Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 2

De La Fuente and polls
Editor just undid the recent moving of Rocky De La Fuente to the "major candidates" list, claiming existing consensus. However, the consensus was that "The following major candidates have either (a) held public office, (b) been included in a minimum of five independent national polls, or (c) received substantial media coverage" was the criteria, and that Rocky did not at the time live up to it. That remains the criteria, remains on the page... and as Opinion polling for the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries shows, Rocky has been included in five polls by YouGov/The Economist. Having crossed that bright line, is there any reason to keep him out of the "major candidates" list now? (NOTE: I have been reached out to offline in the recent past by the candidate for inquiries regarding their Wikipedia coverage, but I am not financially linked to him, not working on his campaign, and not giving him any treatment beyond what an inquiry dropped on my talk page would get.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely no issue with De La Fuente being a major candidate. What I find weird is that moved De La Fuente to the major candidate section here:, yet PrairieKid is blaming NatGertler for making the move (I would presume that's who they mean when they stated in their edit summary here that:  "A user with David O. Johnson (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the subsection where Rocky is listed as having five polls: . David O. Johnson (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, even properly bracketed, WP:POV is a descriptor of article content, not of users. (All humans have a point of view, of course.) I've got no conflict of interest, if that's the question . I've even had one of Rocky's volunteers take me to the conflict of interest noticeboard claiming that I had some sort of anti-Rocky COI, but I came through that inquiry clean. And of course, I am not Metropolitan. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I did move De La Fuente (RDLF) to the major candidate section, because he met one of the criteria which we have had in place for a while: "been included in a minimum of five independent national polls". I don't have a pro-RDLF point of view. On December 2, 2019, I wrote on this page, "As regards Rocky De La Fuente, he needs to get himself included in some polls before I will consider him a major candidate. He is running, and he is or will be on a bunch of ballots, but he isn't recognized as a major candidate by most sources. When he ran in the Democratic primaries in 2016, he didn't even get 1% as many votes as Hillary Clinton did. I don't expect him to fare much better as a Republican." Then, for some reason, YouGov/The Economist started including him in their polls. On January 9, I wrote on this page, "I should note that Rocky De La Fuente has started being included in polls (from YouGov/The Economist). If and when he is included in five polls, I will fully support classifying him as a major candidate (because I have supported the five-poll standard throughout this entire campaign) -- but not before then." So when he hit the 5-poll mark, I went ahead and moved him to the major candidate section. We have a 5-poll standard, and we ought to uphold our own standard by recognizing candidates as major if they meet that objectively measurable standard. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I was referring to PaulAwesomeTwo, whose 3 edits prior to mine I incorrectly assumed were the edits in question. That was my mistake. To be fair, that editor's edit summaries ought to be cause for some notice., I apologize if I offended you in any way.
 * Anyway, to the meat of the issue, I strongly disagree that De La Fuente is a major candidate. I recognize Trump is in a tier all his own but to say De La Fuente is even close to the same type/level of candidate as Walsh and Weld is nonsense (all due respect). I recognize the importance of being consistent and adhering to previously set criteria, but I feel either an exception ought to be made or the criteria adjusted. Walsh and Weld meet all 3 criteria. In fact, they go far above and beyond, having held national office (although I concede Walsh's is on the light side), are included in nearly every poll, and have been featured numerous times on major broadcast networks, in print media, as well as in less mainstream places (blogs, vlogs, internet discussions, etc.). If nothing else, Walsh and Weld are clearly more serious about this run, with major campaign organizations and fundraising in the direction of a single office they are genuinely attempting to win--De La Fuente is a perennial candidate who ran for nine Senate seats in 2018 and is running for Congress concurrently with his run for President.
 * I may be melodramatic but I seriously think the Wikipedia's legitimacy regarding coverage of current events will be threatened by putting Rocky in with the other three. The tens of thousands of viewers of the main 2020 article will see that and either laugh or discount our remaining content. It seems like the type of thing that makes high school teachers look down on Wikipedia. Again, I implore: we should either change our criteria or make an exception. PrairieKid (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, you want someone who is currently outpolling (albeit within margin of error) the two candidates you hold up as major candidates to be considered minor? And you're worried about what the optics will be if we don't rework criteria so that we can exclude the sole remaining Latino in the presidential race? Can't say that I agree. But thank you for admitting that you are requesting a change of criteria to exclude Rocky, rather than your previous claim that criteria were changed to include him.] Could you now undo your edits and wait until you find consensus for reworking the criteria to exclude him? --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood that edit summary. I was not saying criteria were changed for Rocky; I was saying he should not be included and perhaps our criteria ought to be updated to better reflect what a major candidate is.
 * Second, and I feel silly saying this to a senior editor, you're not really assuming good faith there. I was not trying to be evasive or sneaky and I certainly did not flip-flop. I wish you had thought of it as the misunderstanding it was rather than me deliberately moving the goalposts. To be fair, I could also be reading more into your wording than you meant but you came across as rather abrasive, dismissive, and confrontational which are not constructive.
 * Again, on to the meat of the issue, in which polls is Rocky above the other 2? I do not see a single poll where he is above 1% whereas Welsh and Weld both have several. I am not saying we need to rework the criteria to exclude him; rather I think his meeting the criteria shows the criteria is poor. I do not have a problem with him specifically but he shows there is a problem with the criteria. I hope that makes sense. PrairieKid (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand the reference to POV, as PaulAwesomeTwo referred to RDLF as "my man" in this edit summary. I think there is justification for treating RDLF as being in the same level as Walsh and Weld -- not in media coverage, but in polling and funds. Specifically, the polling organization that has conducted more Republican primary polls over the last three months than all others combined does think it is worth their while to ask about RDLF, when they could easily have continued to ignore him instead had they preferred to do so. RDLF has hit 1% in each of those YouGov/Economist polls, not much worse than Walsh (three 1%'s and two 2%'s in those same polls) or Weld (two 1%'s and three 2%'s). RDLF also has a lot more cash on hand than Walsh and Weld combined according to the last FEC reports. Granted, almost all of that consists of his own loans to the campaign, but that means that he will have an easier time paying for advertising than Walsh or Weld will. I don't think that including RDLF as a major candidate will harm Wikipedia's legitimacy, and I think it would be a bigger defect in our integrity if we changed our criterion in order to exclude a candidate from being major, just after he finally satisfied that criterion. Some version of the 5-poll criterion has been in place for years, even going back before the last election (see here). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oooo, sick move using 2015 PrairieKid against 2020 PrairieKid, hahaha! Can't argue with that guy. (Hopefully it comes across that I am laughing, not teasing or upset or anything.) Although, I guess that discussion shows my long-time dissatisfaction with the polling criteria.
 * If I understand you correctly, you're saying it's not entirely up to us to define notability but rather to trust other sources (in this case, YouGov/Economist) when they do so? While I see that point, I still do not agree with it. A polling organization asking about a candidate versus an encyclopedia designating them "major" or "minor" are two different things. And I think you answer your own point well in regards to finances; it's his own money. Again, I am not trying to change criteria to exclude him; rather, he shows why we need to change criteria. I am open to being wrong on this and conceding. I just wanted to express my strong opinion on the issue. If others are all on the same page, I promise not to harumph too much. PrairieKid (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First, a correction on my earlier statement - I was saying that Rocky was polling ahead of the other two because in the latest poll results, he was listed ahead of the other two, which is generally listed in order of non-rounded total results (the rounding to a whole percentage can cover a range, particularly when the number is 1% - the highest possible "1%", 1.4999%, is basically about triple the lowest, .5000% ). However, digging deeper into the data there, I can see that the three candidates were not just in a statistical tie, they were in an actual tie for that poll. So Rocky was not ahead of the candidates you deem "major", he was getting exactly the same result as them. But if you weren't claiming that Rocky didn't meet our extant criteria for "major", why did you not change the article's "major" criteria to.... well, whatever it is you propose. (So far, the change seems to be adding "and isn't Rocky De La Fuente".) Please either restore the article to reflect that he meets the criteria, or change the criteria to exclude Rocky.... while realizing that in doing so, you're going against earlier consensus. As it is, the article is currently spinning the lie that Rocky does not meet the criteria currently listed. (And please realize that if you're going off of the idea that he isn't a major candidate because he did not previously hold office, was not raising the sort of funds his competitors were, and was putting money into his own campaign... you've just pulled Donald Trump out of the list of major candidates for 2016.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You guys seem to have forgotten that the race is fixed. Trump has provisionally won ten states already, and unless the fantasy action of him getting kicked out by the Senate next month actually happens, he's going to win the nomination by default. The precedent here is Lawrence Lessing. He was a minor candidate too. Yet he was promoted to a major one when HE managed to get on five polls. Yes, the circumstances were somewhat different, Lessing was trying to get into the debates at the time and withdrew when the DNC, which was in the tank for Hillary, (Russia and all that), told him to go shove it. However, we here at Wikipedia never "demoted" him and he's still there as a major. It's the same thing as Rocky. He's got five polls under his belt, has been recognized as major by two states (California and Florida) and is on the ballot in nearly half the Union. That should be enough. As to recognition, Walsh and Weld have NOT been recognized by many states as major candidates. nor have they by the RNC. (Walsh has bitterly complained about this). The question is not whether it's going to be a rerun of 1992, or even 1976, the question is whether or not it's going to be a rerun of 1972 or not. IN 1972, Nixon had two challengers, one of whom, Pete McCloskey got 19% of the vote in NH and later got one delegate, and John Ashbrook, who never got more than 3% of the vote anywhere. Both withdrew early on. Therefore, Rocky should be put back as major.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I realize now my removal of RDLF was WP:BOLD (at the time, I thought I was following the consensus around him). I went ahead and self-reverted. With respect to WP:VOTE, it does seem I am the minority. Whereas y'all have slightly moved me to a greater understanding of RDLF's inclusion, it seems like I have not persuaded you at all. I won't beat a dead horse. I still think RDLF is clearly not on par with the other three (and, Nat, even clearer the difference between him and Trump in 2016). I still think his inclusion is a mistake that makes Wiki look bad. And I still think it points to a larger issue with the criteria. I like Arglebargle's idea for progressive criteria (see section below), although I believe their suggested criteria still need some work. If y'all agreed with me that RDLF is not on par with the others from the outset, it would be worth evaluating it; however, you don't seem to think it's broke so I won't bother trying to fix it. PrairieKid (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Random dem viewer of the article here, I agree he fits the major candidate criteria but only barely. I was VERY confused about his inclusion until seeing the polling which still surprises me, I've known of him and despite opposing views don't hate him this is just sudden and random considering I have read this 2020 wikipedia article group for over a year and never seen a perennial candidate be suddenly listed as major. Also no dislike but Fluente is weird, not calling him bad. Just sharing my viewer opinion for hopefully helping with decision making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:500:D890:FD12:159B:6C88:672D (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Where we go from here
Iowa is tomorrow and New Hampshire is next week. Trump will be "acquitted" by the Senate on Wednesday and after that, the race becomes non-notable. The only things that will be interesting are the monster rallies by the Trump campaign, and how the challengers do. Looking at the results from '16, getting over a hundred thousand votes in Texas and California could be as little as 2% of the vote. Political junkies and pub quizzers will be interested in that sort of thing.

--So where do we go from here? Well, we start cutting down the primaries calender. I just did it for February (Happy new month, y'all!), and around Leap year day, we should do it for March. If y'all want to do it earlier, that's probably better. Then there's the ballot access chart. I know that I created it and fought for it, but starting tomorrow, it will have outlived its usefulness. Either we get rid of it altogether, or we replace the yes and no boxes with results, either percentages or raw totals. It doesn't really matter which. Who was on the ballot where was the only "real result" of the primary so far outside of Hawaii and Kansas, and I don't want to relitigate the whole "Trump could still lose an uncontested primary" crap.

--Finally, there's the order on the candidates' chart. Weld is on more states than Walsh and is doing better than him in all the polling (what little there is of it). So we have the order: Trump, Weld, Walsh, Rocky. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree on removing the ballot access chart. There's no reason it can't be here alongside the results. David O. Johnson (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to eliminate the ballot access chart. The article will not be over-long with it in place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In a similar fashion, I've re-added NH, IA and NV to the Primary and caucus calendar section that were removed in this edit: . I've also removed the redundancy here . Again, I see no reason to overhaul the article. It's just fine as it is. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What redundancy? the Iowa caucus is TODAY!!! The results will be known tomorrow, don'tcha know? The schedule chart is for future events that will take place in a while, not today or next week. Something will NOT happen last week. Predicting the past as if it will be some future event is dumb. Deleting February, a month that has already started is counterproductive to the max. Important campaign events, such as the President's state of the union address, which is tomorrow, shouldn't be included on the timeline because of the primary schedule? Really?

--The reason for the ballot access chart was to inform the reader who IS running WHERE. It's about future events. After all, you've got to be in it to win it. You look at a schedule to find out when something WiLL happen. When you take Amtrak to, say, Boston you consult one to find out when you have to show up. It's about the future. With a fluid thing like Wikipedia, when talking about future events, you need to move stuff when it actually happens or is about to happen. Once the results happen, we don't need it on the schedule anymore. Once we have the results, we don't need to know who's going to be running there anymore. As to Nat Gertler's comments and actions. The article WILL change drastically very, very soon. That's why I'm changing it to a results chart. With Iowa having percentages instead of checkmarks and exes, the reader will know what's happened and what hasn't. The checkmarks and exes can stay until the primary actually takes place. It'll make things easy for the reader. It'll be clear and won't make things overlong. We can have the national totals chart too, in fact, we should. We've already got a results page.

Iowa's results will be history tomorrow morning, a week later, New Hampshire's. Nevada's is already known. That's it for February. There's going to be the impeachment vote, the state of the Union, and then a monster rally on Monday. That's not WP:Crystal, that's scheduling. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * First, I don't think anyone argued that Trump could "lose an uncontested primary," just that he hadn't yet won an uncontested primary. Second, you say yourself that "We've already got a results page." So, there's no reason to change the ballot access table to a results table.  Such duplication is unnecessary.  And this is not like a train station schedule that needs to purge information, it's an encyclopedia. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should have a link on this article to the Results of the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries; it would be something like this section: . Something we could do instead would be a tranclusion of a section of the Results article so it also appears in this article. Either way avoids needless duplication. I think the Results article should be the main focus for results, personally. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the 2016 page? For the past two and a half years, this has been an article about a future event. That's why you guys have been razzing me for all that alleged WP:Crystal stuff. This is an additional page from the main election page. You want to get more information? Click here! But for those who don't WANT more information, and just want a simple overview, we give them one. That's what this page is for. With impeachment over, the Republican race for the nomination is going to be a rather boring non-notable exercise. I designed the ballot access chart to be a temporary one to go "poof!" when the real results are coming in. We have real results from Iowa, we are going to have real results from New Hampshire in one short week. I put in an explanation, and yes, @David Johnson's right about putting a link to the results page there. I'll do that presently.

--But look at the 2016 and 2012 articles. They don't have a schedule at all. The reason is, is that we don't need it. it's not even trivia. The information about dates is part of the results and that's where it is. At this point in time, the article should be designed to be skimmed, rather than read, at least prior to the last primary's over, and if they want to go to the results page, and there's a need for one. then one should go there, but if one doesn't, then why make it harder for you're average pub quizzer to answer the question: who came in second in last year's Republican California primary?" The ballot access chart was for real results. The places where Trump's challengers were on the ballot were the only results available at the time, and for all but a few states, are the only real results we've got. This is going to change very rapidly next month. To make it easier for the reader, we should make looking stuff up easier. Less work for the reader, and after all, isn't that what this thing is for? Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of room. We can have a results table here (which may or may not need to be as extensive as the one in the Results of the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries article), and still have a ballot access table too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A solution (IhopeIhopeIhope!!!!)
The criteria should change with time. let's do a hypothetical for 2024: Biden has won and has announced he will retire after one term.


 * November 10,2020-July 2023: Five major polls, elected officials, or major celebrities.
 * August 2023-November 2023: the first two or invited to an officially sanctioned debate.
 * December 2023 onward: Drop the polls, just officially sanctioned debates, or on the ballot in 15 states.
 * Those who WERE considered major earlier on will remain major throughout.

While this would work for the Democrats this year (Yang and Williamson), it wouldn't for the Republicans because there have been NO authorized debates and the two former elected officials have not been recognized as legitimate by the RNC. So what we should do this year, have three tiers of candidates: the incumbent; the challengers; and the lunatics who managed to get on a ballot or five (even the nonnotable ones like Ardini). The RNC rules state that through Super Tuesday, any candidate who gets 50% or more gets all the delegates. As I have stated before, Trump will have clinched the nomination by Super Tuesday or the campaign will be in total chaos. Tick-tock, early voting begins in Michigan today. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear what problem this is a solution to, and it introduces more bases for endless finagling in the future. As you note, the lack of sanctioned debates does put a hiccup into things, and many (most?) of the ballots are declared after the start of December when you've eliminated any sort of coverage as qualifying folks. (As it is, our table of "ballot access" is problematic, as it includes things based on submission rather than on qualification, despite its header.) So no, I do not support this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that our criteria for "major candidate" status need review, but I think that we should do that review by a Request for comment immediately after the 2020 general election. My personal choice would be 5 major polls or certain elected officers (I would not give a free pass to state legislators and small-city mayors, as we have been doing). But we'll need to have a fuller discussion about that. I think we'll be able to be more objective if we create our criteria without knowing exactly who will be helped by those criteria. (Also, we should rely on official sources to establish ballot access, since a candidate can submit petitions for ballot access yet not qualify.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that having an WP:RfC discussion in November would be an excellent idea. The Rocky thing (which is now over, hooray!) was the cause of endless finagling this time out. Ballot access is very important, as is debate stage access. Without the latter, a candidate cannot get taken seriously. Do you think that Yang or Williamson would have been able to get on the ballot in most places without getting on the debate stage? Once she was kicked off the debate stage, her funding dried up and her poll ratings went from 2% to zero. Same with most of the "real" Democratic candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand or Beto O'Rourke. In cycles prior to 2016, candidates would have at least waited for some physical results such as the Iowa straw poll or the caucuses themselves before dropping out. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with the idea of a November RfC. The adjustments that I'd be looking toward would be replacing "five polls" with "polls from two polling sources" (that's in harmony with our idea of multiple sources in our notability guidelines; if the "elected official" is to be adjusted, I'd lean toward federal, statewide, or mayor of one of America's 100 most populous cities... but I tend to prefer criteria based on recognition from other sources than our opinions as to kind of candidate will be taken seriously. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I also support the position of a November RfC, Since we seem to be stating our preferences for inclusion, I think the inclusion standards for elected officials should be federal office, Governor, state Attorney General and state Secretary of State or mayor of a city with over 100,000 inhabitants, and I believe the polling criteria should be adjusted to inclusion in three polls. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Following up to my earlier comment, my personal choices would be 5 polls or one of the following offices: president, VP, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, Cabinet office (counting only the 15 executive departments), governor, or mayor of one of the 10 largest cities. For what it's worth, FiveThirtyEight.com defined a major public office, for purposes of getting a point toward being a major candidate, as "president, vice president, governor, U.S. Senate, U.S. House, mayor of a city of at least 300,000 people, member of a presidential Cabinet", but those didn't automatically qualify a candidate as major for their purposes since they required additional criteria; for example, it took a couple of months for former Senator Mike Gravel to qualify. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think additionally, the polls should come at least 2, and preferably 3, different pollsters. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Much of this article reads like a biased hit piece on Donald Trump. Donald Trump is basically unopposed for the nomination. The other guy winning a delegate is irrelevant. That part needs to go, along with talk about impeachmentBjoh249 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy December, y'all!!!!
The first, (rather fifth) real vote on impeachment, is scheduled to take place on Tuesday. That's right, Tuesday. If the House intelligence committee votes to forward draft articles of impeachment in its report, then that's the primary right there. But @David and @Wittyrecluse have banned any mention of impeachment until there's a vote, well here it is. The trial in January, should it happens, will be first of a principle candidate in an election of this type since Andrew Johnson's two months prior to the Democratic Convention in 1868. A draft report will be leaked to the press tomorrow. So I suggest that we add some impeachment stuff into the article on Wednesday because if I add it now, you will just delete it again.

Next topic: Tennessee and California are scheduled to announce their lists this week and Oklahoma's three-day filing window will be open. Rocky has already been declared a major candidate by Florida's Secretary of State and if Tennessee and California do as well, I hope you will follow their lead and put him back all the charts, which several editors currently find confusing. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there needs to be much, if anything, said about impeachment in this article, because if Trump is impeached, he is expected to have sufficient support from the Republican majority in the Senate to be acquitted and remain in office for the rest of his term. Nor has the impeachment effort noticeably reduced Trump's support among Republican voters so as to reduce the likelihood that he will be renominated in 2020. Obviously, these situations could change, but we're not here to engage in pure speculation. As regards Rocky De La Fuente, he needs to get himself included in some polls before I will consider him a major candidate. He is running, and he is or will be on a bunch of ballots, but he isn't recognized as a major candidate by most sources. When he ran in the Democratic primaries in 2016, he didn't even get 1% as many votes as Hillary Clinton did. I don't expect him to fare much better as a Republican. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * These primaries have nothing to do with impeachment. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nancy Pelosi just requested the Judiciary committee to start drafting articles of Impeachment. She wouldn't have done that if she didn't have the votes, and then some, to pass them. A trial is now guaranteed. The Trial of the primary's principle candidate broadcast on most TV networks has everything to do with the primary. The first formal vote selecting delegates, the Kansas State convention, is less than two months away. It's quite possible that on the day of the Iowa caucuses, this trial will still be going on. The House of Representatives is full of lawyers. Many of these lawyers are extremely skilled prosecutors. A once in a generation TV spectacular dominating the media for WEEKS? It's worth a mention on the timeline. If, and it's still speculation at this point, Trump should somehow lose, then the primary will be thrown into unprecedented chaos. As I have said numerous times, impeachment is the entire ball of wax. AS to the other thing, I've always said that Rocky is a joke. but so are Weld and Walsh. Ardini, Ely, et al, may get a significant (more than 2%) slice of the vote as well. Aside from Trump, there are no major candidates. the article should look like 2012 Democratic or 2004 Republican pages, focusing on the little guys because it's more interesting than an uncontested incumbent getting 95% of the vote. We should mention those who are on more than one ballot. Besides Rocky, there are three other guys who are on the ballot in 5 states. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And he was acquitted. This article reads too much like a Trump hit piece. Needs revising. His impeachment is irrelevant. The part about Bill Weld being the first Republican candidate running against an incumbent to win a delegate is irrelevant. The President has 97% of the vote so far. He is easily being renominated.Bjoh249 (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Active campaign
What determains the 3 years active campaign status for donald trump? just curious? because i do not see any refs. 109.131.238.132 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an entry for February 18, 2017, the first item in the Timeline section, below the overview chart. The reference is http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/18/outside-washington-trump-slips-back-into-campaign-mode.html. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 2A02:A03F:8B18:9300:80EE:7950:BC37:4F64 (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente as a Perennial Candidate
There are now over 80 sources that mention De La Fuente as a candidate, and make zero mention that he is a Perennial Candidate. Can we stop labeling him as a perennial candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B04B:2185:A804:EB1F:D5D5:4FCD (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of available sources describe him as a perennial candidate. Even the fact that he's been labeled "perennial" has gotten coverage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm saying this, Enough with Rocky!
Rocky is on the ballot in over 20 states. In some, like Illinois, he's the only challenger to Trump on the ballot. How he does is interesting, and it's already been decided that he's a "major candidate" and to count his votes. Same with Weld and those people you don't want to even mention because they're so obscure. the primary race will be over on Wednesday. Trump will be around 125 votes short of the number needed to nominate not including those primaries and caucuses the following week where he's unopposed. That part is not WP:Crystal, it's fact. The Rules say that. The discussion doesn't matter anymore. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

WTF Rocky de la Fuente?
He's a damn perennial candidate, not a major candidate. This addition is without consensus and goes against media coverage and plain common sense. I see only a single polling company has included him in their polls, in none of which is he above the 1% of people who press the wrong button or just don't want to pick another option. The one pollster doing a poll every couple weeks does not pass the criterion of being included in multiple polls. This section is transcluded to the main 2020 article and his inclusion is undue weight and rather embarrassing. Reywas92Talk 02:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC) CNN, NYT, Fox, BI, ABC, WaPo, Al-Jazeera, etc. do not list him among the major candidates, and its original research to list him. A single polling company including him is not sufficient. Reywas92Talk 02:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's true that other media have not classified RDLF as a major candidate. But that wasn't a requirement to be labeled as a major candidate here. We have had, for quite a while, a criterion that inclusion in 5 independent national polls is good enough for a candidate to qualify as a major candidate. RDLF has met that criterion. I would consider it a violation of WP:NPOV to change the criteria to exclude a candidate, just because a candidate we don't think much of finally met the relevant criterion. (Also, the Al Jazeera piece is from before RDLF was included in any polls.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What a damn joke, what an ill-conceived and poorly implemented criterion that flies in the face of common sense. An isolated idea to include him by a single pollster running the same poll five times (and finding a rounding error) does not define being a major candidate. He's a perennial attention whore loser, not a major candidate by any stretch of the imagination. Reywas92Talk 08:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought we were finished with all this. He made the cut. He's on the ballot on a majority of states, an, therefore, he's a major candidate. One can make the argument, and I have, that Weld and Walsh aren't major candidates either. We've decided to have a major discussion on the subject of criteria in November after this whole thing is over. (it's been archived, I think). Until then, it is what it is.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Walsh dropped out of the race, FWIW. GoodDay (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This is getting really annoying. De la Fuente is not a major candidate. So STOP ADDING him is as such. Jeepers. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * neither is Bill Weld. This article is about the lesser candidates. Otherwise it's not notable.

How's this as a solution?
We split the candidates at Trump and everyone else. Incumbent and Challengers. Have a chart for Trump like he's already the incumbent (except for the color, which will change when he clinces a week after super tuesday), and have the challengers together on a chart like this:

I know that Ardini and Matern are nobodies from nowhere, but they're on the ballot more than two states (Matern is on Ten, I believe), and they're all garunteed over ten thousand votes. But keep them there as part of the record, as everyone is token oppostion to Trump, and besides, who is it hurting? You make everything clearer for the reader, and that's a good thing, right? I know that @GoodDay finds Rocky annoying, but I find Trump annoying. Annoying doesn't really matter in this case.

So let's vote: I say YES for the reasons I have explained before. Add an explanation as to how you vote)Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. We should not be redefining the requirements in the midst of things just because some folks don't like one candidate qualifying. We should not be anointing Trump, because even with the current balance, there are things that could totally mess up the race (not special to Trump; any candidate can die), and any change should be something that is good in the general case, not something special for this race. Even if we were to do it, we should not use this layout, at least not with the gendered blank pictures in cases where we don't have the photos, as one can quickly see that it creates more emphasis on the candidates that we have the least information on. Nor should we describe Rocky solely as "perennial candidate"; while I have defended the use of that descriptor, it should not be the sole or lead descriptor, as it reflects less than 10% of his life, in contrast to, say, "businessman" or "automotive dealership owner", which reflects a much larger span. And Robert Ely is in his second campaign, according to his page; losing once does not make one "perennial". --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As to the descriptors of some of the people, changing them to something else is perfectly fine. I don't mind and that's not a real objection. As to not "anointing" Trump, well, the National committee did that over a year ago, and he's going to clinch the nomination on Super Tuesday. It will be pro forma after that. Should Trump die, then there would be chaos, but it wouldn't change anything. Ballot access for the rest of the primaries will be over by the 10th of March and all the Trump delegates would be declared uncommitted. None of the major challengers were actually major. Walsh and Sanford are already out, and while the former will get tens of thousands of otess, that's only because of early voting in a bunch of states. Trump has already won 15 states, including those who have refused to let challengers on the ballot or canceled their primaries altogether. Saying what good in gnerlal is a good idea, and in fact, is what I'm trying to do. A primary race with an incumbent is one with only token opposition. Since the McGovern/Fraiser reforms of 1971, only in 1976 and 1980 have sitting presidents lost primaries, and only in 1992 has anyone ever come close. This is not a competitive race. We should have the incumbent and the challengers here listed as such, and leave the results page as is, because the challengers are going to get votes through the end of March. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No, we should not be mentioning non-notable people in the main table for one thing, and putting Trump in his own section after the primaries have started because some editors are having a temper tantrum over De La Fuente being on the page is both incredibly disruptive to the readers of this page, and a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Also, since people like Bill Weld are clearly being treated more seriously than candidates like Zoltan Istvan, having them in the same section gives that latter Undue Weight. If there is consensus that the table needs to reflect Donald Trump's incumbency, a better solution would be similar to the 2020 Green Party presidential primaries page. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd like y'all to look at the articles for the 2004 Republican Party presidential primaries and the 1996 and 2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries, you will notice that they look very different than any of the contested primaries. We should have the article look like those, instead of the Democratic primary articles for this year and both sides in '16. It is not WP:CRYSTAL to say that an incumbent president, who has been endorsed by the National Committee is on a different level than his challengers, especially after he has already won ten states, nine of them by default. As to the non-notable candidates being on the same level with the notable ones, let me remind you that Ely and Istvan are nonentities who managed to get into a few newspaper articles and that the other two, Ardini and Matern, were notable enough to have gotten on the California ballot without petitions and may actually get more votes than Ely or Istvan. At this point and onward, the article is all about the challengers and whether or not they get more than a thousand votes anywhere. The race for the nomination itself is already over, our readers know it, EVERYBODY knows it,and it should be acknowledged. Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's WP:CRYSTAL and you know it. We've been through this numerous times already. Splitting the section into Incumbent and Challengers would violate WP:NPOV; the idea of "proportionality", as you have called it in previous discussions, does not exist on Wikipedia. It's tiring to rehash the exact same discussions that we've had before. I don't know if you expect a different outcome this time or what. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

For those just tuning in; WP:NOV means "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

In order to be WP:NOV, we have to show things the way they are. In other words, depict the article showing that the race is non-competitive, the incumbent has only token opposition and can be proven to be such. That is neutral and follows the consensus in both the media and the Republican party. WP:NOV means we have to respect reality as it is. Non-NOV would be to insist that the president could still somehow lose the primaries he the only one on the ballot on. Non-NOV is saying that Hobbyist A, most not be mentioned because s/he doesnt have an article yet, while Hobbyist B, who had a campaign 8 years earlier and got laughed out of the room should because someone wrote an article about it at the time and he's therefore "notable,' should? We need to treat everyone equally except Trump, who is already the presumptive winner.

As to WP:Crystal..."Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."

Take the Maine primary, for example, Trump is the only person on the ballot there and thus he will win it. That is completely verifiable. There is no "wild speculation" here. If he gets a thousand or a million votes he will win it and get all the delegates. The vote total, while interesting to some, is meaningless. There is polling data in New Hampshire showing that Trump will get 80 to 90% of the vote. Should we say that he's already won? No. But should we say that He's already won Maine? Yes. Why? Because he physically can't lose. CRYSTAL and NPV say no miracles. That means that if the polling data and the media consensus say one thing, then we should respect that.

Now back to the chart. On March 4, Trump will have almost a thousand delegates and no one else will have any. This is verifiable. How? The rules say so. 50% of the vote means winner take all. That is not speculation. I don't propose to place the chart in the article until the 4th. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC) No What Arglebargle79 is saying doesn’t make sense. Arglebargle79 Is saying that Trump needs to be put separate from the other candidates because he is most likely going to win, and that it would be more neutral that way. But   What Arglebargle79 is actually hypocritically because NOV states that we (the editors) must keep Wikipedia Articles neutral, which mean making all the candidates equally to each other in terms of how we address them. In other words    We need to keep all the candidates together and not separate. Also Wikipedia does not make assumptions to determine how the article should be handled. Just because you assume that Trump will win doesn’t mean that he should be separate from the other candidates.BigRed606 (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On Super Tuesday Trump will have 847 delegates and Weld will have one. This is not WP:CRYSTAL, this is fact. Add to that, here are a bunch of primaries on the 10th and that he will have more than enough to have officially become the presumptive nominee. NOV means neutral, but it does not mean stupid or embarrassing.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "On Super Tuesday Trump will have 847 delegates and Weld will have one." That's the exact definition of the crystal ball policy: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future." You keep running around in circles. It's utterly pointless.David O. Johnson (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again you forgot what I was saying. I was saying we should do this the day AFTER Super Tuesday. Saying that "ooh, that's WP:CRYSTAL and we shouldn't do it!!!!!!" is silly. But let's BE WP:Crystal for a moment and pretend that it's two weeks from tomorrow. AS all the polls (today) show, Trump has all the 847 delegates and about six million votes, while Weld has 120 thousand and everybody else has fifty thousand to 12 thousand. What do we do then? At what point does having 90% of the delegates needed for the nomination in a mostly uncontested race become recognized as a fait accompli by those editors here who want to misuse the rules to keep that hope against hope that somehow, someway, Trump might lose on March 10? The rules as they are now on February 18, state that if Trump gets 50% of the vote, he gets all the delegates. That means if it's Trump 50%+1, Uncommitted 40%-1 and Weld 10%, Trump will get everything. This the rule for ALL the super tuesday states. Y'all know this. So please tell me why we shouldn't do this the day after Super Tuesday. Not today, March 4.Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And you are misrepresenting the other editors of this page. I do not think any editors are editing as if they are hoping Trump might lose.  You are arguing for doing something in the future based on events that have yet to happen. There is no need for this.  Just wait for the events to happen! You've been told this numerous times, so read WP:IDHT.  --Spiffy sperry (talk)
 * We ARE waiting for Super Tuesday, that's the point. A week has taken place. The Nevada caucus was canceled last fall. The State GOP said that an alternative vote would unanimously bind their delegation to Trump. I said we should acknowledge that. You said no. "he could lose!" To say otherwise would be WP:CRYSTAL. I said no it isn't. The day came and it went exactly as the Nevada SC said it would, and it wasn't CRYSTAL at all. So, a week from tomorrow, not today, should we make the changes I suggest?Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So far, everyone but you in this thread has said no. It looks like you've gotten your answer. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

New York
New York now has a filed-candidate list up. The only entrant listed as a Republican for President is De La Fuente. It lists his status as "valid"; I'm not sure if that means on-the-ballot or is some less complete status being validated. However, there is still a week left for the party to nominate someone, and longer than that for nomination by petition, so we cannot assume that he will be the only candidate on the ballot. (Note: I was notified by De La Fuente of his NY filing, but have verified it myself. I do not have a conflict of interest with regard to the candidate.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone has now added New York to the ballot access table. However, all we have is a list of who has filed (so far, as of yesterday, still just Rocky.) However, having taken the time to dig into matters, that's not enough to get on the ballot - the party has to approve the candidate (per this.) That does not appear to have happened. We should eliminate the New York line until we have a ballot announcement. .Anyone disagree? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And now we have the final list of who filed - Rocky, Walsh, Weld, and the incumbent. They have another week to request removal, but that still doesn't say who the party will approve being on the ballot. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And, as an example of why we should not add this material prematurely: De La Fuente and Walsh are off the ballot (which I've updated on the table), and NY may not even have a primary. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Day after tomorrow, 10PM Pacific standard time
There will be a presumptive nominee

The reason is that Super Tuesday will have happened. The race will be over. Trump will have added 14 more states to his haul and they will give him 85% of the delegates he needs to win. As I have said ad Infinitum, it will be physically impossible for him to lose the thing. @David Johnson has been reverting my preparations for this because it's "too early." No, it's not too early. This is not sports, although it can seem that way at times. This is not the 1973 Belmont stakes where Secretariat is doing the run of his life and thrilling the crowds. Yes, the officials did not leave when he was 30 furlongs ahead (the thing was two minutes long), but the race was not fixed. You can argue that when Nats beat the Cubbies last summer after nearly losing it in the 9th inning shows (my baby brother and I were walking out at the time and turned back) that it ain't over 'till it's over, but this is not comparable. The Republican nomination process is fixed. We can pretend it's still a competitive race for a day or two without looking dumb, but not after.

To repeat: On Wednesday morning, Trump will have officially won 19 states and have nearly 900 delegates, 85% of what is needed. Add to that, three states where he's unopposed. That puts him over the top. It's over. The zombie primary will go on until June, but it will all be superfluous. Not recognizing this is what is non-neutral and unencyclopedic. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The "preparation" you are calling for is entirely unnecessary. Why can't you listen to the volume of response you've gotten on this and other talk pages?  It doesn't matter that you or everyone else know what is going to happen.  When it happens, it will be documented here with reliable sources.  I repeat, there is no need to prepare.  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What's with the Map?
Yeah just curious, can we get an update to the Map already?Subman758 (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Including Bill Weld in the infobox
Should Bill Weld be added to the infobox? He has won a delegate, and in my view the infobox not showing any other candidates (especially if they've managed to win a delegate) creates a bit of a misleading impression. Domeditrix (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed; he should be included because he has won a delegate. I've added it. feminist (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This agrees with the consensus from this rfc from early 2017. It seems to address the concern by including a 2nd place finisher if only one meets the 5% threshold. This started with a general election RfC regarding DC (where Trump got 4%). A 2nd RfC was done at the Wiki Project Talk page and confirmed this consensus for all US electons. Weld (or other 2nd place finisher) should be added back until the RfC below is decided--Davemoth (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Primaries map
The primaries map needs updating, post-March 10, 2020. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Spiffy sperry (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Rocky on ballots
Multiple editors today are changing what ballots Rocky is on, without new sourcing. In at least some cases, they are getting this wrong - claiming that he's on the Colorado ballot, for example. Here's the list of primary candidates in Colorado; Rocky-the-Republican is not on there anywhere (his son, RoqueIII-the-Democrat is), and he is not at the list of withdrawn candidates that's above the list. Here is a sample ballot, again, no Rocky. I've already done one revert today because of these changes; I am asking that others (including the people who made the changes) review them for accuracy and sourcing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC) And, having found a Missouri sample ballot, Rocky's not on that either. Barring any sourcing, I am undoing the edit that placed him as being on those ballots. The posters may be intending to list places where Rocky applied and withdrew, but if he did so before the ballot was set, then he's not on the ballot (and may not have qualified for the ballot.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Ballot Access News You could have added a citation needed tag instead of undoing it. Mommmyy (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ballot Access News says he withdrew from those states, but it does not say that he's going to be on the ballot, or even that he had qualified before withdrawal. I saw no reason to leave false information there with the "citation needed" rather than having true, sourced information. Rocky withdrew from Utah too late to get off the ballot, but that doesn't appear to be true for the other states. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Having now found Arkansas sample ballot listing Rocky, I'm putting that Yes-with-withdrawal back in, but this Alabama sample ballot shows that he is not on the ballot for that state. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * SOS pages do not have links or list of withdrawn candidates. Rocky was in Colorado Ballot Order but not in the Candidate List now because he has withdrawn from Colorado and he had also qualified in Alabama and Missouri too. He withdrew from Alabama, Colorado and Missouri but his son is still on the ballot as a democratic candidate there. Feel free to call the SOS gov websites if you don't feel these are not enough to prove Rocky qualified but withdrew from these states.Mommmyy (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see the description of the table above the table. "Yes" means the candidate is on the ballot for the primary contest, and "No" means a candidate is not on the ballot. - it's not "has qualified for", it's not "has filed for". Your edits were claiming that he is on ballots that he simply isn't on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Qualified means he was on the primary ballot but withdrew later. Qualified does not mean he was there before the ballot was set. Mommmyy (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see... you're using "ballot" to mean something besides the sheet of candidates given to the voter to select on... you know, a ballot. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, goody, an IP editor has once again added the claim that Rocky is on ballots he's not on. Please stop. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not me, Nat! I prefer using account for editing instead of IP. Ping that IP here to show some evidence or something. As you were not convinced with what I provided before. Mommmyy (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored them to "No" but added a footnote indicating that he filed but withdrew before ballots were set for appropriate states. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * there should be some indicator that would indicate if Rocky De La Fuente qualifies for the ballot before he withdrew. From what I read, if I am not mistaken, he did qualify in Colorado, Alabama, and Missouri Certifying letter Rocky De La Fuente.pdf. So, if he hadn’t withdrawn, he would have appeared on the ballot. So we should provide some indication that he did qualify but chose to withdraw, otherwise the accuracy of Wikipedia is greatly diminished.--Lummymania (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You can add that to the footnote, but be careful - submitting the proper paperwork is not always all that's required. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * can we replace the check mark or X with a W, explaining that he qualified but withdrew?--Lummymania (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You probably want to join in on the discussion right below this one, which is on possible alternate entries. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Additional ballot access possibilities
Currently, our Ballot Access table has three possible prime entries: "Yes" (is on ballot), "No" (is not on ballot), and "–" - is not yet qualified but has time to still apply. I think that it might be useful to add "Void" (name is on ballot, votes will not be counted) as a worthy additional state - certainly, if one is coming here to figure out who is running in your state, the fact that a vote for that particular candidate will not be counted is of interest. (This happens when a candidate removes himself from a state's race after the ballot has been designed, such as De La Fuente in Utah.) My main concern with adding it is that there will be calls to add other conditions, ones marking candidates who qualified but withdrew in time to not be on the ballot, or who filed and withdrew before being qualified, or who filed but did not qualify, and if we make those primary entries with their own color, what is a fairly clear table becomes much harder to parse. (Making those notes that can go with "No" would not be such a problem.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * using that logic, than a W option should be added to those who withdrew from the primary before the filing deadline. It would indicate that had they remained, they would have been on the ballot had they not withdrew.--2600:1006:B051:EDAB:9DE5:EF2:D11:CE50 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter. With the race all but over, it's now unnecessary and should be gotten rid of. There is a very nice variation on the primary calendar on the Democrat's primary page which might make a nifty replacement.

It looks like this:

with one or two obvious changes, it'll fit in perfectly.

Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DROPTHESTICK. You've tried and gotten no support for its elimination. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

we should include a withdrawn as an option to clarify. Excluding it decreases the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia as a scholarly source of information. We don’t even need to change a color, just add a W to the state instead of an X or Check. Take That D La Fuente, instead of having the notes, we could just put a W which would accurately state his situation since he withdrew but remains on the ballot in a few states--2600:1006:B012:1E59:F5CF:AA32:F2F6:8CC7 (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose if we don't change colors, then we can have markers for qualified-but-withdrew-before-ballot-was-set (so red, not on the ballot) and on-ballot-but-withdrew so won't be counted (so green, on the ballot). I have a slight concern with an accessibility issue with depicting the major information for the table only through color, but since the four categories would simply align with two colors, probably not a problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * that’s reasonable, and would clarify the situation appropriately. Just replacing the check marks or X on the states where Mr De La Fuente qualified but withdrew would allow people to easily see that he qualified but voluntarily withdrew from the primary. That increases the accuracy of this Wikipedia article--Lummymania (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

De La Fuente a "major" candidate"
He has neither received significant media coverage, had significant success, or held significant (or any) prior office. I don't think we should be labeling him as a "major" candidate. 01:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed (repeatedly) earlier, with the consensus being that we don't change the rules that were in place before his candidacy (for which being included in 5 national polls as a sufficient criterion) just because of the results. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Endorsements into main article
Endorsements in the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries is incredibly small, and I don't see a reason why it needs to be split out when it could easily fit on the main page. – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support merge per above. --Wow (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. At just over 8k bytes, there is no reason to have a seperate article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I have now completed steps 1,2,3 (nothing required), 4, 6 & 7 of the 7 steps at Merging. I skipped the optional step 5 which if needed will be fixed by a bot within a few days. I updated this note as I progressed. I suggested anyone else who did any of the steps update this note also. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC) updated: Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC) final update: Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of RfC on Infoboxes and whether there should always be two candidates?
There is a RfC open on the Elections and Referendums project which may overlap with some of the discussion concerning the infobox on this page. Please feel free to comment at RfC on Infoboxes: Should there always be two candidates?. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Rename the primaries
Howdy. suggests that we add presidential into the names of the primary & caucuses articles. See example of dispute at 2020 Hawaii Democratic primary article. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente discussion at BLPN
There is a discussion relevant to the content of this page at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. --Nat Gertler 01:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion now archived at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive307 - the upshot was that referring to De La Fuente as a "perennial candidate" is appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of primary
An IP editor has been capitalizing the word "Primary" in certain subsections of the article, where it follows the name of the state (as in the "Arizona Primary". However, such usage is lower-case in the rest of the article... which is as it should be. This isn't some proper noun name, this is a functional description of the event. It really is a primary. I am restoring the lower case. If there is an objection, please discuss before reinstating the capitalization; there should at least be consistency within the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 Alabama Democratic primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

What happened to the North Dakota, Wyoming, Arizona, Virginia and South Carolina Results?
The article states that the Virginia and South Carolina state conventions occurred from the 1st to the 2nd of May, but no results have been posted. May 9th would have been the date of the Wyoming and Arizona state conventions, but again no results. No date is given for North Dakota just TBD. So if the convention have been postponed or cancelled the article should state that. If they occurred someone should update the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonJH (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

De La Fuente campaign "suspended"
I just undid an edit that moved De La Fuente into the list of people who had suspended the campaign. It had no source for that claim, and I can find no such source. Yes, he accepted the nomination of another party (Alliance Party (United States)), but one cannot assume that that means he does not also seek the nomination of other parties. He ran under 2 parties in 2016, and there is reason to believe he seeks to do so again this year. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And here is a June 20 press release from the campaign in which Rocky is still described as a candidate for the Republican nomination, no sign of past-tenseness or suspension. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Including Rocky in the Infobox
I think it would be more than appropriate to include Rocky De La Fuente in the info box with Trump and Weld. He is #2 in terms of funds, he performed well in the Illinois primary, and is the last remaining Major candidate in the race against Trump.--2600:1006:B05D:7CFD:C4BE:6206:7F54:2389 (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While Rocky has not announced an end to his campaign, it is not clear that he is any more in it than Weld is. He hasn't tweeted is March 6 (and was quite active before that), his campaign has paid the candidate back a bit more than half the money he had loaned it (see "Candidate loan repayments"), and while he had done some interviews, I don't see any since that March 6 date (nor any press releases.) That is not a statement that he should or should not be included, just caution on assuming the status of his campaign. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not about he should or should not be included. Here's an update from Florida Today, De La Fuente is still running, Walsh dropped out before the Florida primary, and Weld dropped out after the Florida primary. Mommmyy (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As notes below if Rocky overtakes Weld's popular vote he would be switched into the infobox.  At this point though, he still has about a quarter (0.59%) of the votes Weld has received (2.09%).  The infobox notes that Weld has suspended his campaign.  If Rocky cannot overtake the 2.09% of the vote Weld currently has, he doesn't belong in the infobox.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And checking Rocky's campaign website, it now says "Now there are only two republican candidates left for the presidential nomination, and ROCKY is one of them!", so yeah, I guess he was clearly still running as of when Weld dropped out, so... still active (if low visibility). --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weld is currently included in the Infobox due to this rfc from early 2017. If Rocky ends up passing Weld in Popular Vote or Delegates he should replace Weld.--Davemoth (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the candidate hasn't received a single delegate, funds and the odd outlier performance in a single state is redundant. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * no one is advocating excluding Weld, rather just including De La Fuente in the info box. He is the only remaining major candidate on ballot, has spent more than Weld and Walsh, and could win delegates in the upcoming Puerto Rican Primary. It wouldn’t be odd the way nclude Rocky now since he is the only remaining major candidate challenging Trump.--2600:1006:B055:CDEE:2D42:B74E:96C3:757B (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This talk section should stop and/or be merged into the above section, which is more formal and is already in progress. (You're not supposed to duplicate existing topics &mdash; it creates contradictory outcomes simultaneously, which undermines consensus.) --Closeapple (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Including it in the RfC above also seems to confuse the issues of that RfC though for what seems to be a secondary issue with little support.  For what it is worth, it should also be noted that since Trump is now the presumptive nominee it is not possible for Rocky to win.  Even if he rallied in the coming months that would essentially be a protest vote for a candidate who voters cast a ballot for a candidate they knew could not win.  I would question bumping Weld from the infobox in favour of a candidate who was not competitive during the actual campaign and then got most of his votes after the winner had already been decided.  Maybe, if there was such a gain in momentum that the "protest movement" was notable on its own, but that is rather unlikely.  I do not think there is much point in us discussing this further or holding up the RfC to do so.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

No movement has been made on this since April 3, 2020 and it is now June 21, I'm going to be bold and remove the template. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

2020 Republican Party presidential primaries Donald Trump Contests Won Update
The page currently says that Donald Trump won 41 contests. However on July 7, 2020 Donald Trump won the Delaware and New Jersey primaries. In the map, I have counted all of the states, territories, and the federal district that are highlighted in blue, which represents the number of contests that Donald Trump won. According to the map, Donald Trump won 52 contests, not 41. If the "First-place by first-instance vote" map shown is accurate, please update the "Contests won" section of the info table on this Wiki page. It is important that the information in this page is constantly updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlmostValDay1996 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing State Pages.
There are many states that don't have pages for their republican presidential primaries yet, like North Dakota and Wyoming. Someone should make those pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonJH (talk • contribs) 14:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Trump won Connecticut.
On the 11th of August Trump won Connecticut, please update the map. Furthermore a subpage has to be made for the Connecticut Republican Primary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonJH (talk • contribs) 13:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Soft vote
While President Trump's renomination was unanimous with 2550 votes, there was one "soft vote" or delegate for Bill Weld. Do I understand it correctly when I assume such a soft vote "belongs" a delegate who is free to change to another candidate/abstain, and if so, what is the difference between soft and unpledged? Asav | Talk 08:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC regarding the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries infobox template
I see there has been some back-and-forth with the infobox. This is an RfC exclusively regarding the infobox template for the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries. There is currently a similar RfC for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries.

The question is: Should candidates other than Trump be included in the infobox?

The options are: A - Include all candidates who have received delegates. '''B - Include all candidates who have reached a certain other threshold (e.g. 5% popular vote). Please specify the threshold you prefer.''' C - Keep Trump only.

– feminist (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * A. The infobox should contain any candidates who have won delegates, whether they suspended or withdrew their candidacy at some point. This means Weld should appear in the infobox. There should be no cutoff percentage or number, other than the limit imposed by the template (which could be extended). An arbitrary cutoff would distort the subject, running foul of WP:NPOV. feminist (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * C The primary wsa designed this year for Trump and Trump alone, Weld's getting one delegate in Iowa was an anomaly and will likely be gotten rid of. The rules say Trump is to get everything, and unless there's a fantasy action, such as Trump getting hit by a meteorite or being removed by the 25th amendment, we should just have it Trump vs. token opposition and have only the orange one on the infobox. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Information This rfc from early 2017 seems quite related. It seems to address the concern by including a 2nd place finisher if only one meets the 5% threshold. This started with a general election RfC but then a 2nd one was done at the Wiki Project Talk page.--Davemoth (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A. At least while the primary/caucus season is in progress. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I will amend my vote by saying it should stay this way (A) even after the convention, per the 2017 RfC. I'm assuming no one besides Trump/Weld will get delegates in this race. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * B - I support the threshold of 5% popular vote or won a state or 5% of delegates, as I do for the Democratic primaries. Cookieo131 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A-ish B - the top 3 delegate-getters, to keep the infobox simple... although in this case, that would be just two and the same as A. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A: Given that there are only two candidates in this race, A seems most sensible; at least until the primary season is over. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 16:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A & B:  Any candidate who receives either delegates or >5% of the vote should be included. Leaving only Trump in the infobox suggests that his nomination was uncontested, which is not true.  It should be quite rare that we ever have an election infobox with only one candidate in it.  Only when an election is uncontested, or "very weakly contested" (ie by candidates who receive under 5% of the vote and no delegates) should we have one candidate in an infobox.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thought, based on this RfC, I would say the second place candidate should be included even if they fail to meet either criteria (a delegate or >5% of the vote). The assumption that no one else ran is just too strong, and not something we should be promoting.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to think the 2017 RfC is binding on us, unless we establish a clear consensus (and reason) to deviate from it. I noted that previously the 2012 Democratic primaries only had Obama in this infobox.  I changed this adding "uncomitted" and John Wolfe Jr. to the infobox and started a discussion about it on the talk page.  I note that the 1996 Democratic primaries seems to have followed a similar precedent.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * RfC 2017 2017 RfC was discussed in depth. In the case that brought that on it was Trump that was excluded from an Infobox for having on 4% of the vote. We absolutely should not be giving an first impression that a contest was uncontested. We also should not overturn an overreaching RfC consensus without a wide pool. It may be wise to start some additional RfCs so they can be in place before the general election. edit to be clear: I am voting to keep the status quo (5% and include 2nd place candidate if only 1 reaches 5%)--Davemoth (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I picked these for the criteria because if a candidate has met one of these criteria, then it could be argued that they have had a noticeable effect on the race. Bill Weld has not made much of a splash in this primary, so I don't see why he should be on the infobox for the primary. In contests in which he had earned over five percent of the popular vote, then he should be in the infobox for those specific contests, but not for the actual primary. ThatOneGuyWithAFork (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * B: With the threshold being 5% of the national vote or 5% of the delegates at the national convention.--JorgeBenJorge (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A + B, a candidate receiving a delegate is information that should be in the infobox, and the same goes for a candidate receiving 5% of the vote. Therefore, any candidate who meets either of those thresholds should be in the infobox. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * B: I think there should be some sort of threshold. Personally, I think it should be that for a candidate to be on the infobox, they should meet one of the following:
 * They must have five percent of the popular vote.
 * They must have five percent of the delegates.
 * They must have won a contest.
 * A for now. We should generally aim to be more inclusive during the ongoing primary in interest of NPOV. After primary is finished a more restrictive inclusion criteria could become more appropriate as then we are basically summarising historical event. Also as I already mentioned in one of the 2020 Democratic primary RfCs, after this primary season is over I would advise setting up a general RfC for US primary infoboxes to determine their inclusion criteria at different stages of primary (before, ongoing, finished) for both parties.--Staberinde (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * B - I support the threshold of 5% popular vote or won a state or 5% of delegates. If Weld were anywhere near relevancy I would change my mind, but the fact that he got a single delegate because he recieved 1.5% of the vote in Iowa hardly seems like a reason to include him in the infobox. His overall popular vote total is also likely to fall further considering the upcoming states that are voting include several with him not on the ballot. There's a good chance he falls below 2% or even 1% nationwide. Randall Terry and John Wolfe Jr. won 10 delegates in 2012, but they weren't added to the infobox. MikeLudz (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * B - I agree with, I don't think we can objectively say that Weld has made that much of an impact at all on this primary. I would support 5% of popular vote as a metric for inclusion into each infobox - if Weld were to receive that number nationwide, he should be included on the actual primary article, or more likely, if he reaches that in a specific contest, he should be included in the infobox of that particular contest's article. LeoC12 (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A Candidates who have received delegates ought to be included in the infobox. Idealigic (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A or even top 3: This would be consistent with other primaries with an incumbant. See some comparative references 2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2004 Republican Party presidential primaries, 1996 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1984 Republican Party presidential primaries S-1-5-7 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, going back even further it seems like every contest lists some challengers even when they didn't win a contest/delegate/sizeable percentage: 1992 Republican Party presidential primaries, 1980 Democratic Party presidential primaries (this one has more sizeable challenger), 1972 Republican Party presidential primaries, 1964 Democratic Party presidential primaries,1956 Republican Party presidential primaries, 1948 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1944 Democratic Party presidential primaries S-1-5-7 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the 2012 Democratic primary infobox did not look like that before this RfC started. I changed it yesterday because of the 2017 RfC.  Before that it was only Obama.  I have started a discussion about it there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A. I supported the equivalent infobox on the Democratic primaries page including all candidates who've won at least one delegate, and take the same position here. It's still obvious from the numbers in the infobox that Trump is the de facto nominee. Robofish (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As Donald Trump and Bill Weld are the only candidates either in the race or with delegates, I think the obvious solution is A unless some other candidate receives delegates in a future primary or caucus. --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my  contributions ) 22:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * B As long as That D La Fuente guy is in the race, he is likely to gain more votes since the withdrawal of Weld. Plus, given his recent showing in Illinois, while he may not win delgat s, he may win more votes overall compared to Weld. So at least including him would be fair.--136.174.10.22 (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Rocky De La Fuente currently has no delegates and less than a third of the votes of Weld. He could do better now that Weld is out of the race, but he just as well might not.  If he wins some delegates or >5% of the vote he should be included, if not then probably not.  Perhaps, his inclusion should be discussed in another section though not as part of this RfC.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I have asked for a formal close.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A. For reasons I stated previously in a similar topic below. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
Is formal Closure needed? There are multiple acceptable ways to close an RfC. I suggest that we follow the first option and the poster withdraw the question as it both unnecessary and in line with consensus to include Weld in the Infobox. The existing standard per 2017 RfC would require that we include Weld as the 2nd place finisher. The consensus here (through both votes and imho merits of the arguments) is toward choice A (10 votes) over B (5 votes) and C (1 vote). There were also 2 votes for keeping the status quo based on the 2017 RfC. By my count that is 12 votes for Weld to be included and 6 votes to not be included. As such I suggest that this RfC be withdrawn by the original poster.--Davemoth (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mind this being closed. Any editor can perform a closure; I will refrain from withdrawing the RfC unilaterally to avoid appearances of a supervote. feminist (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I will let this sit for a few more days and will then consider closing with my above arguments.--Davemoth (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that an anonymous IP went and created below, so this may still be a live issue. --Closeapple (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Bill Weld did not receive a single delegate during the Republican Convention Roll Call Vote so I don’t think he should be in the main info box. It’s misleading to make it look like he was a real challenger Butterbone (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)