Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 11

Add Kanye
He is a presidential candidate, so theres nothing wrong with adding him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D8:9F4E:8200:389D:DF64:AE68:832D (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Kanye hasn't filed with the FEC yet, so it not an official candidate, as of right now. CH7i5 (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, even if he does run, I don't think he'll be in the infobox unless he does well in polls.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Filing deadlines in some states have passed, as well, and others are coming up. West has also made no moves to build a campaign apparatus. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

If you add Kanye you have to add Libertarian and Green Party candidates or there will be a riot. Greendogo (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the same criteria that we set in the RfC below, would also apply to independents like Kanye if he actually makes an effort to get on the ballot and run. That said, while the Greens and Librarians are already going to be on the ballot in most states, Kayne has already missed a number of deadlines, so we might have to consider that even if he was polling at 5% (if that is the standard we set), he might not be able to get anywhere near that in terms of votes if many of those who tell posters they are going to vote for him are from states where he is not even on the ballot.  I just say this to bring some reality to the situation, even if he runs it is highly unlikely he will be in in the infobox, he would probably need to be polling above 5% and even then we might not include him if he is only on the ballot in a few states.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Jorgensen will be on every ballot, so are we just waiting to see if she is polling at 5%? Billbrandy (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you know she’s on the ballot in every state? I’m having trouble finding that information. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 07:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, she has not yet qualified in every state. The LP did qualify in every state in 2016, and there are many lawsuits currently being filed in those states where she does not yet have access, and petitions are still being collected in other states.  It would not be unusual, therefore, if 100% ballot access was achieved, but it has not as of yet.  The LP's own website  shows that 100% is not yet achieved, but is actively being worked towards. Hope this helps. HeroofTime55 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Dr. Jorgensen is already qualified in 36 states, with excess ballots submitted in 2 more, and 12 additional states where petitions are being collected and access is expected. The final state ballot access filing deadline is in September, so it would be dilatory to wait for that confirmation before adding her to the site. (And the states still need to confirm the signatures after filing, which could take weeks). Since Dr. Jorgensen already has access to 408 electoral votes, and since more than 85% of voters in a recent MSNBC poll have indicated that they are considering the Libertarian candidate (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-are-you-considering-voting-the-libertarian-party-nominee), it seems extremely inappropriate to exclude her from a main listing on the site. Perhaps in a second row beneath Biden and Trump? User:kevinwm0 July 28 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 12:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the below discussion on this. The community has decided to include candidates averaging above 5% in national polls. That MSNBC survey is not a poll. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 19:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been very wary of adding information on Kanye's campaign to Wikipedia given how much conflicting information and general unclearness there was about its seriousness, but now with West being on the ballot in Oklahoma and filing FEC Form 2 to confirm his candidacy, it is my opinion that given the media attention from reputable sources there is clear notoriety to this campaign above say the Constitution or Reform Party despite their higher ballot access and thus West's campaign should at the very least be mentioned somewhere on this page but preferably have its very own Nominee infobox. Conventions for doing such for an Independent (or "BDY Party" if so chosen) can be found at 1992. I'm not gonna do it unless there is a consensus here. U-dble (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * West’s campaign is located at Minor party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election, and he will remain there unless he gains access to 270 electoral votes. At the moment he has access to 7, so quite a way off. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

While the RfC below makes it clear that Kanye doesn't belong in the infobox at this time, I wonder if he should be mentioned elsewhere in the article. I thought there was passing mention of him (a sentence or two) in the "Other Candidates" section, but it seems that mention has been split off into this sub-article about the "minor" candidates. I tend to think Kayne might be significant enough to warrant mention in a sentence or two in the main article. He seems more notable/high profile than the other candidates included in that minor candidate sub-page. But this is not a hill I am prepared to die on. I was just surprised that there was no mention of him at all in the main article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine to give him a paragraph in the "Other nominations and independent candidates section". I'm also not prepared to die on any Kanye-related hill, though. I think it would be WP:UNDUE to give him his own section at this point. By the way, I'm happy to see that the RfC below closed with such a clear consensus. Good job to everyone involved. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 20:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , without any indication that his campaign is serious, and as he is clearly lacking access to a path to 270 electoral votes, I would advocate for keeping him off of the main page entirely for the foreseeable future. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Has the 270 EV Infobox Criteria ever been formally overturned?
There have been several unanswered requests above for links to demonstrate that the criteria for inclusion in the infobox has been officially changed from the old 270 electoral vote access to the presumed "5% of polls" criteria (if that). I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, no consensus was formally reached - which would mean that 270EV is still in effect. I've seen links about prior discussions, but no formal consensus or compromise. Perhaps the goalposts ARE being moved to stall inclusion of third-party candidates. JLMadrigal  @  21:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See the, which was formally closed with the new consensus. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 21:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There have been three discussions on this issue as of now, all three with a similar result (this, this and the RfC above).  Impru 20 talk 21:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIIW, I think this was the discussion that set aside the 270 ballot access criteria (also the first significant discussion). Then this one as noted by .  Then the above RfC.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Whoa! Did Serial Number 54129 just unilaterally declare a consensus? He must be really important. And none of the linked discussions above begin to approach any kind of agreement or compromise. We were just getting started, and now some 5% polls are also starting to come in. Excuse my French, but this rodeo ain't over yet, folks. Not even close! Consensus? Sheesh! JLMadrigal  @  00:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ.  Impru 20 talk 00:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt it! JLMadrigal   @  01:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Serial Number 54129 is an admin who responded to the close request posted at WP:AN/RFC. They were not involved in the discussion and served to close it neutrally. Read through the discussion. A solid majority supported option B. The discussion was closed properly. And now that it is closed, it's time for you to drop the stick. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 00:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've made that clear. You're not going to get a different response by repeating it. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 01:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And now I see is openly engaging in vandalism: . —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 01:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the source. That was a quote. Please revert your revert. JLMadrigal   @  01:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we are done here. This conversation does not seem to be helpful. When we start arguing about the order of the talk page, and other articles here, we are probably not making progress.   if you want to start a new section contesting the RfC close, so be it.  I recommend you put down the stick for a while and collect your thoughts if that is what you wish to do.  It is probably a good idea for everyone to take a deep breath, because this is coming off as more than a bit personal.  I would recommend any discussion of the Jo Jorgensen 2020 presidential campaign article take place there. Anyway, I am going to close this and if a further discussion is required, lets start fresh, hopefully after taking some time to collect our thoughts.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we are done here. This conversation does not seem to be helpful. When we start arguing about the order of the talk page, and other articles here, we are probably not making progress.   if you want to start a new section contesting the RfC close, so be it.  I recommend you put down the stick for a while and collect your thoughts if that is what you wish to do.  It is probably a good idea for everyone to take a deep breath, because this is coming off as more than a bit personal.  I would recommend any discussion of the Jo Jorgensen 2020 presidential campaign article take place there. Anyway, I am going to close this and if a further discussion is required, lets start fresh, hopefully after taking some time to collect our thoughts.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Change Presentation for The Economist's Predictions
I'm wondering if we should find a different way to show the Economist's predictions for each state. Unlike other aggregates, their site is updated multiple times each day and every single update requires that someone manually change their ratings and electoral vote count on the Wikipedia page in order to stay accurate. Not the biggest hassle in the world, but I figure it might be easier for us to stay on top of The Economist's projections if we, for example, got rid of their column in the "state predictions" table and provided a link to their website instead, and then created a column for them after they post their final set of projections near or on Election Day.

Just to give an example of how quickly The Economist changes their ratings, Florida was moved to the Likely D column yesterday, and it just got changed back to Lean D today. I've also seen Arizona and North Carolina switch between Tossup and Lean D multiple times at this point. --The Banker of Seville (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should change the way we show the predictions, as the current way is how all predictions are shown for all elections in the United States. Although their methodology does have a few states shifting every few days because they are on the borderline of the categories, we shouldn't change the way we show their predictions. TheSubmarine (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "A few states shifting every few days" Try multiple times a day. I've already had to change Arizona from Tossup to Lean D back to Tossup today alone. Pennsylvania's been fluctuating quite a bit as well. Is it really that much trouble to just change one part of the table? We don't have to mess with Cook and Sabato and the other aggregates, and we could give The Economist a proper column in the table when their final set of predictions comes out in November. All this back-and-forth editing just seems like such a drag to me. Surely I'm not the only one who feels this way? The Banker of Seville (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a more suitable alternative would be to update the table at a less frequent rate, such as once a week, with a note explaining when the table was last updated and that The Economist changes their ratings several times per day, with a link or reference containing the link to the updated table. Alternatively, if we wanted to go a different direction, we could change the table to document the changes, as instead of listing states like Arizona and Pennsylvania as whatever the most recent update is, we could list Arizona as something to the effect of "Lean D/Tossup" with a note that reads something like "fluctuates between Lean D and Tossup", for example. The delegate totals could be formatted the same way. Not particularly sold on any of these solutions but I thought a fresh mind might be able to provide at least some sort of a pathway to a fruitful solution. WittyRecluse (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Tone and length of Potential rejection of election results and Election delay speculation sections
These two sections are incredibly short, about similar topics, and written significantly differently than the rest of the page. The Election delay speculation section is the most clear example for me at least, as it appears, imo, that the section gives credit to Biden for predicting something Trump said, which, while accurate, does come off as possibly violating some parts of WP:NPOV with impartial tone and words to watch and such. It's not particularly egregious and I know this article is hotly contended, so I felt I would take my concerns to the talk page before making changes. I think it would be better to combine the two sections, as they are about similar topics and of similar small size, and change the text from "Biden's prediction came true on July 30, 2020, when President Trump tweeted ..." to "on July 30, 2020, President Trump tweeted ..." and from "Trump's suggestion came with widespread criticism and experts argued that only the Congress could delay the election ..." to "Several experts have argued that only the Congress could delay the election ...". As stated previously, it is not something I feel very adamant about, and mainly brought it here because it raised concerns with me personally I was wondering if other editors noticed the same things I did or if perhaps I have simply been gone too long. WittyRecluse (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah those sections shouldn't remain in the article as they currently are. The "rejection" section in particular is just a couple random sentences about something Trump "could" or "might" do, which doesn't have a place in an encyclopedic article in my opinion. As for the delay, even though Trump tweets stupid stuff which he doesn't actually mean like that all the time, I do think the fact that a sitting President briefly suggested delaying an election is probably notable enough to be included somewhere in the article. I'm not sure if it deserves a whole section though. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Trump not accepting election results is something that has been subject to constant sustained coverage for years on end, it is clearly encyclopaedic content. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And it is, of course, the coverage that is far more important to Wikipedia than the actual tweet. It is absolutely notable and relevant to be included, I concur. HeroofTime55 (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Green Party faithless elector vice-presidential vote in 2016
Just a question/observation – Winona LaDuke received a vice-presidential faithless electoral votes in 2016 from Robert Satiacum Jr. If we're using the strict electoral vote requirement for infobox inclusion, surely that means that the Green Party candidate is entitled to inclusion (even if that electoral vote was a faithless one)? LeoC12 (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus in the past and up to this date has been not to include non-candidates and/or candidates who did not earn electors by winning a state or the requisite portion of a state. Faithless electors are, by definition, a deviation from the standard election procedure and should not (and are not, as of currently) compared in equal terms to electors actually won through popular vote.  Impru 20 talk 12:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus was "received an electoral vote." I agree that faithless electors should not count, but that was not part of the actual consensus on that count.  Faithless Electors are not a "deviation" from "standard procedure" either, it's baked into the system that you can get faithless electors.  An electoral vote from a faithless elector is.... an electoral vote all the same as any other electoral vote.  Shouldn't be the current metric, but after a screwy and stupid Wrongful Consensus in the last RfC, what do you expect?  Either hold to the consensus, open a new RfC to specify that faithless electors don't count, or admit it's just about moving goalposts until you get to exclude the candidates you want excluded. HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking a little deeper into it, it appears she wasn't the official Green VP nominee in 2016. So the Green nominee for VP Ajamu Baraka in 2016 didn't even get a faithless vote, some past nominee did.  So no, Green wouldn't qualify even under a standard including Faithless Electors.  So an RfC on this is perhaps unnecessary at this time. HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Received an electoral vote in the previous election". Faithless electors do not come as a result of the election, they show up later. That is very clear. but after a screwy and stupid Wrongful Consensus in the last RfC, what do you expect? I cannot conceive how the consensus resulting from the latest RfC (Screwy? Stupid? Wrongful?) has anything to do with faithless electors, which were not even a topic of discussion since the RfC was specifically focused on finding a replacement criterion for the 270 EV-ballot access one. I'm pretty confident that no one will attempt to raise a problematic that does not exist (and you do confirm that it does not exist) just because they did not like the result of the RfC above.  Impru 20 talk 22:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I don't think this is a real problem. It is clear having a faithless elector cast a vote or two for a candidate does not qualify a person for a spot in the infobox.  If it did, John Kasich, Ron Paul, Colin Powell Faith Spotted Eagle, and Bernie Sanders would have been in the 2016 infobox despite not running.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to speak of the infamous 1872 election, where Greeley was literally ineligible in the EC meeting because... well, dying. Yet it's him the one being shown up and not the other multiple alternative candidates because it was him who actually contested the election.  Impru 20 talk 23:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Electoral college votes only result from the votes of the electors, faithless electors votes are electoral college votes. No electoral college votes are cast on Election Day. User:Impru20's assertion to the contrary is blatantly wrong.XavierGreen (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When did I say that electoral college votes are cast on Election Day, and why are you intent on keeping this debate on?  Impru 20 talk 01:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In 2020, this debate is moot, because no faithless votes went to any candidate of the LP or Green parties. But "received an electoral vote" does not mean "received a pledged elector," and there is a factual difference between that.  You are interpreting the election of pledged electors as equivalent to the receiving of an electoral vote, when they are not the same (and the existence of faithless electors demonstrates they are not the same).  But, again, it's moot in 2020 because no actual candidates received electoral votes, as you noted, all faithless votes went to people not actually running. HeroofTime55 (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to point out that my initial response in this thread was literally a copy-paste from a comment in December 2016 in Talk:2016 United States presidential election. Consensus on faithless electors is clear and it's not even an issue here, so this is entirely moot.  Impru 20 talk 18:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Key for coronavirus pandemic table
The key for this table keeps getting removed, and to not violate the 1RR I am not going to touch it. Why does this keep happening, the table should stay put. WittyRecluse (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The file was changed to all red so the key is useless. Nojus R (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks, for some reason the image hadn't been changed for me until now WittyRecluse (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Jorgensen got 5% in a Zogby poll
Joregensen got 5% in a Zogby poll, see here [], as such she meets the standards set forth in the prior two RFC's (which said no candidates with less than 5% in a poll should be included) and should be included.XavierGreen (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "The Libertarian Candidate" also got 5% here (2 links, 1 poll, PDF shows results).   The data was condensed, my bad. HeroofTime55 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And what about Veripoll where she is at 35.5%? https://www.veripoll.net/ VestedDeveloper (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously it cannot be just one poll. Unless, of course, that everyone here accepts that we should get rid of her whenever a poll comes out that doesn't list her at 5% (this is, almost always as of currently. Not practical). It should be 5% on average, since that would gives us a more stable picture, but I'd favour such an average being as flexible and inclusive as possible though. Do we have any source giving average data for other candidates aside of Trump and Biden? There certainly were in 2016 for Johnson and Stein.  Impru 20 talk 16:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One poll's results should not be used alone to decide whether she should be in the infobox. It may very well be an outlier poll given that she does not poll higher than 3% in any other poll taken in July. For her to meet that 5% condition, she would need to be performing consistently at or above that percentage. TheSubmarine (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well its not "one poll", there are two. The prior RFC's did not specify how many polls, only generally that 5% in a poll should be a threshold. How do you go about calculating an average? If you do so, that violates [|wiki:SYNTH] as impermissible synthases. This just goes to show how silly, impracticable and non-neutral any poll base test is, but as it stands right now she meets the criteria as stated in the prior two RFC's.XavierGreen (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, don't attempt to illustrate a point through contested means. You are very well aware that "one" or "two" polls cannot be used to ascertain whether the 5% requirement is met, because otherwise you would have to actively remove Jorgersen or any other candidate whenever another poll comes out listing them below 5%. That's practical? No. I'd favour looking for a source that actually shows what her actual average in polls is, but if there isn't any Wikipedia allows us to conduct routine calculations from sourced data without them being considered original research. You can just take the periods used by sources to calculate averages for other candidates (Trump & Biden), then calculate Jorgensen's average for that same period.  Impru 20 talk 17:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No you would not, the prior RFCs mention nothing of that. All they says is that once a candidate hits 5%, they're on the page. And until the new RFC runs its course, Jorgenson and anyone else who hits 5% in a poll should be added to the infobox. I assume the people who advocated for 5% assumed no third party candidate would poll that high, but she has so she should remain on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For not mentioning "anything of that", it's clearly mentioned in the RfC above from its very beginning that option B means above 5% average in polls. Some little reading comprehension before engaging into a potential edit war and POINTy behaviour would be appreciated.  Impru 20 talk 17:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If the requirement is above 5% average in polls, that would mean only polls which actually include that candidate as an option, correct? KingAdrock (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As you would say, "the prior RfC mentions nothing of that", so it presumably means all polls hehe. Flexibility could be achieved through consensus, though, and I wouldn't be opposed to that (i.e. to third-party candidates's polling averages being calculated only considering those polls in which they are mentioned).  Impru 20 talk 19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Zogby is not a reliable pollster. In 2009, Nate Silver called them "the worst pollster in the world". In May 2020, they gave Zogby a C+. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FiveThirtyEight cites the poll on their own website, if they consider it reliable enough to mention on their page, it is reliable enough to be used here. See here []XavierGreen (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it more as a point that you should not expect many more 5% results, as pollsters with better methodologies are unlikely to replicate Zogby's results. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Change research released a poll on July first that another editor linked above showing the Libertarian candidate getting 5% of the vote. So there have already been 2 and your point is disproven.XavierGreen (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny that you mention a Change Research Poll covering late June, where she got 5%, but not the two subsequent ones in July that had her at 3% and then 2%. They're listed at nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election, which shows Jorgenson is clearly not getting an average of 5% even in the polls that include her. Two 5% results does not disprove my point, when there have been about 100 polls there where she doesn't get 5%. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's of no relevance, the two prior RFC's mentioned nothing about a minimum threshold number of polls, just 5%.XavierGreen (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we going to alter consensus on the fly and declare that it has to be polls in only the past month? Or is it an average of all polls from the beginning of the cycle?  This was never made clear (as it is clear the purpose of "5% average" was never really meant to be a clear standard but rather some vague thing to exclude particular candidates, and now that one of those is coming right up to the threshold, queue the spinning)
 * I am also going to flatly object to declaring Zogby unreliable. If the poll is included in this page then it can be considered reliable for our purposes as well.  HeroofTime55 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a note, B in the RFC discussion does mention an average of 5% in polling, not just a single poll. I'm all for inclusion, but she's not quite at the level yet to be included. Dunamivora (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The current RFC hasn't concluded yet, thus the old RFCs control the page at present. As such, the current rule is merely 5% without any regard to how many polls or averages or anything qualifier at all.XavierGreen (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Where do you get that the current rule is merely 5% without any regard to how many polls or averages or anything qualifier at all? The two previous discussions this year resulted in an overwhelming consensus for overturning the 270 EV-ballot access criterion and excluding Jorgensen and Hawkins from the infobox. They did not set any limit for re-including them, and indeed you attempting to paint it as if with just a 5% poll you can unilaterally overturn such decision and re-add them is a severe distortion of consensus. What you said here is not true.  Impru 20 talk 21:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

How does anyone expect her to poll 5% when various organizations / new media are not including her as an option? The excuse is always the same - she needs to poll higher - but she can't poll higher if nobody includes her - and when there actually is a poll including her and showing she meets the threshold or within the margin of error of threshold it's ignored. Her campaign is legitimate, it's on track to have 50 state ballot access. That's a good enough threshold to weed out the crazies like Kanye who hasn't done due diligence to get on the ballot. Requiring anything besides being on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral college is voter suppression. It's hard enough getting on the ballot in that many states when your campaign isn't being heavily funded by millionaires and billionaires. The type of suppression shown here and in the major polls is exactly the reason she isn't polling better. Most people won't know she exists if you don't show her as an option, which means low funding and she can't advertise like the major candidates. It's a vicious cycle. Gbk2020 (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

A 5% average was what was used on the Democratic primary pages, and such an average was clearly what was wanted in option B as well. XavierGreen, drop the stick. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it normal that there are so many newly-created accounts appearing out of nowhere to participate in this talk page? . Just asking.  Impru 20 talk 20:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to happen a lot around the U.S. political pages that I frequent, so much so that I take it as a given that a newly registered account will pop in. It could be an IP registering the account to voice their opinion in good faith, or it could be that off-Wiki canvassing leads to the new accounts. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIIW, I think we have been clear all along that we were talking about averaging respected polls. One >5% poll alone would not guarantee inclusion.  One <5% poll would not preclude it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about "option b" or the current ongoing RFC, i'm talking about the ones currently in place that did not mention any adverage or number of polls. Only 5%, pursuant to the rules as they stand now Joregenson and anyone else who has a poll over 5% are to be included in the infobox. If the ongoing RFC changes that, thats a different story.XavierGreen (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "the ones currently in place"? A five percent polling criteria was not agreed to in the previous discussions.  If it is implemented it will because of the RfC.  If you think there is some other consensus out there you are going to have to enlighten us.  If so, a link to the discussion would help.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The general consensus of the previous 2 rfc's was that only candidates that poll 5% should be included. Go back and read through the RFC's.XavierGreen (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what RfCs you are talking about. That is why I asked you to clarify and provide a link.  Judging by your vague response, I assume you mean the RfCs about the democratic primaries, including this one.  That said, that RfC didn't purported to apply to the general election as far as I am aware.  It also didn't reach a consensus about what to do before/during an election, only what to do AFTER it had occurred (and even that consensus was messy).  On some of the state pages a pre-contest 5% polling criteria seems to have been applied, but the RfC itself came to a no consensus close on that point (Part A).  So again, what consensus do you think is "currently in place" for the general election?  Please provide a link, and explain why you think it applies here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This entire thing has turned into an absolute s**tshow of attacks, primary by one specific user, and a lot of evidence that there is too broad a definition of the rules to accurately enforce them. As it stands, such rules shouldn't exist because they reduce both the quality and availability of information which is contradictory to the entire mission of Wikipedia as a whole. The goal is to document information as thoroughly as possible, within reason. There's a lot of "I don't understand how this applies so it doesn't apply" particularly around WP:CBALL - placing a candidate in the box does NOT assert that they can or will win (at which point NO candidate should appear there) - what it establishes is that they are in the race and CAN win. It is a fact that the Green Party candidate currently - at least to my latest knowledge - can NOT win. Neither can Kanye West. "Will not win" is entirely driven by opinion - which polls are just that - opinion. Even the "270 possible delegates" policy doesn't accurately apply - 270 delegates just guarantees a win. There is more to the process, but it's fair to concede the idea that it's highly unlikely. It's nonsense to keep moving the goal post over the inclusion of valid information that doesn't alter the facts, but removal of such information DOES alter the facts. Additionally, if you're going to mention "The RfC", link it - there are numerous RfCs, and it's not a lack of reading comprehension if someone doesn't know the specific one you are talking about. ThymeCypher 13:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that the account above has been inactive for almost five years until today, when it has been reactivated just to participate in this discussion and to add Jorgensen into the infobox, and that most of their latest contributions are basically to insult me and address me directly (including this WP:OWN accusation just because of reverting their non-consensuated edit), as well as casting aspersions on myself such as this edit or the comment above (from their apparent grudge on me, I assume the "one specific user" he is referring to is me as well).  Impru 20 talk 14:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So in order to contribute to Wikipedia you must quit your day job and contribute every hour on the hour for the entire life of your account. Got the link for that RfC or are you also going to just refer to it as "The RfC"? Insulting other users then threatening to report someone because you feel insulted when your own misbehaviors are put on display is wrong. Stop doing that. ThymeCypher 14:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh, no. But between that and re-activating a five-year dormant account to automatically single out a specific user, I think there is a lot of ground to stay at. If you think I've insulted anyone, and are willing to back up such claims with proper evidence, then by all means raise the issue at WP:ANI. Anything else is a personal attack (including calling me a "bully" and other things; yeah, that's insulting) so I'm on my right to defend myself from your repeated aspersions. I do not know you of anything nor have I ever addressed your account before in a discussion, so this personal grudge on me is disturbing. Stop it or yes, I'll have to report you for that.  Impru 20 talk 14:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When you're actively insulting other users - you are bullying. That's not an insult, even if you are insulted by it - I'm sure the many people you keep accusing of foul play are insulted by your words as well. You constantly assert that people cannot read, that's bullying. I'm singling you out because you're the only one here doing it - every single other person is treating others with respect. If you'd like I can point to the articles explaining why your behavior is unacceptable, but there's zero point - just stop being disrespectful and making constant threats to get moderators involved. If you sincerely think there's a problem just get the moderators involved, don't pull a "do this or I'll hurt you". The others involved in this debate who adamantly agree with your position aren't doing any of that. ThymeCypher 14:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What you say it's false in its entirety. But no worries, I've taken this to the proper venue so you can keep on your accusations there (if you can). This discussion should not be polluted any further with this issue.  Impru 20 talk 15:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Zogby is considered to be a bad pollster with questionable methodology and frequent outliers, currently rated C+ by FiveThirtyEight.  DemonDays64 (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, moving the goalposts post-consensus. Poll is included in Wikipedia's own list here and so should be considered applicable for the 5% standard. HeroofTime55 (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether we consider Zogby a valid poll or not is somewhat irrelevant. We were clear about the fact that we were talking about an average or consistently polling at 5%.  In every other poll that included Jorgensen, she is polling between 1-3% so it is awfully clear she has not met the standard yet for the main page.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris is not African-American
She was sworn into the Senate as the first Indian-American Woman. Please change to reflect Indian-American Gkeeler78 (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * She identifies as Black, just as Obama does. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Her father was Afro-Jamaican, so she is of both African and Indian descent, and she has been characterized as both. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)