Jump to content

Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Lindsay Lohan

She will only be 34 years old in 2020, and therefore constitutionally ineligible. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Should Lindsay Lohan be included as a possible candidate for President of the United States in 2020?

SNOW close. She is not eligible to run due to her age, and there is clear consensus here that the announcement was a joke. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Lohan be included in this article as a declared candidate? [1]

Survey (Should Lindsay Lohan be included as a possible candidate for President of the United States in 2020?)

We also have absolutely no evidence that it wasn't a joke, and many reasons to believe it was. What's the hurry to add it right now, anyways? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Our beliefs are not important. Your belief or my belief are not reasons to delete information. Ratemonth (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong No. The statement was clearly not meant to taken seriously. The line "The first thing I would like to do as president of US is take care of all of the children suffering in the world....Queen Elizabeth showed me how by having me in her country" is obviously tongue-in-cheek. The sources are not treating the statement as literal declaration interest in running in 2020, and neither should we. This is a matter of plain old common sense. It is downright pedantic to insist on sources that "verify" it wasn't a joke.--Dwc89 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

The editor behind reverting the deletion has not indicated he wants to discuss his reverts. And, in his edit summaries in which he declares the removal of this obviously joke content to be "vandalism", has essentially indicated he's just here for a laugh. So we are left with (a) the RfC process, or, (b) reverting each other every 24-hours until 2020. I've chosen the RfC process. You are free to participate or not, as you see fit. LavaBaron (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It feels unfair that you initiated the RFC process and then posted a Discretionary Sanctions Notice on my talk page [2] even though my edits should not be liable for sanction because my edits took place prior to the initiation of the sanctions. It's not right to retroactively impose sanctions. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No one has imposed any sanctions on you. I am required to notify you that discretionary sanctions on this article exist, as per WP:ACDS which states No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. The notice on your Talk page was a procedural formality that needed to be accomplished prior to an editor requesting you be blocked, should an editor choose to do that. Also, this article has been under discretionary sanctions since June 2015 under the American politics 2 case so your edits fall within the effective time period. LavaBaron (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Can somebody close this already? This is not a matter serious enough for an RfC. Lohan was joking. The bot is currently engaged in summoning people here, such as myself. I'd remove the template, but I'm not a regular editor of this page; so I'd rather let somebody more involved do it, such as LavaBaron, who I presume opened it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 - if you feel Lohan was joking, can you please !vote "no"? I have no intention of removing the template because this is the only recourse we have available to remove this ridiculous, non-encyclopedic Lohan material as the editor (User:David O. Johnson) who has been inserting it for a laugh has indicated he will continuously revert attempts to remove it ad infinitum and I'm the only other editor regularly active on this page. This article is under discretionary sanctions so I have no intention of edit-warring this silliness out of the article. LavaBaron (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Was it really a joke? From the article provided above it quotes Lohan as stating, "The first thing I would like to do as president of US is take care of all of the children suffering in the world. Queen Elizabeth showed me how by having me in her country." That doesn't sound like a joke. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It's below my intelligence to respond to this question but, since this is where we're at now, I guess I have to: yes, it was a joke. She was making fun of Kanye's earlier announcement. It wasn't a funny joke, but it was a clear and obvious riff on the beauty pageant cliché. But, if it's truly not obvious to you and if you really think Lindsay Lohan was making a serious policy statement and declaration of candidacy, you should, (a) think about whether WP is the right place for you at this moment in time, (b) scrub it on WP:UNDUE (one-hundred percent of all RS coverage of Lohan's presidential campaign occurred during a 72-hour period last year). LavaBaron (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I see no evidence that it was a joke. Do you have an RS that says it was a joke? Regardless, it doesn't make much of a difference. At this moment, with limited information on the 2020 race available, this bit merits inclusion as a discussion of the topic in reliable sources. The weight issue may arise as more sources become available about the 2020 race as it develops.--William S. Saturn (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you seriously just ask if there's a peer-reviewed journal that can explain the punchline to you? Okay, silly season is over, "William S. Saturn" and "David O. Johnson." Please move along - LavaBaron (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason to insult other editors. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
No one has insulted anyone. LavaBaron (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @William S. Saturn: - "Just because one is ineligible to be president doesn't mean they can't run." It doesn't? What is the definition of "running", anyways? Does it just require one to make an announcement that's picked up by some entertainment news? If that's case, the hobo who wanders around my neighborhood is just one E! News interview short of "officially" running and being included here, too. Arguably, he'd be more deserving of inclusion, since he can actually legally hold the office. I think this is a good case of when we can WP:UCS, but if it's insisted that we have RSs to support (what I feel is) the obvious conclusion, we have USA Today expressing some serious doubts about her announcement's authenticity: "the weekend posts appear to be a shrewdly calculated move to hijack the political shows on Sunday. Or maybe she was just joking, or bored." Likewise, MSNBC said, "It’s unclear how earnest Lohan is about running for office."
And in any case, didn't her "announcement" say "I may run for president..." [emphasis mine]? Doesn't sound like a clear affirmation in the first place. That, plus the fact that as far as I know, we haven't heard anything further about this since she Tweeted it and it was picked up by tabloids (and generally not serious news organizations, it seems). AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
What is your point? The article does not assert she is running. It is commenting on the coverage. In fact, why should the sources you cite above not be included? "[H]obo who wanders around my neighborhood" - if he's notable then yes, why would it be a problem? You have something against hobos and actresses? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The point is that the coverage of her "announcement" is pretty limited, because it is pretty clearly a dumb joke she offhandedly tweeted. WP:NOTNEWS - especially not entertainment news. "[H]ave something against hobos and actresses?" Boy, do I. And for many of the same reasons.
If it's going to be in there, it should really be clear that it's widely understood to be a joke, IMO. As it stands, the myopia of our coverage of this topic is offensive - to the presidency (which has enough problems as is), to encyclopedias, and to humor. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I've seen no evidence presented that it was definitively intended as a joke. I'm glad you've made your bias abundantly clear. You may dislike hobos and actresses but that does not mean they have any less of a right to be candidates for president than anyone else. The way the article looks now is most definitely not how it will look in the future, but there will always be a place for notable speculation whether it remains on this page or it is split into a new article. At the moment, this is the information available on the 2020 presidential race whether we like it or not.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
My bias? Now I'm not sure if you're serious or just playing along with me. Poe's law strikes again.
What sort of evidence could exist that would convince you that it was indeed a joke? Maybe if after her initial bid for the presidency, she immediately tweeted, "Just so that no one will mistake my joke for a genuine announcement, I should explain that I actually have no ambitions to run for the office of the President of the United States of America, nor to become the head of state of any other sovereign nation." Such proof would be hard to come by, because no one would do that, because for most people it would ruin an already bad joke. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Since you are the one trying to remove information based on a reliable source, the burden is on you to provide a logical argument for the removal, and you have not done so. Ratemonth (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly what? The burden is on me? Okay, then I'm going to go ahead and add to President Obama's page that he has admitted that extraterrestrials have not only visited Earth, but they are actually the puppet masters pulling the strings of our world's governments. Sources: HuffPo, LA Times
If you decide you feel we should remove this line that is based on reliable sources, what logical argument do you suppose you'll use to convince us that we should? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
If you find a reliable source saying it's a joke, then delete Lohan and the discussion is over (for me anyway). If you delete it without that, you are vandalizing the page. Ratemonth (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ratemonth: Oh, please accept my apologies. Didn't realize that you were the WP:OWNER of this article. Even so, you don't care to respond to anything I said? You just wish to tell me I'm not allowed to change it? Well I haven't attempted to change it. I have, however, provided a couple of links to sources which cast some doubts into the seriousness of her "announcement". And I have also tried to explain that this is an encyclopedia, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and there is no rush to include this without any real evidence that she wasn't joking. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the apologies, but I'm not actually the page's owner. Since deleting information based on a reliable source for no logical reason is vandalism, thanks for not vandalizing. Ratemonth (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Um, no. WP:Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia. Removing an unnecessary sentence is not damage. Just because a reliable source exists does not mean it automatically deserves to be in Wikipedia for eternity; see WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. We have a perfectly logical reason to exclude this, as it is WP:UNDUE weight to mention a single, glibly made statement without further seriousness. Reywas92Talk 06:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You all clearly have consensus, so if someone wants to delete Lohan I won't argue about it. Ratemonth (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
We need to wait for this RfC to formally close so a decision is placed on the record, otherwise I have no doubt someone will attempt to reinsert Lohan at a later date. LavaBaron (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP: Crystal Ball?

I'm just starting to look into these articles, and noticed there are articles already made for the 2020 election and 2024 election. Would this not fall under WP: Crystal Ball?TJD2 (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This issue has been raised previously. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024.--Rollins83 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
There was two discussions; one to keep, one to delete. Why have 2 discussions? There should be a consensus. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The two discussions were each for a different article. The discussion on this article resulted in Keep, the discussion for the 2024 article resulted in No Consensus (keep by default).--Rollins83 (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Note that the 2024 election article has been nominated for deletion for the 2nd time.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The first discussion occurred in 2006 and the result was to delete until after 2008. The article was then recreated nine years later, in 2015. A second AfD was opened at which time the discussion resulted in a WP:SNOW close for Keep. LavaBaron (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Kanye West

Went here to see if Kanye West is included. There he is. Don't editors think he was just joking or drunk at the time he 'declared'?--—SquidHomme (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion, and editors' opinions generally, are not important. Reliable sources matter. Earthscent (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Is NPVIC really worth mentioning in the article?

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has somewhat over half the potential electoral votes it needs to be implemented, and the Hill article used as a source for its possible implementation basically just says that and explains what the NPVIC is. Unless we have reliable sources saying that there's enough momentum behind it for it to have a chance of being implemented by then, I think bringing it up in this article is WP:UNDUE. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. That section should be deleted unless, or until, more RS's can be found to support it.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A bit early to create this article

I think this should be created after the 2016 elections.--87.92.105.131 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020.--JayJasper (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing Marco Rubio as a Potential Candidate

In an April 2016 interview of Marco Rubio, Marco states that he will not run for President in 2020 and will remain in the Senate to act as a 'balance' to whoever is President. This is about as clearly as he could have put it outside of a straight "no". http://www.bradenton.com/news/politics-government/article95808687.html Alec Holbeck (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Marco is still hedging. He says he'll serve his full term, "god willing," which ain't a Shermanesque statement. Remember, he also said he wouldn't run for reelection. I don't think we should include him as "declined", but instead as potential. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought Paul Ryan said that he declined to run as well, do you guys know anything of that? Crashguy42 (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Wednesday afternoon at 3PM

When it comes to the resume and titles of people. I the usual style is, the person's current title, or if the person is a private citizen who has held political office or had been nominated for president or vice president, the highest position he or she has held. For example, George McGovern remained a senator until 1981. When he ran for president again in 1984, he was always referred as "1972 presidential nominee," not "former Senator" or "former Congressman."

Paul Ryan, is currently Speaker of the House, and is referred by his current title, never "2012 Vice presidential nominee." The late William E. Miller on the other hand is always referred to as "1964 Vice presidential nominee" and Sarah Palin is referred to as a former governor, why? Because being a vice presidential nominee is a lower rank than a governor. Miller's nomination was the highest rank he obtained before fading into obscurity.

On Wednesday afternoon at three p.m. we will probably know who won the election. If Mrs. Clinton wins, then all the potential candidates listed should cease to be listed. Since 1996, the rules of the Democratic party have been fixed in favor of the incumbent in order to prevent a repeat of the divisive 1980 primary. Several minor candidates who should have gotten delegates were denied them in 2012.

While on the Republican side, there were serious challenges in 1976 and 1992 against an incumbent, it is generally considered bad form to do so, and in the former case President Ford had never been elected to the post of either president or vice president, which is a unique anomaly in American history.

We still have three days, and the entire article is to some extent "crystal ball." Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The current highest title is what's listed. Trump's highest is businessman, Clinton's is Sec. of State. Their nominations aren't technically offices they held. There is no reason to change them until we know who the winner is. And at that point- we'll change Hillary or Trump to "President-Elect". We only have 36 hours left (hopefully).Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Scheduled Maintenance

I figure that we should have a schedule for maintenance;

  • January 20: Change president-elect, to just plain president.
  • Mid summer 2017: There should be enough people who've declined to make some changes.
  • January 2018: We should check to see if anyone has set up an exploratory committee and start dividing the fantasies from the real candidates.
  • Summer 2018: a definitive list of potential convention sites should be ready. Also, we will know by this time whether or not the "CREEP 2020" will be in existence and edit accordingly.
  • January 2019: We should know what the Democratic debate schedule is by this time. At this time, we should have a discussion here to discuss how we want the page to evolve between then and the start of the primaries. Toodles Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do, thanks to the amount of hatred and discontent, it appears every person who has a mouth to run thinks they could be a candidate. This page is a mess of speculation without regard to the reality of what 4 years could bring and the nature of a campaign being about more than just a big name mouthing off. 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:8920:B67F:D07E:1347 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ron Perlman

He has said he is thrown this name in for a residence, should we include him?--TVWolf (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity Candidates

It's come to my attention that there are many celebrities claiming they're running for President. Among them are Chris Rock, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and Kanye West (along with many others). Should we include them, since this seems to be more of a trend than actual campaign? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Donald Trump was a celebrity candidate and he ended up winning the Republican nomination. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
While I understand your point, it isn't uncommon for celebrities to "announce their candidacy" even though they aren't. What I'm saying is should we wait for a little bit until they start campaigning and then add them, or add them right now? With Trump he formed an exploratory committee, gave speeches, and then ran. Most of the other people have just said on social media they're running. Nowhere else really. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
We shouldn't create rules just for them that don't apply to other candidates. It shouldn't be up to us to determine if a candidate is serious or not, we're supposed to let reliable sources do that. Earthscent (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I see your point. What about a proposal: social media, even from the candidate's own account (or stories about the candidate's tweet or post or picture or whatever), doesn't count as a campaign announcement. Only the candidate declaring, in their own words (either via op-ed, interview, and/or speech) that they're running. The reason I suggest this is that we're going to have multiple candidates who're on the page who really aren't running- they just said on Twitter "#____2020 I'm gonna run" or posted a picture of themselves as a candidate. And this rule applies to all candidates- we wouldn't be able to confirm a sitting politician as one until they actually said it off of social media.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

Bobby232332 (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Did Hillary Clinton really decline to run in 2020?

It says that Hillary Clinton has declined to run for president in 2020, with thesun.co.uk/news/2160591/did-hillary-clinton-just-fire-the-starting-gun-on-michelle-obamas-2020-presidential-bid/ and telegraph.co.uk/news/0/which-democrats-could-challenge-donald-trump-in-2020-presidentia/ as sources. I looked at those articles, and I don't think it mentioned Hillary Clinton ruling out a 2020 presidential run, unless I read them wrong. So, I'm disputing what the Wikipedia page says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiratePablo (talk • contribs) 02:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

GOP nomination

The article states that "It is the tradition in both parties that potential candidates stand down in deference to the incumbent president". This is usually the case, but it seems a bit premature to say this is what will happen in 2020. Incumbent presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter both faced serious primary challengers. Couldn't the same happen to President Trump? 99.244.232.198 (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request on 13 November 2016

The ref tag is broken in the Paris Hilton line of the potential candidates section of the independent section. 66.103.163.60 (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: You were right. At the time you posted this request, there was indeed a broken ref tag in the Paris Hilton line. That line, however, has since been removed from the article, preventing me from fixing that. Additionally, the protection level on this article has decreased so that you should be able to make edits on your own without having to submit a request. (They may be subject to review before publication.) Thank you anyway for pointing that out! Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Addition to Democratic Candidates for 2020 Presidential

I have submitted my candidacy to the FEC and intend on running in 2020 as an average American citizen fighting to everyday Americans.

Shawn Eric Rundblade (D) Waukesha, WI

Here is the FEC Form 2 info http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/P00005330/1125763/

Shawnrundblade (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Shawn Rundblade

I apologize- but in order to be listed you must have a Wikipedia page and/or have qualified for a primary state ballot.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

i bet your going to withdraw before 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.159.83 (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The LA Weekly source (currently ref 31) on Kamala Harris should be removed

Reference 31 for Kamala Harris (http://www.laweekly.com/news/with-head-start-on-senate-kamala-harris-will-run-for-president-too-5460010) is literally a joke, it was published on April 1 and there's a link to other April Fools Day coverage at the bottom of the article. I mean I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that disqualifies it as a source.

Mike Pence

Should we include Mike Pence in the list of potential GOP candidates in case President Trump does not run ? Hektor (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

If he says he will not run, then no. We don't work based on "in case", we work on reliable sources. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove the GOP?

Should we remove the potential GOP candidates? Since they were based mostly on Trump's losing, it seems like a good idea to remove them and bring post-election sources in. (Or sources that account for the possibility of Trump's winning) Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should do post-election sources for both parties. Thunderstone99 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Kanye

Since Kanye likes Trump now, should we remove him from the list of presidential candidates or should we await for official confirmation he is withdrawing his campaign? DaCashman (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed it anyways, was not a serious campaign to begin with. Prevan (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Prevan: Naked Cowboy wasn't a serious campaign, but I recall him being included in United States presidential election, 2012. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 05:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we ever had proof Kanye was serious or not serious, but endorsing Trump ought to get him removed. Earthscent (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's a video of Trump talking about Kanye.[3] He's liked him since at least September 2015. Emily Goldstein (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Is Ben Carson really the nominee for Secretary of HUD yet?

Under the "Declined candidates" subsection of the "Republican Party" section, it lists Ben Carson. It describes him as the "[n]ominee for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development since 2016." Is that accurate? My understanding was that, as of writing, Donald Trump is considering nominating him for that position but hasn't decided yet. Can anyone confirm or deny whether he's currently the nominee? PiratePablo (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he is now the HUD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:8920:B67F:D07E:1347 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
No, he's not the HUD nominee. Only when Trump becomes US President (Jan 20, 2017), will Carson become the HUD nominee. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Potential vs. speculative candidates

The change in the sections were done without consulting users, so I am here to ask for your opinion. I believe potential was always used, someone correct me if I am wrong. Here is what I've gathered on the definitions of potential and speculative according to the Oxford Dictionary:

Potential: "Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future." [4]

Speculative: "Engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge." [5]

Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

To my knowledge, you're right that potential was always used. Personally, I think "potential" makes more sense than "speculative." For example, if a politician says, "I might run in 2020," then that would count as a potential candidate, because it's straight from the horse's mouth. That person would not count as a speculative candidate, however, because they're not really the subject of speculation, per se- they're just the subject of potential. But that's just my opinion. So, personally, I think we should change it back to "potential." But we should get feedback from more users before we decide to change it or keep it. PiratePablo (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think speculative works. Idrgaf, but "potential" candidates technically includes anybody over the age of 35. Even if we're not just speaking technically, that really could mean anybody over the age of 35 with military, government or business experience at this point. Kanye wants to run for crying out loud. Speculative means that people are thinking about him running, and while that still would include some people who shouldn't be included - Paris Hilton, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Joe Biden, etc. - that name would better indicate what we're getting at. The condition that they are speculated by reputable sources would be disseminated below the section title. But again, idgaf. DaCashman (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. You've changed my mind. I now think that "speculative" makes more sense than "potential." PiratePablo (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! DaCashman (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't mention it. PiratePablo (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

CNN Celebrity Candidates

CNN recently put out a small list of speculative candidates for the 2020 U.S. presidential election, found here. Included are: Tom Hanks, Oprah Winfrey (however, they quote her as saying that she "would never run for office"), Stephen Colbert, and Tim McGraw for the Democratic nomination as well as Kayne West and Dwayne Johnson, who are both already listed on the page. Should they be added to the page or ignored as just baseless speculation? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe Hanks and Winfrey should be ignored in this case. As you said, Winfrey stated that she'd never run for office, and Hanks is a very unlikely candidate. Colbert is a wild card in this, he did run in '08, but it was more of a joke than anything. I could see him as a real candidate, but he'd probably do something like Kimmel did with his "Vice-Presidential run." McGraw is also a tossup, He did say he would possibly enter politics at around the time the 2020 election comes around, but I'd just wait to see if he announces anything. Crashguy42 (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Republican poll removed

I removed the following poll, found at https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Politico_MCPostVPToplines-1.pdf, from the Republican section:

National polling

Poll source Sample size Date(s) Margin of Error Tom Cotton Ted Cruz John Kasich Mike Pence Marco Rubio Paul Ryan Donald Trump Others Don't Know
Politico/Morning Consult 1,989 October 5–6, 2016 ± 2% 1% 10% 11% 13% 8% 11% 7% 4% 34%

The reason I removed it is that the question posed was, "If Donald Trump were to lose the 2016 election, which one of the following Republicans would be your top choice to see run for President in 2020?". Trump did not lose the 2016 election, and so the premise of the question is no longer valid. It stands to reason that Republicans would be much more likely to support Trump for the 2020 nomination if he won the 2016 general election than if he lost it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. MB298 (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Trump in the infobox for the 2020 election

This RfC is closed because there is strong consensus against adding Donald Trump as the presumptive incumbent for the Republican Party in the 2020 election per WP:CRYSTAL. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since Donald Trump is the presumptive incumbent for the 2020 election and will most likely be seeking re-election at that point, should we include him in infobox as of right now? --Proud User (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey (Trump in the infobox for the 2020 election)

Write your comment below the following line, in a format similar to this:

  • Yes, because Trump is very likely to seek re-election in 2020, and while death is possible, potential death by November 8, 2016 was not a reason to remove candidates from the 2016 election infobox before the election, So why wait to put Donald Trump in the infobox for the 2020 election? --Proud User (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No: per WP:CRYSTALBALL, legally (or if you prefer technically) Trump isn't even definitely the next President yet as the Electoral College hasn't even voted. Aside from that perhaps slightly pedantic point, we have no idea whether Trump will seek another term you have no evidence to support your claim that he will "will most likely be seeking re-election at that point", indeed I'd say of all the presidents in recent years he is by the far the most likely to not want to do another four years; given his lack of previous political experience he may not enjoy being President very much and certainly he will have much less freedom to do what he wants (because of security etc) than ever before in his life, plus given his advanced age (he will be the oldest President to the start their first term), he may not want another four years. Even if he does seek the nomination have no indication that he will get the nomination. Given that in 2016 (as was also the case in 2012 and 2008) we didn't even put candidates into the infobox until they were described in reliable sources as the presumptive nominee following the primary results there is no way we should put Trump in the infobox now, three years before the process of primaries even begins and a whole four years before the election! Ebonelm (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No. There have been no indications he will seek re-election. While that is more than likely, lots of things can happen in four years. Just because he won the previous election does not mean he will seek re-election. We can't predict the future. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not, WP:CRYSTAL. We might just as well put Lisa Simpson as the 2020 winner, since it's well-known that she is the next pres after Trump. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose — While Trump is likely to seek reelection, there is a very strong possibility he could face primary opposition, whether it be from Ted Cruz or whoever, it doesn't matter. Having him in the infobox violates WP:CRYSTAL. MB298 (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No, I agree with everything said above, Trump's not guaranteed to even run in 2020, let alone win the nomination. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not We don't know that he'll make it through one term, let alone run for a second. His potential business conflicts of interest could lead to impeachment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak No. I'm OK only as far as listing him below as one of the possible candidates, but it seems a bit too much emphasis to have him in the info box or the lead, that seems just a bit too much premature and WP:SPECULATION at this point to be naming him as the presumptive candidate whereas just listing him as a potential does not. After all, he might choose to not run or age and health at 74 may prevent. I'm not saying it's unlikely -- most Presidents do run again -- just saying to not overemphasize the possibility. . Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No WP:CRYSTALBALL. We're not here to assume the future. No. Adotchar| reply here 10:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No no one should go in the infobox until, at minimum, they've won enough delegates to secure the nomination. It shouldn't matter at all that there's an incumbent president. Earthscent (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No, take Lyndon B. Johnson for example. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 15:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No Anyone who said yes knows nothing about Wikipedia or how elections work. Calibrador (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No per other "No" comments above. We didn't even list Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee in the infobox for United States presidential election, 2012 until April 2012, when he had secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination. In fact, I would suggest leaving out the candidates' images and "TBD" altogether at this time, as in the example linked here, to deter some people from being tempted to insert candidates' names prematurely. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No per WP:CRYSTAL. Also, if we do keep Trump & Pence as Republican presumptive nominees? then we can't call them 45th Prez-elect or 48th Vice-Prez until 20 January 2017. Here's why -- Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson & Arthur were never President-elect; Ford & Rockefeller were never Vice President-elect. GoodDay (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No per Crystal. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No per wP:CRYSTAL; has not stated he will seek re-election nor has he received the nomination LavaBaron (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Close

Do you think it's time we closed this RfC? There is strong consensus to not add Trump as incumbent for the Republicans per WP:CRYSTAL. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: I think it's time. MB298 (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Hillary Clinton as speculative candidate for 2020?

Her inclusion is sourced to Heavy, which has been repeatedly cited as not RS, and something called Romper. LavaBaron (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Residence of Dwayne Johnson

The home state of Dwayne Johnson is listed as California, which his state of birth, but according to his article and http://miami.curbed.com/2014/10/1/10040852/the-rock-moves-into-55m-southwest-ranches-house-immediately-orders-1, he resides in Southwest Ranches, Florida. Which state should be listed as his home state? MB298 (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that Florida should be listed. In politics, a person's home state is generally considered to be their state of their residence, not necessarily their state of birth. For example, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was born in New York, but his home state is virtually universally listed as Vermont because he's a Senator from Vermont. PiratePablo (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@PiratePablo: I've changed it. MB298 (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian speculative candidates were removed. Why?

Austin Petersen and Jesse Ventura were removed as speculative candidates for the Libertarian Party's nominee for president. Why? Is there anywhere that says they're not running? Crashguy42 (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Vote 4 DJH2036: MB298 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Austin Petersen and Jesse Ventura didn't meet the qualifications of being listed after the Election. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not refuting your claim, but perhaps you could explain that in further detail? How did they not meet qualifications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:320A:A780:F1F8:F29C:25D3:1ADA (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's 2020 not 2016

As this article is about an event that takes place in 2020? IMHO we should be editing in that those potential candidates would no longer be holding some of their current offices or have assumed their future offices. For example, Joe Biden won't be Vice President by 2020 & Tammy Duckworth will be a US Senator by 2020. Future status should match future events. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: The positions refer to their current positions; when Joe Biden leaves office, for example, he will be listed as a "Former Vice President". MB298 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
My argument is that we shouldn't refer to their current positions, in an article about a 4-years into the future event. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
People going to this article and looking through the candidate lists will not think, "Oh, Joe Biden will be Vice President in 2020." They will think, "Oh, Joe Biden is Vice President in 2016." Otherwise, the article would be overly confusing. MB298 (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Not confusing, IMHO. BTW, your revert has created inconsistencies concerning the year 2017. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hobbyists and Lunatics (not you)

I noticed GoodDay tried to put Jack Fellure on the page as a major candidate. He is NOT. He is merely a retired hobbyist who has no intention of doing anything beyond sending a couple of letters to the FEC. How do I know this? It was what he did after he announced for president in November of 2012.

For this page (and it's too damn early to even think about), leave the barely notable fringe guys out of the main page until 2019 at least if they are "running" as a minor party candidate, and entirely if they're a major party "candidate", although when the separate page is created in a couple of years' time, it might be nice. Donald Trump is unique in that he's the only "vanity candidate" who actually won.

For the time being, list Trump and Pence as the incumbents and the others ONLY if they have been mentioned by reliable media. This should only change if for some reason Trump or Pence are removed from office.

That being said, there will be no polling for the Republicans to speak of, as there was no polling for them in 1984 and 2004 at all and none for 1992 until the end of the year. There is an incumbent.

To repeat. No minor vanity candidates on the main page. Unless they are mentioned by the mainstream media. okay?Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

An Rfc was held concerning Trump & Pence. The result was to delete them. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see the RfC that closed just recently. There was strong consensus to not include him per Wikipedia policy. Also, please read WP:OWN. The last paragraph gives the impression that you own the article. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑
I am not advocating putting his picture in the infobox, which is on the upper right corner of the page, and looks like this:
United States presidential election, 2020
← 2016 November 3, 2020 2024 →
The electoral map for the 2020 election, based on populations from the 2010 census. The 2020 Election will be the last election to use the data from the 2010 Census; subsequent elections will use information from the as yet to be collected 2020 United States Census.
Incumbent President

Donald Trump
Republican



What I am talking about is the Republican candidates section. where you have he hobbyist Jack Falere listed as a major candidate even though he isn't. Remove him and put Trump back there, please. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

For the last time, Donald Trump will not be put there because he has not said he will seek reelection. See the RfC above. And please stop reverting editors. One more revert, and you'll be at WP:3RR. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, Arglebargle79. You're heading towards a block. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Neither has anyone else' listed in the article. Not even Joe Biden, who was basically joking. Jack Fellure alleged announcement is nowhere to be found. I googled him and there's nothing since 2015. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll let others decide on Biden & Fellure. But, stop putting Trump & Pence in, as though they're already re-nominated. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources says otherwise about those who have expressed interest, declared and speculated candidates. If you find an updated reliable source that indicates the opposite of what the sources say, don't go ahead. Otherwise, leave it as it is. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
He's been mentioned in the mainstream media. That is all that is necessary at this point. At this point in time, there's nothing BUT speculation. Trump hasn't even taken office yet and the first debate is three years away. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Arglebargle79, can you not read what is being told to you? Donald Trump will not be added per Wikipedia policy and consensus established. That discussion is over. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Arglebargle79: You're damn lucky I didn't see this until now, cause if I'd have seen it yesterday, you'd be looking at an arbitration enforcement block. Remember, this page is on a one revert per editor per day restriction, and any editors who violate that can be blocked without warning as an arbitration enforcement action. See below. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I was actually thinking about that, but I was not sure if it applied because there were no templates indicating 1RR like the previous election page. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Callmemirela: There's one way at the top of this page, and you should see Template:Editnotices/Page/United States presidential election, 2020 when you edit the article page. Do you not see that edit notice? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I do now. Just not when Arglebargle79 was reverting. It wasn't there before. See the revision of December 6, 2016 at 18:03 EST. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind! Time zones are playing tricks on me. I read the time stamps in this section but forgot to account for the fact my page histories are in my local time. It looked to me like all this happened six hours after I placed those instead of an hour before. XD Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
No worries ;P Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Dwayne Johnson????

Just flipping trough my watch list and saw that Dwayne Johnson was a Speculative candidate. Is this true? JustAGuyOnWikipedia (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the source(s), yes. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering the sources are quoting him as having expressed interest, I might even suggest giving him the "publicly expressed interest" category as Biden does for the Dems. DaCashman (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

reversing the consensus on Donald Trump

In an interview on Fox News the president-elect clearly states that he will be in office "eight years."

This publicly shows that he expects to run for a second term, thus making him, if nothing else, a potential candidate, so let's put him back, okay?Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, drop it. Also, read WP:OWN. Enough. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Democratic candidates

Let's be patient and wait until Harris & Duckworth become US Senators. For now, showing them as State Attorney General of California & a Representative from Illinois, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Republican Party

Why is Jack Fellure front and center with a big ol' picture yet Donald Trump has nothing? The only thing that mentions Donald Trump in the republican party section is a rather biased presumption that he may not be willing or able to run. He has stated very clearly he is "willing" to run in an interview on Fox News, and i don't know how we can speculate at this stage in the election that he won't be "able" to run. (Whatever that means). Crewcamel (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I wish this discussion would die already. Please see the RfC above. Enough already. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
lmao the president elect of the united states has said he will run for a second term. I pretty sure it's safe to assume he's a 'potential candidate'. And forget the RfC, they're not even good arguments. "He may face primary opposition" Everyone listed is going to face primary opposition if they choose to run. "We're not here to predict the future" Trump has publicly said he will run for president again. Listing him as 'publicly expressed interest' is not predicting the future. Sure trump may be impeached or resign, this election has been completely insane, but it's really none of our business to speculate that sort of thing. "Presumptive incumbent" was perfectly fine Crewcamel (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Crewcamel: Trump has not yet declared his candidacy, and as such we should not put him in the "Declared candidates" section. However, I believe he should be included in the "Potential candidates" section. He has expressed interest ([6]) and there are a number of sources that speculate he will run again. [7], [8], etc. MB298 (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I opt for not have anybody in candidate sections, until after January 1, 2019. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Much as I hate to admit it, GoodDay's suggestion is probably the best one. The line "president-elect Donald Trump, barring major change in circumstances, will be eligible to seek reelection" is about as speculative as Wikipedia is qualified to be right now. Sure, Bernie said one thing on Bill Maher one time. Outside of the source being cited, it doesn't look very credible. 4 years ago, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul were the most discussed presidential candidates and Trump was getting write-ins in the Iowa primary. Too much changes in that amount of time. DaCashman (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Declared minor candidates

The heading in the "Declared minor candidates" section said, "Candidates in this section have never held public office and/or have not been featured in at least five national primary polls." I changed the "and/or" to "and". After all, if a candidate was featured in at least 5 national primary polls, we would classify them as a major candidate even if they had never held public office. And if a candidate who had held a major public office sought to challenge for the 2020 nomination, but no national primary polls had been held yet or they hadn't been listed in five of those polls yet, we would probably still classify that person as a major candidate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Under these requirements, Donald Trump would have been a "declared minor candidate" on June 16, 2015. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 01:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I think we should revise those standards. MB298 (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
My implication was that just changing the word "and/or" to "and" would be sufficient to establish the standard we would normally apply: "Candidates in this section [the declared minor candidates] have never held public office and have not been featured in at least five national primary polls." As of June 16, 2015, Trump had never held public office (and, in fact, he still won't until January 20, 2017). However, he had been included in more than 5 national primary polls before declaring his candidacy. So he wouldn't be a minor candidate under my revised phrasing. He was correctly classified as a declared major candidate from the day he declared. The same is true of Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, each of whom had been included in at least 5 national primary polls before they officially declared their candidacies despite never having held public office. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Follow my advise. Don't add any candidates to this article, right now. Wait until after January 1, 2019. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Sen. Tammy Baldwin- Speculative Candidate

Should Tammy Baldwin be added as a speculative candidate? I have seen several sources suggesting or speculating that she could/should run in 2020 including 538, USA Today, The New Yorker, and Citizen Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.9.101.147 (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I support this. DaCashman (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

If Trump is unable or unwilling to seek another term

I'd like to add something about Mike Pence being a candidate if that were the case. It is almost impossible that he would primary Trump, but he would be the front-runner and most likely would run if those were the circumstances.--Guiletheme (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that talks about this scenario. Earthscent (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2016

Najeh Rosario (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 Not done it's not clear what needs to be done. MB298 (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Potential Dem Candidate Mark Zuckerberg?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/03/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-2017-resolution-visit-us-states — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.243.14 (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

He will not be added because a) this is just pure speculation. A candidate will only be added if they announce they will run or have the intention of doing so. Zuckerberg has not even mentioned running for presidency in 2020. B) He is not associated with any political party and we cannot just assume he is a democrat. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Consistency

Just figured I'd point out some instances of inconsistency in the page. We ought to have every case of "U.S." include the periods. Clinton and Kander both include "US" instead. Castro and Cuomo should also include "U.S." in front of their titles as Secretaries (and obviously Castro should be noted as a former Secretary once Carson replaces him later this month and the same goes for Biden being replaced by Pence and Michelle Obama with Melania Trump).

Duckworth and Harris should have their "from Illinois" and "from California" descriptions moved forward so they read "U.S. Senator from Illinois" rather than "U.S. Senator [...], U.S. Representative from Illinois." Similarly, Warner should ditch the "from Virginia" portion of his governorship, as it was already stated he was from Virginia when describing his time in the Senate, the same goes for Brown with "U.S. Representative from Ohio."

I'd also suggest adding in the following formerly held positions to the page:

  • Bullock - Attorney General of Montana (2009 - 2013)
  • Cuomo - Attorney General of New York (2007 - 2010)
  • Murphy - U.S. Representative (2007 - 2013)
  • Kaine - Lieutenant Governor (2002 - 2006)

and possibly Stein - Candidate for Governor of Massachusetts (2002, 2010)

Finally, I say we change Joe Kennedy III to his article name of Joseph P. Kennedy III. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Colbert?

Stevie hinted at running in 2020 on The Late Show this week. Should he be added as "publicly expressed interest" in the independents section, citing his show and the CNN piece about celebrities who might run? Or ought we to just leave it since it's a comedy show and he might've been kidding? DaCashman (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

He shouldn't be included. Steven Colbert is a comedian. It's almost certain he was joking. Remember that Jimmy Kimmel ran for vice president this year. MB298 (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
But he did run in 2008 under the Democratic party, (though he was disqualified from the primaries) and there is a Wikipedia article about his candidacy. So... maybe there should be a vote or a poll on it to see if anyone wants to add him or not? Crashguy42 (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2017

Wmpetro (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a picture of the independent candidate Jeff Sharp.

First, make sure it is under a free license or in the public domain (did you take it yourself?) and if it is, upload it to Wikimedia Commons (Commons:Upload). MB298 (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump

I noticed that Donald Trump's been removed as a potential candidate, specifically as "potential incumbent" When clearly he is. WP:Crystal Ball basically is an injunction against listing something out of the ordinary happening in the future. Trump NOT being the incumbent in 2020 is just such a thing. There was a perfectly good picture there and it should be put back, and remain there until the "airport/DMV" picture is released to the public.

Anyone disagree?Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I thought that was really bizarre too. Especially because they also didn't include Mike Pence. All the people who think Trump's gonna get impeached assume Pence will be prez and Ryan will be VP. Also, not only is Trump getting impeached/resigning a really far out prediction in terms of precedence, it's also far out in terms of reason. We gotta put him back in. Man has defied expectations many times before. DaCashman (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Can no one read? I will repeat what the RfC closing says "This RfC is closed because there is strong consensus against adding Donald Trump as the presumptive incumbent for the Republican Party in the 2020 election per WP:CRYSTAL." By adding Trump as the incumbent, we are predicting the future. He has not stated he will seek reelection. While that is more than likely considering his success in 2016, a lot of things can happen in four years. Impeachment, death, decision to not seek reelection and resignation are examples of what can happen. I suggest anyone who wants to add Donald Trump to carefully read WP:CRYSTAL We can't predict the future. Wikipedia works on reliable sources not predictions, assumptions or opinions. Are we done with this discussion? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑
I've read WP:CRYSTAL many times and listing other candidates as speculative candidates is just as much a violation as listing Trump as a speculative candidate. Either we remove all the candidates from that section or we include Trump. We can't have it both ways. I have argued in the past that there's no point in having the section. In fact, it doesn't really seem that encyclopedic. Prcc27❄ (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned somewhere else, I favor deleting all speculative candidates. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Poll by instagram page @democrats_for_2020 needs to be put in

There is a poll on an instagram page called democrats_for_2020 that needs to be put in the polling. https://www.instagram.com/p/BPJQW9FAAdv/?taken-by=democrats_for_2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolothegeneral (talk • contribs) 22:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Instagram is not a reliable poll source. MB298 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Kanye

Kanye west postposed his presidential run until 2024. He tweeted it after his meeting with president elect Trump. https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/808769227847036941 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.78.251 (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Per the hidden note, that tweet can interpreted as many things and does not explicitly explain Kanye's interest in running for 2024 instead. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Declined Candidates

Why are there so many declined candidates? Most or all of the speculative candidates listed would certainly say they have no plans to run for president anyway. That section is rather pointless at this stage in the election.

Also, can i ask for permission to remove tom hanks, George clooney and Oprah from the "declined" section. It isnt very notable that Oprah Winfrey is not planning to run for president. No one expected her to run in the first place. Crewcamel (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't know that no one expected her to run. And declined candidates should only be moved out of that section if they reverse their declination. Earthscent (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
im just saying, including people like Jack Fellure and Rocky de la Fuente is kind of polluting the page a bit. Same with having very long lists of people who've only made brief statements that they dont plan to run. Crewcamel (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sanders

Why is sanders listed as a democrat? He is no longer a democrat. If anything, he should be in the independents section. Mocha2007 (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

He ran as a Democrat in 2016, there is no reason he won't again in 2020. MB298 (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sanders is a Democrat for presidential run purposes. He stays an independent in Vermont only. In other arenas he is essentially a Democrat. I don't think his organization, Our Revolution, endorsed one candidate that wasn't registered Democrat, and he's currently in the process of reforming the actual party. DaCashman (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Cuomo and Gillibrand

The observer article cited for Gillibrand says she denied she will running, but the quote that follows says nothing about 2020. Does anyone have another source that she denied she will run or a direct quote?

And for Cuomo, he said that rumors he is planning to run are not true, but he also said he doesn't have any plans beyond 2018. Which brings up that we should probably discuss whether the threshold for being included in the "declined" list is saying that they are "not planning to run" or are "planning not to run" because the what Cuomo said is closer to the former and implies he hasn't made a decision.Aliiqve (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

Request to remove Hillary Clinton from "speculative candidates". She is almost certain not run, and I don't think there is any reason to think she will. And I say this as a supporter of hers. Amac90 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump redux, how is this disruptive?

Yes, I know that it's still three years out, and all sorts of stuff can still happen, but the cycles have been quite consistent since 1972, and they always follow the exact same pattern:

1) The invisible primary, potential candidates start talking with potential supporters and explore whether or not they are going to have enough support to finance a run in the upcoming primaries.

This lasts through the spring of the previous year (in this case, 2019), when a series of debates and forums will begin take place. This will happen on the Democratic side as that party is currently in diserey and there is no front-runner. It will not happen on the Republican side, as in 2019, even if Trump is a complete disaster (which I fully expect him to be, although if he does "make America Great again" that would be very nice), he will still be president and the full weight of the Republican party will go down on any challenger like a ton of bricks. This is what happened to Pat Buchanan in 1992. If you go back to the link I put up (and it was unceremoniously taken down) from USA Today, you will notice that the President and his people are already saying that they're going to run when the time comes.

2) Primary season, there's going to be talk of reform in the next couple of years, but the primaries will happen in some form. This is not w:chrystal ball, this is looking at previous cycles and the current rules. who will be in the Democratic race I dunno. Not a clue. But then again I'm not talking about changing that. However we must mention the primaries, because they WILL happen. There was a Presidential election during the Civil War, and there was a congressional election during World War I (the armistice agreement wasn't until a week after the vote).

3)The conventions. There will be conventions. In every single cycle with an incumbent there were conventions. It is W:Crystal to say there won't be any.

4) Incumbents: The incumbent will be a Republican. It will either be Trump, Pence, or the product of the 25th Amendment, although there has only been one double vacancy in the entire history of Second Republic (1789-). There hasn't been a coup in the entire history of the US.

Also, only ONE Republican President has lost primary in the past century, that was in 1976. Reagan beat Ford, but Ford won the nomination. On the Democratic side, Kennedy beat Carter in 1980, and Carter won.

Thus, there will be no polling on the GOP side, at least for the next two years.

Yes, it's three years until candidates start officially announcing. But the article should have something about the schedule when things should happen. Dwayne Johnson on the Republican side? Puh-LEZE!!!! Celebrities say they might run for president all the time. Reagan had already been a Governor. Trump is unique, genuinely unique, so he can't be taken as a precedent.

So let's do this right shall we? either let's have a two paragraph stub with a little picture of Trump, or we do a full outline of the cycle that can be filled in later on as the occasion arises. Limit the potential candidates who are listed on major polls and leave the celebrities and the hobbyists out.

If you want a genuine discussion on how this page should look, then fine. I'm all for that. But there was no consensus for this.... Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

We cannot limit the celebrities and hobbyists for the incredibly obvious reason that a celebrity/hobbyist candidate is now president. Saying he's unique is silly, it's crystal ball talk. We cannot discredit other potential candidate simply because they don't have a political background. Earthscent (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Joe Biden

He might still be open to running, according to this New York Times article, dated on January 17, after his decline. "I'll run if I can walk." This was already mentioned by other editors in a few places on Biden's wiki page.--71.194.19.81 (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Gillibrand

I moved her from "Declined" to "Speculative". There's lots of coverage speculating she'll run. Also, take a look at the source claiming she declined. A New York Observer piece she "claims she's not running", but provides the quote: “I’m running for Senate in 2018 and I really am very grateful for the opportunity to serve this state and believe it’s a platform where I can really help the most vulnerable and work on issues like this and really make a difference.” Of course she's talking about her 2018 reelection. She did not say she wouldn't run in 2020, just that it's not presently her focus. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

On the Inclusion of Demings, McGraw, Perry, Rock, and Smith

While I agree that the notion that Katy Perry, Will Smith, Chris Rock, or Tim McGraw will run in 2020 is quite ridiculous, all four (plus Val Demings) have been speculated to run by two separate reliable sources including The Hill, Business Insider, The Washington Post, and CNN. They all provide reasoning behind their speculation as well, so they ought to be included for fitting the criteria of the list. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with IOnlyKnowFiveWords. The same could have been said for Trump during the 2016 US election nominations. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. We've elected a celebrity who didn't know anything about politics, there's no reason to think it won't happen again. Earthscent (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The Hill is considered reliable? Oh that's unfortunate. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017

Speculative Candidate for President 2020, Democrat Nancy Pelosi KH030218 (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Consensus technicality

"...has been reached to make it so that the political parties that received at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election This means that, as of right now, only the Republican and Democratic parties are to be included in the infobox." This statement is technically incorrect, because a member of the Libertarian Party and a member of the Green Party received faithless electoral votes. If we change it to "earned" at least one electoral vote or automatically include the Libertarian and Green parties as well, this statement would be correct.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 23:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No replies? This is an issue that needs to be addressed. I will go ahead and change the wording if there are no further replies in this thread.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 07:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sheryl Sandberg

Sheryl Sandberg is apparently said to be considering a run.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/25/sheryl_sandberg_for_president_132885.html https://politicalwire.com/2017/02/01/sandberg-makes-big-donation-planned-parenthood/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3022:1:6C00:A5E9:8C82:8E59:CCA0 (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"Kitchen sink" candidates

The minute Katy Perry became a "candidate," this list verged on the boundaries of bull****. Many a candidate are not even being discussed as serious ones. Only Hillary, Bill de Blasio, John Bel Edwards, Kristen Gillibrand, Jason Kander, Caroline Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer and Elizabeth Warren are the ones that seem to appear to have extensive coverage. Unless an article discusses a potential candidate exclusively, they should be hidden. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that candidates like Katy Perry and Tim McGraw border on absurdity. That being said maybe the same could have been said 4 years ago for Donald Trump on the talk page for 2016. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with the Trump thing, he had actually mounted a serious (albeit unsuccessful) bid in 2000 and seriously considered running in 2012, and actually led in several polls at the time. MB298 (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Our opinions of who is or isn't a real candidate are not important. What reliable sources say is important. Earthscent (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Or we could just get rid of the speculative candidates section altogether since it might be in violation of WP:CRYSTAL.. Prcc27❄ (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I really think we should. Just because a clickbait article is titled "27 candidates who may run" doesn't mean we need to include all/any of them. At a minimum speculative candidates should be a much smaller collection of people who are being much more seriously covered in the news. Crewcamel (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The user GoodDay has also expressed they would be in favor of removing it for the record. Prcc27❄ (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

Hey everybody, i firmly believe that the qualifications for a "speculative candidate" should be more stringent. However, taking the example set by the content of this page i am including Lindsay lohan as a candidate who has publicly expressed interest. She voices support for her candidacy in this usa today article. [1] I believe not including her would be a violation of wp:crystal Crewcamel (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No, she will be 34 upon election day and as such will be constitutionally ineligible to hold the Presidency. MB298 (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
lol is that seriously what makes you think we shouldn't include her? looks like Paris hilton may be running too. Should we edit her in? https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/2152931/paris-hilton-makes-bid-for-2020-presidential-race/ Crewcamel (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
If they can't actually take office they shouldn't be included. MB298 (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
fair point, ill just add Jon Stewart, Amy Schumer and Paris Hilton once i find some sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crewcamel (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2015/10/17/-lindsay-lohan-president-2020/74133114/

Clinton has expressed interest

I've seen a news article from AOL News that Clinton has said she will likely run again. Why isn't she listed as expressing interest? Necropolis Hill (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Link the article to us.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 06:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's the article I assume you're talking about. https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/26/hillary-clinton-reportedly-mulling-talk-show-to-kickstart-2020-election-platform/21663644/ Alec Holbeck (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the article. Necropolis Hill (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Democratic National Convention sites?

I was checking out the potential sites and i came to conclusion that it would be sensible that democrats put their convention in a rust belt state (Wisconsin/Michigan). Any ideas? JDPEG (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_1&oldid=1136476239"