Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 5

Alternate Debate Table
Hey all. Below is a table I've been working on for the primary debates that's akin to the ones found on other primary pages, and I wanted to consult with other editors here before adding it in. It's a little big and maybe a bit difficult to manage, but it'd be consistent with the election articles from previous years. Perhaps there's a way to make it smaller?

Any comments or suggestions are appreciated! - EditDude (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's my proposal: reduced line-heights, abbreviated months, don't set widths where not necessary and just use the defaults; I don't think abbreviating states to postal codes really saves space, and it's against MoS anyway. (Also, made the table itself scrollable if necessary rather than having overflow on smaller resolutions.)

Mélencron (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks good. I'd make the place column a bit wider by adding some sort of nowrap function, especially since the table is scrollable regardless. Maybe add a period after every abbreviated month if that's not against WP:MOS. Otherwise, it's good for me! - EditDude (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't something I was previously aware of, but the MoS apparently suggests this: Abbreviations for months, such as Feb, are used only where space is extremely limited. Such abbreviations should use three letters only, and should not be followed by a period (full point) except at the end of a sentence. I've stuck a couple non-breaking spaces in now as well. Mélencron (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me. — JFG talk 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I have created some cell templates dedicated to debates, and simplified the markup, so the table will be easier to update. See how it will look. — JFG talk 16:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks good, except for the horror show horizontal scroll bar on smaller screens. Also, is there a reason for all the TBDs? Why not just leave those cells blank, or color code them? We should abbreviate state names to save horizontal space. I would prefer that we not use slashes to separate sponsors, per MOS:SLASH.- MrX 🖋 20:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with you that we should still limit table width - despite of the scroll bar feature. For this reason I rendered and added the below smaller table on May 14, in which I intruduced abbreviation of candidate names. Main idea was, that all candidates name and participation status for each debate hereby could be viewed at single unscrolled view for those using big screens, and that scrolling would be more limited for the smaller screens. Mélencron immediately reverted my suggestion, but perhaps now could give my bold idea about abbreviating candidate names a second thought? In any case, if my version below gather talkpage support from you or other editors it might eventually reach approval from some sort of majority? So for giving it a second try, here you have it below. I will now await further feedback from all of you. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm flat-out opposed to the abbreviation of candidate names, as they're meaningless to anyone unfamiliar with every single candidate's surname. Mélencron (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The above argument from Mélencron, that readers will have harder to understand who is hiding beneath the abbreviated candidate names, is IMHO only a minor trade off. Most readers of the article will first have visited the first "declared candidates" section of the article before reading the later "debates" section, and hereby already have learned the surname of all the 24 candidates before they get presented to the later debate table. Plus readers who do not remember all surnames exactly upon their first time watch of the abbreviated candidate names, can then just place the mouse pointer on the abbreviated wiki-linked names (which then prompts wikipedia to show their entire name as a tooltip next to the abbreviated letters). Danish Expert (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an extremely basic violation of MOS:ABBR. Don't arbitrarily make up abbreviations. (Also, re. an earlier suggestion – no, postal abbreviations for states should also not be used.) Mélencron (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Re your second concern (postal abbreviations), that same link says "They can be used in tables when space is tight, but should be marked up with undefined template on first occurrence." SCC California (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, what do you think about excluding candidates from the table who don't make it into any debates (there should be at least three). We could use the simple version of the table until the debate lineup is announced and then switch to the limited one with only participants. SCC California (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Alternative smaller table version
Update: Also just added an alternative TBA layout for the July debates. Danish Expert (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely support this table more. The abbreviated candidates' names are not ideal, but I'd rather that than the horror show of scrolling. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with a policy that suggests that we can't use postal abbreviations for states (like FL for Florida and MI for Michigan), but we can abbreviate people's names as "Ha." or "Bi." and expect users to understand them. These two- or three-letter surname abbreviations are not used anywhere else that I have ever seen. I'd rather have the table scroll, as hard as that is to use, than to abbreviate the candidates' names like this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Invert table?
Given that there are more candidates than debates, perhaps the solution to people's frustration with the wide table may be to swap rows and columns. Candidates would be rows, and debates would be columns. Anybody want to try that? — JFG talk 19:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I had that thought as well but forgot to actually suggest it here – I'll give it a try, but in that case I think it might be more advisable to have separate tables for details of each debates and invitees. Mélencron (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Debate schedule


 * Participating candidates

Mélencron (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks much better, thanks. Meanwhile I have relaxed the tight formatting and simplified the markup. — JFG talk 17:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Splitting debate section into standalone article
Hi,

When should we split the Debates section into its own article? Looking at the 2016 election, there was already a standalone article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums&oldid=668493104) by this point in time.

Thanks! David O. Johnson (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, there's enough content there to create a standalone article, so why not go ahead and start it?--A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yea, perfectly fine to split now, I think. Mélencron (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's done. Here it is: 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Paul Romero
There's a new filing with the FEC from a man named Paul A. Romero, which could possibly be the "notable" Paul Romero (middle name is Anthony). If so, I'd put him in the minor candidates section but his article says he lives in Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles while the FEC filing is coming from Fresno, California. Can't find any other sources. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't assume it is the same person without specific confirmation. There are about 20 people on Twitter named Paul Romero, so it's not necessarily the same person. If it is the same person, presumably he will confirm that on his campaign website. If it's not the same person, then he won't mention in a biography on his campaign website that he is a composer. And if the candidate never puts up a campaign website at all, then his campaign is non-notable and we shouldn't bother mentioning it (unless, of course, it somehow becomes clearly notable for other reasons). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/422163006038736906/578779934315773955/image0-36.jpg thoughts? Quvuq0737 (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't affect this article. Cenk Uygur is a naturalized U.S. citizen (born in Turkey) and thus is ineligible to become president himself. If he says he's going to go to Iowa on June 8 and make an announcement about the presidential race, my first guess would be that he is going to endorse one of the candidates. If it turns out that I'm wrong, so be it. If there is anything in his actual announcement that we ought to cover in Wikipedia, we can deal with that information once he makes the actual announcement. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The section about his announcement should be removed from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:cb:8000:8efd:790b:ccc4:3319:a7c6 (talk • contribs)


 * Agreed. A vague announcement from an individual who has never expressed interest in running for president, has not been the subject of speculation that he would ever run for president, and is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president, seems weak. I'd change my mind if independent sources started speculating about this announcement. --Vrivasfl (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. He is not eligible to become president and there has been no coverage from outlets listing him as a potential candidate. People need to stop adding him to the article as no one here is arguing for his inclusion. It seems clear that the consensus is against his inclusion. AWiseishGuy (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Disagree He can get the Constitution amended. --2020primaryenthusiast (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with @Metropolitan90, @Vrivasfl, and others. Given today's edit, which I reverted, it's worth reopening this conversation to make sure we're all on the same page. Uygur is not eligible to become president. I searched the Internet and could not find any source suggesting that he is even considering a run. For every other candidate listed in the Announcement Pending section, there was speculation from major media outlets that they would run. Putting Cenk Uygur in that section, however, is unsourced and probably WP:CRYSTAL. Also, saying that he can single-handedly get the Constitution amended is highly speculative at best. Even ignoring political considerations, it would be practically impossible for an amendment to be ratified and to go into effect before November of 2020. I firmly believe that there is no basis to include Uygur in the Announcement Pending section. Jacoby531 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

^ The Constitution can be amended. See Article V. --2020primaryenthusiast (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * sure. Come back on the day that such a constitutional amendment is proposed. Since the 2016 election, and probably earlier (2000?), many people have argued that the Electoral College should be abolished, but nobody has yet made an amendment proposal that I'm aware of. — JFG talk 10:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * By the way, it looks like Uygur's announcement was that he was unveiling the Progressive Economic Pledge which he is asking presidential candidates and others to sign. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision suggestions
Okay, the announcement as to who is going to be in the debates is less than a week away, and in anticipation of that, may I make some suggestions as to what to do when that time comes...


 * First: Restart the separate Candidates page. (I know I've been bitching about this since that false consensus about getting rid of it, but my point still holds).
 * Second: Divide the list of candidates into those who were invited to the debates and those who weren't. If by some miracle one of those excluded manages to get into a later debate it shouldn't be hard to put him/her back. There should be three categories: Debate participants, elected officials, and everyone else. That should stand for the rest of the year.
 * Third: Make the list chart smaller in size. There still may be 20 candidates by Labor day so the chart should be easier to read than it is now.
 * Fourth: Start adding more narrative. The invisible primary phase ends on the 12th, that's five days away. A decent summary of the ups and downs of that part of the race can be done NOW. Debate season is a totally different animal. We'll get to that part when it comes.

While the actual voting isn't for another eight months, we should get ready for it. It's not too early.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been bitching about this since that false consensus about getting rid of it – Indeed, you should stop "bitching about it", because the consensus was unanimous against your suggestion, so it's quite disruptive to call this a "false consensus". I don't see the point of your second and third suggestions at this time. I'm supportive of the fourth one: it would be better to have some summary narrative than a long list of bullet points. — JFG talk 12:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * only Six people agreed to it and there was no discussion. AS to two and three, two would look better and the point of the mention was that when they make the announcement in Three days time was should do it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll add on to what JFG talk said and say that I do not support suggestion two. I don't think there's any meaningful distinction between candidates that qualified for the debates and those that did not, or at least no such distinction that would justify having them in separate lists. Organizing the list that way will create problems after the third pair of debates, which will have much stricter qualification criteria. Do we have candidates who qualified for all debates in one part and those who missed at least one in the other? Or, do we have candidates who qualified for at least one debate in one part and those who made none in the other. I think that level of complication is unnecessary for the purpose of the list: to simply list the candidates deemed major by our standards. Discussion of who qualified for how many debates can be left for a different part of the article or for the debate-specific article. Jacoby531 (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, aside from Bullock, those that have failed to meet the criteria are not really considered major candidates anymore. The other three are going to have their funding dry up and no one is going to take them seriously. Gravel, who got several hundred votes at the 1972 Democratic national convention for VP, and was a genuine senator, is only humoring some teenagers. He has not even been listed in most polls, and in those few, has had zero percent support. I think having the list as those who have been in a minimum of one debate and those excluded is a good idea. Moulton or Messem are probably going to withdraw soon and we'll move them there. The same will be by the time of the second debate. Who those will be would be an exercise in wp:Crystal at this point in time. The point of the qualification exercise is to get the number of candidates down to a reasonable number. Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Jacoby531, I go for the "at least one" option, as that's the least obtrusive way to do it. Look at Mayor Pete: He managed to get into the SxSW forum and was actually impressive enough to be noticed by the media, and that meant that he had TV interviews and a major spike in fundraising, which meant he had more attention and so on and so forth, something Messem didn't get. You can't sell a book or run for higher office if you run for president and don't make the debate stage. Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Dividing the list of candidates
Now that the Democratic National Committee has announced who's going to be in the first debate, I've done what I suggested. @JFG stated that he didn't see the point of the second suggestion at that time. It was a head's up for when the announcement for the official list would be made. Well, now it has. Four major candidates, only one of which was an actual major candidate (Governor Bullock). Messem and Moulton were vanity candidates, and Gravel isn't a candidate at all, he's just given permission to some young hobbyist to play presidential campaign managers. Several of the hobbyists managed to get on a number of ballots last time, but the people here refused to acknowledge them, except on the "candidates" page. Please, note that @JFG and some others are very much against it. The reason I'm doing this is that @Mélencron says that there's another page for that. There is, but the fact is is that this is an index page for the Democratic primaries and that the basic information should be here. That means who's in and who's out as far as official recognition goes. Things change. The invisible primary is over and the debate season has begun. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"David O. Johnson talk contribs‎ 170,133 bytes +1‎ Undid revision 902165738 by Arglebargle79 (talk) we don't have to go by what the DNC says" Well, we should. and here's why: they RUN the damn thing. Four years ago, they ran out several candidates in order to fix it for Hillary, and four years before that they refused to let in the delegates for several challengers to Obama, even though they got close or did better than 40% of the vote in some primaries. Also, we must never assume that the casual reader is going to go to other pages. Thus, in a "survey article" like this one, we need a summary of what the state of the race is. The DNC is running this race, and therefore we MUST defer to their judgment, even if we do not necessarily agree with it. NOT to have a separation of the invited candidates from the disinvited ones, is misleading. That is something we shouldn't do. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Fieger
Geoffrey Fieger has never held elected office, and there's very little buzz about his nomination. I question whether we should add him to the 'people considering a run' section; I don't think he's notable enough to fit there.

If he does declare, we could add him to the 'other people seeking the nomination' section along with Arth et al., but until then I don't think he's notable enough to be on the page. AaronCanton (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. He doesn't belong here. Only this one news publication is the only one that's covered his interest. Definitely not considered a major candidate. Alexjjj 19:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sestak logo
As a quick note, it appears to me that Sestak's logo would be above the threshold of originality due to its complexity and therefore can't be uploaded to Commons. It can be uploaded to the English Wikipedia, but unless I'm mistaken, its usage would be restricted to a single article per WP:NFCC, which would presumably be the article on Sestak's campaign, if one is created, rather than this one. Mélencron (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * See also WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLE for guidance. Preferably we should find a free image like all the other campaigns. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Are the logos of Hickenlooper and Inslee above the threshold of originality as well? They're pretty elaborate.Inkan1969 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hickenlooper's is just geometric shapes. Inslee's is somewhat more elaborate, but it's just a simple gradient. Mélencron (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Where is Trump and Weld?
Have we forgot about them. ImMellow (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They're running in the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries, so they're mentioned in that article. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Page views
Everyone in the media is fretting about Google Trends on candidates and campaign issues but I've not seen much about Wikipedia page views (for better or worse). Mass views for the 25 articles may come handy. Nemo 08:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg
Is there a reason he's excluded from candidates who've withdrawn? Thmazing (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Because he never announced a run in the first place. Curdlash (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Satch Candidacy
I know that Mayor Satch's candidacy could be considered non-notable, but he's a small town Mayor just like Buttigieg or Wayne Messam, so if those guys count, shouldn't he count as a major candidate? And it's not a hoax, here's the link to his Twitter announcement https://twitter.com/MayorSatch/status/1130920475012554752 —SeanByrne95 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 May 2019‎ (UTC)
 * Twitter is not a reliable source, and there appears to be no other evidence of the existence of Irville Satch, or the town of Hansbay, Vermont for that matter. --Bob from the Beltway (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

guest I did some research and found his profile pic and the other supposed former mayors are all stock images. This means that this is some large long-running conspiracy of some...sort. By who not sure, maybe a multi-year prank. However I can confirm, no evidence of Hansbay's existence exists.

Yep, this is a parody account. Messam and Buttigieg are real people. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a joke. Satch literally called de Blasio (Mayor of NYC) a mayor of a "small town" and called the US "the United Americas". This is a parody account. Hansbay, VT is not a real place and Satch is not a real person. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This raging and unresolved debate has been rendered moot, I suppose. Mayor Satch declined to run just a few minutes ago- https://twitter.com/MayorSatch/status/1144708543087439872 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E547:FF00:8C1:3BD7:DFCF:363 (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

state voter eligibility guidlines
In many states, it is possible to vote in a Democratic Presidential primary, without being a member of that party (or effectively to do so, through the mechanism of same-day voter registration, thus allowing people to change their party registration on Election Day, and so amounting to much the same thing). In some states, only independents are permitted to take advantage of that, while in other states, the members of other parties are also allowed to do so. This dynamic had a huge impact on the results of individual primary elections in 2016 (albeit mainly on the Republican side, although it is widely suspected to have contributed to Bernie Sanders' victory in the Michigan primary as well). It would be extremely useful if someone were to add that information to this article. Ideally, a map could be used for that purpose.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinOKeeffe (talk • contribs)
 * Is this registered party members or is it referring to people that identify as a particular party? Because, there is, a difference. Persistent Corvid (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Warren's received contributions
In the campaign finance table at the bottom, for Warren is the individual contributions cell correct? Because the percentage of contributions less than $200 (70%) doesn't match up to the 16M total vs 6M individual donations, in my mind. Though I could be wrong, just making sure in the name of accuracy. Persistent Corvid (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Answering my own question, I suppose individual donors making multiple contributions is the cause... Is there a reliable source that records the avg. donations per donor?

If so, can this be stated in the article? Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean for all the candidates, not just Warren.Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please update the Campaign Finance section to reflect the second quarter figures?
Could someone please update the Campaign Finance section to reflect the second quarter figures? They're supposed to be make-or-break for who continues and who drops out after the first debates. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:284A:2ED4:6D01:DB69 (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Any information on donations made on or after the debate nights would be helpful. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:284A:2ED4:6D01:DB69 (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The FEC hasn't published them yet, but they'll probably be out soon. - EditDude (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Timeline
Is it possible that we could hide the area between the start of 2018 and the midterm elections? There would then be more room to show to main events of 2019 onwards without being squeezed far too much. If not, I suggest we just cut off the pre-midterm part of the timeline with an explanation of the two events that happened previously. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I would support doing this. Presently the timeline more than a year of empty space with just two candidates, and then all of the events condensed into a very small area. As long as we note when Delaney and Yang announced, it would be fine to shorten the timeline. Jacoby531 (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Sanders' Portrait
Bernie Sanders' Portrait isn't exactly flattering. I propose we use a different image where he doesn't have a scab on his face and is smiling. Quvuq0737 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Steyer
Just to cover this ground, so we have it in writing that we indeed deliberated, the argument for/against considering Steyer a "major candidate".

The decision to continue to include him at this point would center upon a consensus that he has received substantial media coverage. He does not yet meet the criteria of inclusion in five independent national polls and does not meet the criteria of having held office, therefore we must agree that he meets the criteria of significant media coverage in order for him to be included as a major candidate at this time.

Does anyone agree/disagree that he has received significant media coverage, or wish to add an argument/evidence related to this? SecretName101 (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say Steyer definitely has significant media coverage. For example: CNN, Fox News , the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times  David O. Johnson (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Joe Sestak 2020 Logo.png

Campaign logo images for withdrawn candidates
I took a look at 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, and I saw campaign logos for candidates that withdrew, even before the primaries. It would seem to follow that we keep the logos for withdrawn candidates in this article as well. Other than sheer volume of candidates (which may be a concern that could cause us to want to resize logos for withdrawn candidates), is there a reason to remove the logos once a candidate withdraws? —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Ojeda 2020.png is a non-free file which means that it's not subject to the same policies and guidelines as the other files used in the article. Non-free content use is quite restrictive per WP:NFC and each use of a non-free file needs to satisfy WP:NFCC. The problem with the Ojeda logo being non-free was previously pointed out Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 3 and are why I removed the file yesterday here. There's no real way around this simply because all of the other files of logos are uploaded to Commons and are really too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the US. The Ojeda logo is the only one which is too complex to be considered within the public domain; so, it's not subject to the same policies/guidelines as the others.As for whether all or some of the other files should be use, is a different question separate from the copyright status of the Ojeda file; personally, I think they all should be removed per MOS:LOGO since this type of use doesn't seem to be recommend. They can all (or at least most of them) can be seen used in the articles about each individual campaign and links to those articles are included in this article. Another concern with this type of image use is that this article is being transcluded by template into at least one other but possibly more articles. So, when someone adds something that seems appropriate to this article, you're also indirectly adding the same to some different articles. This can be a problem as in the case of the Ojeda image because it inappropriately adds copyrighted content to not only this article, but also other articles (even if the latter is done unintentionally). -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The copyright issue is very valid. I did a look through the 2016 article and found that all the logos were deemed to be public domain as simple text and shapes. By contrast, two logos on the 2020 page are not PD-textlogo: the Ojeda logo and File:Joe Sestak 2020 Logo.png. In that latter case, the image was uploaded as under CC0 licensure, but that is contested due to lack of evidence at Sestak's campaign website.
 * I'd go a step further and say copyright is a compelling reason to remove the Ojeda logo: we can justify it under NFCC at his article or his campaign's article, but not here. The question then becomes, do we make him the odd man out because of the licensure status, or do remove the logos from the other withdrawn candidates' entries? —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether someone is made to be the “odd man out” is not really a concern of WP:NFCCP, WP:OTHERIMAGE, WP:ITSFAIRUSE or even WP:COPY. The Ojeda file will most likely continue to be removed by a non-free file-checking per WP:NFCCE unless it’s non-free issues are addressed. Adding a separate specific non-free use rationale for this article might slow the bots down, but that won’t really address all of the non-free use content issues associated with this file per WP:JUSTONE.Possible solutions my be for whomever wants to use the file in this and other articles besides this one might be (1) to contact the Ojeda campaign and have them send a WP:CONSENT email to WP:Contact OTRS or (2) find another official Ojeda logo that’s a wordmark or otherwise pretty close which can be uploaded as PD-logo and use that instead. The Sestak file will eventually be deleted from Commons; it was probably uploaded in good faith by someone just not familiar with c:COM:L. It might be able to be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content, but justifying it’s non-free use in this article seems just as hard as trying to do the same thing for the Ojeda article. I don’t think any candidate logos should be used in this article per MOS:LOGO, but the rest are public domain files so their copyright status is not a reason for removal. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Jay Inslee 2020 presidential campaign logo.svg

Re: Capitalization of "U.S. secretary of housing and urban development"
Recently I made an edit that capitalized the title to "U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development" which was reverted. MOS:JOBTITLES was cited, but the formal title of United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is being addressed as a singular position and there's no article like "the" before it. The USSoH&UD article itself also capitalizes each instance of the title too. However the Manual says formality and specificity aren't acceptable excuses for capitalization so I'm taking the title capitalization thing from the table to the table. (pun intended if you know what I mean) -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, there. My read on this is about Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is the title and that U.S. is an adjective that describes the title. If this is true, then in the same way “Florida governor Ron DeSantis” would be lowercase, so would “U.S. secretary of housing and urban development”. What are your thoughts?  02:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the full title is the "Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development" because they are heading the "United States Department of Housing and Urban Development" (from the HUD website: "Dr. Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., M.D., was sworn in as the 17th Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on March 2, 2017. "). If the issue is with the U.S. part then I guess leaving it out isn't harmful so the title just says "Secretary of Housing and Urban Development" (a shortened version of the full title), although I personally don't see the issue in keeping the U.S. It's not like people will assume Castro was the HUD Secretary of a country other than the U.S. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Even if "secretary" has to be lowercase (I've never seen it written that way, but MOS:JOBTITLES may force us to write it like that), "Housing and Urban Development" is always capitalized, because in the title, it is used as a shortened form of "Department of Housing and Urban Development," which is a proper noun. So it should either be "U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development," which is more commonly used but might run afoul of the MOS, or "U.S. secretary of Housing and Urban Development". I'd prefer the former, but the latter is acceptable too. "U.S. secretary of housing and urban development" isn't correct, because HUD is a proper noun. Also, by WP:IAR, we don't necessarily have to follow a rather minor stylistic rule when reliable sources (and the Federal Government) use a different capitalization scheme. Jacoby531 (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Housing and urban development would also be lowercase unless it has department before or after it. It's the same as "state" and "defense" would be, leading to "the secretary of state", "the secretary of defense", and "the director of human resources". I've just edited the document to show Castro as "Secretary of Housing and Urban Development". I hope that does the trick.  02:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, that works. Thanks Jacoby531 (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Order of withdrawn candidates on Overview Timetable and Glitches
I've saw your edit and self-reversion. It's possible to change the order of Ojeda and Swalwell without glitches if they are changed in BarData and PlotData. I simply choose to make the edit this way because there was a previous edit putting them on that order, but I have no problem on the other if that's the policy. I just didn't want the glitches. - Sarilho1 (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

2020 democratic listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2020 democratic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 19:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding Debate Inclusion/Exclusion to Declared Candidate Table
To decrease the number of declared candidates, it would be useful to weed them out based on if they qualified for the debates. Houdinipeter (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to; the number of candiates will decrease in time. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

List of past offices
The article states:
 * Major candidates for the Democratic nomination have included a former vice president (Biden), one former cabinet secretary (Castro), two governors (Bullock and Inslee), one former governor (Hickenlooper), seven U.S. senators (Bennet, Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders, Warren), one former U.S. senator (Gravel), four representatives (Gabbard, Moulton, Swalwell, Ryan), three former representatives (Delaney, O'Rourke, Sestak), one former state senator (Ojeda), three mayors (Buttigieg, de Blasio, Messam), and three candidates who have never held elected office (Steyer, Williamson, Yang).

There are some errors there. There are two former U.S. senators, not one (Biden is the other), and six former representatives, not three (the others are Gillibrand, Inslee, and Sanders). The fact that a candidate later went on to serve in yet another office doesn't mean that their former service doesn't count. We can add those candidates to their respective lists, although that means that some candidates would be double-counted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That just seems unnecessary, I think the point of that section is to inform readers what the office held most recently is, not list off everything a candidate has been, the table covers that more in-depth information. Devonian Wombat  07:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Devonian Wombat there (I borrowed from your signature for that comment, by the way). --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my  contributions ) 12:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Description of Steyer as a "billionaire"
Hi,

Earlier today I removed the word "billionaire" from Tom Steyer's description in the Timeline section here:. Selfiecity undid my revision here : stating, "nothing wrong with that." My reasoning is this: there are other candidates who are multimillionaires, but they are not singled out. For example: Delaney is a "multi-millionaire" (see: ) It just seems unbiased to single out Steyer as a billionaire when Bullock, Sestak, Warren, O'Rourke, Biden, Bennet are multimillionaires. Thoughts? David O. Johnson (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * At the moment, my thinking is that it is uniquely relevant for Steyer given that he is a hedge fund manager, philanthropist, and megadonor, whereas the others do not come from the financial sector. Also, being a billionaire is much more notable than being a multi-millionaire. So right now, I would lean toward including the word billionaire for Steyer and not adding "multi-millionaire" for the rest. Jacoby531 (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would second that, of course. --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my  contributions ) 12:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Gravel
I'm not so sure that the Gravel campaign is over just yet. This ABC article: states that "The campaign is closing up shop sometime in the next week" (and it was published yesterday). The tweet cited in the Hill article just states "As the campaign ends, we're going to help build institutions on the left which can grow power, shape policy, and create strong activists for the long haul", indicating that it hasn't wrapped up. What are your thoughts? David O. Johnson (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, his twitter, where his campaign conducts much of its business has no post about the campaign being over, and his bio still says "Candidate for president." SCC California (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's not enough confirmation of Gravel dropping out yet, I think he should be moved back into running. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Even if he intends to suspend his campaign in the near future, we can't present to the reader the unverifiable claim that he's has already done so. For the time being, those changes should be undone & reinstated after we get some confirmation regarding the present status of his campaign.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 20:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be bold and go ahead and work on rolling back the changes (it seems like there is consensus, anyway). There are at least two other articles 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums and Mike Gravel 2020 presidential campaign that have to be adjusted to reflect that Gravel isn't out of the race yet. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't figure out how to fix the timeline on this article and remove Gravel from the withdrawn candidates and put him back as active. It'd be great if someone more skilled got it done. I have added him back to the active candidates section, added him back to active candidates in the Campaign finance section and removed his name from the withdrawn candidates in the intro. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that we can conclude now from various new articles from different sources that Gravel's campaign has ended. Notable sources include this Politico article and this Hill article. Gravel has even noted that he plans to endorse other candidates. Furthermore, whatever that's stated in the campaign's Twitter bio shouldn't take precedence over media reports. Some politicians don't update their bios instantly, e.g. Bob Corker's Twitter page still shows him serving Tennesseans in the Senate. Wpeneditor (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Both the Politico and Hill sources cite this same (ambigous) tweet though, so they aren't compelling evidence, I think. It's clear the Gravel campaign is wrapping up; the uncertainty is based around when it ends. Maybe one of us should tweet at the campaign and just ask? David O. Johnson (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like someone asked them on Twitter to continue the campaign through August but they replied in a Tweet that "[Mike] wants the campaign to end and does not feel [they] are in a position to make it to the September debates". Seems like the campaign's indeed ending. For now, I feel that it's better to leave Gravel under withdrawn and date it as Jul 31; we can update the date when there's a clearer indication of it. Wpeneditor (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Let’s face it: Gravel isn’t even in the polls. He was hardly even a major candidate. We can't expect his campaign to be well documented in the news. --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my  contributions ) 11:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course he was in the polls. He was included in over 100 national or statewide polls this primary season. However, in many of them, he was at 0%, so he was pretty much tied with you and me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The Politico and The Hill pieces make it clear that he's out. It's not our job as editors to perform WP:OR trying to figure out whether RS got it wrong. — JFG talk 16:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The recent aforementioned tweets by Gravel / his campaign's twitter do seem to confirm that he is no longer running & that his campaign has moved on to establish the "Gravel Institute" instead. I'm no longer opposed to displaying Gravel as a withdrawn candidate at this time.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 20:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is Gravel back in the declared candidates section? Wasn’t it agreed he withdrew? Devonian Wombat 02:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's still active as of August 2nd: . David O. Johnson (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's probably for the better to wait until he officially endorses someone or otherwise drops out. Even though they have announced that they will endorse someone this week, they don't seem to have yet declared the campaign over. My belief is that this article triggered the wave of claims that the campaign was already over, and it was used as a source on this page for the claim that it was over. Note that the title is speaking in the future tense; after Gravel suspends his campaign, he will form a liberal think tank. This is not proof that the campaign has already ended, though I will say that the Gravel team seem to have acknowledged one of the articles that more explicitly declared that they had dropped out without disagreeing with it. Regardless it is reasonable to expect that Gravel will drop out in 1-3 days, so this should be resolved shortly. Cookieo131 (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

There were plenty of articles saying Gravel dropped out, and he hasn’t disputed that. Mikemikem (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a tweet here: from August 5th, (h/t to Only699WordsToGo for finding it) stating that Gravel will be "dropping out very soon." I think that pretty much closes it for now; it's a tweet directly from the campaign stating that it's not over. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a note should be added to Gravel's box stating that he is dropping out soon Devonian Wombat 06:00, 6 August 2019, (UTC)
 * That's the best short-term solution I've seen so far. We've been going back and forth for days, but the only thing that all of our sources provide an obvious consensus for is that he will drop out. It appears that the bulk of the available information still refers to his withdrawal in the future tense, so the best course of action is to leave it with an asterisk or a note until it's settled once and for all. I've struck my previous comment due to recent information suggesting that the campaign is not presently suspended.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 06:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He's officially out . David O. Johnson (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Tim Ryan
Hi,

A couple of editors (PoliticalJunkie2006 and 76.78.208.51) have maintained that Tim Ryan has dropped out of the race. PoliticalJunkie2006 has used this: as evidence. I'm not seeing any solid proof. For example, Ryan had an interview earlier today with MSNBC where he is still described as a 2020 candidate. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So, at 1:10 in the video he says "I'm suspending my campaign," but it appears that this is just poor phrasing. What he meant, apparently, was that he is taking a temporary break from campaigning but he will return. Sam Seder explains this at 2:50, but the video was still posted with a pretty misleading title. Ultimately I agree with you that there's no indication that he is actually withdrawing. Jacoby531 (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like he temporarily left the campaign trail in wake of the Dayton shooting, but has not ended his campaign. SCC California (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Number of candidates who did not meet the criteria neccessary to be deemed major
Incredibly small nitpick time, sorry. I recently made an edit increasing the number of candidates who did not meet the criteria neccessary to be deemed major from >240 to >250 because I clicked on the following reference and noted that the FEC listed 284 results, and thus I assumed there were 284 candidates. After an admittedly not very intensive look into the FEC website I noted all the candidates appeared to be legit, and as we have 24 major candidates, basic arithmatic told me we had 260 candidates who did not meet the criteria neccessary to be deemed major, so it appeared to me that increasing the number to >250 was still correct and more precise. Plus 250 is a better number to round to anyway. In any case, the edit was reverted by someone on here I respect for making intelligent content edits so to be as civil as possible, and to follow WP:REVTALK, I posted my concerns here. The reason given was that the number of candiates was only 272 and if you take 24 from that you do indeed end up under 250, which makes sense. As respectfully as possible, I just dont understand where the 272 number came from. I thought there were just more people who had since applied, but only around 3 of them were within a week's recency, so some explanatory help would be greatly appreciated. WittyRecluse (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I got the 272 number from Ballotpedia, specifically this page; https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020 If that number is incorrect, then it should be changed back of course.Devonian Wombat 21:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there are "284 filtered results" for Democratic candidates in the 2020 election running for President, according to the FEC reference above. The source Ballotpedia cites is the FEC home page, and theres only been 1 candidate who declared they were running after Ballotpedia updated thier list, so I don't understand how Ballotpedia got 272 from 284, but to be fair "284 filtered results" and "there are 284 declared candidates runnning for President in the 2020 election from the Democratic party" are two very different statements. The FEC makes the former and not the latter. That said, if the source Ballotpedia uses says 284 I think we should use 284 and ignore the discrepancy between the numbers. WittyRecluse (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They state the list was updated on August 5, 2019, but the one candidate that filed on that exact day (It's public record, but I rather not write the name) isn't included. So there are two new people running, which would explain the 272 candidates. But the other problem I see is that their list includes Wayne Messam who accidentally filed for 2019 and is not under the 272 (now 274) people given in their source, so I guess the list is incomplete. Messam's accidental filing for 2019 is the reason the link on this page (the Wikipedia article) includes 2019, but also 2017 and 2018. The reason behind this was/is that if Messam's filing for 2019 counts for 2020, why wouldn't filings for 2017 and 2018 also count for 2020. That's why you got the result of 284 candidates. I think we should use that number, but we should not forget to deduct the three major withdrawn candidates of that number too. So 284 minus 27 is 257, >250 would be correct. Rogl94 (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Ojeda Campaign Image
Is there any place we can find an Ojeda campaign image that isn't copyrighted? We have one for all the other campaigns but the Ojeda one keeps getting reverted because of rights issues. WittyRecluse (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure on the specifics, but a fair use rationale has to be added. The Richard Ojeda 2020 presidential campaign article is fine, since the summary for the image (File:Ojeda_2020.png) includes the needed info as it relates to that article. I think that all that has to be done is update the file with info for this article. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hickenlooper
Reports have surfaced that Hickenlooper is planning to drop out via a video that's expected to be released the morning of 8/15/2019. I suppose, until the video surfaces, Hickenlooper hasn't officially suspended his campaign. MrVenaCava (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I'm not trying to be Captain Obvious, but then we shouldn't edit the page to say Hickenlooper is out until the video actually comes out. WittyRecluse (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Gravel endorsement
TDKR Chicago 101 added that Gravel had endorsed Sanders here, which I reverted here. SteelMariner added the information again here, which I cannot revert per 1RR. However, Gravel's campaign tweeted that he has not yet endorsed anyone, and even the Daily Beast source says that he will endorse, not that he already has. SCC California (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If he says he is not endorsing, we should not be adding "his" endorsement to this article. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 20:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A number of editors have tried to add it, so I'll say here that Gravel has not endorsed Tulsi Gabbard, nor has he endorsed a Sanders/Gabbard ticket. As far as I know, that claim comes from an interview two months ago . As of today, though, he is not endorsing Gabbard . "Ultimately, [the campaign] thought it would be more beneficial for the Alaska Democrat to back Sanders, both because he has a better shot of winning the nomination and because of Gabbard’s divisiveness among some on the left." Overall, Gravel endorsed only Sanders, and not Gabbard or a Sanders/Gabbard joint ticket. Jacoby531 (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Gravel endorsed both Gabbard and Sanders.See the updated HuffPo ref. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I re-added the bit about Gravel endorsing Sanders. David O. Johnson removed it because it was "not included for other withdrawn candidates" but that's because neither of the other two have endorsed anyone to my knowledge. It is included in the declined candidates, though, for instance Kennedy endorsed Warren and Tester endorsed Bullock. This is also fairly standard for similar elections, so I see no reason it can't stay. I would suggest we leave his endorsement off Gabbard off the chart, since that's for the VP nomination and the article is specifically about the POTUS nomination. Thanks. <b style="color:dimgray">Steel</b><b style="color:#000080">Mariner</b><i style="color:goldenrod">Talk</i> 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Boss & Others
Jeff Boss - who has a Wikipedia page - isn't listed in the 'notable candidates without media coverage' section of the candidates list. Is there a reason for this? If not, I would request that he be added. Here is his website - one he has apparently not bothered to change the name of since his earlier Senate campaign - https://www.katz2020.com/

Nextly, there is a former Delaware State Senator, Mike Katz, who is running. He doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia page, but he's held public office - the same rank as Richard Ojeda, who is listed here. I would request that he be added, though I don't know if you all want to make a page for him. By our current rules, he'd be put in the main list of candidates. Here he is: https://www.katz2020.com/]

Also, in light of Ami Horowitz seemingly dropping out, should we not put that somewhere? Perhaps a separate "minor candidates that have withdrawn" section? We certainly don't want to forget him when we get around to reorganizing the page after the election, and we should at least have some record of his running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.177.104 (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Lastly, Robby Wells is apparently "Abassador for the International Human Rights Peace Commission". Should this be added to his description(and probably his own page): http://ihrp-commission.com/committe.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.177.104 (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure what criterea the usual edit crew use for 'notable candidates without media coverage', but a quick look at Boss' website shows that it is not even close to being properly edited and he still uses the Senate campaign website name. As for Katz, the website is well edited, but Katz still is asking for 65,000 donors, making me believe he is out after having not made Debate 1 or 2. I think a well edited website with updated information is required to be considered a 'notable candidate'.
 * If Wells' website doesn't include it, we shouldn't either.
 * The Horowitz point I agree should have a place somewhere. WittyRecluse (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps put Katz in 'withdrawn candidates', then, if we can figure out whether he's dropped out? And should we discuss changing the rules to be mentioned on here to exclude Boss and Katz? As for Wells, he does in fact have it on his website, in his bio section. And should Wells be considered a major candidate, seeing as he spoke along with the other candidates at the convention in South Carolina? Doubtful, but I'm not the one to pass judgement on these things. ~OP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.177.104 (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Avenatti Picture
I don't see any reason to not to include the picture for Avenatti. We might as well include him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commieowl (talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As Muboshgu pointed out in their edit summary, it looks bad to have just one image in the gallery. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could format it in line, or use some other less visually offensive format. WittyRecluse (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC) WittyRecluse (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Joe Sestak for President Logo.svg

Polls
Should we include an undeciced percentage in the polling graph?

I think that would be relevant information to include, as people who don't vote make up over 10% of the voter base normally. WittyRecluse (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would recommend asking that over at Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries since that's the article from which the graph is transcluded :)      Vanilla           Wizard      💙 03:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Declared candidates
Added Alan Howe, a still-running Democratic Presidential candidate from Carlisle, PA, to the list of "Other Notable Candidates". Alan is listed among the FEC's Top 50 candidates in terms of fundraising, and has been touring the country campaigning on a strong anti-Trump platform. His campaign website is at Howe2020.org/. He has been covered in the media at The Progressive,Sentinel, KHQA and Gant News, etc. The least you could do is put him BACK on the list as a notable candidate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:980:C000:5:E9B2:AF54:35D8:7D44 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the 'Other Notable Candidates' list is that to qualify to be on the list, you must have a Wikipedia page. Howe does not a Wikipedia page, and thus is not eligible to be added to the list. WittyRecluse (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

order of candidates in withdrawn table
Just like the table of active candidates is alphabetical rather than the order that candidates got in the race, I think having the withdrawn candidates table in alpha order is best. We shouldn't have two different ordering systems for two tables on the same page without an overwhelming reason.  Nevermore27  (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look at articles such as 2016 Republican Party presidential candidates, the dropped out candidates are listed in reverse drop-out order. It helps assist the reader in seeing who lasted in the race the longer (and thus had more of a chance of winning). Having two different ordering systems does not seem like the end of the world or even a minor inconvenience for me if there are reasons for that being in place. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 22:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well in the case of that page there is only one ordering system. Why isn't entree order better for the active candidates table if it is for the withdrawn candidates?  Nevermore27  (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When one begins a campaign is not nearly as important information as when one exits a campaign. Anyone can begin their campaign just because they want to, but when they withdraw it is because of a variety of reasons relating to how their campaign could no longer run; that sort of information should be obviously displayed. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 22:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is "obviously displayed", for the record.  Nevermore27  (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to interject, if we want to order alphabetically, we should have the ability to sort campaign dates by when candidates drop out. Right now that isn't possible and I am not skilled enough at wiki tables to do it myself. WittyRecluse (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I added sortable columns like WR suggested and I think they solve any issue I had with the sorting and also don't mess up the page, so hopefully that's an agreeable compromise.  Nevermore27  (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, that seems to have fixed the problems I had. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Joe Sestak
Should we add that Joe Sestak used to be an Admiral and a director in Bill Clinton's National Security Council? Quvuq0737 (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Yang
Andrew Yang should definitely be in the polling graph. According to EVERY polling average listed, he is ahead of Beto O'Rourke. He is also ahead of Booker in all but one poll. I would do it myself but I don't know how. --Naddruf (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This should be taken to the to the Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries page, and in fact, it already has. To quote Catiline on the Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries page under the heading "Suggestion: Add a line for Yang to the graph" at 01:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC), "Earlier discussions said that if a candidate consistently polls around 3% or higher they'll be included. Yang hasn't consistently reached that mark but looking at the upward trend it seems likely he will be added." WittyRecluse (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter
There's been an edit war going on as to whether the information Jimmy Carter will not make a Presidential run is important enough to include in the list of people who are not running for President. I don't feel too strongly about it, but that said, Carter is a previous one term President which I think is notable enough to have him included in the list. Additionally, I don't see what harm having him on the list does, but again, if general consensus is that the Carter information is not important, then I'll defer to that. WittyRecluse (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It says in that section: "These individuals have been the subject of speculation, but have publicly denied or recanted interest in running for president." It doesn't say "this is a list of everybody who joked about running". Who actually has speculated that Jimmy Carter would run for president in 2020? Let's all use some common sense here. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While there is no chance that Carter was actually going to run for President, it was an issue that he directly addressed and got news coverage for it, so I think we have to include him, even if some of us (even myself off and on) think it's ridiculous.  Nevermore27  (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn’t call it a war, but perhaps there’s history. There are clearly different views! I don’t think Carter’s witty remark belongs in the encyclopaedia alongside those about whom there was genuine speculation of a possible run. It’s the sort of thing that used to go into a “trivia” section, when we had those, 100 years ago. Springnuts (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This inanity just makes a mockery of this already pointless section. No, we was never subject of speculation whatsoever, and there's a complete lack of common sense in the idea to include him. Can we not just have the acumen that hey, if people aren't listed as running, then they didn't run, or are readers not smart enough and need it spelled out? There is no reason for posterity to keep a ridiculously long list of people who were never considering running in the first place and had no impact on the election, merely some talking head thought they could theoretically be a candidate. No one looks back at the 1988 United States presidential election and thinks, "huh, I need to be explicitly told that Gerald Ford (or whoever) could have run but didn't!" Whatever, put such trivia that Andrew Cuomo was long known to be planning on running for president but ultimately chose not to in prose, but don't just have a context-free list of silliness like Carter, Michelle Obama, Adam Schiff, and anyone that was purely speculative. Reywas92Talk 23:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Should we also update Carter's lack of contesting the 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 presidential elections? Of course we shouldn't. We should also limit the list to a meaningful amount of speculation, rather than simply one news source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove that: it was a joke. — JFG talk 08:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

For how long should Avenatti be listed as a potential candidate?
It seems a little excessive to include people who've floated the possibility at any point within the last 6 months. In the case of Avenatti, first he stated that he wouldn't be running, then he said he wouldn't actually rule it out, and then he went silent about it for a month and a half. The current source for him as a potential candidate is from early August, and I can't find any newer ones when I try.

Should we lower the 6 month threshold to somewhere around 1-3 months? A six-month threshold made more sense before the debates, but now the field is thinning and it's no longer due nearly as much weight if someone says they're considering running but then go silent for half a year. Vanilla          Wizard      💙 23:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think it's ridiculous to include him and wouldn't be averse to removing him WP:IAR. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I also am not opposed to removing him entirely. We are not in the same stage of the race where campaign announcements are a frequent occurrence. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 23:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and . I've just removed him since both of you agreed with my sentiment. If anyone wishes to re-add him, they're welcomed to  comment here.      Vanilla           Wizard      💙 00:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I belatedly support the removal. — JFG talk 08:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I support moving the threshold down to at most 2 months. At this point in the process, if you announce and then do not declare over the course of two debates, I can't consider the announcement important any more. WittyRecluse (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's remove the Richard Ojeda campaign article
This isn't directly related to the content of this page, but I think we should merge Richard Ojeda's campaign article into the main page. We did this for Eric Swalwell, and Ojeda is less notable. He even withdrew before most candidates had entered the race. Please comment at Talk:Richard Ojeda 2020 presidential campaign --Naddruf (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * it might be a good idea, and while we're at it, we should put ALL the withdrawn candidates in a separate article like I've been advocating for months.Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

reverted a revert...again
Look, making the 2019 section into a bunch of little sections was both overdue and necessary. This way, it's easier to edit and makes revisions quite easy to do, now. They just click on the month instead of going all the way to January and editing from there. Or do you guys want it harder?Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be better to sort them into 3-month long blocks, at the moment this massively extends the contents collopsable. Devonian Wombat 23:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Sanders' higher office runs in the 70s and 80s
If we are going to include Sanders' runs for Governor in '72, '76 and '86 (where he received less than 15% of the vote in all cases) and Senate in '72 and '74 (2.2 and 4.1% respectively), as prefers, it really calls into question the standard for inclusion in the table. Why not include his unsuccessful run for the U.S. House in '88? Why does this merit inclusion but not actual government experience like Klobuchar being Hennepin County District Attorney or Michael Bennet being Superintendent of Denver Public Schools, or any number of other things that could and (in my opinion) should be included are ruled not relevant? There's a pernicious double standard being set out here. I'm not a detractor of Bernie by any means but this seems like a ploy to include as much of a resume as possible for him in the table so he seems more impressive. I don't like it.  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Other resume items that are (at least) as notable as also-ran status in a handful of elections in the 70s and 80s:
 * Bill de Blasio was New York City Public Advocate from 2010-2013
 * Beto O'Rourke was El Paso City Councilman from 2005-2011
 * Gabbard and Sestak's military service, and Gabbard's tenure as Honolulu City Councilwoman
 * Julián Castro was San Antonio City Councilman from 2001-2005
 * Why are unsuccessful runs for office 40 years ago more notable than these?  Nevermore27  (talk)
 * Interesting. I actually took it as a way to degrade Senator Sanders by showing all the times he had lost elections. Either way, my personal opinion is to include all his runs as well as these items that you have listed. SCC California (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * to my mind the concern is a question of "do we include less or more", and when I've added the above experience for other candidates they get deleted for not being "notable enough", but for Bernie the opposite theory gets applied.  Nevermore27  (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the mess I've caused ahead of time, but I think something that would be relevant to this conversation is what held public office positions make a candidate 'major'. If the criteria we use is "Highest Office Held by a Major Republican or Democratic Candidate", then we can include Presidents, Vice Presidents, U.S. Department Secretaries, U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, Governors, Mayors, and State Senators (because of Ojeda). Thus, I think any run for any of these above public offices, successful or not, should be counted as viable to be a major candidate.
 * This doesn't account for several things though:
 * Bullock is listed as Chair of the National Governors Association and the Attorney General of Montana.
 * Buttigieg is listed as running for Indiana Treasurer.
 * Harris is listed as the Attorney General of California.
 * Warren is listed as a Special Advisor to the President for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
 * The above Klobuchar and Bennet positions as Attorney General or Superintendent
 * To go to the topic of standard for inclusion in the table, we should establish some sort of consensus on an unbaised criteria for what gets included in a candidate's experience column. Building off of what we have above, I have attempted to find a list of relevant public positions that exist and account for the positions listed by Nevermore and myself. In as broad terminology as possible (and condensed for formatting ease):


 * Federal level:
 * Executive Branch: President, Vice President, Department Secretaries (like HUD), Special Advisors (like CFPB), Cabinet Members
 * Legislative Branch: Senators, Representatives
 * Judicial Branch: Federal Court Justice/Judge, Public Defenders
 * State level:
 * Executive Branch: Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, other elected offices (like Treasurer)
 * Legislative Branch: Senators (upper house), Representatives/Delegates/Councilmembers (lower house)
 * Judicial Branch: Judges, Public Defenders
 * Local level:
 * Executive Branch: Mayor/[County Executive] (Town/Township/Municipal/[County]), Public Advocate, School District elect (like Superintendent or School Board member), Special Purpose (Fireman, Policeman, etc)
 * Judicial Branch: Judge, Public Defenders (like Hennepin County District Attorney)
 * Other:
 * Military Service


 * You may notice I added a few things, and wasn't able to fit in the National Governors Association (sorry, Bullock), but this is just my personal reccommendation and the finer points can be improved upon, but I think this list is a good start for what we consider relevant public positions. I would like to hammer out a list which we comment into the table with the "<--" notation.


 * WittyRecluse (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I would recommend omitting "chair of the National Governors Association" because that's not a position that exercises actual governmental authority. It's related to government, but it's not actually part of government. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Too many bullet points
Campaign events are currently listed as bullet points in a "timeline" format, which goes against the Wikipedia manual of style. I would suggest composing a short paragraph of prose for each month instead. Is there support for this change? — JFG talk 22:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I support it. I've never been a fan of the timeline format on the primaries pages. We have a separate page for that. It seems redundant to include it here (and on the other party primaries articles). So, yes, I like the short paragraph idea better. --A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

More candidates with articles to remove?
I'm looking through the candidates' campaign articles and trying to determine which ones are notable on their own, and which should be merged with the candidates' biographies.

So far, of the candidates that dropped out, we have merged Seth Moulton, John Hickenlooper, Eric Swalwell, and Richard Ojeda. Of the candidates that remain in the race, we have merged Joe Sestak, Tim Ryan, and Steve Bullock.

Remaining articles for candidates who dropped out are Kirsten Gillibrand, Bill de Blasio, Jay Inslee, and Mike Gravel. All of these people are important because they have been governors, senators, or mayors. However Hickenlooper and Bullock are also governors and they don't have a campaign article. According to Fivethirtyeight, neither Gillibrand, Inslee, nor De Blasio ever received more than 2 percent of the vote in a national poll since their campaign started. Gravel never received more than 1 percent. Gravel said he was running to spread awareness to issues, not to get elected, which may or may not make his campaign notable.

We have articles for the following candidates that remain in the race: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O'Rourke, Andrew Yang, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Julian Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Michael Bennet, Tom Steyer, John Delaney, Marianne Williamson, and Wayne Messam.

Out of these, I would definitely consider Wayne Messam for a merge (never been over 1 percent in a national poll, or participated in a debate). I would also consider merging John Delaney (possibly notable for his early declaration), Michael Bennet (although he is a senator, never been over 2 percent in a national poll), and Marianne Williamsom (never been over 2 percent). None of them are likely to participate in any future debates.

If things stay the way they are, that's fine as well. Naddruf (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

How should Bernie Sanders' temporary suspension of his campaign be handled?
How should Bernie Sanders' temporary suspension of his campaign be handled? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:5941:97E0:B6EA:CC38 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

He didn't suspend his campaign. He just called off events in the near future. If you want to write it into the timeline you can.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing the "home state" column
Browsing through the list of candidates, I am disturbed by the prominent display of home state flags in a national election. Each candidate's "home state" is already listed in their "experience" section (except for Williamson and Yang who have not held political office). I suggest to remove this distracting column. — JFG talk 08:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Home state does not necessarily correlate with experience (see Gravel), and it is an important visual aide for readers to see where each candidate may have a possible push in support. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 01:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Images
Man whoever changed all of the candidate images must really not like photos where people look into the camera. I think we should change them back to their official congressional photos (for those in Congress, obviously) rather than most recent photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curbon7 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer the campaign trail images for this article, but to keep official portraits on their respective individual articles. This article is about the campaign so it makes sense the images used are from them on the campaign trail. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 00:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jjj  Nevermore27  (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to have much more recent photos of them all - seeing as the article is very rooted in 2019/2020, I think old and outdated photos are detriments to the article. The photos are very high quality so I think they should stay. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Are the candidates' birthdays really relevant?
In an article about the presidential primaries, I don't think there needs to be a column that tells the reader that Michael Bennet was born on November 28th, 1964 in New Delhi, India and that he's currently 54 years old. It just seems a little too off topic. Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree. The talk about certain candidates being old and a certain candidate being young are distractions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think age is important because it shows both the amount of life experiences someone has had and also which milestones they lived through at what age. Birthday is not especially important but it allows the program to calculate age. Birthplace can sometimes be useful because it shows if the candidate has lived all their life in one place, like Mayor Pete. Age is also referenced a lot by the media, which means readers are likely to be interested in the candidates' ages or even sorting them by age.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with the statement that age is important because it "shows the amount of life experiences someone has had." We have a column that's directly about the candidates' experience (primarily political experience, but also the candidates' main occupation if they lack political experience, like Yang, Williamson, and Steyer). How old they are isn't an indicator of their experience; Mayor Pete has been in political office longer than Elizabeth Warren, even though one of them would, if elected, be the youngest president in US history, and the other the oldest in US history. It's trivia that would be worth mentioning if the winning candidate breaks an age-related record, but I don't think it's appropriate as one of the main columns in the section about their campaigns (the other columns being their photos, their political offices, and a link to their campaigns' wiki articles). Vanilla   Wizard  💙 00:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Age has made itself a very important factor in this year's election, considering the three highest polling candidates are in their 70s, and discussion regarding this is obvious in the media. Birth location is also notable considering the natural born citizen clause and potential controversy regarding a president not born in the US. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 01:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a neutral data point, it has no allegiance or agenda. I think it's relevant and should stay.  Nevermore27  (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Age is significant here because of the age of the front runners. Knowing the age of a candidate is important and is a factor that drives voters toward or away from one candidate or another. For example, I think people put much more weight on the decision for Vice President of Biden, Warren, and Sanders than for Gabbard or Buttigieg. I like birthdays as opposed to age because birthdays is neutral; removing age is biased toward older candidates but stating age is baised toward younger candidates. This is an effect compromise. WittyRecluse (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Mark debate participation in the Timeline/Overview graphic
Just a suggestion/humble request: Would it be possible in the overview graph to mark which candidates participated in which debate? E.g., by putting some sort of marker at the corresponding intersections? --95.90.224.135 (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-major candidates
For the candidates that will clearly not be described as major, but still have a wikipedia article, I thought the consensus was to keep them in a list below the major candidates because they are still notable. Has this consensus changed?

, I noticed that you removed Michael E. Arth from the non-major candidates list, but I think he should remain there. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted the change removing Arth. The other candidates are still in this section: ; just scroll past

Yang. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we investigate Arth's notability, then. Look at his article - every book he's written was self-published, and all of his citations refer to either his own books, webpages, or press releases. When you read the articles about his theories, especially New Pedestrianism, no other urban planners are ever mentioned. If you look him up on Google, virtually all the results are (again) his own webpages or apparent sock-puppet postings on social media sites such as Reddit or Quora. And if you look at the blurb describing his 2020 candidacy, one of its main points is that "Wikipedia currently lists him just below the major candidates as a notable candidate who remains active in the campaign"! His online footprint outside of his own pages is almost nil, unless you count pages which have republished his press releases or quoted from Wikipedia. When you search him on Youtube, you will find one video with 1000 views (his documentary), and a handful of others with a couple dozen to hundred views each (all from his account). I strongly suspect that the only reason Michael E. Arth has a patina of notability is because he's gone to great lengths to make it look like it's there. I don't think Wikipedia should be complicit in his self-promotion.

theBOBbobato (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think he's not notable, you can nominate his article for deletion. As long as he has an article, he should be on here according to earlier discussions.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

-Novice user: Why did you not put Ojeda as major? He was a State Senator and gained national attention during his house race and in the film by Michael Moore. I'm confused. How is he less notable than say, Messam, or Sestak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.48.25 (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See the discussion above at . While we are still working out the exact requirements to be considered a major candidate, we do have a consensus that being a state senator is not enough to automatically qualify as a major candidate. There is also a consensus that a candidate who has not served in a major public office can qualify as major by being included in at least 5 independent national polls. Ojeda dropped out of the race after being included in just 1 poll; he might have met the 5-poll criterion had he stayed in the race longer. Wayne Messam, on the other hand, has been included in over 100 national polls (see Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries). Joe Sestak not only has been in over 80 national polls, but he is a former U.S. representative, so he automatically qualified as a major candidate anyway by virtue of holding a major office. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair, but he gained "significant media coverage" as a congressional candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:500:D890:E969:996A:8FE4:FA38 (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Richard Ojeda disruptive editing
This one-revert-only rule is becoming quite troublesome now that all these Ojeda fanboys are coming out of the woodworks and adding him back to being a major candidate despite clear consensus on the talk page. How can we address this and fix this from happening without violating our own rules? <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 16:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * In all fairness, the discussion is ongoing and it's 5:4. I'm not one of the people re-adding Ojeda, but strictly for procedural reasons I don't disagree with them because they're technically just going back to the pre-discussion status quo. Editors are leaning slightly in favor of a criteria that would exclude Ojeda, but I think it's way too early to call it a "clear consensus" when it's only one !vote away from being 50/50. I don't even have any strong feelings on whether or not Ojeda's candidacy was notable enough to put him in the list of candidates that dropped out before the primaries, and I'd be open to a criteria that would exclude him, but I think it's too early to act as if the people re-adding him are just fanboying vandals or something. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 20:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * In a new candidates page, he should be included as a Major candidate because in the system that was in place a year ago, he qualified. He was elected to an office. Period.

Deval Patrick status
Patrick is listed both in the Potential major candidates section and the |Declined section. He can't do both obviously, so which do we give more credence to? The more recent one? David O. Johnson (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If the most recent source said that he's considering it, then it would be fine to move him into the potential major candidates list, but after reading the source I think it's best to just keep him in the declined section. According to the source, he said "it's nice to be rumored about" but that "everyone needs to calm down" and that it's "highly unlikely" that he's going to run for president in 2020. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 02:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Williamson from Iowa?
Just noticed that the Marianne Williamson entry in the candidates table lists Iowa as "home state", and that looks wrong. She has said she moved to Iowa for the campaign, but that does not make it her home state. I'd suggest listing California as home state, and adding a footnote to explain that she has moved temporarily to Iowa in order to wage her presidential campaign. Asking for comments from other editors before applying the change. — JFG talk 19:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think it seems odd. Many of the candidates have homes in DC but that does not make it their "home state". <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 20:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is the vagueness of "home state". Is it where they live right now? If so, Joe Biden hasn't lived in Delaware in over a decade. He lives in Virginia, and his FEC filing for his campaign has a DC address. So does the FEC filing for Kamala Harris. Sestak is in Virginia. Is it the state they are generally associated with? That's easy for current and former office holders, but it's a problem for Williamson. We need some kind of objective definition if we are going to have a column of "home state." --Vrivasfl (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. Do we have a usual practice from previous U.S. elections, for what "home state" means? — JFG talk 10:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed Iowa is odd. From previous elections I noticed "home state" is where the candidate tend to hail from. For example: Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois and spent his early years there, but his career was based in California which is considered his home state. Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii but his hometown is Chicago (I'm a Chicagoan and the fact we're his hometown is like a melody over here). Joe Biden's career has been established in Delaware as he was a longtime senator there despite being born in Pennsylvania and living in Virginia. Gerald Ford's home state was Michigan despite living in California during his later years (similar to how Biden's home state is Delaware and is currently residing in Virginia in his later years). What I'm getting at is that home state should be termed as the place where the candidate's career was established in and spent the most time in. Williamson ran for office in California and appeared to have been living there for awhile same goes to Joe Sestak's whose entire political career has been established in Pennsylvania. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree on all of that. For officeholders it's quite easy to see what state they're affiliated with, but with someone like Williamson it is a bit harder. All signs do point to it being California though. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 20:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ford was a legal resident of Michigan every time he ever ran for office, up to and including the 1976 presidential election. On election day in 1976, he cast his vote in East Grand Rapids, Michigan. After leaving the presidency, he moved to California and took up residence there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * With regard to Biden, my understanding is that he still maintains his primary residence in Delaware. See and, for example. ("Biden spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield told the AP that the Bidens will keep their primary home in Greenville, Delaware.") Also, whether or not Williamson is still in the presidential race after the Iowa caucus, I doubt that she is planning to still be a resident of Iowa in March of 2020. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks @all for your comments. I agree to define the "home state" as the place where each candidate has established their career and notability. According to this criterion, I have re-assigned Williamson to California. — JFG talk 22:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump just changed his legal residence to Florida, and he listed as being from Florida on the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries page. Therefore, Williamson should be listed as being from Iowa. --Numberguy6 (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the way we currently determine home state? WittyRecluse (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are several methods I thought of:

Poll
Which above method should we use for determining residence? Place your vote below this line: ---
 * A: Current legal residence
 * B: Legal residence at declaration of candidacy
 * C: Current legal residence, unless move was purely for political reasons
 * D: de facto residence
 * E: de facto residence, excluding residences only used for official purposes
 * A --Numberguy6 (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Where is the source saying Williamson's legal residence is in Iowa? I understand that she moved to Iowa to campaign there, but I saw nothing confirming that her Iowa residence became her primary legal residence. Many politicians have homes in both their home states and Washington, D.C. Just like you said Trump's de facto residence is the White House in D.C., to me Williamson being in Iowa is the same thing. She is living there just to campaign there, much like how any Senator lives in D.C. just to legislate, and they return home when they do not have to. Williamson will return to California when she does not have to campaign. While we obviously don't have access to these records, my guess would be she is still registered to vote in California and her California home is her primary residence. Also, this is all based on memory and I could be wrong considering I cannot find a clip online, but I believe that in the introductions to the July debate Williamson was announced by CNN as being "from California." Again, I could be wrong here, as I can find no clip of the introductions and it's not like a source is going to report specifically on what was said in introductions, but that's just a little bit I remembered.
 * Regardless, my vote would probably be for C, although the "unless the move was purely for political reasons" doesn't sit well with me; it just seems too vague. My main concern here is whether Iowa is actually her primary legal residence rather than whether the move was for political purposes (clearly it was, but is it our place to say that). Perhaps E sits better with me, although I believe Williamson's answer to E would technically be California. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 17:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A To the extent that having "home state" is meaningful in an article about the 2020 election, it would have to be for the purposes of the Article II clause which states that electors may not vote for a President and Vice President from the same state. Dick Cheney famously changed his voter registration from Texas to Wyoming so that Bush could choose him as VP without any electoral issues. Whatever standard the electoral college uses to decide residency for Article II purposes should be used here. I believe that is Option A. Of course, that doesn't actually answer whether Williamson's legal residence is Iowa or California. Like many rich people, she owns multiple homes. When the census guy comes around next year, which address will she list as her primary address? Probably California, but I don't know for sure --Vrivasfl (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are exactly the same. I actually would lean towards A, but not under the guise that Iowa is Williamson's primary legal residence. I feel like nearly everyone would agree with A, but the issue here is what Williamson's residence actually is. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 19:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Bennet
Bennet should not be removed because his status as a child of a diplomat (probably) made him a citizen from birth, meaning he was a natural-born citizen, as the Supreme Court accepted in Perkins v. Elg. See Natural-born-citizen clause. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)