Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Untitled
This page shows on Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I don't know why, but if you could fix it please. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Think I fixed it. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Biden speculation
Unnamed Biden aides speculate on the possibility of his running in 2016: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-biden18-2009aug18,0,2588210.story?page=2

Biden's ambitions go beyond serving as an influential vice president. He doesn't necessarily believe his political career has peaked.

Aides said he might go for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. He would be 74 upon taking office, but his staff insists that's not too old.

"He's incredibly fit, vigorous man of his age, and it's impossible for me to imagine that he won't be in public service in 2017 in some form," a Biden aide said. Ratemonth (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That may be useful information later on, but it's too early to start an article on this election. It will be too early up until November 2012. Tim  meh  ( review me ) 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to me, that when November's over with, we've already got a few ideas on how to build the page... Jsharpminor (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Polling
&mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 October 2012
This should not be a redirect, since the page it redirects to contains no mention of the 2016 election. Until such material is provided and added to that page or used to start a new article on this page, it should function as brief statement that an election is projected for that date, with a link, rather than a redirect, to the current redirect target. Thanks.

Blackeagleofafrica (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Hi Blackeagleofafrica. I'm not unsympathetic to this request, but we really need to have a consensus for this change before we can implement it. Have you tried bringing this subject up at the relevant WikiProject? Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No longer a redirect
This article is no longer a redirect. The 2012 election is close enough that 2016 (the next election) is no longer idle speculation, violative of WP:Crystal Ball.—GoldRingChip 13:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure it's idle speculation. On the one hand, we're 99% sure the country won't have a revolution and governmental collapse before 2016, cancelling the election, but everything beyond that most certainly IS. I edited it somewhat, with the expectation that by the end of the week it will no longer look like anything I did today.Ericl (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Use sources
This page is pushing Wikipedia's limits in terms of being a crystal ball, please find and add sources before adding candidates to the list. I am going to delete the unsourced candidates for now. - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * True. Also, the refs seem to have a technical problem and are not displaying properly. (Heroeswithmetaphors)   talk  19:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion
As discussed at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012/Archive 1 (and succeeding archive pages), that article used the criterion of a person needing to be mentioned as a potential candidate in at least two reliable sources over the preceding six months as the initial requirement for the person to be listed on the page. (As the primary season approached, the time frame in which the person needed to be mentioned twice shortened.) I recommend that "mentions as a potential 2016 candidate in at least two reliable sources over the preceding six months" be used as the criterion for inclusion on this page, at least for now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that. Tiller54 (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool.Ericl (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree as well.--JayJasper (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's start trying to fill in second sources for any candidates currently listed who only have one source so far. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've started doing this now. Tiller54 (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources must have some sort of substance. An article that has the generic "Okay, 2012's over, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J are famous Republicans/Democrats! Despite the lack of any hints, evidence, or sometimes common sense indicating that they will run, I'm going to flail their name around for attention!" should not be counted as one of the two sources. A few others focus on a major possibility and then just rattle off a couple names without details. Also, what counts as a reliable source? Partisan news and blog types, such as the Blaze, Daily Kos, Breitbart.com, and the Daily Caller are not exactly reliable. Reywas92 Talk 23:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Kathleen Sebelius
Alright, I've seen her name bounced around a couple times from searching Google, but I'm not sure that I'm coming up with what could be considered reliable sources. Has anyone else noticed anything regarding a potential run for her for president in 2016? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's one source there already and I've just found a second one, so I'll add that up too. Tiller54 (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Robby Wells has already Declared :p

 * Technically we shouldn't really be giving him any air time, but Robby Wells, who ran for the Constitution and Reform Party nominations in the 2012 election, has declared his Independent candidacy for the 2016 Presidential Election. Might be good to have at least one declared candidate up there, even if he might fizzle out. --Ariostos (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there 2 independent RS's available to verify he's a declared candidate? --JayJasper (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there is his Campaign's Facebook page, specifically the entry on November 5th, where he makes the announcement. Not sure if that would count. The only other source I have found is the Independent Political Report, but that simply restates what is on Facebook. There is his Campaign Website, but it seems to be in the process of being re-geared towards his 2016 run, while still having references to his run for the Constitution Party nomination this year. There are also a few blogs (which I suppose IPR could be counted as), but I am assuming those wouldn't be counted under the IRS. There unfortunately isn't that much there, other than directly from him and his campaign. --Ariostos (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That guy isn't qualified to be president of my university. Let's wait until we have some legitimate third-party reliable sources. We don't need to list here just anyone who happens to have a website and a facebook fan page. (Heroeswithmetaphors)   talk  04:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sen. Sherrod Brown
Is a possible candidate for the Democrat nomination and has been third in a straw poll. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/elizabeth-warren-for-president-democrats-barren-2016-bench/258772/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.231.15 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can find two reliable sources, go ahead an add him. I'm not sure the fact that he came third in a straw poll qualifies as a source, though. Tiller54 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What about Mitt?
Could Mitt Romney also run again for President in 2016? I read somewhere that his chances of winning the general election would be better in four years as they have been in 2012. Is it possible that Romney is running again? I mean, he wouldn't be the first person to be nominated twice and in 2016, he would be at the same age as Reagan was in 1980. --Jerchel (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's highly unlikely, but if there are two reliable sources, by all means add him. Tiller54 (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I found something that has to be enough at first. I assume we have to wait to get things confirmed, just as all other possible candidates. --Jerchel (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll need sources for that, of course. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What about Ann Romney and Michelle Obama? I'm kidding, of course, although I remember commentators around the time of the conventions mentioning them both as candidates, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, perhaps not. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Former job.
in the presentation of jesse ventura it says former wrestler and governor. no other former govenor has there former civil jobs written. if he was a former carpenter nobody would write it. the wrestling career is likely brought up to make him look like a less seriously candidate. additionaly he is a former navy seal. isnt that more relevant to somebody running for president? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.160.8 (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

and he is also a former mayor by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.160.8 (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

PàS
Dear members of the English-speaking wikipedian community,

This message is meant to confirm that, as you might already be aware of, the French version of your page is created.

A direct access to its reading is provided by clicking on the link below:


 * Élection présidentielle américaine de 2016

This said, I am sorry to inform you that a PàS was initiated. The deadline might come soon, probably tomorrow, unless the current debate could be extended until November 22.

May the comprehensive information which is contained in this article not be evicted! Nevertheless, the final decision cannot be mine, given that it will consist of the mutual union of all international voices which will be expressed thoughout the French speaking community and, hopefully, thanks to the voices coming from other languages, idioms and regions of the world. Let’s cross fingers!

As beautifully sung by Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey:

— They can be miracles, when you believe →.

Whatever the aforesaid issue might be, please let me express my heartfelt congratulations for your work!

Kindest regards!

God bless America!

euphonie breviary

18:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Emanuel
What happened to Rahm Emanuel?

Anonymous173.57.37.111 (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He's the Mayor of Chicago. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Style
I think perhaps the prospective candidates section should be styled in the same way it used to be for 2012, as such. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait until there are separate pages for the Democratic and Republican primaries. There are over fifty prospective candidates and listing them in such detail at this very early stage seems a bit premature to me. Tiller54 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tiller. The way the candidates were formatted in All Hallow's example was far too much detail even for that time, and certainly for now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just think we should have some system where candidates who have not been speculated upon by the media for several months would be removed (as I think was the case in 2009). All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think it would be too long before the respective primary articles get started. The one for the 2012 Republican primaries was started in December 2008. Tiller54 (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We should remove prospective candidates who have not been speculated on for several months, but we don't need to quote every media mention we can find in order to do that. We can just remove those prospective candidates whose sources are more than six months old (or whatever time limit applies later). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As the guy who set up the style for this page, I would note that I actually took it from what the 2012 page looked like at this point during the cycle. As others have pointed out, once the field narrows we should change the format to have more substance. - Nbpolitico (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The field won't narrow any time soon, it will only grow. It will start narrowing only once people say they're not running, circa 2015. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that eventually only the names of potential candidates, not pictures, were listed on the main election page. The pictures were then only listed on the candidate articles. Maybe we should just list the names on this page and start the "- Party candidates, 2016" articles and include photos with additional text on the potential candidates there. Good idea, or not?--Cjv110ma (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

New politico article for a bunch of Republicans
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84110.html Ratemonth (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The only one in the slideshow not already listed in the article is Brian Sandoval. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Image
The image we're using that shows the changes from the 2000-based electoral map to the 2010-based map implies that states are gaining electoral votes in this cycle when they are not. There doesn't seem to be an uncolored map available and my image altering skills proved insufficient to adjust this map. Can someone make adjust the map so that it doesn't show the adding/substracting of electoral votes, upload it and add it to this page? - Nbpolitico (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done this, to the best of my ability, myself. - Nbpolitico (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

fix possible candidates
It seems like the list includes a lot of "candidates" that are just famous members of one of the two parties that a couple of tabloid journalists felt like mentioning somewhere. There is no reason to expect Michelle Obama to run, for example. She's even said as much. I think whoever is adding some of these names needs to focus on WP:RS and WP:COMMONSENSE. In fact, I'm not sure it's a good idea to list specific candidates at all, since we are 3+ years out from the primaries, so it's virtually impossible to know who is a likely candidate. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 00:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing the articles which are opinion pieces rather than straight reporting could eliminate some candidates. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Op-eds really don't qualify as reliable sources in this context anyway, so any candidates listed as a result of opinion pieces should be removed. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 20:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 November 2012
Ted Cruz cannot become President, he was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

174.29.75.76 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't see any mention of him on the page. –  Richard  BB  16:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Ted Cruz isn't listed on the page as a possible candidate, so there is no edit to be made here. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added Ted Cruz. His name appears in several sources and being born outside the US doesn't necessarily disqualify someone from becoming president. See: Barry Goldwater, John McCain, George Romney. Tiller54 (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Both Goldwater and McCain were born in U.S. territories (Arizona Territory and the Panama Canal Zone, respectively.) Alberta was never a U.S. territory. Hmm. ThePeriodicTable123 (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For those curious about the details, Ted Cruz was the son of Rafael & Eleanor, one a perm-rez of Texas who later became a citizen, the other a citizen born in Delaware who also went to university in Texas. They were working (oil&gas) in Canada when Ted was born, which makes him a statutory-born-citizen of the USA, through his mother, via the 1790-thru-1940 citizenship laws.  His circumstance is similar to John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone (accounts differ as to whether McCain was born on U.S. property at the military base or in the city on Panamanian territory).  Obama, by contrast, was born in Hawaii shortly after it became a state, making him an amendment-born-citizen, through his location, via the 14th amendment.  Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona shortly *before* it became a state, making him either a statuatory-born-citizen (by the territorial-laws), or perhaps an amendment-born-citizen, if one interprets the 14th amendment requirement to mean the singular U.S. meaning all federal lands whatsoever, rather than the plural U.S. meaning the 50-or-so-individual-states-as-a-set. Marco Rubio is also an amendment-born-citizen, by location of Miami, although at the time both his parents were perm-rez in FL (they became citizens when he was a few years old).
 * _  The specific requirement of the Constitution for presidential eligibility is that by article two the potus must be a natural-born-citizen, as distinct from a naturalized-citizen.  12th amendment makes the same restriction apply to the vpotus, as well.  The *exact* meaning of natural-born-citizen, and whether it includes as subsets amendment-born-citizens under the 14th, and/or statuatory-born-citizens under lesser federal-slash-state-laws, has yet to be decided by the scotus.  Some readings of the founding docs say that (sometimes one or sometimes both of) your parents must have been citizens at the time you were born, and some say that you must have been born physically inside the boundaries of the USA.  The was a scotus case Minor v. Happersett which said that "no doubt" exists that one is a natural born citizen, if born physically in the USA, and both parents are citizens at the time of your birth, but that "some... doubts" exist about other circumstances, such as birth at another location, or birth of parents who were not both citizens at the time... but the scotus declined to resolve the doubts at that time, since they were not pertinent to the case at hand.  Some readings of the founding docs say that congress can specify citizenship laws (art 1 sec 8:  'establish a uniform rule of naturalization') up to and including the definition of what a natural-born-citizen includes, as they once did in 1790.  It may even be plausible for congress to retroactively *make* somebody a natural-born-citizen... kinda sorta what they did when passing a non-binding resolution on McCain's presidentiality qualifications... but see ex post facto for a difficulty with such things.
 * _  Anyways, for this particular contender, here is a newspaper source which cites a prof who says 'he thinks' that Cruz is a natural-born-citizen --   This is the professor .  But of course, short of a scotus case giving us a firm definition of natural born Citizen, we are still going to see complaints related to this issue on wikipedia articles relating to potus & vpotus contenders, either about Ted Cruz, or about others.  Including this article we are talking about!
 * _  I suggest that we put footnotes (per constraints of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4) that give an explanation, ideally with sources, for each contender that shows how they are a natural born Citizen, have attained the Age of 35, and been 14 years a Resident within the United States.  Note that you don't have to be all these things to *campaign* for the presidency, such as Peta in 2012, and that you need not have been a resident continuously... but your residency must have been *within* the United States, and that does not necessarily include territories, or work overseas, or so on.  However, common sense would indicate that the Resident requirement means legal resident of a State, otherwise it would exclude folks like General Petraeus.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

remove Petraeus
Due to an extramarital affair, Petraeus is "no longer even a long shot." (Heroeswithmetaphors)   talk  04:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That is one man's opinion, whoever wrote the article. He didn't take himself out of consideration. For 'GoodDay', that also is irrelevant to the OP who added his name in the first place. --Katydidit (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're assuming that he's got no chance. Do you have proof? GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know he has no chance, just like all the people (including Petraeus) kept on the 2012 article so long despite their clear non-candidacy. Do you have proof that he is a possible candidate now? There were people who thought Mark Sanford and John Ensign should still be in the 2012 article. This article is such a goddam joke with all the people completely disqualified by an ounce of common sense. Sources should only be valid if there have been no significant intervening events since publication. To Katydidit, the original sources are also just one man's opinion, uninformed by meaningful events. He never put himself into consideration in the first place! Reywas92 Talk 02:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Sanford and Ensign should be in the 2016 article. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should list Barack Obama too. Who knows, the 22nd amendment might be repealed tomorrow. Tiller54 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)   (Heroeswithmetaphors)   talk  21:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

TBD, I think it's premature to have these possible candidates, in the article. We should wait until after the 2014 mid-term Congressional elections. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, I disagree with you and Reywas92, primarily because I think that 'The_Article' being written here does not exactly match up with the title. Currently for the 2012 race we have Prelude to the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 article covering late-2010 through late-2011, Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 article covering mid-2011 thru mid-2012, and finally United States presidential election, 2012 covering the overall timespan of events.  There are also specific articles on the national conventions, on the major campaigns, on the state primaries, on various types of polling, and so on.  But we don't have an article covering the 2009 timeframe, which entirely consisted of media-speculation about the 2012 race.
 * _  Where does information we have about Petraeus belong?  Two places:  an article named Media Speculation About The United States presidential election, 2012 with details of how he got some media play back in the day circa 2009-2011, but in the end made some boring speeches, and ended up not running.  Also, though, Petraeus definitely belongs in the Media Speculation About The United States presidential election, 2016 article, in the section covering the the pre-popvote portion of 2012, and a bit more in the section about the post-general-election-popvote period of 2012, noting that media speculation about a 2016 run quickly dissipated once his scandal unfolded.  This is important, factual info, which has a demonstrable impact on the 2016 election:  since Petraeus is now likely out of the running, major donors will look elsewhere NOW, media pundits will look elsewhere NOW, and potential candidates that might have stayed out, may at some point decide to come in.  Just because the Petraeus media-speculation will likely turn out to have been incorrect (in terms of predicting *his* potential 2016 candidacy), does not mean his potential candidacy was a joke, any more than the potential candidacy of Douglas MacArthur was.  They are both of historical interest, as potential candidates, and as media-buzz phenomenons.
 * _  By contrast, there likely won't be any media-buzz phenomenon suggesting the Obama run for a third term... but if there *is* such buzz, as there was during the time before FDR broke with tradition and ran for a third term, then that media-buzz is worth recording for posterity, in and of itself.  It is irrelevant that Obama is ineligible for the office, because elections are about campaigning and the war of ideas, not merely about winning and the war of the ballot-booth.  Which means, in my view, John Ensign belongs in the 2012 article (at least the media-speculation portion of it) because from sometime in 2008 through May 2009, he generated significant sourceable media-buzz.  That he didn't end up a contender, due to a personal scandal, is beside the point.  Wikipedia ought to document those 2009 events in the MSATUSPE'12 article, if we don't consider it crucial enough to belong to the main USPE'12 article.  Ditto for Petraeus the scandal of the 2016 cycle, and for Petraeus the not-yet-a-scandal of 2012.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)   [Slightly tweaked on 15 December 2012.]

New Section "Openly Interested"
Rand Paul has said "I'm Not Going To Deny That I'm Interested"

So maybe it could be useful to open a new section called "Openly Interested" and start with Rand Paul as the first "openly interested" candidateSeth Flynn-88 (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's really necessary. For the last election, there were just 4 categories: confirmed/declared candidates, those who had refused, presently speculated and formerly speculated. We could add "openly interested" but then we'd just have to go and add more categories when other possible candidates come out with different statements or "refuse to deny interest" and so on. Keeping it to "possible candidates" keeps it simple, which it really should be at this very early stage. Tiller54 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul possible candidate
Ron Paul should be under possible candidates. It's not exactly the best way to make an announcement but he said on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno he'd run again - a bit in jest, but given his track record, I don't think we can really rule him out either. --24.12.214.185 (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 different reliable sources on his potential candidacy would be needed for him to be included.--Cjv110ma (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ron Paul will be 80 in 2016. Should he get the nomination, he will be by far the oldest President of all time. There is no chance in hell he's running, especially with the large chance his son has of running. Mr.   Anon  515  22:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean he won't be a candidate. Frankly, he's one of the less ridiculous names on this list. There's a lot of problems with this article. Whoever set the arbitrary rule of 2 reliable sources should know that you can't really make up your own arbitrary rules. On top of that, people who think an opinion piece or 2 identical articles meet that rule need to stop adding all these names. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 04:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your first point is correct, that there is a big distinction between being a candidate (i.e. participating in the televised debates during late 2015 ... and perhaps even in some of the early primaries during the first part of 2016) and seriously running for president. Ron Paul's previous presidential runs were serious, in the sense that he always stayed in the race right up until the final party nominee was chosen, but there was always a part of his reason for running that was simply aimed at educating the populace.  Although he is unlikely to make a Serious Run in 2016, there is a non-negligible likelihood he might make another Educational Campaign in 2016.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) As to your second point, ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ, that there are a lot of problems with this article, I heartily agree. Many of the same problems existed back during the run-up to the 2012 race, and consensus has yet to be reached. --74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice...
Great job on whoever designed this article! I love the format with the photos. MDEVER802 (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Daniels
No, it IS nonsense to keep all of the people who have said no. I don't care if it's sourced, it's pointless, meaningless speculation! Where does this crap come from that just because some journalist can shit the names of a dozen prominent politicians four years before an election, we have to keep that baseless prognostication here? Wikipedia requires that its contents must be sourced, not that anything that can be sourced must be (and remain forever) its contents! If there were serious articles devoted to exploring Daniels' (or other "candidates' ") theoretical run (such as there really are for Clinton, Biden, Cuomo, Christie, and Rubio), that would be fantastic, but when one of the sources is just a photo gallery and the other says "In additional to Christie, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Nikki Haley of South Carolina have been mentioned as possible presidential candidates" that does not tell me that there is real news surrounding a potential run which would warrant inclusion here. Regardless, at this early point, anyone speculated on is indeed truly irrelevant. It is only those still being speculated on after 2014. Reywas92 Talk 06:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be some actual content in the source beyond just a mentioning of the name or just one sentence about the person's potential candidacy in order for it to be a valid citation. It need not be a greatly detailed in-depth analysis, but certainly more than a passing reference or a single sentence.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reywas92, you are making two distinct points that I disagree with. First, you say is it nonsense to keep people that have said no, such as Hillary.  But it is only nonsensical, if you insist that wikipedia correctly predict the future, which is to say, you see this article as a record of the actual 2016 election.  By that standard, it is nonsense to even *write* the article, until mid-2015 or so.  But that is the wrong standard, because media-buzz about Hillary'16 right now today is Notable (in and of itself).  Whether wikipedia documents that buzz in this article, or in a subsidiary article titled Media Speculation About 2016, is arguable.  But saying that it is nonsense to document the historical fact, that as of 2012 most democrats polled -- and most pundits analyzing -- are very very strongly in favor of Hillary'16 as their number one pick....
 * _ Your second point, which I also disagree with, has to do with the value of media-buzz.  "baseless prognostication.. theoretical.. mentioned as possible.. anyone speculated on is indeed truly irrelevant".  This is just factually incorrect.  There is an INCREDIBLE amount of political value, and indeed monetary value, to having your name in lights this way.  Publicity, and public relations, and media-buzz, are intangibles with a very high cost; the names you see being pushed by the pundits are very significant, in terms of studying how the media functions, and how the twin-party system in the USA operates, and who is paying the freight.  "serious.. fantastic.. real news.. which would warrant inclusion"  What you are trying to say here is that wikipedia ought not be a mouthpiece for the propaganda machines, and that it ought not be infotainment.  I agree with you there.  But do you understand where I am coming from here?  Documenting media-buzz, which 90% of citizens are hammered with via infotainment propaganda of the mainstream media, is in and of itself worthwhile, because the name-dropping is in an of itself Notable.  (Whether or not the individual actually ends up running in the next cycle is almost ENTIRELY irrelevant from this perspective!) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I DO believe it is unnecessary to have this article until things actually start happening in 2014 or 2015. It is good to have an article that has basic information about the election itself, but, as GoodDay has said before, theoretical candidates who a couple of folks in the media can mention in passing without any significant analysis should not be listed at least until then. As I said above, there are indeed some who do have significant analysis, upon whom the pundits are particularly focusing, especially Hillary. She and maybe the dozen others who have been in the early polling (though so far only PPP has done any, and we know they love to throw names out there too, just for fun) could be included now, but there are not sixty people with this media buzz you refer to. We all know that Hillary said her no several years ago, and it was half-hearted, while Daniels has a definitive no with actions that speak even louder.
 * Again, this buzz only exists for a fraction of those listed. I'm not sure where you're coming from if you agree that this is "propanda machine...infotainment", as that is what most of this is. Name-dropping in multiple substantial articles may be notable, but when names are simply included in a huge list or photo gallery (several published online just days after Nov. 6), they are not. (see sources entitled "Democratic Presidential Possibilities: 20 in 2016", "Female President In 2016? A Look At The Potential Candidates", "Republicans, 2016: In full swing", " "With 2012 election done, field wide open for 2016 presidential tickets", "2016 Presidential Election candidates: Republican party", among many others).
 * In this age of scattered media and the proliferation of writers who can have their erratic musings easily published, a name-drop has very little political or montary value, if any. Of course there are some who stand to benefit, but most don't. Thinking back to those listed here for 2012, I saw Clarence Thomas, Gary Sinise, Arpaio, Cheney, Ensign, Sanford, Angle, Paladino, and a couple dozen others, and I think: Who cares? If they never said a word about running, how did and does this matter? What did they really get out of this speculation? What do I as a reader get out of it? The same goes for now until something happens. Of course it's wildly unlikely (though more likely than some listed here) that come 2015, say, John Cornyn decided to run, without ever receiving a word of speculation. He would have instant credibility for the Republican primaries and no problem fundraising, without ever receiving this value of speculation, and the same is true for those listed now, making no difference if the media would instead give us a respite from the constant election season. That some talking head made a guess that someone could hypothetically run (more of an annoying background drone than actual buzz for most) meant nothing then and means nothing now, and it is not something Wikipedia needs to document. Reywas92 Talk 04:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove Cory Booker?
Cory Booker will run for US Senate in 2014, so it's highly unlikely he will run for president in 2016, just two years having run for a statewide office for the first time. I think we can remove him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth Flynn-88 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't have a crystal ball. Just because he says he's running for Senate now doesn't mean he will run for Senate, he has plenty of time to change his mind before 2014, let alone 2016. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, understand what you're saying but let's face facts

-Cory Booker will (almost surely) run for US Senate in 2014. This means that, if elected, he will be sworn in in January 2015. That means he should start fundraising operation and campaigning for president during the beginning of his tenure. This his extremely unlikely.

Really, I think that taking him in consideration for 2016 is highly unlikely. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, i agree, but I think we should start to eliminate highly unlikely candidate like Booker (and maybe others like Kamala Harris and Ken Cuccinelli) for now. Fields are too crowded with people who are not considered even longer shosts (and Booker is one of them considering he's running for a senate seat in 2014). We should keep in mind that usually the top presidential contenders are senators and governors, even congressmen and mayors of big towns are usually considered longer shots. Mayors of medium-sized cities, like Booker, or statewide officeholders are not serious contenders, and usually don't run for president so considered them as potential candidates for a presidential primary is, in my opinion, useless since everyone knows they will not run. But this is just my opinion about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth Flynn-88 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Add Tim Scott
Tim Scott just got his boost onto the national stage. He has a been a U.S. Representative since 2011 and was just recently sworn in as U.S. Senator from South Carolina. With this, I think Tim Scott's name should be added to the list of potential candidates for the 2016 presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.236.129 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hybirdd (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not until you find a reliable source. Ratemonth (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Make that two reliable sources.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposals for article rewrite
I'm in the middle of working on a major rewrite of this page, but I would also like to see some discussion here on the talk page about what the editors here think is best. My own position is that there are multiple conflicting purposes at play here, and that the best solution is to make a separate article, if we cannot achieve them both in the one single article that exists as of now.

Purpose#1 is to document the speculation *about* the 2016 election. It is an actual phenomenon, which is quite notable -- millions of people will be paying attention to this speculation, and the speculation (as well as the opinion polls on speculative candidates) serve a very definite purpose. However, most of the people arguing against adding any names to the current article, or simply strongly encouraging that names rarely be added and then only with extremely good sources, fail to see this valid purpose. Instead, they are putting the focus on:

Purpose #2 which is to document the events *of* the 2016 election. That may include some historically notable speculation about candidates -- for example, in the 2012 election, Palin and Trump -- but typically it will just be a single sentence, and in fact that is the case for the current article on the 2012 race. As it should be, some will cry. And if the only purpose of the article on the 2012 race is to document the race itself -- and not the other events surrounding that race or leading up to that race -- then that is fine.

However, much information about the 2012 race has been lost. There used to be a gallery of speculative candidates including Palin and Jeb Bush and many more, with plenty of citations. One of the people in that speculative list was Bachmann, but she was cut from the speculative list back in 2009 or 2010, since only one source mentioned her. Yet she ran in 2012, whereas Palin and Jeb did not. All three of them ought to be in the 2016 list, of course. And they are! But for historical reasons, to improve the value of wikipedia, there ought to be a distinct page called United States Presidential Election Of 2012 (Early Speculation) or somesuch, with the name of the farsighted journalist that speculated on a possible run for Bachmann... and with the historical fact that almost nobody predicted her attempt, plus the other historical fact that there was *massive* media noise about Palin, yet she ran not. That fact about media speculation in 2010 may not have a Serious Important Impact on the factual content of an article covering the United States Presidential Election Of 2012... but it is a useful fact for other reasons (study of media-shaped decision-making / study of meta-politics / study of human psychology / and so on), which therefore ought not be eliminated from wikipedia, but instead put into a separate article about 2012 Speculations.

My own way of thinking, however, is this: the media-speculations that happened prior to the 2012 election were important, because often there was An Agenda of some sort, and although they may not have been good predictors of who actually ended up running for potus in 2012, that is beside the point. Just as with other political footballs, such as speculation in 2012 as to whether or not Hurricane Sandy was a direct result of global warming, or speculation in 2002 as to how long the war in Iraq would require boots on the ground, media speculation about future presidential candidates is itself a phenomenon, distinct from the primary debate phase, the primary popvote phase, the delegate-winning phase, the brokered convention phase, the general election debate phase, the swing state media blitz immediately before election-day, and the media coverage of election-day itself.

Anyways, to make a long story short, I think the 2016 article right now is a mess, because there is no distinction between which candidates such as Rand Paul are somewhat likely (according to sources!), which candidates such as Ron Paul are less likely but not implausible (according to sources!), which candidates such as Petraeus were at least conceivable but are no longer so (with sources!), and which candidates such as Marco Rubio are getting significant media-time (sources!) but have themselves said nothing conclusive. I also plan to give the age of all candidates as of January 2017, since that is an important distinguishing factor: Rubio is quite young but not implausibly young, Ron Paul is very old for achieving the POTUS nomination but cf favorite-son candidate Harold Stassen who was still running at age 85, Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton are going to be the same age as Reagan was back in 1980 but are not folks we can rule out yet... as long as there is *some* media speculation about their names. Not because we trust that the media speculation is Serious, or that we trust the media speculation is a solid Prediction Of Likelihood They Will Seriously Run, but because the *existence* of media-speculation is in and of itself Notable / Worthy / Important.

Eventually, I would like to see the 2012 article revised, with some an Early Speculation subsection containing paragraphs describing 2008, 2009, 2010, and early-2011 media noise, before transitioning into candidate filing-dates. But for starters, I would like to work on the 2016 article we have now. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Update, I now have a sortable table with all the candidates, and am filling in the gaps. The names of the columns are:  Face, Name, Major, 3rd, Priors, Job#1, Job#2, Job#3, Analysis, Mentions, Age'16, Home, Eligible, Action, Endorsed, Poll, Exposure, KeyEvent.  These are not particularly good column-names, but they have to be short if we want to keep to a single table.  Similarly, the contents have to be terse!  Rather than a large image-gallery, each has been reduced to 35px (at some point we can crop the upper-third-of-the-body-portraits being used now to just be a face).  I'm using USPS abbreviations for states, with hyperlinks to their article.  I have abbreviated typical former jobs to merely VP/Gov/Sen/Rep/Mayor, again with a link to the appropriate article.  All years are non-Y2K-compliant versions, again with a hyperlink to disambiguate.  Where longer text is necessary, either a ref to a cite, or a ref to a notes-area, is utilized.  In all cases except for the image-file, readers can hover the mouse over the hyperlink, figuring out that the home-state of Sarah Palin is AK, which the mouse-hover reveals is Alaska.  Is there a way to get an image-hover, so that if they hold the mouse over the 35px thumbnail, it displays a 100px gallery-sized version as a javascript popup?  The meanings of the columns are best explained by looking at the full table, live, but as a text-only preview, here is one person from the list, with the details of what their row in the table will contain, plus explanations as needed.


 * Face = EvanBayh.jpg (downsized to 35px to keep the table-size reasonable),
 * Name = Evan Bayh (link to political positions of Evan Bayh... which at some point ought to become a second detailed table on the 2016 election page methinks... but only once 2015 rolls around and actual candidates start putting up actual websites with their issue-lists I would say),
 * Major = D (link to Democratic Party... R for Republican... candidates like M.Bloomberg & R.Perry say R-was-D... only the two dominant parties are listed in this column... listing as Independent but caucusing with and voting with a major party gives you that major-party coloration),
 * 3rd = No (because candidate has never run... nor threatened to run... as an independent... contrast with Jesse Ventura who has only ever run 3rd-party... contrast again with Gary Johnson who served 8 years as a Republican but who recently ran on the Libertarian ticket... constrast with Virgil Goode who was elected as a Democrat -- then later elected as a Republican -- then recently ran on the Constitution ticket),
 * Priors = '08 & Family (note on 2008 exploratory committee + father in 1972 and 1976),
 * Job#1 = 2+yr TV US'11 (link to FOX nationwide television network),
 * Job#2 = 12yr Sen IN'98 (link to U.S. Senator + state of Indiana + the article about the 1998 Indiana senate campaign),
 * Job#3 = 8yr Gov IN'88 (link to Indiana Governor + state of Indiana + the article about the '88 Indiana governor campaign),
 * Analysis = Nov'12 (with cite#25 which is an instance of in-depth media buzz),
 * Mentions = Sep'12 (with cite#26 which is an instance of name-dropping media-buzz),
 * Age'16 = 61 (using his birthyear inserted into the datemath template curlyCurly Age in years|1955|2016 curlyCurly),
 * Home = IN (coloration indicating whether the state is red or blue or swing... in the case of Bayh links to Indianapolis which is his current sole legal residence -- whereas somebody like Romney with homes in MA NH MI UT would show MA as their legal residence but would have a note explaining the other states that are also considered home-states... politically speaking at least),
 * Eligible = n#5 (cover citizenship & parents & residency & age),
 * Action = n#6 (statement by the candidate on 2016 + creation of committee + hiring advisors & trainers + similar),
 * Endorsed = n#7 (cites of Notable People that have officially endorsed the candidate as their first pick for either POTUS or VPOTUS in 2016),
 * Poll = n#8 (note covering cites of Notable Polling Organizations that performed either a nationwide or statewide poll about the 2016 election... or about generic favorability... with this candidate's name specifically... as opposed to Generic Democrat),
 * Exposure = n#8 (cites related to Notable Media Events such as best-seller books by or solely about the person + visits to IA & NH + regular radio or TV show with audience of 1M + more than 1M likes on facebook + similar... but note that simply driving through Iowa is not enough... there must be a reliably-sourced media report that one reason for the Iowa visit was 2016-related),
 * KeyEvent = job change n#9 (note concerning any particularly Notable Events of intra-party politics which may significantly hurt the chances of this candidate in the 2016 race... for Evan Bayh this was a 'job change' with the explanation covering the circumstances of his spur-of-the-moment retirement from the Senate that led to a win for the other party... for Jon Huntsman his 'job change' when he worked for the other party's Administration as an Ambassador... for General Petraeus his 'scandal'... Mitt Romney his invention of RomneyCare would likely be listed since that Key Event was reliably-reported by sources as his biggest albatross going into the repub primaries of 2016... whereas his 47% comment would NOT be listed since although it was an Important Factor during the general election it was not quite enough to become a Key Scandal... much like the Benghazi attack was an Important Factor hurting the chances of an Obama re-election yet not quite enough to become a Key Scandal.)


 * _ Main question, is there anything I'm missing?  I'm a bit unhappy with the Polls column right now -- it might need to be split into a couple columns, or even several columns, so we can sort favorability/unfavorability and two-way polls differently from a six-way-poll (getting first place in a six-way poll with 29% is far more impressive than having a 30% approval rating... apples and oranges).  However, at the moment, merely being mentioned by name in a Notable Poll is indicative of whether a candidate is buzzworthy or not, and any number over 2% is 'impressive' by the low standards of media-buzz-speculation.  There was a poll of dem primary-voter folks, with only Hillary + Biden + Warner + O'Malley even budging the needle.  Similarly, there was a poll of repub primary-voter folks, with a wider range of 'successful' candidates that budged the needle, Jeb + Ryan + Rubio + Rand + Jindal + Christie + Palin + Santorum + and a couple more methinks.  Along the same lines, I think eventually the endorsement column will need to be more detailed, with endorsements from former presidents and current senators counting more than endorsements from boyband guitarists and former mayors.  But again, at the current state of the race, simply having any 2016 endorsements at all (from Notable Persons or even just from anonymous editors at Reliable Sources) is indicative.
 * _ Secondary question, is there a template-trick or something that would allow me to reference a value on another wikipedia page, such as year of birth?  I'm manually opening up the Evan Bayh article, looking in the infobox for his year of birth, then hardcoding the 1955 that I found over on that page, into the age-calculation-column of the table on this page.  That seems pretty painful, when what I would really like is some sort of magic curlyCurly en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[CandidateNameFromColumnTwo]?extract=MainInfobox.PersonalDetails.YearOfBirth curlyCurly -- does any magic kinda sorta like that exist?
 * _ Explanation by analogy:  the current page-format is very much like List of word processors.  Name of the program, maybe a screenshot, a couple refs to prove notability.  Generic-vague categories only (libre/costly/freeware/online/historical & democratic/republican/other).  What I want this 2016 page to be is something closer to Comparison of word processors, except restricted to a single wikitable:  Microsoft Word, screenshot.jpg, Microsoft Corp, latest 2010, first 1983, license commercial/proprietary, Grammar/Xref/Biblio/Graphics/Merge/Spell/Math (Smartfont/ConditionalText=No), Win/OSX (Lin/BSD/BeOS/AmigaOS/UNIX/Other=No), htm/odt/pdf/rtf/doc/docx/wrdprf (LaTeX/SXW/UOF=No).  74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole premise of Wikipedia is that you need reliable sources. This whole article is already about speculation. If you can't find two reliable sources speculating about a candidate running, then it would not meet the test for inclusion on any Wikipedia article, regardless of its scope.  If you can, then you can include them on this page. - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that reliable sources are needed. (However, I disagree that two are required -- one is sufficient in my book, for most articles.)  But from analyzing the talk-page-archives for the 2012 election-cycle, the complaints by many folks seen here about the 'reliability' of the list of potential candidates are a recurring phenomenon.  The main trouble, that keeps us from achieving consensus, is a misunderstanding about what SORT of reliability we need.  Reliability, to my understanding, refers *only* to the idea that a particular source must not be a satire such as the Onion, must not be a thinly-disguised rumor mill such as the supermarket tabloids, and must not be self-published such as a blog or examiner.com or policymic.com (which incidentally is one of the sources for speculation about Michael Bloomberg at the moment).  Anybody like CNN, or NYT, is fine.  Regional papers like Tampa Bay Times is still fine.  The nightly newscaster for the local FOX affialiate is fine.  Notable blogs like those run by TalkingPoints or RealClear are also fine.  Candidates themselves are useable sources in this case (declaration of intent/interest/etc).
 * _ Most of the trouble comes when wikipedia editors want the speculation *itself* to be reliable, which is to say, they only want speculation with a decent likelihood of coming true.  That is *not* the purpose of the article, at the moment, as you rightfully point out:  as of 2012, the article on the 2016 election is already going to be short on facts and long on speculation.  My push here is not to loosen up the reliable sources criteria, or even to drop the somewhat-arbitrary-but-not-unreasonable requirement of needing two reliable sources for this particular article.  My point is that, if there is significant media-buzz for a decidedly unlikely candidate (such as Michelle Obama... or General Petraeus) then wikipedia ought to record that.  Politically, buzz is an important currency.  Pundits do not give buzz to 'unlikely' candidates for no reason.  The fact of the buzz itself is an important political phenomenon, as long as the sources are reliable.  Wikipedia ought to document that phenomenon, just as it documents the media phenoms like Paris Hilton.  It doesn't matter that Ted Nugent & Michelle Obama are unlikely to run, because the very fact that reliable sources spent time and effort speculating about such things is itself Notable.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 74.192.84.101, I strongly suggest that you create a sandbox (you will be provided the space to do so upon registering an account, which is a very painless process) on which to give your proposed changes a "test run" that can be linked to and seen by other editors for consideration before implementing them in the namespace of the article, lest the changes prove contentious. I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm and desire to improve the page. That said, please be advised that several (well, most) of your proposed changes (or something similar) have been tried in the past and failed to get consensus. Examples include:


 * Keeping potential candidates who did not run listed on the election page: This was done on the 2012 election page for a while before a consensus decided that doing so was giving undue weight to non-candidates and that such lists were more appropriate for the candidate articles (i.e. Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012 & Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012.
 * (Reply -- if the consensus ends up that the main USPE'16 article should *not* make any mention of candidates which received serious early media-buzz speculation, but in hindsight ended up not actually running, then I am comfy moving those people over to the never-yet-created MSATUSPE'16, or perhaps the soon-to-be-created PTTRPP'16. Note that I am 100% against the current-consensus-form of the RPPC'16 article you suggested... because it is merely a more detailed version of the exact same theme found in the main USPE'16 article.  Look at the 2012 articles:  the singlemost important speculative-2012-candidate in late 2008, all of 2009, all of 2010, almost all of 2011, and a good portion of 2012 was Sarah Palin, yet she is not even *listed* in RPPC'12 and gets a half-sentence mention in USPE'12.)
 * (Reply cont'd -- The problem is not that wikipedia editors are intentionally biased against Palin, as she often accuses the 'lamestream-media' of being... the problem is that wikipedia editors are letting facts-in-hindsight be their guide, which is to say, allowing the winners to write history. The media-speculation about Palin in 2009 is an Event Of Notable Proportion, which impacted the 2012 election in some sense, and which is historically-slash-politically interesting by itself for other reasons not specific to the 2012 election.  Similarly, the media-speculation about Petraeus in late 2008 is an Important Event... but with projective-hindsight as their guide, wikipedia editors concerned about the bytecount of USPE'16 have eliminated him from the page, entirely.  This is rewriting history -- accidentally, for the most part, based on wanting just-the-facts in the article "about" the 2012-or-2016 election.  But the FACT, of all that Notable media speculation, concerning whether or not Palin would run in 2012... was deleted from history-as-told-by-wikipedia!  To improve the encyclopedia, we need to improve how we preserve media-speculation-by-reliable-sources.  A tough nut to crack, but not impossible.)
 * Making distinctions between the potential candidates as to the "likelihood" of running: Something similar was tried in an early version of the 2012 election or 2012 Republican primary page (or both). A more nuanced lising system was used but proved to be problematic as the distinctions were found to be open to a degree of interpretation (even when reliable sources were used) and subject to overlap as some "candidates" fit into more than one distinction. This was quickly abandoned in favor of the more simplified version used currently.
 * (Reply -- which is why we have alphabetical-by-party listings now... and the reader cannot tell *anything* about which candidates are more or less likely to run. Most of the troubles earlier seemed to stem from trying to let wikipedia editors assign categories to the candidates, such as 'top tier'.  I am not doing that; instead, I'm creating a table which self-evidently shows the reader which candidates are most serious, and which candidates are top tier, without requiring any editor-judgement-calls.)
 * Listing ages and other personal data of the potential candidates: This was tried briefly before a consensus was reached that such information was extraneous for the listing as such information was available on the bio pages which was just a click away.
 * (Reply -- see my point above. Age isn't extraneous, it is a crucial factor.  Ron Paul will be 81 in 2016, which I have reliable sources saying is "too old" to be a serious candidate, although perhaps not "too old" to run an educational campaign.  Julian Castro will be 42 in 2016, which given his experience is a total of 3 years as a mayor (never rep/sen/gov/veep), not only do I have reliable sources that he is "too young" but I also have reliable sources he is "too inexperienced".  Again, though, he might run for president anyway.  But if I list age and major qualifications and other key indicators in my sortable-wikitable, it is easy to separate the contenders from the speculators.  The key is picking the correct indicators, while still keeping to one table.  I'll take my best shot at a rough draft, and then you will be able to see whether it improves things measurably, or not.  If we pick the correct columns, though, the reader will be able to visually just *see* the serious candidates, the inexperienced candidates, the probably-too-old candidates, and the speculation-that-will-not-likely-pan-out-candidates.  No editor will need to categorize somebody as 'too old' explicitly, or as 'too inexperienced' explicitly, because we just list their age and their jobs.)


 * Of course, Consensus can change and you are certainly welcome to offer these proposals and make the case for them, but I thought a "heads up" might be helpful. Again, please consider creating a draft version that can be viewed by other editors and freely amended for experimentation without consequence to the mainspace article, as it has been my experience that a visual proves more beneficial to everyone involved than does a mere description when alterations to the format of an article are proposed.--JayJasper (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the heads-up, although I did kinda guess I was walking on eggs here! I fully realize that many such changes have been attempted in the past, and failed to gain consensus -- many of my best ideas were swiped from Arms&Hearts fka Hysteria18, from reading his/her proposals on the 2012-race-talkpage.  I am designing my new layout with those past failures-to-achieve-consensus in mind.  However, note that the *current* layout also does not have consensus either:  many people complain that Petraeus must be taken off, and that other (unspecified) potential candidates are a joke, and that usually-reliable-sources should not 'count' as such for the purposes of this page, or that one source is not enough, or similar tensions.  Again, I am designing my new layout with these troubles in mind as well.  The chief advantage of a sortable-wikitable is that the individual reader can, with a click or two, can see the "most serious" potential candidates, yet the default layout can be relatively unbiased.  Last but not least, although I realize that my direct implementation of my proposal on this page may be quickly reverted, I want to get feedback from folks that check the page regularly, but may not pay attention to this talk-page... where I'm trying to soften you and Nbpolitico/GoodDay/etc in advance....  [grin]  About your specific three examples, I've put parenthetical replies inline above. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For the most part TLDR. But from the bits I read, I must recommend that we hold off from 'speculations' of candidates, until atleast after the 2014 mid-term elections. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposals "in a nutshell"

 * Apologies about the verbosity, but the subject is a bit complex! In a nutshell:  I agree that wikipedia *editors* should not be speculating about candidates.  However, when Nate Silver @ NYT devotes a series of articles to Hillary'16, Warren Buffett more or less endorses Hillary'16, and ~60% of Democratic Party voters polled by PPP pick Hillary'16 as their top choice, all despite the facts that she will be age 69 as of 2016, and in 2011 she stated she was retiring from electoral politics (she has now gone through with her stated plan -- she is stepping down as Secretary of State)... those bits of media-speculation-in-2012 are Historically Notable Facts, relevant to the 2016 presidential race.  Whether she runs or not!  The buzz itself is historically & politically important, and ought to be in wikipedia, for posterity.  The only question I see is whether those facts (about a notable media-buzz phenomenon backed up by reliable sources) belong in #1 this USPE'16 main article, or in #2 the subsidiary PTTRPP'16 article once it exists, or in #3 a new series of subsidiary articles called something like MSATUSPE'16.
 * _ Arguably, the placement decision cannot be *correctly* made until 2017... when we know what Hillary ended up doing.  In the meanwhile, though, I'd like a consensus policy on where notable-Hillary-speculation ought to be listed, that will help improve the 2016 article(s) to everybody's satisfaction... but more importantly, will help settle the future issue of what the main USPE'20 article ought to be written like (when we start working on it in 2017... or sooner).  There is already Notable Media Speculation that for instance Marco Rubio will run in 2020, rather than in 2016.  Slowly I'm getting my reformatted draft version of USPE'16 ready for WP:BRD, with luck sometime later this weekend I will post it.  Please revert it immediately if you do not like my attempt, and we will have something concrete (as an oldid) to discuss here on the talkpage.
 * No reason to change the article much. Stick with at least 2 reliable sources, don't get rid of the gallery, and don't get rid of candidates for silly reasons like "they're too old" or "they had a scandal".Ratemonth (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Petraeus was *already* removed from the article, because he 'had a scandal'. Ron Paul has yet to be added to the article, because he is 'too old' and he is 'out of office'.  (Contrast with Hillary Clinton who is in somewhat similar circumstances, but is in the article.)  See the other parts of this talkpage, arguing that we ought to remove *all* the potentials until December 2014.  Some editors want more people, some want fewer, tension will continue until we find a new layout (in my not-so-humble opinion).  See the talkpage Archive 1 for the 2012 version of this page -- they had the exact same arguments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There was no good reason to remove Paul or Petraeus. Whoever removed them was enjoying some original research. Editors should not assume they know these people's intentions. I didn't fight it because I didn't feel like getting into an edit war or long back and forth argument here. But it's better to leave them here until their reliable sources are too old, and then remove them.Ratemonth (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We agree 99%, right up to the last half-sentence. I see the media-buzz about Petraeus-for-Prez as, in and of itself, Historically Notable.  (Look at the Cuomo'88 and Cuomo'92 faux-campaigns, for a good example of what I am talking about.)  Arguably, the Petraeus-info may not belong in *this* article, USPE'16.  I would be just as happy if the Petraeus-stuff was moved over into PTTRPP'16 or even MSATUSPE'16.  But deleted -- if that is what you mean by 'removed' -- I am against deletion.  Just because Petraeus may not end up actually *running* a campaign, does not suddenly mean that media *speculation* about such, is now something to delete.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If there was consensus for keeping past media speculation such as that it'd be fine with me, but that has not happened in the last several elections.Ratemonth (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (later update) Ahhh... speaking of the arguments back in 2009, concerning who was a 'serious' candidate, and whether a poll/OpEd/blog/youtube could be considered a 'reliable' source, you were actually there, Ratemonth.  Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012/Archive_2   My position now in December 2012 is the same as Timmeh was arguing for back then in May 2009:  "Speculation is fine, as long as it is in reliable sources, and not done by us [wikipedia editors]."  There are reliable sources speculating about Petraeus.  Just because they are 'outdated', does not mean that historical speculation ought to be deleted.  There are reliable sources speculating about Michelle Obama.  Just because 'common sense' tells us that she will not run, is absolutely no reason to keep her out of the listing of potential candidates -- cf Hillary Clinton circa 1999.  That said, there is a *practical* problem, of page-layout.
 * _ If we literally include *all* the candidates that the reliable-sources-media happens to think is worthy of speculation between 2012 and 2016, which is that there will be perhaps a hundred potential candidates, only ten or twenty of whom will actually be likely to Seriously Run for the presidency.  My goal here is to come up with a sortable wikitable that allows us to list all those candidates, *without* any wikipedia editor needing to make decisions about whether any given candidate is 'top tier' / 'too old' / 'too inexperienced' / 'unlikely' / whatever, that with a single click will sort the wheat from the chaff.  Besides for this page we're on, I think such a wikitable would be useful for the PTTRPP'12, which is also currently a gallery.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This article needs to be gutted out, via removal of the 'possible candidates' section & content. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources are speculating about 2016 candidates already, why shouldn't Wikipedia reflect that? Why set an arbitrary timeline as to when it's "appropriate" to start listing potential candidates? It is Wikipedia policy to follow the lead of reliable sources, after all.--NextUSprez (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, see the second paragraph of my reply to Reywas92 below, which is not TLDR. Notable Media Speculation about the 2016 race, during 2012 and 2013 and early 2014, is in and of itself a phenomenon worth documenting in wikipedia. Maybe it belongs in a subsidiary article, rather than in the main article... but moving to a subsidiary article is different from outright removal aka deletion, which is what you are advocating.  Are you against documenting media-buzz in 2013, about the pros and cons of theoretical 2016 candidates, for some particular reason?  It seems like a valid encyclopedic topic, right? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it possible we can split the candidates section into two separate ones? One where we have the candidates that have actually expressed some public manner of interest in running, and the remainder who are simply subjects of speculation? --Ariostos (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would appear that that idea has been implented without objection (so far). For whatever it's worth, I support keeping it that way.--NextUSprez (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Third Parties in the Infobox
As I said before, I am merely following policy as established in the 2012 Presidential Election Article The entire discussion relating to Third Parties being in the Infobox is located here. The general consensus was that every party which had access to 270 Electoral Votes should be included, which in the present stage, only the Libertarian Party meets this requirement. --Ariostos (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Greens have ballot access beyond 270. Why aren't you adding them? I'm opposed to adding either Lib or Green because like it or not, this is a two-party system. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the 2012 election page, assuming no changes, the Constitution and Justice parties also have access to more than 270. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They don't keep the ballot access after the election unless they meet certain thresholds, and sometimes those aren't even beholden to Presidential Election (like New York, where ballot access can only be perserved by netting 50,000 votes in the Gubernatorial race). The Libertarians actually managed to hang on to 320 Electoral Votes worth of Ballot Access, and the Greens came up just short at 265. The Constitution Party and Justice Party..............lets just say they have seen better days.
 * And I agree, this is a two-party system. But that is keeping on with a bias that only the Republicans and Democrats are viable, and thus should be the only ones displayed. Wikipedia is supposed to be above that, and express total neutrality. --Ariostos (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's way too early for any party to be listed in the infobox, imo. How about we wait until 2016 before before doing that?--NextUSprez (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a possible solution, but I have a feeling we'll simply be having this same discussion we are having now, then. --Ariostos (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but why would anyone would expect to see a nominee section for an election that is nearly 4 years away, especially considering the primaries don't even start for another 3 years? It just seems ridiculously early for that.--NextUSprez (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, then we should just remove it in its entirety for the time being, at least till after the Midterms. --Ariostos (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Dark Horse Candidate?
http://m.facebook.com/pages/Robert-Arthur-Canales-2016/171536796209137?id=171536796209137&_rdr

Looks like he's already announced. Not sure about his chances but it seems early still. Does anyone have more info on this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.115.185.130 (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Palin?
I hate to have to be the one to say this, but does Sarah Palin really belong on this list? She has almost universal name recognition (so, little room for change), yet her favorability rating among her party is only ~64%, while her favorablity among Democrats is ~4%... . Is this a list of potential candidates or people who have the ability to run? I think there's a difference... thoughts? Jwhite85 (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't about who we think is likely to win either primaries or the general election, but who the reliable sources say is likely to run (and people with no chance of winning sure do like to run).Ratemonth (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I was indirect. By saying she has no chance of winning, I was implying that 1) She knows she has no chance of winning 2) She has a very good (profitable) career right now and 3) Getting stomped in a primary would damage that career.  I guess at this point it's all pure speculation.  It just seems terribly unlikely, but I guess several people on this list do.  Thanks for the thoughts.  Jwhite85 (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Howard Dean
“I think probably not, but we’ll see.” Think he deserves some kind of inclusion, not sure where he'd belong though. --24.12.214.185 (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Jan Brewer and other additions?
I was involved in the 2012 election pages and I was curious what methods are using to decide what potential candidates can be added. I suspect you are probably doing something different than we did. I was just curious why criteria you were using and also want to see if Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona could be added as I have seen her referenced as a possible candidate in a couple different media sources. Also, Senators Lindsey Graham and Scott Brown have been mentioned a few places as well. Thanks.

--Diamond Dave (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hilary is confirmed candidate
According to this report - http://usa.greekreporter.com/2013/02/11/exclusive-hillary-clinton-will-run-for-president-in-2016-confirmed/ - Hilary Clintion is a confirmed candidate for president in 2016. Maybe the page should be updated on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcc7292 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how reliable that source is, but the report is based on hearsay. Besides, no one is truly a "confirmed" candidate until he/she actually announces the candidacy personally. So there's no need for updating the page.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. It just looked rather interesting so I thought I'd post it here because and let the editors decide what, if anything, to do with it. The story does come from someone with an inside track to the Clintons, but I can understand that it's not the same as coming from Hillary herself. I also came across this: http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/markos-moulitas/282625-2016-the-year-for-clinton It dosen't say she's a confirmed candidate but I figure it could be added to the sources about her as potential candidate. I'm not sure how to go about formatting it and don't want to make a mess, so maybe someone with more editing experience could add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcc7292 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I added that link to the article. Also want to add that NextPrz is absolutely right, no one should be indentified as a declared candidate until they themselves declare it.--Cjv110ma (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Front runner sections?
How about having a separate section for "front runners" (or "early front runner" for the time being). For the democrats, that would be obviously be hillary and maybe joe biden. For the republicans, that would obviously be rubio, bush and probably christie and ryan, possibly jindal too. Just a suggestion. thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.193.205 (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll have to suggest against this. Determining who should fall under the category of frontrunner would be subjective. There's really no way to come to an agreement on something like that. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vinny on this. A front-runners section would arguably violate WP:NPOV and probably start endless debates about how to define "front runner". Thanks for commenting, though.--NextUSprez (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we use early polling data? PPP has already put out some polls on 2016. This article is, by nature, subjective, as there have been no reliable standards for who can be on the list.  Jwhite85 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the articles listed under "See also" covers the polling data sufficiently. It would be redundant to add it here.--NextUSprez (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Jwhite85 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Russ Feingold
Russ Feingold has been in polls, shouldn't he be considered a potential candidate? Mjjd226 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can find 2 reliable sources that clearly identify him as a potential candidate, go for it.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

John Kerry
Media Speculation: Here, Here and Here Also, please see "Howard Dean" section above. --24.12.214.185 (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. This seems to be significant enough media speculation for inclusion on the list of possible contenders. Someone else with more familiarity with Wikipedia format should add him to the list. As far as Howard Dean is concerned, I don't think there is enough media speculation. The post above provided only one link, and there need to be at least two from different sources, I believe. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much to whoever added Secretary Kerry to the list! :D --24.12.214.185 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't be listing potential candidates in this article, until January 2015. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Because you say so? No. All that matters is that reliable sources are naming potential candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should we be listing them now? Because you say so? Because some mouthpiece in the media can screech "He might potentially be plausible material for higher office sometime in the future!"? No. All that matters is what candidates actually say in public, not baseless speculation and overinterpretation of unnamed sources. Reywas92 Talk 03:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has, for a long time now, been very standard as to how potential candidates are determined. For presidential elections, if two reliable sources name someone as a potential candidate (however unlikely you may consider it), it warrants inclusion on the list. That is why we are listing them now. That's the Wikipedia standard. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was only put in place for the 2012 election, under an agreement heavily pushed by Mr. Saturn. Don't be making up some sort of Wikipedia standard nonsense. It exists nowhere else in the encyclopedia, and nothing says a format can't be changed. If they're in-depth articles, that's more of a reliable source, but if it's one of those that throws out a dozen names, that's not enough. Reywas92 Talk 06:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * True. I should not have used the word standard. I was writing off the cuff and could not think of a better word. I should have used consensus. The consensus right now is to continue to use the same method as the 2012 election. If you wish to change the consensus, you are free to rally support for your view. Arguing with Mr Saturn, however, will do nothing to change the consensus. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Scott Brown
The New Hampshire Union Leader is reporting Scott Brown will headline a fundraiser there and that he "has been mentioned in discussions about possible presidential candidates in 2016." I cannot find another source for this but folks may want to be on the look out. - Nbpolitico (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Be on the lookout for Bill Haslam too .--Dwc89 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ted Cruz born in Calgary?
The Wikipedia page for Ted Cruz says he was born in Calgary,Alberta, so technically this should disqualify him from the Presidency. So, Mr. Cruz should not be on this page.

This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/us/politics/ted-cruz-is-a-test-for-the-tea-party-in-texas-race.html?_r=2&), states that "Mr. Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, where his parents were working in the oil business." Mhoppmann (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That does not matter. Our opinions on the constitutionality of any hypothetical candidacy are not important, and are original research. What is important is that reliable sources are speculating that he might run. Wikipedia is not the judge of whether he can run. Ratemonth (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Ratemonth, and would add that being born outside the United States dosen't necessarily disqualify someone from the presidency. John McCain after all, was born in the Panama Canal Zone which obviously didn't prevent him from being the Republican nominee for POTUS in 08. Besides, the question of Cruz's elibility appears to be unsettled at the present time. --NextUSprez (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See this: "constitutional experts say that there could be a candidate Cruz".--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but bear in mind that the Panama Canal Zone was at the time considered a US territory. If I'm not mistaken, it had its own US zip code at one point. Strictly speaking a candidate must be from a US state or territory under US control. I've never know Calgary, Alberta to be under US control50.136.74.20 (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, the article must be based on reliable sources, not our opinions. And as the Texas Tribune article cited earlier in this discussion points out:
 * Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware and later moved to Houston. She graduated from Rice University in 1956. By virtue of being born in the United States, she is a citizen. Because she spent most of her life before Ted Cruz was born in the U.S., he also qualified as U.S. citizen at birth.


 * “Ted Cruz didn’t naturalize. He was natural at birth,” said Spiro, the Temple professor. http://www.texastribune.org/2012/08/13/texplainer-could-canadian-born-ted-cruz-be-preside/
 * The location of his birthplace does not disqualify him as as a natural-born citizen. One of his parents was a US citizen at the time of his birth, and that is all that's needed.Ratemonth (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, yet he ran for president. Nothing stops him from running, jsut from lawfully taking office. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Expressed Interest
How do we define "Publicly Expressed Interest"?

For example, if a candidate says "Probably not going to run" have they expressed interest?

Must two sources have recorded the candidate expressing interest (however we define it) in the past 6 months? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Other potential candidates
How does one decide if a name is to be added to this section? Shouldn't there at least be an article on this?user:mnw2000 19:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If at least 2 different reliable sources, that are less than 6 months old, identify someone as a potential 2016 presidential candidate they can be added to the section if Wikipedia has an article about them.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Jose Serrano?
Rep.Jose Serrano of New York has asked SC judges about the constitutionality of a Puerto Rican candidacy for President,. Do you think this is just a simple query, or worth keeping an eye on? Mhoppmann (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the way we have handled Senator Cruz (see above), if two legit sources speculate that Mr. Serrano could run then he should be included.ObieGrad (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Morry Taylor
I noticed that someone has deleted Morry Taylor from the article because of zero references. However, here are enough references to warrant inclusion: Mhoppmann (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the sources, I've added him with them. Ratemonth (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

We still need one more reference, as the one from Tire Review turned out to be too old. Mhoppmann (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)