until next month when they actually announce. Third, the photos of "people not running" are kind of ridiculous, but they'll be equally ridiculous on any other page. The other candidates really all do need to be mentioned here. Finally, the page isn't too long; it's only 90KB now and can get to about 200KB before a split is really necessary. The debates/forums in 6 months don't require space now. Removing some of the silly galleries will decrease total page bandwidth. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, I did most of the early editing on that article and I was not informed of the discussion. I then read it and there was no real discussion. So let's start it from scratch, okay?

Good. The pictures of the non-candidates are people who have been mentioned in the media and were forced by the chatter to say that they weren't running. Therefore they don't belong HERE, and they're superfluous and waste space. I have blanked that section. But they would be part of the Candidates page because a candidates page would be inclusive of everybody, but this is not, nor should it be. Last cycle, I was overruled about having candidates listed on this page who in fact had received tens of thousands of votes in several primaries. However, the were on the candidates page. The same with the speculative possibilities. While most of them have PACs of some sort, none of them have said that they're interested and really aren't running for everything. Why have THEM here if they're not candidates? That superfluous section also takes up bandwidth and looks silly. So let's get rid of that to...but wait, there's a possibility that two or three of these people will actually run. So we can put this gallery in the separate candidates page for the time being. It's an excellent place for an inclusive list of everyone who is running, has thought about running or has been thought about as running. Why don't we have one of those? We did, but someone for some reason decided that...I'm appealing the decision...Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC) AS I cannot find the "reverse a merge" page anywhere, I guess I'll have to review and refute the discussion here: (BTW, I apologize for the rant, but I hate injustice)

This is entirely a duplicate of the candidate sections in 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. It serves no purpose and is confusing to maintain. Only the section about "declined" candidates is separate content, and that was considered not notable enough to keep at the main article. Useless WP:CFORK. — JFG talk 19:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, this is not entirely a duplicate of anything. It's close, but there will, and IS more information here than in the Primaries article.

This was followed by practically no discussion:

   Merge it back at least for the next six months, there is too much overlap.--Pharos (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC) Why? The Speculative and "declined" galleries would only be found on the candidtes page and the rest wouldn't be in galleries, but a chart.Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
   I vote for a Merge as well. The candidate section is also listed here: 2020 United States presidential election#Democratic Party. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Yeah, but only a tiny fraction of them. We need an easily accessible and inclusive article as part of a series of articles that exist already and are listed in the sidebar found on the right upper corner of the articles.Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
   Merge for now. We can later discuss on talk page whether the article needs to be restored or re-written. Orientls (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Let's do it NOW!!!!! It's important. Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
   Merge for the time being at least. I agree with all the comments above.Bob from the Beltway (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
   Merge. The page holds info that would be better suited as part of 2020 United States presidential election. WillPeppers (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
   Merge per above. No information in the article that cannot be listed at the Democratic primary page. Tillerh11 (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Yeah, but it doesn't look good, especially since we need space for the timeline sectionArglebargle79 (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, I apologize for being a bit of a pest here, but I wasn't informed of something I should have been, and we NEED that article. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, here's a link to the discussion on merging the Democratic 2020 candidates article: [10]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Mark Cuban

should be moved from Declined to the Publicly expressed interest section. Cuban The links supporting declined are from March 2017 or earlier.Simon12 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I moved him to the right section. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This citation, however, says that Mark Cuban wouldn't run as a Democrat, so shouldn't he be removed from this page (or placed back in the declined to be candidates section) and be put into the Republican Party's publicly expressed interest section? SCC California (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I missed the note in the link that he wouldn't run as a Democrat. I see he's been deleted completely. Not sure about that, but agree he shouldn't be in expressed interest section.Simon12 (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard date announced.

I'm going to raise this again, but I'm unsure why she isn't up with the declared major candidates. She has declared herself a candidate (in no ambiguous terms) and has filed with the FEC [11]. She may have not made a formal announcement yet, but who knows when (or even if) that's coming. This is unlike Warren or Gillibrand, who have not yet said the magic words, Gabbard has announced that she is running for president.

This also brings up the awkward issue of "date announced". What date will that actually be? The date when the world became aware of her intention to run for president, or the date that she held an official event to say something that was already common knowledge? Most major news outlets are treating her as if she is already campaigning, so why shouldn't we? NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

We don't care about magic words here. We know that if she's not a candidate now that she will 100% be a candidate, but is she currently a candidate? Not just going to be one in the future. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard announced her campaign already. We don't need an "official announcement". She said "I'm running", and the mainstream media is reporting her as already having announced. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

She did announce and I don't know why she is not in the announced section. She even has an official website. Political Geek (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, she is a candidate. — JFG ^talk 08:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Gabbard

Gabbard has only said that she will be making an announcement and has not formally announced yet, so she shouldn't be listed on "Declared major candidates" until she makes a formal announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie950 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem is you can only put it under "scheduled an announcement" if there's a specific date. And she hasn't announced an exploratory committee. But it would be misleading to put her in just "publicly expressed interest." Let's just let the week go by with that blemish, IMO. DaCashman (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I would second DaCashman with the caveat that we should put a note saying that she has not formally announced her candidacy. I will go ahead and do that but it can be reverted if there is disagreement. SCC California (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

She scheduled her announcement for an indefinite date, so I think we should move her to the announcement column. We don't have to know the date to put her in that column. Prcc27 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Despite this, I feel that her 2020 campaign website makes it extremely clear that she is currently running and would recommend she be brought back into the declared major candidates section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajanAwasthi127 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that we should consider January 11, 2019 to have been the date the campaign was announced, not January 19. That is more accurately the date of her official launch. Look at Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign, we consider the April 12 video announcement to have been the date she announced her campaign not the June 13, 2015 campaign launch rally.
Also, from what I understand, the FEC will generally consider you a declared candidate the moment you publicly say words like "I am running for president", "I am a candidate for president", "I am announcing that I am running for president", "I am declaring that I will be running for president", "I have decided to run for president", etc. Per a recent NBC article,

Once someone says the magic words, "I'm running for president," the person almost instantly becomes a candidate in the eyes of the Federal Election Commission, which means they then have to file paperwork with the agency and start accounting for every dollar raised and spent, all of which has to be publicly disclosed.

She has already publicly said the words "I have decided to run". SecretName101 (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I think she should be listed as a full-fledged candidate. She has a campaign committee [12] that is not an exploratory committee, and she says she is running. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Seconded, there is already a Wiki page for her campaign. She has announced she is running. But her back in the declared section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.58.254 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Oscar De La Hoya

How can you say hes running as a democrat? He never said which political party he is running for, He just said he might run for president if the numbers are right, He never said he would run as a Democrat, He could run for a Independent, if he said hes running as a democrat, please give me the link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1AEF:DF00:BCAA:8145:DF5C:2126 (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

He did say if he ran it would be as a Democrat, it's in several newspapers, for example The Washington Post].--Pharos (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson

Right now Williamson is listed in the exploratory committee section. If (or perhaps when) she formally announces, will she be listed with the minor candidates? If there isn't already consensus on this I would argue that she should be in the minor candidates' section, given that she has not held public office and has received minimal media coverage.Jacoby531 (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Jacoby531

The major candidates section requires that the candidate "have held public office or have been included in a minimum of five independent national polls," which I'm pretty sure doesn't qualify for. The minor candidates section requires that they be notable as defined by Wikipedia:Notability, so basically if they have a Wikipedia page. So unless she gets included in 5 polls or is appointed representative or something, then she'll get put in the minor section. --pluma♫ ♯ 02:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Setting up stricter editing?

Would it be possible to set up stricter editing rules for this article? Different editors keep moving Yang and Gillibrand back and forth. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

We have discretionary sanctions that allow uninvolved admins to block editors from this page or all of post-1932 American politics. If disruption continues I'll post an appeal at WP:AN for admins to watch this page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought; I've posted at AN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's a link to the relevant discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries David O. Johnson (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Major revisions, etc.

I moved most of the candidate list to the "candidates" article. the reason I did this is that, quite frankly, it's time. Also, much like the Republicans in 2016, there are a huge number of these folks, if it's anything like last time, the actual number of these schlubs is going to be in the thirties. That's why it's time for a split. Have the huge list of everyone and his sister in one article, and a truncated (but still huuuuuuuuuuuge) one here. We can then have room for when the cattle calls and formal debates are held. I'll create that article (unless someone beats me to it—which might be nice) for that sometime between now and January. Exactly how we should do this should be discussed below. Meanwhile don't revert, it'll only be reverted again followed by...you get the idea. Also, the final version will look nothing like it does now. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Such a move seems pretty arbitrary and premature; saying "it's time" isn't helpful when the Iowa caucuses (for example) don't start for at least another year. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No, the Iowa caucuses don't END for at least another year. The simple fact is, is that the debates and cattle call forums are going to start in a matter of months. California and a few other states have decided to put forward their primaries to just after the first four (Iowa, NH, Nevada and SC) and with early voting, they're going to start in February. Unlike '16, where it was rigged for Hillary, the debates and such are going to be early and often. That's why I just created a polling article. We need to get ready.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

At least make sure the more serious campaigns are represented here too. Andrew Yang's 2020 campaign is gaining a lot of steam in the grassroots and should be here over say... Oscar De La Hoya. haha SkullKnight1189284 (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

More press coverage of Andrew Yang as a major candidate: [13] I'm inclined to re-add him as a "major candidate" and change "5 polls" to "5 major media profiles". power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yang seems worth adding back in to me. luke (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: The Atlantic piece is definitely not a major media profile, though it is a mention of him as a serious candidate in a major publication. Which do you mean?--Pharos (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean that if you find coverage of Michael Arth or Ken Nwadike of that sort, I'll support including them here as well. (if the "minor candidates" group gets put back it's not really a big deal; soon enough measures like fundraising and ballot access will be available). [14] is one major media profile; I know of more. There's no conceivable way that listing 5 references for every entry is a good idea, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The NYT piece is definitely a "major profile" in the traditional sense of a major piece in a major publication. I couldn't find any others that would fit that definition journalistically, just fairly short blog and local pieces. If there are 4 others, I don't see them, though I agree he's a step above the others currently listed as minor candidates. I also agree Yang would probably make it on a fundraising criteria eventually.--Pharos (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Why have the "minor" candidates been removed from this page, when they're still on the general election article at 2020 United States presidential election#Democratic Party? Surely this article should have more detailed info than that one, not less.--Pharos (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think the article is going in the wrong direction, in terms of setting the major candidate standard too low. Currently the "major candidate" section says, "The candidates in this section have held public office, have been included in a minimum of five independent national polls, or have been the subject of a major media profile". When did "one major media profile" ever get a consensus as a criterion to be a major candidate? And how do we define which media count as "major"? As far as I'm concerned, neither John Delaney, nor Richard Ojeda, nor Andrew Yang is a major candidate yet, since they haven't met the 5-poll criterion yet (although Delaney has been in 3 polls so far). If I weren't a Wikipedian, I would have probably not even be aware that Ojeda or Yang are even running for president. I would prefer to impose only the 5-poll criterion and thus demote Delaney, Ojeda, and Yang from major candidate status. If Ojeda or Yang gets listed in any independent national poll, much less gets invited to any Democratic Party-sanctioned debate, I will be quite surprised. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I still think we should remove the distinction between Major and Minor candidates. It would prevent situations like this in the future. WizardKing 16:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• On the contrary. When some actual major candidates get into the race, we're going to be more interested in distinguishing between those major candidates and the candidates who aren't listed in polls or invited to debates. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Removing all of the "minor" candidates to a secondary page when there are practically no "major" candidates yet has exacerbated the problem, as we arbitrarily decide whether someone is either a major candidate or banished from the page entirely.--Pharos (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• In light of the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates where most of the comments have been to "merge", maybe we should be proactive and bring the minor candidates back for now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'd rather wait the 18 hours for that discussion to formally be closed than to do anything myself. The issues regarding Yang will disappear once that merge is done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: Unlike '16, where it was rigged for Hillary Wikipedia is not the place for bias/conspiracy, the talk page is not a chatroom. Save that nonsense for reddit. SecretName101 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove Hillary Clinton (again)

A discussion broke out at the United States presidential election, 2020 talk page which was said should be moved here. With her aides saying she's mulling another run (oh boy), Clinton has not publicly announced interest. Here NYT said she'd like to be president, but expressed no interest in running in 2020. Her aides saying she will run is more speculative than her expressing interest, so wouldn't it make sense to move her to speculative rather than publicly expressed interest? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree speculative is a better fit for Clinton at this stage.--Pharos (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Her recent quotes are ambiguous enough to list her as "interested". Some other folks out there have made even more vague statements ("We'll see what happens" – Bob Casey Jr.). — JFG ^talk 10:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

She actually said she doesn't want to run. She was moved two steps, from 'declined' to 'interested', which seems like an overreaction. I think it would have been better to move one step, to 'speculative'.--Pharos (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for moving her there. — JFG ^talk 02:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw someone removed Hillary Clinton from the page entirely for some reason. I went to re-add her, and noticed our language is actually "have publicly denied interest in running", and that's definitely true for her, so I actually put her in 'declined' for now. Is there any way she doesn't actually fit our definition of 'declined'?--Pharos (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that will do nicely for now, until her next public appearance gets interpreted in various ways again. — JFG ^talk 20:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates fork

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates--Pharos (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Closed as consensus to merge back. — JFG ^talk 20:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Yang discussions/spam

Extended content

Yang What 5 polls was Yang included in to justify having him in the same table as the politicians..? Prcc27 (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC) He hasn't been listed in any that I know of (see Opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2020 presidential primaries). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC) I agree. While he is a little more prominent than some of the other "minor" candidates, he is not nearly enough so to WP:IAR this, and we should keep to the letter of the criteria (whatever criteria we choose). The only type of person to IAR would be someone totally unexpected who would obviously gather a lot of support, like Michelle Obama.--Pharos (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC) I think WP:IAR should totally apply here. He started a fairly significant organization. He is a credible candidate, at least as much as Ojeda. --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Agreed in this instance. He is being treated like a credible candidate (at least on the level of Delaney/Ojeda) and has recieved coverage by CNBC Multiple Times, The New York Times, The Hill, amongst the other major candidates, The Washington Times, Business Insider and Slate, amongst others. I think it's time to WP:IAR Yang, especially considering the current standings on Ojeda, and Yang's prominence amongst the proper minor candidates, who, out of all, I have only been seen mentioned as a political candidate in one news source, Lancaster Online, a local newspaper making a point about how many people are running (which also included Yang. I think Yang should be in the major candidates section - maybe as the WP:IAR, or maybe changing the criteria to include something about "covered by 5 major news sources" or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk • contribs) 03:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC) I removed Yang from the list of major candidates. I see no source indicating that Yang has held office or been included in five independent national polls. Please do not revert without justification. SunCrow (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Andrew Yang Personally, I think he should be considered a major candidate in light of his business experience. More of a major candidate than Ojeda. Thoughts? --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC) I'm going to copy-paste what I said about Yang from above, as I feel it encapsulates my argument for Yang's inclusion well: He is being treated like a credible candidate (at least on the level of Delaney/Ojeda) and has recieved coverage by CNBC Multiple Times, The New York Times, The Hill, amongst the other major candidates, The Washington Times, Business Insider and Slate, amongst others. I think it's time to WP:IAR Yang, especially considering the current standings on Ojeda, and Yang's prominence amongst the proper minor candidates, who, out of all, I have only been seen mentioned as a political candidate in one news source, Lancaster Online, a local newspaper making a point about how many people are running (which also included Yang. I think Yang should be in the major candidates section - maybe as the WP:IAR, or maybe changing the criteria to include something about "covered by 5 major news sources" or something like that. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC) This is absurd, you can't IAR a presidential campaign. Yang (like Williamson) will only be listed as major candidate if he is either in five national polls or we agree to change the criteria.--Pharos (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC) You may think that the criterion should be changed, but it hasn't yet, so don't just define it yourself and change the page to fit that. This is a prominent page, and people could just make up whatever rules they want to ensure that their favorite candidates get included in the major candidates section. I agree that the current criterion doesn't work perfectly, and maybe Andrew Yang should be included, but please don't make these changes based on your own preference only; instead, please wait for a consensus to be reached. For the record, I would be glad to "vote" for adding being covered by some number (maybe more than five) of major news sources (or five major polls or having held public office) as long as there is a reasonable definition of "major news source." SCC California (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC) I didn't edit to put him in the major candidates section, that was AndInFirstPlace, I just laid out reasoning to treat him as a major candidate, or at least on the level of Ojeda, as he has been treated as such by major news networks. If he isn't in 5 polls, than the criteria is flawed. He's not a perennial, he has a detailed platform laid out, a decent following, and as such, i think it's disingenuous to put him on the level of Wells, Braun etc. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC) You make a better argument for the exclusion of Ojeda than for the inclusion of Yang. Yang is similar to Williamson, and both should only be included if they start getting included in national polls or if we develop a new objective criteria. As I said above, IAR should only be reserved for someone like Michelle Obama, an unexpected entrant who would obviously become a major candidate immediately.--Pharos (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC) I don't want us to manipulate the rules to bring candidates in or move them out of the "major candidates" category, and it sounds like that is being suggested here. Using "covered by 5 major news sources" as a criterion would be too subjective, in that (a) we probably won't be able to agree on what news sources count as "major", and (b) we probably won't be able to agree on what constitutes being "covered". The New York Times profile of Yang would count as being "covered" by any reasonable standard, but The Hill article cited above devotes only 2 sentences to Yang, and I wouldn't count that as being truly "covered". I agree that if we weren't using our existing criteria, Andrew Yang should be considered pretty much on the same level as Richard Ojeda -- but I think that would be the level of minor candidates who have no chance, haven't been polled, aren't going to be polled, and aren't going to be included in the Democratic Party debates. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Sounds like we’re generally in favor! --130.132.173.125 (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose. We can't just arbitrarily move the goal posts so they fit a certain candidate. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC) We damn well can move the goal posts. This is an encyclopedia article, not a contest to get 5 public polls. If reliable sources generally consider him a major candidate (and it's definitely close), we should list him. If there seems to be general support but a few objections based on the rules, I'll call an RFC to get rid of those rules. No set of rules will work for a three-year period here, and it's ridiculous to expect them to. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC) If you are looking at the sources that consider Yang a major candidate, you should also consider the sources that list lots of actual and potential candidates but don't mention Yang at all as indicators that he might not be a major candidate. See, for example, Rolling Stone (ranks 28 contenders, no mention of Yang); FiveThirtyEight (discusses 17 Democratic contenders, no mention of Yang); New York (mentions 19 contenders, no mention of Yang). In addition, the DNC is supposed to announce by the end of this month the criteria by which candidates are supposed to be invited to the presidential debates. To the extent that those criteria are objective (hopefully they will be, but I can imagine that they might not be), we may be able to use those criteria as our determiners for whether a candidate is major or not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC) I'm not an American, but the 5 poll criterion seems reasonable to me. I agree with Metropolitan90 that "covered by 5 major news sources" seems too arbitrary considering the difficulty defining what "coverage" and what "major news source" means. (Yes we do consider coverage for WP:Notability but even there it can be difficult at times and more to the point, our standards are a lot more relaxed.) We should consider IAR where appropriate, but this doesn't seem to arise here. Remember this is also only a timing issue, it's inconceivable that someone could be a genuinely major candidate and not meet the poll requirement after a while. And as significant as wikipedia is, I also find it inconceivable that someone would go on to win the nomination, if only they had been included in this article. Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC) By the end of April, we can probably use Q1 fundraising numbers as a criteria (and media outlets certainly will). It would be good to note somehow that Yang is running a bona fide campaign, as opposed to some of the people listed in the "minor candidates" section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC) I removed Yang from the list of major candidates. I see no source indicating that Yang has held office or been included in five independent national polls. Please do not revert without justification. SunCrow (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC) It's been reverted again. Andrew Yang is not a major candidate as he does not meet the office or poll criteria. This applies to everyone, no matter the person. Until Yang is included in five national polls or somehow holds office, he is not a major candidate. Please do not revert. wxtransit talk 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Yang should be under Declared major candidates This is either canvassing or socking. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC) he’s held public office, he worked under obama, he should be considered a primary candidate Metalreflectslime (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Strong agree --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC) I'm considering becoming an admin to help make this possible. --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC) That's not what admins do here. Jonathunder (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC) That's not correct. :) --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Being an admin has hardly anything to do with content disputes like this. What you are looking for is consensus in favor of establishing that Yang is a major candidate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC) I don't think that "ambassador for global entrepreneurship" is what most people have in mind when they talk about a "public office". That position isn't an elected position; it's not a Senate-confirmed position; I don't even think it's a paid position. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "Ambassador for global entrepreneurship," while notable, is an award and not a position, so I don't think it counts as having held public office. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets included in 5 public polls though. --pluma♫ ♯ 03:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC) https://www.fec.gov/data/candidates/president/?election_year=2020&cycle=2020&election_full=true&party=DEM He is ranked 2nd here. Metalreflectslime (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC) I think User:Metalreflectslime is making an excellent point here, being ranked 2nd place in terms of the amount of campaign contributors suggests that Yang is very suitable to be included in declared major candidates list.SkullKnight1189284 (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Except that #1 is a longshot congressman (a "major" candidate but very far from a frontrunner) and #3 isn't even notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.--Pharos (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Well according to Tom Perez the head of the DNC, the criteria to make it on the debate stage is; "In addition to meeting the filing and constitutional requirements to run for President of the United States, candidates will qualify for the first two debates by meeting criteria that include both polling and other objective measures that reflect a candidate’s support, such as grassroots fundraising." This shows that both Delaney and Yang probably deserve to be on the declared major candidates because they've raised the most at the moment. As for other objective measures Yang has been on major podcasts like Sam Harris, Freakonomics and is growing his base of followers all the time on social media (33K on Twitter).SkullKnight1189284 (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Um, are people seriously suggesting someone with only 33K followers on Twitter is already a major candidate? I also see from the subject's article "In December 2018, Andrew Yang was included in the first polling by CNN of caucus voters in Iowa. 5% of respondents viewed him favorably, 12% viewed him unfavorably and 83% were not sure who he was" (emphasis added). As for the fundraising thing it actually seems reasonable although the quote above doesn't actually say how it will be measured. Relative position could be one factor, but how many? Anyway more significantly, all this seems to say is that the DNC are developing criteria which will work close to the primary but don't work at the moment. I haven't checked myself but it's noted above that the 3rd person doesn't even have a wikipedia article. Also I mentioned "relative position" for a reason. If the DNC were to choose a threshold, it seems unlikely to me "less than $600,000" would cut it considering presidential campaigns in the US seem to cost hundreds of millions. Again, this likely reflects the fact it's too early for relative positions to be a clearly useful measure measure. Noting also the first person in the list has raised nearly 10x. (Yes early money isn't everything, as the 2016 campaigns showed, but it's still a very big difference.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Sources What does socking mean in this context? Metalreflectslime (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Can we get an answer here? There should be an open debate as to who fits the criteria and what the criteria should even be. How is this "socking" or "canvassing" and what does those mean in this context?--SkullKnight1189284 (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Big support for Yang in major declared. I have moved it and would like it to stay there. Seems like the people (even if not the admins!) are with me. --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC) I removed Yang from the list of major candidates. I do not see the talk page support referred to above. More importantly, I see no source indicating that Yang has held office or been included in five independent national polls. Please do not revert without justification. SunCrow (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC) For new editor(s) here, I'd share Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and probably more relevant Wikipedia:Canvassing. It seems like someone has been spreading the word to Yang supporters to register on Wikipedia and !vote to boost him to the major candidates section. This is not how Wikipedia works, it's not going to be effective at all. and is an excellent way to make your cause look bad here.--Pharos (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Time for a vote Wikipedia does not vote on issues, we build consensus. This is also canvassing/socking. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC) {{rfc|pol}} I want to settle whether Andrew Yang should be listed as a major declared candidate once and for all. Let's all vote here per WP: BRD. For the time being, we will list him as a major declared candidate. Voting shall continue for one week. Vote count: (3/0) Discussion --AndInFirstPlace 02:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Metalreflectslime (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC) SkullKnight1189284 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Note: Top 3 were originally under a section titled "Votes in favor". As voting isn't how we decide consensus, I've renamed it to discussion and removed the "Votes against" section. Vermont (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC) ^ not for you to decide...i made the section! Wikipedia is not a democracy, we don't vote for things like this, we reach a consensus through dialog and discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 02:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I think a vote would be useful here, in addition to dialogue (note the spelling) and discussion. --AndInFirstPlace 02:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I've been considering an RFC on this topic; that said I don't think there's consensus (either by numbers or by arguments) to move Yang up right now so it will simply waste everyone's time and make it harder to move him if there is sufficient argument in a few months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I support the RFC, but not moving Yang up is somewhat of a non-negotiable for me. strike that...I'd just prefer if we keep it the right way before this vote ends, given that is what I said above. AndInFirstPlace 02:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC) They have limited press coverage and, although notable, should not be included as a major declared candidate. Vermont (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC) be sure to vote! AndInFirstPlace 03:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC) AndInFirstPlace, this isn’t a vote. Vermont (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I’m with VT here. We should wait until they have significant press coverage. They are essentially a nobody and we should wait to see what comes of it. —AdamF in MO (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Isn't this Wikipedia:Canvassing? We've discussed Yang three times on this talk page already.... David O. Johnson (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I dont think so. --AndInFirstPlace 04:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Comment - see my advice (below), combine "Declared major candidates" with "Other declared candidates" into "Declared candidates" (see 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries) & your problems will be solved. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC) new argument If Yang can't be included, why is Ojeda up there? --AndInFirstPlace 03:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC) The Declared Candidates section says, In addition to having stated that they are running for president in 2020, the candidates in this section have held public office or have been included in a minimum of five independent national polls. Ojeda is an elected official. Yang is not. Unless the criteria change, Ojeda is in and Yang is out. SunCrow (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Ojeda is treated more seriously than Yang by reliable sources because he was an elected member of a state legislature. If by some miracle there becomes a consensus that agrees with Yang being listed as a major candidate then he will be moved there, but until then there is no point in carrying on like this. It's mostly you and these suspiciously new accounts that are in favour of considering Yang as major. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC) See our article on whataboutism. —AdamF in MO (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC) that was rude! AndInFirstPlace 03:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I’m sorry you feel that way. —AdamF in MO (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC) but where is ojeda taken seriously??!?!?!?!?!?!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk • contribs) 03:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC) FiveThirtyEight recently discussed Ojeda but not Yang in their 27-candidate analysis. On the other hand, there was a recent Rolling Stone article on Yang. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Glad to see you on the good side, power enwiki --AndInFirstPlace 03:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Can you sign your comments? David O. Johnson (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC) 1RR Violation User:AndInFirstPlace has violated 1RR here: [15], here:[16] and here: [17]. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Take it to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or WP:AN3, not here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 04:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Thanks for the advice. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson

Marianne Williamson has never held public office, although she ran for Congress in 2014. Assuming that she confirms that she is running for President in her announcement on January 28, will she be considered a major or minor candidate? Political Geek (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The WP:CRYSTAL answer is that she will be a major candidate; both the Des Moines Register and the Washington Post are treating her as if she will be one. I expect that the polling criteria will be met at some point, though it isn't now. Without a massive amount of press coverage, I expect initial consensus here will be to list her as a minor candidate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Elimination of declared minor candidates

I feel that the list of declared minor candidates is not necessary, and the candidates do not have a path to the nomination. I know that traditionally these types of candidates are listed, but I feel that this list clutters up the article. I was thinking that possibly we could have a separate page of all minor candidates instead. Thoughts? Political Geek (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Notable minor candidates are listed on every page for every election since the beginning of representative democracy (where the data is available). I think it's a bit awkward currently that the minor candidates are above the major almost-declared candidates like Warren, but this is a prominence issue that we can probably adjust if desired.--Pharos (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Eric Holder

I don't see anything recent about Holder running, but he is having an event in Iowa next month, so there's a decent chance there are more recent rumors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Ojeda campaign logo

Richard Ojeda has a campaign logo (seen here); can someone upload that here and put it into his candidacy's section? Sorry, I don't yet know how to d that. SCC California (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, it had already been uploaded. SCC California (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The 5 poll threshold

Since some here, including me, have been talking about imposing a 5-poll threshold for a candidate who has declared to be considered a "major" candidate, I've put together a list of which (potential) candidates have met that minimum, and for other actual or potential candidates, how many national polls they have been included in so far.

Included in at least 5 polls: Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Eric Holder, Amy Klobuchar, Terry McAuliffe, Beto O'Rourke, Deval Patrick, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Oprah Winfrey.

4 polls: Michael Avenatti, Steve Bullock, John Delaney.

3 polls: Julian Castro, Eric Garcetti, Tom Steyer.

2 polls: John Kerry, Mitch Landrieu, Howard Schultz, Mark Zuckerberg.

1 poll: Mark Cuban, Al Franken, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Jason Kander, Chris Murphy, Gavin Newsom, Michelle Obama.

Notes: This covers all national Democratic primary polls listed at Opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries through the CNN/SSRS poll taken Dec. 6-9, 2018. A couple of polls, for some reason, included "category" choices, such as "A governor, like Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, Steve Bullock of Montana or John Hickenlooper of Colorado" or "A cultural figure like Tom Hanks or Dwayne 'the Rock' Johnson", as choices. I didn't count the people listed in categories like that toward the poll totals. And like an astrology column, this is presented for entertainment value only. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the "5 poll threshold" is fatally flawed, but don't have a better suggestion yet. At some point in 2019 we will hopefully be able to piggy-back off of the debate thresholds, or come up with a threshold based on FEC fundraising data and campaign staff/events. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, do you mean that the "5 poll threshold" is too restrictive (keeps too many candidates out), or too loose (lets too many candidates in), or possibly some of both? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Both. While it's a 30-person field we will certainly drop people as a result. Once we get some winnowing, the Jim Gilmore-like candidates will still be considered major, even when they have no chance, no real campaign, and are not even listed on ballots. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The WSJ [18] says Two major candidates have already entered the race. Rep. John Delaney (D., Md.) has been running for more than a year and already visited every Iowa county. Julián Castro, a former housing secretary, formed a presidential exploratory committee last week and is expected to formally announce his candidacy next month., ignoring Ojeda. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The DNC has anounced what THEIR criteria will be will be anounced next month. Let's bring back the candidates page and list all the other candidates on THAT one,(plus the noncandidates who have been mentioned) and have only the top ones here.Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

These examples definitely show that you should only have a one poll threshold. DaCashman (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm updating my prior list. This is through the Morning Consult poll of Jan. 4-6, 2019.

Included in at least 5 polls: Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Steve Bullock, Julian Castro, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, John Delaney, Eric Garcetti, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Eric Holder, John Kerry, Amy Klobuchar, Terry McAuliffe, Beto O'Rourke, Deval Patrick, Bernie Sanders, Howard Schultz, Elizabeth Warren, Oprah Winfrey.

4 polls: Michael Avenatti, John Hickenlooper, Tom Steyer.

3 polls: Mark Zuckerberg.

2 polls: Jay Inslee, Mitch Landrieu, Gavin Newsom, Michelle Obama.

1 poll: Mark Cuban, Bill de Blasio, Al Franken, Jason Kander, Tim Kaine, Joe Kennedy III, Chris Murphy, Eric Swalwell.

Notably not polled yet, although I expect that to change: Tulsi Gabbard. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Criterion of "have held public office" for "major candidate" and smaller constituencies

We might consider changing this criteria, especially if more state legislators or similar declare. One option would be to limit it to federal or statewide office or mayors of cities of a certain size. Richard Ojeda has about 100k constituents and John Delaney about 750k constituents, so there is a big difference, and it's quite conceivable that candidates with smaller constituencies might declare too.--Pharos (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Once legitimate major candidates start getting into the race -- or maybe even now -- we should just impose the 5-poll criterion, and forget about the "held public office" criterion. I realize that in the Trump era, there can be routes to the White House other than the usual governor/senator/VP qualifications, but first a candidate has to get into the conversation to be considered along with the candidates who do have such qualifications. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the poll criteria should officially take effect as the lone source for major candidates on July 1, 2019; by that point, polling will undoubtedly have become much more common, and we'll have a decent number of candidates in five polls or more (plus a decent chunk of announced candidates). Until then, I think putting a limit to the candidates would be appropriate; featured in at least five polls, is/was mayor of a city that had at least 75,000 residents at any point during his/her tenure (other possible criteria to add on as well- the largest city in the state and/or the state capital), member of the United States Congress (be it current or former), member of the US Cabinet or a cabinet-level office, and Governor of a state. In terms of the billionaires and millionaires running, it's highly unlikely they won't be featured in polls if they gain traction. And minor candidates would keep their current criteria (though a note should be made if the candidate has been included in any national poll). Under this, Ojeda, Williamson, and Yang would all be minor candidates, while Delaney would be the sole major candidate. This is until someone else announces, which will likely come within the next few months. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the criterion of "mayor of a city that had at least 75,000 residents at any point during his/her tenure", I wouldn't want to create a situation where it looks like the criteria are being adjusted to ensure that certain candidates are getting preferences to be included or demerits to be excluded. (Only three U.S. Presidents have ever served as mayors, and all three of them went on to serve as state governors before becoming President.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Good point. The mayor one I'd be fine with not including. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

(Apologies if I do this wrong, this is my first "talk" edit). I think Mayors and State Reps can't seriously be considered "major" candidates until they prove themselves through polling or fundraising. I think "Major" Candidates should have to have been in: Federal Office (Congress), the Cabinet, General or higher military rank, Governor, 5 national polls. That pretty much encompasses every winner of major party nominations for President, and the polling (and maybe a fundraising criteria a la the debates) captures the wild-card elements that might appear, like Trump in 2016. Squarebikes (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Another criteria we should seriously consider for mid-late 2019's major candidates is whether they get invited to any party-sponsored debates or forums. That's a sign of recognition by the party itself, and definitely signals how seriously they're taken. This rule may or may not get superseded if the criterion for getting into debates relies on polls, but if any minor candidate ever gets invited to one they should immediately be moved up to major regardless of how much presence they have. As it is now, though, the major candidate criteria should stay as it is in my opinion. If it becomes clear that the party or the media don't consider certain candidates significant, then we move them once we enforce the polls-debate criterion in July 2019. - EditDude (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

In the 2016 campaigns, the determination for getting into debates, in both parties, was primarily based on poll performance. (See [19] and [20], as well as [21]; there may have been some manipulation of the rules along the way, to keep Lawrence Lessig out of the Democratic debates or to get Carly Fiorina into the main Republican debate rather than the secondary debate, but nonetheless the determinations were tied to poll results.) I don't think there will be any significant risk of a candidate being invited into a party-sponsored debate without having been included in the polls. In fact, of the 22 candidates who were invited to a debate of either major party in 2015-16, 21 of them had been included in at least 5 polls before they even officially declared their candidacy -- and the 22nd, Jim Gilmore, had been included in 4 polls, and his 5th poll concluded on the day he declared his candidacy. I think it's more likely that a candidate might be included in 5 polls yet for some reason be excluded from their party's debates, as happened to Lessig. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hickenlooper (& Bennet too)

Not sure if anyone noticed this yet, but John Hickenlooper isn't listed as formally exploring a candidacy, despite there being several sources saying that he's staffing up for one and even directly involving himself in interviews. Below I'll link the AP report as well as the CBS article I originally read this in. I think he's worth adding to those formally exploring with these developments.

AP Report

CBS Article

Hate to be the Big Colorado Pedant, but Bennet is also listed in the Speculative category despite publicly expressing interest (or at the very least deliberation) only a few weeks ago: Bennet Interest

I think both these fellas should be re-categorised, but I'mmma leave that up to the big guns.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HDarby (talk • contribs) 09:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I've requested Bennett be moved to the speculation category because in the three text links, he isn't directly quoted, and in the video, despite it saying Bennett is "wondering" about a presidential run, that is a) prefaced by a statement saying he's not *interested* by the reporter, and the direct quote isn't that hes wondering about running for president, but wondering how he can be involved in making sure the US has the right leadership. He's obviously being coy - particularly about his Iowa involvement, but he never once says "I am interested in running for President" or words to that effect. If people have other sources, feel free to add them and move him back! Squarebikes (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The "exploring" section is gone; if they don't have a campaign committee/declaration at the FEC and haven't made an unambiguous "I am a candidate for President in 2020" statement, they can't go in the "Declared major candidates" section. (I don't think Hickenlooper's semi-jokes on his October New Hampshire trip count - he clarified that they were NOT a declaration). No opinion between "expressed interest" and "speculative". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

a word about "Leadership PACs"

A leadership PAC is a legalized slush fund or a permanent campaign committee. It can be used to keep staff paid and airline tickets bought for whatever the person is thinking of running for. Leadership PACS allow presidential wannabees to do all sorts of fundraising and organizing without actually having to say exactly what it's for.

Most of the people on the "interested" list have one of these things and they're staffing up and raising lots of money as we speak. It's all about plausible deniability. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Exploring and Announcement Impending

In 2016, when a candidate began formally exploring, a note was made on what they using to explore. The following were used: -PAC (specifically stated by the candidate that it's purpose is for a Presidential campaign) -Exploratory committee -Testing the Waters Account -527 Organization Currently, Warren, Williamson, and Castro have exploratory committees while Inslee has a testing the waters account (via ). What're the thoughts on including a note on what they're using? Here's what it could look like in the galleries for 2020 candidates:

• 
  Former Secretary
  Julian Castro
  from Texas
  Formed an exploratory committee
• 
  Governor
  Jay Inslee of Washington
  Formed a "Testing the Waters Account"
• 
  U.S. Senator
  Elizabeth Warren
  from Massachusetts
  Formed an exploratory committee
• 
  Marianne Williamson
  from California
  Formed an exploratory committee

Also- in 2016 when a candidate's announcement was impending, we put them in a different section (titled simply Announcement Impending). This would only feature candidates who'd publicly announced when they'll make their decision or who received a massive amount of media about the date they'll officially announce their intentions. Since Castro is the only one who's said anything about a date, this is what his would look like:

• 
  Former Secretary
  Julian Castro
  from Texas
  Announcement expected on or by January 12

References

Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Since we have a list of candidates in that section immediately above the photo gallery, if the information you want to put in regarding testing the waters accounts and so forth goes anywhere, it should go in the list, not the photo gallery captions. We should keep the photo gallery captions simpler. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

If we're merging Declared and Exploratory, this is largely moot. Williamson is the only one in "announcement pending", but what to do with her is an entirely separate can of worms that I'm hoping can be put off another week. I'll archive this thread in 24 hours if the merge of Declared and Exploratory is not reverted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

She's formed an exploratory committee though, so to keep things consistent, should be added to minor candidates greyed out. Squarebikes (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Michael E. Arth

Michael E. Arth is not eligible for the presidency since he wasn't born in the USA. Thus he shouldn't simply be grouped with the other self-declared candidates. Kennelly (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Do we know if he is a natural born citizen? He could be like Ted Cruz where he's a US citizen by birth even though he was born outside of the country. From his Wikipedia page, it's not clear if either of his parents were US citizens. Does anyone happen to know? Jacoby531 —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Arth's autobiography says that both his parents were U.S. citizens, thus making him a natural born citizen despite being born in England. I've added a mention of this to his article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

According to his website bio, he was born on a US Air Force Base. While researching this I found that being born on a US military base is not enough to be considered a US citizen, but Metropolitan90 should still be correct in saying that he is a natural born citizen if his parents are US citizens. -- Acatao2210 —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Tulsi Gabbard, Official portrait, 114th Congress.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Official Portrait of Governor Jay Inslee.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It does appear this work of the state of Washington is not automatically in the public domain. We've switched images; but to a different image from the same source. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The separate candidates article

This was settled. Drop the stick. — JFG talk 08:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

A false consensus was reached on getting rid of an important and useful separate article on the Democratic candidates, I move we revive the article and move the "Speculative candidates" "declined to run" galleries over there. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Move Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC) "False consensus"? Nonsense. There was unanimous support to merge the candidates article back into this one: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates. Kindly drop the stick. — JFG talk 17:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC) very funny. As was said above. there was no reason given. Just a couple of "yeses" When do you think that this important article should be revived? Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Consensus was reached that the Democratic candidates article would add nothing of value in comparison to this existing article. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC) A separate article would add TONS of value. Take the huge galleries of people who are Speculative candidates, or have Declined to be candidates. Why have them in this article? They're not participating in the primaries and for the most part never have or were going to. Someone fantasized. That's not good enough for an article about the primaries. An Separate article, based on the articles in the last four or five cycles, is necessary at the moment because this article has to be as easy to read as possible. You have to scroll and scroll and scroll to get to the Timeline section (which should be an article of it's own as well, but I can see why it doesn't have to for the next six months). This is not good. The candidates on this page should be limited to those who are RUNNING or have publicly have said that they're interested. Not somebody's fantasy. There are already close to 30 people who've said that they're thinking about it. Think of the clutter in March when a majority of them have either announced or announced they're going to announce. We need a place to put everybody while this article begins to change radically. We need a place to put the list of candidates with just the basic info and vote totals. You will notice in the '16 article that Rocky De La Fuente was omitted even though he got over 60 thousand votes and was on over half the primary ballots. There was a separate candidates page and results page. I'm not saying we should have a separate results page yet not for another eight or ten months but we should make everything easier to read NOW. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC) We're going to have to do it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arglebargle79 (talk • contribs)