Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 3

Add Vermin Supreme.
You should add Vermin Supreme, as Satyrical presidential nominee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcSw2PJD1zU

This man as clearly expressed his interest to participate in the presidential election for 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.Hendricx (talk • contribs) 16:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Do we make sections for "satirical candidates"?--BobfromtheBeltway (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

He's been added to Democratic candiates section. His candidacy has been confirmed by National Journal.--Earlgrey T (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders
He has been listed twice, in Democrats who have publicly expressed interest and as an independent candidate. Since he does not run as a Democrat, he should not be listed there, I feel. 76.100.194.102 (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He has expressed openness to the possibility of running for the Democratic nomination in 2016, as well as the possibility of running as an independent, so he is rightly listed in both categories.--Cojovo (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Roseanne+Peace and Freedom Party?
If Roseanne makes another bid for the White House, wouldn't it be more logical that she would try to make another bid to be the Green Party nominee thinking this time she'll get the nomination, instead of a lesser known mini-Green Party that's only on the ballot in a few states? If she makes another deceleration she'll probably go for the Green Party nomination. Likewise Ventura's talking about running and it's more likely to be as a Libertarian to have more of a vehicle than just running as an independent. J390 (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ben Carson
In the Digital Journal article about Carson it says: "The result was that he has named Terry Giles to be his 2016 campaign chairman, and he has authorized the formation of a political action committee, or PAC, named One Nation." Doesn't this basically mean that he is running? The part about naming a campaign chair definitely makes me think he is.Mhoppmann (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The same articles says "With the Republican nominating convention still two years away, Dr. Carson stopped short of committing to a run". So while it does appear he is gearing up for a 2016 run, no formal announcement has yet been made.--JayJasper (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

William McRaven
Buzz seems to be building around William McRaven, see here, and here. I know that the last link is more VP chatter than presidential, but it still represents a desire for McRaven to seek higher office. Keep a lookout for other McRaven themed articles (specifically ones with 2016 in mind). Mhoppmann (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura
Jesse Ventura is running for the Libertarian party. hes even had political experience hes been the Governor of Minnesota from 1999 to 2003. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to verify that he is running for the Libertarian nomination?--NextUSprez (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Al Gore be included?
Al Gore was as potential candidate with these sources:. In the first, he is asked about the possibility about running in 2016, and gives basically a "highly unlikely, but not it's not impossible" answer. The second is little more than a recapping of the first. I had always thought the deal was that if one source merely rehashed another, with no additional speculation of its own, then it didn't count as an "additional" source. If I'm right about this, then Gore should be removed unless a second source with the past six months can be found that independently describes him as a potential candidate, especially given that his dubious reply seems to disqualify him from the "expressed interest" category (which would require only one source).--Newbreeder (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you're right that there is consensus that a source that merely quotes or reports what another given source says dosen't count. I agree that Gore shouldn't be included unless a second source that makes a seperate assessment of him as a potential candidate can be provided.--NextUSprez (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree w/ Newbreeder & NextUSprez. See this (bottom thread), this, this & this. Sources that merely rehash other listed sources have consistently been rejected as valid citations in cases where multiple sources are needed. If that second article on Gore had, in addition to citing the politico article, added independent content about why he might run in 2016, I'd say keep him listed. It did not, however, so he should be removed until or unless an additional qualifying source can be found.--JayJasper (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Gore has been removed per this discussion.--Newbreeder (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that Al Gore should only be removed from the discussion after a Consensus is reached. although so fa there is already a large number of Democratic candidates and also the democratic party is already the incumbent party in this election cycle. Im not sure if we should remove him from the list because im not really sure if he is or is not running. but after a consensus is reached we will move this talk issue forward. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Gore was removed last June as a result of the above discussion, but was added back in sometime in July after new sources surfaced. There no longer seems to be an objection to him being included as the newer sources appear to be in line with the listing standards for this page.--NextUSprez (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.226.155 (talk)
 * Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska 2006–2009; 2008 vice-presidential nominee Villacorta, Natalie (February 12, 2014)


 * The first source doesn't support the statement. Please supply a WP:RS that supports it. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickee (talk • contribs) 02:21, 4 September 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Also, both sources are over six months old. Per consensus, sources for potential candidates need to be inside that time range.--NextUSprez (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"Other potential candidates" with sources dated over 6 months
Will someone who has access to edit this article please remove the following potential candidates who no longer have 2 sources dated within the past 6 months:

Democrats - Hickenlooper, Napolitano, Nixon Republicans- Ayotte, Scarborough

I have already placed them under the "Previous" column in the democratic and republican candidates, 2016 articles but currently do not access to edit this article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otisdefoe (talk • contribs) 21:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it done, with the exception of Scarbouough. He has one source that is still inside the six-month range (for a few more days, anyway), and since he is in the "publicly expressed interest" category, he only needs one to be listed (per the consensus of editors).--Newbreeder (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, newbreeder, not only for carrying out the request but for fixing my mistakes as well. I left s. brown off the list, but I see you caught that. I was also wrong about scarborough, he's still eligible to stay on the list for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otisdefoe (talk • contribs) 19:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Mike Rogers needs to be removed from the Republican speculation list, as the latest source is from March 2014
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:37f4:6310:5108:b778:27b9:81c2 (talk)  00:10, 18 September 2014‎

Both sources on him are dated March 30, so he remains eligible to be listed until September 30.--Rollins83 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * He has now been removed as his sources expired on Sep. 30.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Mistake in file as currently constructed
Under "Democratic Party: Other Potential Candidates", the Republican list is duplicated.

I'm sure this is an innocent error, but the previous list of Other Democratic Presidential Candidates should be retrieved and restored; I trust this is an uncontroversial suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.26.86.31 (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was an innocent error, a cut-and-paste mishap on my part. My apologies for that, and thanks to the editor who made the correction. I will be more careful in the future.--Cojovo (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Palin is still a potential candidate
She was removed because of not having two sources dated within the past 6 months. However here are 2 very recent sources that say she still a potential candidate for 2016: http://www.newsminer.com/blogs/politics_cache/poll-alaskans-favor-hillary-clinton-over-sarah-palin-in-presidential/article_cdf7aba4-4456-11e4-aa85-001a4bcf6878.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/14/sarah-palin-pac-spends-45k-gop-races/

In light of these sources, it seems fair to keep her included as a potential candidates. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.G.Busby (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

✅ thanks for posting those links.--BobfromtheBeltway (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

About Clooney....
The sources on George Clooney, merely report that a british bookmaker says there are increased odds of clooney running for president based on who he married. Not so sure the british bookie qualifies as a actual "pundit" or that this qualifies as legitimate speculation, as the story has an air of being a novelty piece. For these reasons, I'm leery of having him listed as a potential candidate based on the given sources. And even if there i s general agreement that the speculation is legit, neither source specifically pegs him as a potential democratic candidate (or any party affiliation for that matter). So even if he remains listed, it is unclear as to which section he should be included. Feedback requested and appreciated.--Jggxx11 (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the reliabley sourced coverage of the bookmaker's oddsmaking of a Clooney candidacy, I would say the speculation is definitely notable (whether or not it is "legit" may be debatable, but notable is what matters here). As for being identified as a potential Dem. candidate, this article states "The Oscar-winning Clooney is a longtime Democratic supporter". So there is a strong implication, if not an outright statement, that Clooney would likely run as a Dem if he indeed runs at all. With the addition of the aformentioned source, I say that Clooney should clearly remain on the list of potential Dem. candidates.--BobfromtheBeltway (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good find with that NYDN article, Bob. It satisfies pretty much every point of contention I raised. Ok, now I'm sold on Clooney as legitimate potential democratic candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jggxx11 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please add Luis Gutierrez
He is a potential democratic candidate for 2016. Here are the sources:

http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/luis-gutierrez-president-latino-activists-may-draft-him/tue-10072014-1214pm ; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/7/immigration-activists-court-luis-gutierrez-for-pre/?page=all ; http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/07/Luis-2016-Amnesty-Advocates-Readying-Draft-Gutierrez-Movement ; http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/hispanic-activists-pushing-rep-gutierrez-2016-presidential-draft/thu-10232014 ; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruby XL (talk • contribs) 17:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

✅ by User:NDACFan.--JayJasper (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Expressing Interest - And Then Not Expressing It Any More
Present rules are that if a candidate expresses interest then one source is required in the last six months indicating that. If those six months pass, it is my opinion that a candidate would need either a new source indicating they have expressed interest or two new sources speculating on them to get included in the article again (they would then be a speculated candidate).

In the case of Jesse Ventura, he was listed as expressing interest but the source expired. A new article is speculating about him. I feel that he should be included only if a new source has him expressing interest or two sources speculate about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above comments.--Dwc89 (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014
Now that Gary Jounson has announced for the Libertarian nomination again in 2016, he is now longer merely a "potential" candidate. Please move him to the section for official candidates. Thank you.

2600:1003:B10F:DF87:B3B4:980E:C17:774 (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Biblio worm 23:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This source is in the article where Gary Johnson is listed. I guess I should have made that clear.--2600:1003:B12A:AF0D:5F67:2DC9:EF44:1CF3 (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Request has been granted.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ben Carson Announces
Ben Carson has announced for 2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/ben-carson-2016_n_6120878.html http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-ben-carson-republican-throw-hat-2016-ring/story?id=26735300. Mhoppmann (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC) "That speculation will turn to reality this weekend, as ABC News has confirmed the conservative plans to air a 40-minute ad announcing his bid." (from the HuffPo article linked above). Plans to are the key words here. An announcement may be forthcoming, but it hasn't happened yet.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, see this: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/11/07/Ben-Carson-unofficially-throws-his-hat-in-2016-ring-with-party-switch-docu-ad/8631415366009/ Note the word "unofficially". The actual announcement is still pending.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, most sites are now saying that he has only "unofficially" announced a run. Apparently their was an editing error which caused the misconceptions about a formal announcement. Mhoppmann (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: ABC NEWS has issued a revised version of the earlier story that caused so much confusion and led many to think that he had already declared his candidacy. The updated version has a different - and accurate- headline, as well as a "correction" at the beginning of the article.--Dwc89 (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Primaries?
Why is there no primary calendar, or indication/timeline for when the primary elections take place? The Presidential cycle starts in like January?

99.99.51.64 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There are separate articles on the major parties' primaries. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken, the scheduling for the primary elections is still being worked out, so there is no official schedule/timeline as of yet.--Ruby XL (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Robert Reich
I'm wondering if Robert Reich should be included on this page. see here. Look at this article at Daily Kos that excerpts this from his Facebook page: ″At the very least, with a candidate for president in 2016 who makes this the centerpiece of his or her campaign and turns it into a national movement, which you and tens of millions of others join. I don’t see any prospect on the Republican side. Then will Hillary Clinton do it? If not, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders? If no one else will do it, I will″. Both of these sources, I believe, have expired. I'm not sure if Daily Kos qualifies as a source or not, but seeing as the other source essentially is a Facebook post shouldn't that count for something, since the post probably was typed by him?

What do you think? I think that Reich at least deserves "previously expressed interest" status. Mhoppmann (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure about Daily Kos being a reliable source, but the Washington Post definitely is, and only one source is needed for "expressed interest". Given that the source is over 6 months, I'll add him to this list. --NextUSprez (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Rick Scott is getting speculation
I found this source, that says Rick Scott is a potential candidate for the republican nomination in 2016. I know another source is needed, and couldn't find one, but I thought I'd post this so we can be on the lookout for more sources on him.--Otisdefoe (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Gary Johnson- Libertarian Party?
Gary Johnson has both publicly expressed interest in and has been widely discussed as a Libertarian candidate in 2016. Rand Paul has not expressed any public interest in seeking or accepting the Libertarian nomination.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/04/gary-johnson-ill-run-in-2016-to-provide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.200.224 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 19 November 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Johnson is listed in the Candidates section as he has announced he will run in 2016.--JayJasper (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Jim Webb is "exploring"
Jim Webb has announced an exploratory committee http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/former-virginia-sen-jim-webb-announces-2016-exploratory-committee-n252336 Mhoppmann (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there agreement on this policy for exploratory committees:

1. The potential candidate must meet notability guidelines.

2. A candidate with an exploratory committee can remain in the exploratory committee section until they either announce they are running or announce they are not going to run. There is an important distinction here, to be defined as running a candidate just has to say they are running not necessarily launch a campaign as a legal entity (in 2008 Rudy Giuliani started running for President well before converting his exploratory committee to a campaign).

3. There is no 6 month timeout for sources.ObieGrad (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. Mhoppmann (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me as well. The 3 guidelines spelled out above are practical and, as best I can recall, in line with the prevailing consensus reached by editors of u.s. election articles in previous cycles.--JayJasper (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There is now a Wikipedia article pertaining to Webb's campaign/committee. I believe that a link to the Webb 2016 article should be added next to his name in this article, in the style of election articles past. (ex: the word campaign in parenthesis, which is a link to the campaign article) Mhoppmann (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support the notability guidelines offered by ObieGrad, and the link idea offered by Mhoppmann.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please move Fiorina to *Publicly expressed interest* column
Carly Firoina says she is "pondering" a run for president in 2016: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/17/why-carly-fiorina-makes-a-lot-of-sense-for-2016/ --BJR744 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Good find. Done.ObieGrad (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Thank You.--BJR744 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Are De Blasio and Franken potential candidates?
I found these articles about Bill be Blasio possibly running for president: http://www.ibtimes.com/bill-de-blasio-2016-nyc-mayor-will-run-president-beat-hillary-clinton-new-york-gop-1724727 http://nypost.com/2014/11/17/gop-chairman-de-blasio-will-take-nomination-over-hillary-in-2016/ and these about Al Franken: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Why_Not_Al http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/392745/donna-brazile-why-not-al-franken-president-2016-ryan-lovelace. Is this sufficient enough to add them to the article as potential candidates?--Cagey Slim (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Franken please, the above sources are sufficient. Mhoppmann (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The nypost source for "Bill be Blasio" might be reliable, but two tabloids (unreliable sources) for "Al Franken" are not. Please find reliable sources if you want this added to the article. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 17:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, De Blasio declined. Additionally, I agree with Technical 13 that the 2 sources cited above on Franken are insufficient as reliable speculation, but we should probably keep an eye out for speculation on him.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Larose out?
Josue Larose was added based on his FEC filing from 2008: http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteFilingsPDFDownload.do?imageNumber=28039960996&pdfURL=docquery.fec.gov/pdf/996/28039960996/28039960996.pdf

In the filing Mr. Larose announced that his campaign committee would be Josue Larose for US President.

However in February 2009 Mr. Larose terminated the committee: http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteFilingsPDFDownload.do?imageNumber=29931977687&pdfURL=docquery.fec.gov/pdf/687/29931977687/29931977687.pdf

Should this be treated as a decision to end his run? I'm thinking unless there is a second source where he states he is still running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad (talk • contribs) 14:31, 24 November 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Yes, Larose should be removed unless a reliable secondary source can be found stating he is still running in 2016 (I searched Google and couldn't find one).--Rollins83 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Has Gary Johnson actually announced his candidacy, or has be been quoted out of context?
We currently have Gary Johnson listed under the section for declared candidates because he was quoted in a few sources as saying "I'll run in 2016" or words to that effect. However, this Huffington Post article has come out since those articles were published and it has him saying he is "likely to" and "hopes to" run, and "If I do [run]....". While it's clear he is leaning heavily towards making another run, his comments clearly indicate he hasn't "decided" yet. This appears to be a case very similar to what we recently dealt with concerning Ben Carson, when one or two media outlets said that Carson was actually running, but then they acknowledged that some of his comments (or those of his representatives) were taken out of context or blown out of proportion, and that he in fact was still just considering a run. This looks like more or less the same thing (although there doesn't seem to have been any retractions made yet by the sources who said Johnson was running), as Johnson obviously hasn't officially launched his campaign yet. I think he should be moved back to the Libertarian Potential Candidates section. Thoughts?--Rollins83 (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know Gary Johnson has actually NOT declared yet that he is running for the presidency, and was merely continuing to cite his interest in seeking the office. As the above section mentions, more recent articles by other media have also continued to cite him as a "potential" candidate rather than a "declared" candidate. Therefore he should indeed be moved back into the potential candidates section. --Ariostos (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember there having been a section for "expressed intention to run" or something to that effect, for those who made it clear they planning to run (not just "considering") but hadn't made it "official" yet. Johnson's future-tensed comment "I'll run in 2016" would seem to qualify him for that category. At the very least, though, he should be returned to the potential candidates section based on above comments.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

✅ Johnson has been moved back to potential candidates section per discussion above.--JayJasper (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014
Please add Rep. Peter King to the list of "Publicly expressed interest" potential candidates:

Peter King, U.S. Representative from New York since 1993

Here is the source (USA Today): http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/12/04/peter-king-2016-presidential-candidate/19832453/

Thanks.

141.152.79.93 (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅: . G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Rosanne Barr Running
Does this twitter post from Rosanne Barr constitute a candidacy?

https://twitter.com/therealroseanne/status/527164551855218689 ObieGrad (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A little too vague, IMO. "Third party needed or bust"? Not sure how to take that. I don't think it should be taken as an actual declaration, though at the very least it's a big hint that she's looking into to running again in 2016. --Rollins83 (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Rick Santorum
Rick Santorum announced http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-santorum-is-running-for-president-again--and-says-this-time-will-be-different/2014/12/09/0c955498-7fca-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.194.253.75 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is unclear if he is really running yet or if he will run. Is he a candidate or has he expressed intention?ObieGrad (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that that article is unclear. There's no direct declaration of candidacy from Santorum himself. and

this article states he "hasn't made a formal announcement yet". However, he is discussing plans for his campaign, which definitely sounds like expression of intent to run--Rollins83 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC).

I recreated an intention to run section and put Santorum in it. Any opinion on whether intention to run should be before, or after, exploratory committees?ObieGrad (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ObieGrad, I think you have it listed correctly, with "intention" below "exploratory". Setting up a committee, after all, is a formal step towards a candicacy which holds more weight than mere verbiage.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Jim Gilmore hints at running in 2016
Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore is hinting he might run in 2016: http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/gilmore-hints-at-another-presidential-run-in/article_c285e768-0995-5c60-b891-9da7dd9fc843.html. I would add him to the list of potential republican candidates under the "publicly expressed interest" heading, but I don't yet have editing access to the page. Could someone please do this? Thanks in advance.--Cagey Slim (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

✅--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Gilmore was a candidate in '08! This should be said along with his qualifications (VA Gov., etc)Mhoppmann (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2014
Please add these sources to the entry on Jeb Bush: http://www.businessinsider.com/jeb-bushs-2016-run-would-have-huge-implications-for-the-republican-party-2014-12

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/jeb-bush-begins-make-his-move-n268511

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1951581-155/jeb-bush-speaks-in-south-carolina

98.173.176.125 (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

❌ We do not want a WP:LINKFARM - the maximum number of references for any candidate is three - Arjayay (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2014
I feel under Third party and independent candidates I feel Roger E. Nichols the unity party candidate for president should munched. https://www.facebook.com/nicholsforpresident I feel use information that should United States presidential election, 2016. He plan to start campaign around March or April of next year. Stevendanielsen (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

❌ Sorry, but Mr. Nichols dosen't appear to meet the notability standards required to be included on the election page. For starters, he must meet the standards of WP:GNG and/or WP:NPOL and have a standalone wikipedia article. Secondly, his candidacy must be verified by reliable independent sources (which facebook is not). So, for the time being at least, it's unfortunately a no.--BobfromtheBeltway (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2014
John Thune should be put back on the list of potential candidates. Even though he previously said he wasn't going to run, recent sources now say he's "keeping his options open" and "not ruling out" running for president in 2016. Sources: http://www.kdlt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40354&Itemid=57, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/227093-sen-thune-not-closing-door-on-2016-run  http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-17/thune-doesnt-rule-out-white-house-bid-as-jeb-bush-tests-water

Harold0077 (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * DoneObieGrad (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Republican vs Democrat vs Independent
Okay, so I'm not American, so I may be missing the point here, but why are some candidates being listed as Republican or Democrat when they're clearly Independent, such as Jeff Boss, Vermin whatever et al? Are their candidacies merely misplaced here? -- rm 'w a vu  03:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

They just have to file with FEC for the 2016 Democratic primary. Even though they are lesser-known candidates, that doesn't mean they aren't running as Democrats. Mhoppmann (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015
Please move Rick Santorum from the section titled "Publicly expressed an intention to to run" to the section "Publicly expressed interest". Despite what the Wasington Post said, he hasn't made plans to run yet. See this article:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/26/rick-santorum-presidential-run_n_6377802.html

2600:1003:B12E:52D6:F5CC:97E0:63FB:5FCC (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Despite what the Wasington Post said... Isn't very convincing. Those sources weigh about evenly I believe, so it isn't enough to change what is there yet. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 17:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with this decision. The Huffington Post article clearly quotes Santorum as saying he hasn't made a decision on running in 2016, and he plainly states the Washington Post got it wrong when it reported that he is already planning to run. In my opinion, it is irresponsible for wikipedia to say someone has "expressed intention" when the person in question clearly says that's not the case. As I see it, when reliable sources are are conflicting or contradictary on matters like these, it would be best to err on the side of caution. In this case, that would mean refraining from upgrading someone's status, so to speak, as a candidate until there is a definitive statement or indication "straight from the house's mouth" and unconflicting reliable reports that clearly support the change.--2600:1003:B11D:20A1:2DA3:9CB5:69C4:6C03 (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

UPDATED: ✅ Subsequent sources - like this, for example confirm he is still "considering", not yet planning, a run.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I still am having a tough understanding what exactly is the difference between EXPRESSING INTEREST and EXPRESSING INTENTION. I don't think there is a legit way differentiate the two. It's arguable whether or not anyone under Interest was also expressing intention. I really think we have way too many vary factors as to whether or not a candidate is running. Declined, Possible candidates, ones who have said they are interested and/or intend is fine as one group, and exploratory committees. A separation intention group is overkill. It will become an issue of opinion whether or not an article is an Interest or an Intention. It was my understanding opinions are not part of Wikipedia unless they are sourced. Diamond Dave (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * See this thread for explanation and rationale for _Publicly expressed intention to run_.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee
http://time.com/3652893/mike-huckabee-ends-fox-show-to-explore-presidential-run/ From Publicly expressed interest to Publicly expressed an intention to run?83.80.208.22 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. The article needs to say he is leaving Fox News to run, not to think about running.ObieGrad (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the article says he left Fox to "explore" a run. So far, he's only expressed interest, not definite plans.--NextUSprez (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Add Mitt Romney to "expressed interest"
Please move Romney to "publicly expressed interest" per these sources: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/09/politics/romney-tells-donors-considering-2016-bid/index.html? http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/mitt-romney-considers-2016-presidential-campaign-114132.html

Thanks

Mhoppmann (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did that per WP:Bold and Romney Tells Donors He Is Considering 2016 White House Bid http://www.wsj.com/articles/romney-tells-donors-he-is-considering-2016-white-house-bid-1420839312 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonJack (talk • contribs) 23:56, 9 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Wondering if we shouldn't list possible candidates on this page.
I keep finding inconsistency between this page and each of the Republican, Democratic, and Independent candidate pages. Also kind of tedious to edit two different pages to keep them consistent. Also, difficult since both pages are using different listing formats (one has a text list and the others are photo galleries). I think we should amend the candidate sections for each party to be just links to the other pages and not list them on this page at all. This will avoid having to edit two pages and also not worry about keeping them consistent. Also, since not very many official candidates have come out other than with exploratory committees, PACs, and perennial candidates, it seems to soon to allude this are official candidates. Fine to mention them on their own party pages, but to have them here on the official page seems too soon. Any objections or discussion? Diamond Dave (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to think it's a good thing to have the potential candidates listed on this page as an "overview". I suspect more readers consult this page more often than they do the separate candidate-by-party pages. It's convenient to have the general listings on hand without having to link to 2 or 3 other pages. The inconsistencies can be, and usually are, fixed. As an editor, I don't find it particularly difficult to edit the 2 pages and keep them consistent, and I'm seeing complaints from other editors (I will say I'm glad we're no longer listing the candidates on the primaries articles, editing 3 pages was a bit much!). Also, I don't think there is any allusion of potential candidates being official candidates, as it is clearly stated they are "potential" and being speculated about in the media. That's my take on it, no problem with continuing to list the potential candidates here.--NextUSprez (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth, as a reader of wikipedia, I like having the overview list available at my fingertips so to speak. As mentioned in the comment above, I like the convenience of not having click on two or three other pages to see all the lists of possible candidates. I'd be in favor of maintaining status quo.--Cagey Slim (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Could we at least make them consistently gallery lists as opposed to text lists? Diamond Dave (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Rand Paul
Rand Paul is listed both as a potential Republican and third-party candidate. This is reasonable - he is a Republican but leans libertarian, his father has regularly run as a third party candidate, etc. - but I think it warrants some more elaboration in the article. -KaJunl (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The citations given on his third party listing are different than those on his Republican listing, and appear to be self-explanatory in both cases.--BobfromtheBeltway (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism
The user Gg515 is committing vandalism on this page; I don't have rollback rights, could someone else please fix it? David O. Johnson (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been fixed. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Why was my edit on Michelle Bachman removed?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Tondowsky (talk • contribs)
 * Hello Adam, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I removed your edit firstly because "Update: Appears to be out...." is an editorial comment that is not in line in Wikipedia's policies on encyclopedic style and maintaining a NPOV. Secondly, while it's true the source you provided does say Bachmann "is entering the 2016 presidential field after all, but not as a candidate", it doesn't clearly confirm she is out of the running. It says she plans to sign with a national speakers' bureau and to start writing syndicated columns. For all we know, the contract she is about to sign with the bureau may include an "escape clause" that can be invoked if she decides to run for president. To sum it up, for a source to be "usable" regarding a potential candiditate, it must either affirm that the individual is a potential candidate or confirm that they no longer are. This source does neither. Hope this clarifies it for you.--Rollins83 (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the deal with Ted Cruz?
He was born in Canada, so dosen't that make him ineligible to be president of the US? Is his teasing about running in 2016 just posturing so he can make some kind of statement or "send a message"? Whatever the case, isn't it disingenuous to say he's a potential candidate for an office he isn't eligible to run for? Or is there some kind of obscure loophole in the constitution that I don't know about that says he can be president even though he wasn't born in the US? If that's the case, then fine. But if it isn't, then he should be removed from the page and wikipedia should stop misleading its readers into thinking he's a potential candidate.--Quakeberry (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, since one of his parents was born in the US (his mother was born in Delaware), that makes him an American as well. 00:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)David O. Johnson (talk)


 * Right. See Birthright citizenship in the United States. Most constitutional scholars seem to agree the Cruz is eligible to be president: ; ; --BobfromtheBeltway (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, and the links. So he probably is eligible after all. Interesting.--Quakeberry (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Gary Johnson
Should Gary Johnson be placed under "running"? I'm unsure about this because he "declared an intention to run", which suggests to me that he is running for president in 2016.173.48.152.32 (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He hasn't officially declared his candidacy yet, so he's not listed as an actual candidate. In my view, he should be listed under "expressed interest" as his recent statements seem to flucuate between "I'm going to run" and "I'm probably going to run". --NextUSprez (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, NextUSPrez. I've changed the heading on his section to "publicly expressed interest".--Rollins83 (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Democratic Convention Date
The date for the Democratic convention says "2015" instead of "2016." However, I am currently unable to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.61.133 (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Ratemonth (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Should Kasich be moved to the "Publicly expressed interest" category?
The two most recent articles used as sources for John Kasich quote him as saying his "options are open" with regards to a presidential bid in the upcoming election. Plus, see this article:http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/kasich-hints-at-2016-campaign/article/2559234. That sure sounds like an expression of interest to me. In my opinion, he should be moved to that category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad Storm (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -thanks for the catch.--JayJasper (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Scott Walker
Scott Walker forms committee for 2016. http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2015/01/27/scott-walker-forms-committee-in-preparation-for-2016-presidential-bid/83.80.208.22 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done--BobfromtheBeltway (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2015
George Pataki needs to be moved to be moved to the section: "Formed a PAC....":

"Former New York Gov. Pataki to Test Presidential Waters with New PAC": http://kticradio.com/abc_politics/former-new-york-gov-pataki-to-test-presidential-waters-with-new-pac-abcid35196018/

Thanks

2600:1003:B12A:DFB:EF33:47E9:DA7:FCC0 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

PAC vs Exploratory Committee
On the Republican side, four candidates have formed PACs and one has formed a "Testing the Waters Committee". None of these are really exploratory committees and I argue they are one step short of that. What is the proper categorization of this section? Should it be something like "Formed a Pac or committee, but not an exploratory committee" (I'd really love a better name than this)?ObieGrad (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not just "Formed a PAC or committee"? Each candidate has a specification in the blurb following their name listing stating what kind of organization they've set up. Or maybe we could use a broader heading like "Formally exploring a candidacy" or something like that. I'm not entirely sure, but I think we did something like that before, during the 2012 campaign.--Dwc89 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of a more general or "umbrella"-type categorization, since there seems to be various commitees and organizations that can be used for the purpose of exploring and building up a campaign for a presidential run without officially running. "Formally exploring candidacy" works for me. Then, as dwc89 mentioned, we just specify what type of committee each candidate has formed.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the 6-month rule should be waived for those in this category. They should remain listed until they either take the next step and officially announce their candidacy, or announce they've decided not to run after all.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should be policy that forming a PAC alone is not enough.  That PAC must be related in someway to a potentially candidacy.ObieGrad (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, ObieGrad. I think all the candidates with PACs currently listed as "formally exploring" have PACs that are campaign-related, but not every PAC formed by someone with possible presidential aspirations is necessarily campaign-related. For example, Carly Fiorina has a PAC that dosen't seem to be specifically focused on a potential campaign. And then there are ones formed by supporters of a potential candidacy, such as Ready For Hillary, which shouldn't count. Only the ones formed by the potential candidates themselves with the clear intent of exploring of a campaingn should count.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It's time to change the "6-month rule" to the "3-month rule" again
Some of you might recall that back in 2011, per [this discussion], we shortened the "6 month rule" (2 sources in past six months as standard for inclusion of potential candidates)  to 3 months. The basic rationale for doing so is that we have reached the point where speculation about presidential candidates is most rampant. The mid-term elections are over, and several potential candidates have formed  PACs, exploratory and other types of committees, to "test the waters" ahead of a possible (if not inevitable) campaign. We know we are just months, possibly weeks, away from the earliest official candidacy announcements. So at this point, the political punditry is focused more than ever on the speculation of who's going to run in 2016. That being the case, it is practical to surmise that those who have not received reliable speculation within the past 3 months are off the radar screen for the time being. Certainly anyone still truly considered to be in contention as a potential presidential candidate would have generated at least a cursory degree of reliable media coverage since late last autumn. Thus, I propose we once again implement the the "3 month rule" (2 sources in past 3 mos. for speculated candidates, 1 in past 3 mos. for those expressing interest) in place of the 6 month rule. Thoughts?--JayJasper (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of changing to the 3 month rule. It's a sensible move now that we've reached the early stage of the campaign season, and there's clearly precedent for it. I would like to add, as I said in another thread, that the ones listed as "formally exploring" should be exempt from any time limits and should remain listed in that category until they either make their candidacy official or announce they have decided not to run.--NextUSprez (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with having no set time limits on the "formally exploring a candidacy" section.--JayJasper (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the switch to 3 months, for reasons given by JaJasper. I also agree with NextUsprez about no time limits for the formally exploring candidates.--BobfromtheBeltway (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. With the news coverage picking up, if a potential candidate is getting less than
 * 2 mentions in 3 moths that candidate doesn't seem notable.ObieGrad (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's time to reduce the time limit to 3 months, given the increased coverage and candidate activities. Also agree to having no set time limit on candidates on the "formally exploring" list.--Rollins83 (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with JayJasper and also with him and NextUSprez that there should be no set time limit on the people who are "formally exploring". Tiller54 (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, a 3-month cut-off point makes more sense now that campaigns are starting to gear up. Also makes sense to exempt the "formally exploring candidacies" list from any set tike limits.--Earlgrey T (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In support of all of changing to the 3-month rule, as well as with having no set time limit for formally exploring candidates. The former is practical and worked well last time around. The latter is just plain common sense.--Thatotherdude (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I will join the general consensus and agree towards bringing back the 3-months rules as well as the exception for formally exploring candidates. --Vrivasfl (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Well folks, seeing that we clearly have a consensus to implement the 3-month rule, I will now go about doing just that.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC) ✅--NextUSprez (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm obviously late to this discussion, but I nevertheless wanted to register my approval for the move. The timing was right to reinstate the 3-month rule. Well done.--Cojovo (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Green Party candidate Jill Stein launches exploratory committee
Sources: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-06/green-pary-s-jill-stein-exploring-run-for-the-white-house

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/meet-the-woman-trying-to-turn-the-white-house-green-233137109.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/06/green-party-candidate-jill-stein-considers-second-run-for-president/tNGrbmsmiTMXkjcJg92aNK/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli755 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)