Talk:Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Too Soon? Tell HIM that!

Under the usual circumstances, the people who wanted this deleted would be totally correct. However. The campaign has officially started. The committee is selling stuff and otherwise raising money, and there's a rally tomorrow which is being paid for by it.

I don't know WHY he's doing this, but he is. The fact that he IS is all that counts.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your AZfamily ref points out "A candidate for president is subject to different rules than a president and is afforded different protections." Strange that he'd feel the need of additional protection from day 1... Cabayi (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this first comment. As bizarre as it is, this page has not been created prematurely.SecretName101 (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Once an individual begins to campaign or decides to become a candidate they are federally required to register as candidate. There is also a federal law that once an individual raises or spends $5,000 for a campaign, they are required to register as a federal candidate. Once that threshold is exceeded, the individual must register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). He knows he wants to run for reelection in 2020, he has most likely alreaidy raised of spent more than $5,000.00 for 2020, therefore he was required to register.MeropeRiddle (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

yet another biased article from wickedpedia

completely anti trump, clear the bias up immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.70.26 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Mike Pence

Should Pence be included in the infobox? I believe that it has not been confirmed whether or not Trump has indicated a preference to run with him or a different runningmate. SecretName101 (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• The substitute FEC Form 2 does not mention Pence. I'd leave this alone until Pence is declared as 2020 VP running mate. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly my thinking. I do not beleive he should be included yet. SecretName101 (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • As of March 17 Pence is still included in the infobox. Unless a concensus says to remove him, I am reluctant to do so myself. However I lean towards removing Pence from the infobox. SecretName101 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Legal consequences

This article states there are important legal consequences from Trump filing his 2020 candidacy. As soon as someone starts a sentence with "legally...", I'm somewhat cautious. In particular:

Legally, though, his candidacy would limit nonprofit action for and against Trump. On its website, the IRS instructs 501(c)(4) organizations to avoid “direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office,” or risk could losing their tax-exempt status.

and

But it also raises a host of complications for Trump, especially regarding rules around using official government resources while campaigning for office.

Would anyone like to discuss including a section about the legal/tax consequences? Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

As there is an article on permanent campaign, perhaps the consequences, advantages and limitations of early campaigning can be discussed there in a general sense, rather than risk controversy by appearing to apply specifically to the current POTUS. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Permanent campaign

I intended this reference to the "permanent campaign" to be uncontroversial, allowing general information to be on another page rather than appear to refer specifically to Donald Trump's campaign. Would it be more evenly weighted if we removed the section title and the first line? This would no longer be a section, merely a second paragraph in the lead reading: "Although the early campaign filing is unusual,[2] the permanent campaign is not unusual in American politics, dating at least from the presidency of Bill Clinton under the advice of Sidney Blumenthal.[1]" Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

What I think you need to do is wait until there is substantial sourcing analyzing this concept in connection with Trump. A single blog post leaves much to be desired. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Age

Is it worth discussing that if reelected Trump would be the oldest person to win a presidential election?

I also beleive that, if re-nominated, he would be the oldest person to ever be nominated for president by a major party (older than McCain was in 2008, older than Reagan was in 1984, older than Bob Dole was in 1996). SecretName101 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have now added this (along with proper sources). SecretName101 (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Just make sure it is clear that he is currently just the oldest elected to a first term as President.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Fact

It might be worth noting that if re-elected, this would be the first-time in American history in which four consecutive presidents have been elected to two-terms. SecretName101 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

maybe if sourced Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Disputed statements

The opening phrase "The 2020 presidential campaign of Donald Trump officially began" is marked as "dubious." I don't understand the dispute, as the official initiation of a political campaign is the FEC filing, which is public information and cited. Perhaps change from "officially began" to "legally began"? What is the disputed nature of this phrase? Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, brother. "Officially began" implies that the campaign has been declared as "begun" by Trump himself, or by a campaign manager, or by anybody with authority to speak on Trump's behalf. By contrast, what you are trying to say would be better phrased as "According to one very contrived way of looking at things which totally ignores the actual intentions of the article subject, it could be said that the campaign technically began with the FEC filing blah blah blah"

This is basic English word usage and I have no idea how you can be confused about why this objection was raised. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to change it to "technically began." I am not personally trying to say anything, and I didn't add the phrase "officially began." I'm only trying to resolve the disputes. Let's not get personal about this. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought that this was obvious, but one problem is that even the claim that the campaign "technically began" is an invention by one or more WP editors, and thus it doesn't belong in any WP article.

Notice that the only cited RS is a 3 sentence blog post and the third sentence reads "The new president emphasized that the paperwork “does not constitute a formal announcement of my candidacy for the 2020 election."

Those are just some of the red flags that should warn you that you're playing with fire. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all we can say is that the filing happened and the campaign headquarters still exists. Your recent edit is an improvement. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

So the entire article hangs on a 3 sentence source that doesn't even rise to the level of a blog post and doesn't really say anything. Could you shed some light on what was going through your head when you posted this to the deletion discussion: "It is well sourced; I verified and expanded the citations." The statement doesn't seem to wash. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the article. There are numerous sources reporting and/or discussing this. When I wrote that, I meant that I checked every citation to confirm that it actually said what it was represented to say, and I added details to bare references (the date, name of the writer, etc). Excluding information is just as unhelpful as adding information. Personally, I don't think this is controversial or contentious. I'd be surprised if a first term president didn't have some sort of organization to prepare for the second term campaign (although it seems some of them didn't for the first year or two). Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I was referring only to the content of that first sentence when I said "all we can say is that the filing happened and the campaign headquarters still exists." Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) How am I "misrepresenting" the article?

(2) What is it that you think "numerous sources" are saying? Could you point me to some of these sources? Ordinarily they would be cited in the article. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

These questions do not need any further answers. The article has enough citations. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You're accusing me of "misrepresenting" something and I request you explain the accusation because it seems to be nonsense. You insist there are "numerous sources" and I want you to point me to some because the claim seems to be nonsense.

And I note again that the entire article hangs on a 3 sentence source that doesn't even rise to the level of a blog post and doesn't really say anything. So once again, it's incumbent upon you to be forthcoming with sources. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There is more than the one 3-sentence source cited. There are more than a dozen sources cited in the article, and I think more would be WP:OVERSITE. WP policy does not require me to find additional sources for Talk pages. I note that you have provided no sources whatsoever here. If you want more for the article, be bold and add them. They are easy to find. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Nearly half of which revolve around Trumps's comments on Swedish migration and have nothing to do with a "2020 re-election campaign". And let's see, even for those issues we're citing to a Trump tweet, a stupid humor piece, an obviously biased primary source and political analysis from leftist British newspapers. The sourcing is crap and you're exaggerating its relevance to a supposed 2020 Trump re-election campaign. But that's OK, I'm not going to stand in the way of erstwhile Wikipedians who are in possession of a crystal ball and working on an urgent deadline. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Search for it on foxnews.com and there are plenty of mentions of the 2020 campaign, particularly in relation to the Melbourne rally. I can add those if that makes you feel better about the article. What is the difference if a newspaper is British rather than American? Do you only accept American news sources as authoritative? What news sources would you prefer to see cited in the article? As for WP:CRYSTAL, everything in the article has already happened. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The Melbourne and March 4th rallies are part of a general election campaign, as unless the Donald dies or becomes so very unpopular that someone else enters the race who is more than a delusional hobbyist with no chance in hell. (David Duke in 1992, for example), then the primaries are a mere technicality. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors need to be particularly careful to avoid WP:OR in political issues and with events related to living persons. Is there any source confirming that the March 4th rallies were specifically in support of reelection or the 2020 campaign? Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Look at the signs. Outside signs were not permitted at the rally. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What about the March 4 rallies? Is there any verification that they were part of the 2020 campaign? Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Mostly, the campaign gave out stuff from last year. This is another photo from one of the rallies. Remember, it's currently a general election campaign against a generic Democrat, there isn't an expected primary opponent as yet.

So in other words, the answer to his question is no. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Reelection campaigns are different than election campaigns

Going back through history, incumbent presidents have had campaign organizations long before they officially announced. Since the FEC was started in the 1970s, Presidential campaign committees have been raising money and organizing for months, sometimes YEARS before any formal announcements have been made. The apparatus has been set up and used. While we cannot say that it is currently being used as a vehicle to obtain the '20 Republican nomination (it's his for the taking, as he controls the party), it is being used to generate public support. This is a General Election campaign, with Trump on the one hand and A generic Democratic "Anti-Trump" on the other. Both sides are raising funds and holding rallies at the moment. That and the Russian thing are the core of American politics at the moment. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, we know who runs these sites. Disinformation and information manipulation in all things. Take wikipedia for what it is: basic info. with a healthy amount of disinformation sprinkled in. Do your own research and understand Wikipedia is not research. Propagatetheerror (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

A note to all those disbelievers out there

There have been objections to this article and it's contents ever since I created it. I understand why (as I admitted upthread). For those who say this is stupid, dumb, way too early, and the like. I agree. It is all those things. But This is Trump. He likes campaigning. He has a huuuge opposition, Who are shouting down congresspeople and holding giant rallies themselves. This is a permanent campaign, now. 2020 is, at this point, Trump vs. Anti-Trump. A general election campaign without end. The primaries on the GOP side aren't going to happen except at a pro-forma level, such as was the case in 2004 or 2012 on the Democratic side. The March 4th rallies were paid for in part by the national campaign committee and state Republican parties. Thus they are part of the '20 campaign. It's absurd, but there ya go.

I know it's absurd. I know it's hard to believe, but what can you do? It's there. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The claim that these were campaign rallies is pure original research not supported by the cited sources, as is the claim that the events were held by "allies of the campaign". Reverted again. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Already sending out campaign emails

Reportedly this campaign is already sending emails to solicit contributions. Add this to the pile of evidence that this indeed is already an active campaign (again, as bizarre as that is). http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/28/trump-s-campaign-can-t-even-get-his-fundraising-emails-right.html SecretName101 (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's keep an eye on the Nashville Rally

http://postonpolitics.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2017/03/09/trump-plans-another-campaign-style-rally-in-nashville-next-week/ A campaign-style event is planned to be held in Nashville. However, unlike the Melbourne rally, I have yet to hear the White House refer to it as a "campaign event". This quite likely will instead be a rally intended to garner support for the Republican healthcare proposal (similar to the rallies Obama held early in his presidency to do the same for the Affordable Care Act). Let's keep an eye on this event, but I believe we should refrain from including it in the article for the time-being. SecretName101 (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me the key question is what fund is paying for the rallies. There have been plenty of sources, including Republican Party sources, indicating that the Melbourne rally was part of a "campaign," but it wasn't really clear whether campaign funds paid for the event. I know that Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. is advertising the Nashville event, but is it paying for the travel and event itself? To me, that's the answer to whether this is part of the 2020 re-election campaign. If it's the president promoting the policies and initiatives of his administration, then it is paid for by public funds and is not part of the 2020 campaign. Follow the money! Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If the event is advertised on the website, then it's part of the campaign. Part of ALL presidential reelection campaigns is promoting the policies and initiatives of the administration, who's ever it is. That this is taking place this early is weird. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"In several cities, they were met by counter-demonstrations[26] and some arrests were made"

This kind of implies that the arrests were solely of counter-demonstrators, which is not supported by the articles, which are just saying arrests were made after the two groups clashed, not a direction. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Another rally

http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/President-Trump-to-hold-a-rally-in-Louisville-Monday-416583563.html This one in Louisville. SecretName101 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Even the campaign website appears to acknowledge how bizarrely early this all is

Its homepage has a passage entitled, 'Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. –– Why Now?' which I'll summarize.

It essentially says, blah blah blah Trump won an "historic victory" blah blah "But our Movement cannot stop now - we still have much work to do. This is why our Campaign Committee, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., is still here." blah blah blah, "This Campaign" blah blah blah. "That’s why our Campaign cannot stop now - our Movement is just getting started." blah blah "Make America Great Again!"

The relevance of this is that the website identifies itself as a campaign, further confirming that (yes indeed) this is a campaign. SecretName101 (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines

I think some (very rough) guidelines for if events could warrant inclusion might be this: are they

A) Funded by the campaign

B) Officially promoted by the campaign

or

C) Highly-relevant to the campaign

SecretName101 (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

B-Class Assessment

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations.

• Avoid citing highly partisan sites like Breitbart and Mic.com, or blogs/tabloids like Mediaite and the Daily Mail. This topic has been extensively covered in the media, so there are much better sources.

2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

• You should at least mention the 2016 election.
• Include more information about the Louisville rally.
• Clarify the role the RNC had in fundraising for Trump.
• "dating at least from the presidency of Bill Clinton" How?
• "...led by experienced Republican strategist Michael Glassner": What is Glassner's specific experience?
• "Trump defended his actions" What actions? More specificity is warranted.
• "Other events were held around the country throughout March..." specify violence
• Specify what the controversy was re: Pocahontas comment (e.g. reactions)
• Campaign finance: clarify what a small donor is
• Obama and the DNC -- first
• Expand Super PAC section

3. The article has a defined structure.
Accepted
4. The article is reasonably well-written.

• I fixed some wording and grammar.
• The entire third paragraph of the background section has multiple tenses (past and present), which is disorienting.

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
Accepted
6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.
Accepted
Unfortunately, I don't think the article meets B-class criteria at this time. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Woebegone (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Upon reading the May 2017 section, my first (and most spontaneous) thought was, "This is a sad little article and it wants to die". You need to improve this material ASAP:

Campaign manager Michael Glasssner commented...

...A vulnerability in the website was exploited it so that www.donald.trump.com/myplantofuckthepoor led to a page about Trump's healthcare plan [7][8] Additionally, it was pointed-out that the campaign's redesigned homepage featured a typo.

Also, it's not clear which, if any, of these sources would be rated as RS: aol.com; azfamily.com; Breitbart; Daily Mail; fivethirtyeight.com; heavy.com; mediaite.com; mic.com; talkingpointsmemo.com; vocativ.com. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Block quotes

They don't take quote marks fore and aft. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Combatting lengthiness

We should discuss what options we have to combat lengthiness, without completely sacrificing thoroughness. Obviously, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:Notability needs to be applied. However, as this is a presidential campaign from an incumbent that is prone to make bizarre and noteworthy statements and actions, this is likely prone to become a long article unless large portions of relevant information are either left out or only mentioned without any detail or context. An alternative option is for some of the content to ultimately be spun-off/ split from the article. I would lean in favor of a spin-off/split alongside the removal of excessive material that is in violation of Wikipedia's inclusion policy.

How a spinoff might look:

Option A

• New article entitled Donald Trump presidential campaign in 2017. Detail of the 2017 campaign developments will be moved there, and merely given a very brief summary in a new section of the main article (Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020) entitled something such as, Campaign development in 2017. Subsequent years of the campaign will also receive similar articles (i.e. Donald Trump presidential campaign in 2018)

Option B

• The same content as in option A is spun off, except it is spun off to an article entitled Early campaigning of Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020. Instead of giving each year its own article, this article will provide detail the campaign developments either until Trump "officially announces" his candidacy (as his campaign filing seemed to indicate he intends to give a formal campaign announcement down the road), until the primary season is as starting, or until 2019 (if we prefer an indiscriminate date)

Option C

• Same as option B, except the article will be titled Donald Trump presidential primary campaign, 2020 and would include any developments during the primaries as well. I dislike this option, because often incumbents never really launch a primary campaign in the typical sense. Look at Obama in 2012, his campaigns focus was on the general election since its launch (they kept an eye out for a potential primary challenger, thanks to Bernie Sanders' calls for one).

Those are just a few quick thoughts on what a spinoff might look like if we decide to have one. Not certain how soon or how long from now we might create such an article.

SecretName101 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Generally, we keep campaign-year articles as one piece, except endorsements, which we split up. I have deleted a bunch of excessive detail here. The article is way too detailed for this year, and most of the content I removed doesn't pass WP:GNG/WP:10YT. In fact, most of the rallies probably merit only a sentence so I was generous here.

I'm fine with splitting off articles about individual rallies. The August 2017 Phoenix rally is one good example. epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A TL;DR summary of my removals:

• excessive details about "what happened last night in Sweden" in Feb 2017
• trivia about WHCD and Jackson's Tomb
• excessive details about Pittsburgh rally in Apr 2017
• details of criticism and components of ad campaigns in May and Aug 2017. I just condensed into summary details.
• trivia and whatnot about the new website
• RNC leadership speech in May 2017. Also condensed.
• raffles, media ban, etc at Jun 2017 fundraiser. Also condensed.
• rallies held by groups supporting Trump
• Russia investigation detail in Aug 2017
• trivia about Charlottesville
• details about what went on in the Phoenix rally in Aug 2017. Condensed.
• Dallas Morning News response to Trump rally in Aug 2017
• the Politico report. Condensed.
• DE rally in Oct 2017. Condensed.

epicgenius (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I promise this is my last comment for now. A presidential campaign article should be written like Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992 or Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012 (both featured articles). The current article, on the other hand, has so much detail on reactions to individual rallies that it may not even pass a B-class review in this state. epicgenius (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that almost all of this material will be removed by 2021 as WP:UNDUE. Most editors interested in American Politics are completely ignoring this page at this time, I would not consider its current state to be strongly supported by consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

At this rate of expansion, the article will be more than 600 KB by 2021. I'd rather trim this sooner than later, when this irrelevant content would have been in the article for almost 4 years. It's like pruning a tree: the sooner the minutiae are removed, the less you have to cut later. epicgenius (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Too much propaganda

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Wikipedia policy is that there should be no propaganda of any kind. Please help me remove quotations that do not provide knowledge for our readers. We must remove all political messages. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. I'm going to start trimming this back. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Go slow. Follow WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Just one or two changes at a time. My advice. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, for some reason people feel the need to include things like “The rallies have come under criticism for the high level of misleading statements by Trump, anything from 68 to 76 percent during the summer 2018 rallies.” and believe if you provide a link to an article, that this makes such statements any more true or false or less subjective. I wish the times of early wikipedia back. I contributed alot from 2005 to 2009... but today? People seem to have forgotten what it means to put information into an encyclopedia. 178.203.10.153 (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The previous campaign, investigations and crimes

At least one editor is very keen on including something in the lead about the previous campaign and its various ... uhhh, novel approaches alleged and proven ... see for example this edit in which it is added back in for the Nth time. I am not sure whether it should really be in this article or not. Further, should it be in the lead? The lead, I thought, was meant to summarize the article, yet it doesn't seem to be in the article body at the moment, so it's a non-summary. Is it a necessary and relevant thing about this campaign and if so shouldn't it be firstly in the body, and maybe/maybe not in the lead? The current slow-motion edit war over this isn't really helping - can we build consensus here? Thanks DBaK (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That content was introduced by a vandal and suspected sock. Just ignore them. — JFG ^talk 22:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of website hack discussion

This is the passage I removed:

After the deletion of press releases, the URL http://www.donald.trump.com/myplantofuckthepoor (my plan to fuck the poor) was redirected to a page about Trump's healthcare plan, and it was pointed out that the campaign's redesigned homepage originally featured a typo.

Why did I remove it? Snopes has a Trump url poor discussion. It stated

"While the web vulnerability is amusing, it points to a very real and very serious issue: the Trump administration continues to make basic mistakes because of Trump’s failure to hire the best people, staffing his campaign and the White House with opportunists and incompetent cronies instead. The security of our country and of the world depend upon the competence of the people occupying the White House. Trump is not living up to even the minimum standards the American people deserve."

I believe this incident is non-notable. I vaguely recall reports that Bill Clinton's or George Bush's whitehouse.gov pages were briefly hacked. I don't think there is any discussion of these incidents on wikipedia. If someone here disagrees about this being notable, that someone should at least re-include it with a discussion of hacking.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

References

February-March 2019

Please be informed that there is a "Request for Comment" at Talk:Kirsten_Gillibrand_2020_presidential_campaign#RFC_Trump_Junior_Tweets. If you do want to chime in, I think it is tidier to keep the discussions at that talk page, cheers. Tony85poon (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

tour cancelled, add ?

Regarding the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States: Trump’s reelection campaign canceled its bus tour amid concerns about the coronavirus. A campaign spokeswoman initially cited “scheduling conflicts” for the postponement of the three-day bus tour through Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/09/us/politics/trump-oil-price-drop-markets.html

X1\ (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

misleading Facebook ad removed “Official Congressional District Census”, add ?

Facebook removed ads run by Trump’s re-election campaign that urged people to “respond now” to an "Official Congressional District Census." The ads linked to a survey on the Trump campaign’s website before asking them to donate money to the campaign. Facebook said the ads violated its policies to “prevent confusion around the official US census.”

• https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/facebook-removes-trump-campaign-ad-122374
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/05/tech/facebook-trump-census-ads/index.html

X1\ (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

SARS-2 response and MAGA, add?

Regarding 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States and MAGA:

Trump finds his MAGA movement fracturing over coronavirus. While the MAGA movement is divided over how seriously to take the coronavirus threat or how to tackle it, the message among his supporters is increasingly unanimous: If Trump fails to control the virus, prevent its spread and prove his leadership, much less save the economy, he will lose the election and cripple his movement.

Per:

• Tina Nguyen (March 16, 2020). "Trump finds his MAGA movement fracturing over coronavirus; The president's red-capped followers were united against a socialist candidate. And they had economic winds at their backs to propel Trump toward reelection. Now everything is suddenly scrambled". Politico. Retrieved March 16, 2020.

X1\ (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

and per

• Jill Colvin, Zeke Miller, and Jonathan Lemire, Analysis: Trump struggles to adjust to crisis presidency March 23, 2020 Associated Press

Now, as the coronavirus crisis threatens his presidency, and upends his campaign for reelection, Trump is rapidly losing patience with the medical professionals who have made the case day after day that the only way to prevent a catastrophic loss of life is to essentially shut down the country — to minimize transmission and “flatten the curve” so hospitals aren’t overwhelmed with critical patients.

X1\ (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Not paying cities, add?

Trump’s campaign committee hasn’t paid 14 city governments a combined $1.82 million for public safety costs stemming from his campaign rallies. The campaign said it’s not responsible for reimbursing cities for police and public safety costs associated with its rallies.

• https://publicintegrity.org/politics/elections/city-leaders-to-trump-help-us-fight-the-coronavirus-by-paying-your-bills

X1\ (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC on page creation for Obamagate

Discussion can be found here.Casprings (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2020

In the first paragraph of the Polling section, change "errenously" to "erroneously". 2601:401:C680:4240:C934:B47:9485:A557 (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! Jlevi (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done by Jlevi Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 08:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2020

1558135a (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)https://metaladdicts.com/site/exodus-steve-zetro-souza-i-support-president-trump/

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK _Talk 00:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

update receipts

Following the fec(https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P80001571/), Trump had has $601,392,178.39 receipts, but in the infobox i read 358,199,769.41 Can someone fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:A19:4D00:7CD3:FDC2:5715:D460 (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Updated to $601,392,178.39, reflecting coverage date up to October 14, 2020. — BarrelProof (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

A winner of the he 2020 Presidential election HAS NOT been officially declared. Mr. American Patriot (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Edit requests must specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". — BarrelProof (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Second means unpopular changes?

According to experts - during second rule, he can make unpopular changes in country because he can't be re-elected after this. It is worth mentioning, because other candidates don't were at offices, and in campaign it lack information about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.105.25 (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This is in another language, and this really isn't necessary. It wasn't mentioned in Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or other politicians. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 18:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

June 2020 June 8: After a CNN poll finds Trump 14 percentage points behind Joe Biden, Trump on Twitter declared the poll "FAKE", while stating that he had "retained highly respected pollster, McLaughlin & Associates", to analyze that poll. {The poll was based on 1259 people surveyed.} Republican Party's congressional campaign arm has advised Republicans to avoid employing McLaughlin & Associates, after it predicted in 2014 that Republican Representative Eric Cantor would win re-election in a Republican primary by 34 points, but Cantor actually lost by around 10 points. Later in 2018, McLaughlin & Associates predicted that Republican Representative Rob Woodall would win re-election by 27 points, but Woodall ended up winning by only 0.2 points.[259] 184.71.148.150 (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:UNDUE - Trump has called so many things fake it's not even worthy of us wasting time on the talk page here. Also, this not a discussion about McLaughlin & Associates so going onto that kind of detail here is completely out of WP:SCOPE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it necessary to add that Trump considered dropping Pence?

Should Trump's consideration of dropping Pence be added? The source of this is in the WP, which got it from Bolton's book, so that might be subject to dispute. Here's the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-asked-chinas-xi-to-help-him-win-reelection-according-to-bolton-book/2020/06/17/d4ea601c-ad7a-11ea-868b-93d63cd833b2_story.html

Thanks! Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything about Pence in that WaPo article so I'd wait and see if the matter gets more attention in the press. I wouldn't worry much either way. It's not exactly a scandal or even that interesting if Trump merely considered dropping Pence, as opposed to actually doing it. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Oklahoma governor seeks a larger venue for Trump's Tulsa rally

So many people have expressed an interest in attending President Donald Trump’s rally Saturday in Tulsa, Oklahoma and Gov. Kevin Stitt seeks larger event for Trump's Tulsa rally. Reportedly, nearly one million people had requested tickets to the event. On June 15, 2020, it was reported Trump supporters had already started waiting in line outside the BOK Center in downtown Tulsa. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oklahoma-governor-seeks-larger-event-trumps-tulsa-rally-71266004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B10B:3D08:DC33:3DE:F352:579D (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

That turned out to be a big bust. It's true there was a crowd outside the venue, but it wasn't that large, considering. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Tulsa BOK Arena event

Article says arena was about half full, but the Tulsa fire department supposedly said 6200 people attended,[1] which is just under 1/3 of the arena capacity. The event was called "Coronapalooza" on twitter[2] and that seems worth mentioning too. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it does seem worth mentioning. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

These edits should be restored

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=967101887&oldid=967096177

Please read the sources which fully substantiate that Trump's intensifying rhetoric was causing him to lose support, he was going for "my people" of his base, despite advisors telling him to change course. The original edit is fully faithful to the reliable sources, while the new version removes valuable context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=967088980&oldid=967073632

CNN factchecker does in fact conclude it's false. A comment taken out of context to mislead is a lie of ommission. And a good faith move would have been to fix the edit rather than remove it wholesale. Collaboration is good faith, wholesale deletion without the slightest attempt to fix something isn't. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, wholesale deletion without the slightest attempt to fix something is not good faith collaboration. The first edit fixed the tone of that paragraph. The second edit removed WP:UNDUE detail. Also, I don't see where the source calls it "false", perhaps you can quote that. I think the stuff I removed should stay out of the article, but if there is consensus to include it, then it should be restored. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You removed the entire "become the enemy" edit without making any effort to tweak it. You couldn't even say they used his words out of context? As a consequence, you made the whole thing vanish, when this is a hot-button campaign issue. soibangla (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You're referring to the second edit. My objection is that the content is UNDUE. That is, "become the enemy" is not a hot-button campaign issue. Coronavirus and the economy are hot button campaign issues. That Trump took Biden's quote out of context is everyday campaign noise. Every politician does that to every other politician in every race, more or less. So tweaking it wouldn't address the UNDUE concerns. I'm saying we shouldn't mention it at all in the article. But, again, if there's consensus to mention it, then it should be restored. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't think police relations is a hot-button campaign issue, you aren't paying attention. soibangla (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If by "police relations" you mean racist policing, yes, that's a hot button issue. But not Trump taking Biden's "become the enemy" quote out of context. That is everyday campaign noise. The content I removed (second diff above) wasn't about racist policing, it was about the quote being taken out of context. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Jason Miller added as campaign adviser

Jason Miller was brought onto the 2020 campaign as "senior adviser," as reported by Politico, and more recently, the Washington Post identifies Miller "is increasingly seen as its principal strategist."

--Findapanda (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

References

please reply

Can somebody please add trumps campaign anthem? It’s YMCA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.50.164 (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Latinos for Trump into Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign

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.

---

In my opinion this article would be better contextualised in the overall presidential campaign article. I do see that it is possible for it to be a separate organisation/movement though. Skingo12 (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Well, I didn't get more than a stub up before the merge template was added, but I've reviewed sourcing and the list of Wikipedia articles linking to Latinos for Trump and I think there's enough for a standalone article. Of course, further expansion is needed at this time... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I see what you mean, but yes, if this article was expanded then it would definitely merit a stand-alone article, I apologise for not seeing that you were still editing, my fatigue muddled mind muddled up the dates. --Skingo12 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose merge seems to be more than enough content and references to have a stand alone article. John Cummings (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support merge I personally don't see the use of this article. I may be wrong. But I don't think there are any articles titled Latinos for Biden or Students for Biden on Wikipedia. Just my opinion. Rushtheeditor (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Another Believer. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2021 (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.

Can we semi-protect?

Looks like at least one or two anon editors are interested in editing the first paragraph pretty aggressively. May be worth semi-protecting at least. Blue Matt (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Revert removal of references

Could you please revert the edits by 2601:98A:101:B700:3DFC:C375:3E06:459D (talk · contribs · WHOIS), they removed a bunch of references and left a section uncited with no edit reasons. 2001:8003:34A3:800:AC7C:BE2:9739:F6F5 (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)