Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 3

Moving Forward
I'd like to tackle two of the biggest feuds we have going on between editors on this page.

Firstly, I think that Vote 4 DJH2036 made a good point for cutting back on excessive candidate descriptions that still list a decent amount of information while avoiding "eye cancer." I suggest we should only list the following positions for politicians:


 * President
 * Vice President
 * Other Cabinet-Level Positions
 * U.S. Senator
 * U.S. Representative
 * Governor
 * Mayor of one of the 100 most Populous U.S. Cities (New York City, NY to San Bernardino, CA)
 * Previous Presidential Campaigns

The only problem comes with people like Caroline Kennedy (a former Ambassador), Jason Kander (a former Secretary of State for Missouri), and Chelsea Clinton (a former First Daughter). Kander's Senate bid in 2016 was also quite notable, as he outperformed Clinton in that state. Similarly, although not as big a problem is Geoffrey Fieger's failed bid for Governor of Michigan. I suppose the easy answer is just to say that if they have no other prior office, that their current or most recent less consequential office should be listed.

A big issue seems to be what exactly counts as "speculation." Until now, our policy has been to only include articles that mention the one specific candidate as possibly running (outside of sourcing social media posts). Obviously, the definition of what constitutes as "speculation" can be a bit loose, there's quite a few refs that merely suggest that the author thinks they should run, not that they will or are likely to run. Another proposition is to start evaluating how much the potential run is discussed, and that mere mentions shouldn't be included. I figure we ought to look at some on a case-by-case basis. Here are each of the recently removed candidates and their refs.

Nikki Haley

One mention: "second, it could sideline a potential (if unlikely) 2020 primary threat by bringing her inside the tent without giving her a position of great influence." Article focuses more on her appointment as U.N. Ambassador.

Fits both criteria. So regardless, this and her declination should put her back on the page.

Rand Paul

First ref discusses how he could run third party as a Libertarian. It goes on to talk about how he is beloved by the base and won decisively in a poll against prominent members of the party, as well as how he has gone against President Trump on a few decisions.

Fits both criteria.

Xavier Becerra

One mention: "It also potentially provides Becerra with a good position to make a run for president in 2020 or for Feinstein’s seat in the senate in 2018, if he distinguishes himself at the position."

One mention: "With his new role as attorney general, 'people can think about Becerra one step beyond V.P. and think about him as a presidential contender in 2020,' said Cristobal Alex, a top Latino organizer in Clinton's presidential campaign."

Jerry Brown

One mention: "It’s a crying shame that he’s 78 years old, because he would be well positioned to challenge Donald Trump in 2020."

Two mentions: "Is California Governor Jerry Brown preparing to run for President against Donald Trump in 2020?" and "After swearing in Xavier Becerra as the new California Attorney General, to replace the seat vacated by newly-elected Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), Governor Brown launched into what sounded much more like an opening bid for a presidential campaign against Donald Trump, rather than the bitterly anti-Trump tirade most expected after reading the title of his speech: 'California is Not Turning Back, Not Now, Not Ever.'" The latter is in a more condescending tone, implying that he should be more worried about his state than the president.

One mention: "Writing about the speech, the Sacramento Bee’s Dan Walters speculated that Brown, who finishes his gubernatorial term in 2018, would be a likely replacement for the aging U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. 'And what then? Would a fourth Brown run for the presidency in 2020 be off the table? He’d be 82 then, but he’s in excellent health. Judging by Tuesday’s speech, the Trump presidency has given him an injection of adrenaline,' he added." All three articles are primarily about his State of the State Address.

Bill de Blasio

One mention: "I think we found our 2020 candidate." It's really more of a "I want de Blasio to run" than anything, and just explains how he has defied President Trump so far.

Just quotes the above article.

John Kerry

Kerry is asked directly and responds with "I haven’t ruled anything in or anything out." The argument has been made that just asking that question does not count as speculation.

Same as above.

George Clooney

Fits both criteria. (should be added back with his declination)

A bit of a love letter to Clooney, definitely not a will he run? and more of a please run.

Joseph P. Kennedy III

Right in the title: "Why Congressman Joe Kennedy should run for President in 2020."

Gavin Newsom

Bill Maher suggests that Newsom should run.

Sheryl Sandberg

Lots of "should"s.

Seems to fit both criteria, and she's declined, so she ought to be re-added.

Evan McMullin

A fan yelled out "2020!" during his concession speech.

A woman interviewed expressed her desire that he run again for statewide office or for president again in 2020.

So, in the current way that we've decided to format the page, I suggest that we re-add Haley, Paul, Clooney, and Sandberg. It could be argued to include Becerra, Brown, de Blasio, and Kerry, too. However, I'm not going to delve into that.


 * A proposal for the future of this page surrounding sources in both the declined and speculative columns. Personally I don't think we should include Brown or Haley or anyone with those types of sources.  If sources only make a passing mention of maybe running for President- that isn't a source, it's just a minor mention.  What we should constitute as a source, in my opinion, is:
 * A source entirely dedicated to why a candidate should run for President (stuff like John Kennedy's source where they were asking him to run, or Julian Castro's source where it talks about how he'd be a good candidate). Not passing mentions.
 * A source where the candidate directly talks about 2020. For example: in one of Castro's sources he says "I said the other day that I won't take that off the table. There's a long time between now and 2020."  This should count as a source because he isn't ruling it out, but he isn't also saying "Oh I'm definitely thinking about it."  It should only count as one source, so another would be needed other than this event alone (IE Kerry's sources wouldn't be good because they all relate to the same event, only one should be used).
 * A source where they're talking about inside knowledge. Now there are problems with sources like that as it is pretty easy to fake an anonymous source.  But it's definitely better than the other sources.
 * This would at least limit what we have, and would make it much more speculation-based. As for your other point, I think it would be smarter to list their last held political office.  For candidates that've never held office, just list their current profession (IE Trump was a businessman, Dwayne Johnson is an actor).  And we should list only lost elections where they ran for a major office (one of the included). Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * With Haley, only her first source is a mere mention, the second source (when combined with the one where she declined, would make her fit the bill for a declined candidate) is based entirely on a possible run in spite of her current position, it's even titled "Could Nikki Haley Still Run For President In 2020? Joining Donald Trump's Cabinet Doesn't Rule Out Challenging Him." When it comes to non-politicians, I've always gone with the short descriptors listed on their respective pages: "Oprah Winfrey is an American media proprietor, author, actress, etc." You think we should just pick up the first one on that list? There's several people that're known for more than one thing, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson being a perfect example. He's an actor and professional wrestler (and some other things). It's sorta like all-or-nothing with these descriptions, either we include everything (which for most, barring maybe Oprah and Mark Cuban, isn't all that much) or we have to start cherry-picking what we think is worth including. What's a "major" non-governmental occupation? You can't really say the same thing as we do with political positions, since there's a clear hierarchy there. With declared non-politicians, I think the vertical lists look nice, neat, and compact. It's just when it's on the horizontal list that it looks awkward and "eye cancer"-y. As for failed campaigns, including every election loss for one of those major positions would allow things that I have seen removed for being too excessive in the old way we formatted the page. Things like Cory Booker's 2002 run for Mayor of Newark and Lincoln Chafee's 2006 run for Senate (as a Republican, no less). — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk • contribs) 23:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Should the Speculative Candidates sections be removed?
This article currently has a Speculative Candidates sections which lists candidates that sources speculate could run in the 2020 election. Should these sections be removed per WP:CRYSTAL or does keeping the sections not violate WP:CRYSTAL? Since this issue has been brought up in the past without any organized discussion I felt like it was worth starting an RFC. Prcc27 (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No I don't see anything wrong with it, each potential candidate is listed because they have 2-3 sources that have predicted that they may run. Users themselves aren't making predictions here. We've even narrowed down the selection by barring speculation based on social media posts (like when Ron Perlman insisted he was running via a Facebook video) and limited what sources can be cited to ones that focus solely on one candidate and not lists of names. The current way this section works seems perfectly reasonable to me. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral While I agree that we have seriously reduced the Democratic Party's speculative candidates, I also oppose to this whole thing. We are using media speculation as sources. A politician saying "Never say never" does not mean a yes or a no, and thus we're representing it "potential" (the exact definition of speculation). If it were to stay, I wouldn't care much for it. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes Changing my answer from 'No'. This election is not underway therefore it isnt our job to speculate what might happen, especially from non reputable sources like Paste Magazine. We shouldnt discuss potential candidates until 2019 when election talk usually gets real. Crewcamel (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * weak remove - I lean towards not covering purely speculative names here, even if such speculation has enough prominence to seem WP:DUE a mention, because this far ahead it is wildly speculative and some silly options would get mentioned. (Such as  Michelle or Oprah ...).   I think names should only go in when something actual has been done towards being a candidate, a real possibiity rather than a baseless speculation -- starting the campaign fund, made an announcement, filing in a state, or something else would suit.  Markbassett (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove: there isn't really any encyclopedic value to listing candidates that may or may not run, especially when there is a good chance that there will be candidates not listed in the speculation section that will decide to run and vice versa. A source speculating that a candidate will run is not necessarily directly linked with there being an increased probability that they will in fact run. If the article seems too short without the section maybe the actual problem is that this article is a bit premature. Prcc27 (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No If reliable media sources think it's possible someone will run, there's no reason not to list them. Earthscent (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No The information is useful for reference purposes. RealEdgeofnight (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." 22:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No With the exception of Trump's campaign committee, everything about the race is speculation. It's primarily fantasy football. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still a violation of WP:CRYSTAL regardless. If removing the information would render this article a stub then maybe it would be best to hold off on having this be an article. Prcc27 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No We wouldn't really have much of an article if we didn't list the speculative candidates. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes WP:CRYSTAL. We report facts on elections, not people's guesses about the elections, no matter how many people guess the same thing. We don't report on what people are gossiping or prognosticating about. We don't write articles summarizing the predictions of all the talking heads on TV about whether a war is going to burst out or whether a hot Hollywood couple is going to break up. Wikipedia isn't an odds board. In response to those above who've written that "there wouldn't be much of an article if ...": Yes, that's the point. It's WP:TOOSOON to have an article about something where nothing factual has happened yet. Either that, or be resigned to articles with only a sentence or two in them so far ("Donald Trump has submitted his campaign filings"). Whether content is appropriate in an article isn't determined based on whether the article "looks empty". Largoplazo (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * i agree actually. Nothing factual has happened yet and im changing my answer. Crewcamel (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Further commentary on my Yes !vote: Whether speculation as to a given person's candidacy is coming from one or more reliable sources is irrelevant. The significance of a reliable source is that its assertions of fact within its realm of competence (whether a highly specific domain of scholarly study or general news coverage or otherwise) are generally held to be reliable. When those same sources speculate, they are speculating, not making assertions of fact. In other words, they are guessing. While the eventual realization of guesses within their realm of competence may be especially likely in comparison with guesses by your average uninformed zhlub, they are still guesses. Wikipedia isn't here to guess. Readers come here looking for information, not guesses. Largoplazo (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes WP:Crystal potential candidates have their own pages that can be updated, but an article like this can be seen as inappropriately influencing elections and Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia (and not a social media platform), should stay away from that ongoing controversy
 * Just look a the reference list: "Is Hillary Grooming Chelsea?" "No, Chelsea won't run" "Hillary is running again" "Is Hillary Running" "Hillary Won't Run" - and this is why this article should be taken down. It's more appropriate for a political blog then an an encyclopedia. Seraphim System (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Yes - Remove It is inconceivable that we are debating here whether directly violating a specific rule of Wikipedia is acceptable or not. It is not. -The Gnome (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove. It violates WP:CRYSTAL In addition, the pundits and polls largely were caught flat-footed in the 2016 presidential election.  So the article would be of little practical use anyways. The prudent thing to do would be to launch the article when there are actual declared presidential candidates.  Its tough enough to predict what is going to happen in key states in the primaries and elections months or even days away.  So why engage in idle speculation years before the primaries and general elections?Dean Esmay (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * STRONG No, does not violate Crystal. This is something that was done on 2008, 2012, and 2016 articles before the election took place. I agree there would hardly be anything in the article without it. MB298 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Care to explain how it doesn't violate it? Just because it was done in other articles doesn't mean we should continue violating Wikipedia policy. Whether or not this article will be "too short" is besides the point. If the article ends up becoming too short then I guess we're going to have to work on replacing it with information that is actually factual rather than speculation. Prcc27 (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Whether or not the infringement was not caught out and corrected at the time is irrelevant. A precedent of omission does not justify something that contravenes Wikipedia rules. -The Gnome (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, strong remove. The bar is far too low for inclusion on the list, and the use of speculation in previous election articles is not reason to continue to do so. It is far too early to include individuals who have provided no indication that they will be running in the future. Only individuals who have been covered in depth by multiple sources at multiple times should be included. Passing references in lists of "Who might run?" are not sufficient for us to repeat meaningless speculation, nor should one rumbling covered by two pundits be counted as multiple sources. Reywas92Talk 04:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong No, as we simply use sources that state a candidate is possibly interested in running, and aren't saying that candidates are running when we don't know- this doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL. At the moment all we have is speculation, as with the start of every campaign out there.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That section has nothing to do with whether they are interested in running or not. It's actually pure speculation. There's already a section for candidates that actually expressed interest which is pretty different from some random pundit's fantasy. By saying all we have is speculation you explicitly admit that a WP:CRYSTAL violation has occurred. Prcc27 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, Vote 4 DJH2036 nailed it. Indeed, "all we have is speculation." That wholly speculative section must go. -The Gnome (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No: (ish). I am very supportive of keeping all of the candidates where there is a RS, saying that they may run. WP:CRYSTAL specifically says about unverifiable speculation, of which sourced potential candidates are not. I point out this sentence, Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. This allows these candidates in principle, as undue bias is not created by listing all candidates for which there are reliable sources. As such, I fail to see any CRYSTAL violation. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems like it is referring more to fact based predictions like when the Earth will be destroyed by the sun etc. *None* of the predictions are fact based and most if not all of them are made by pundits, not by experts. Prcc27 (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In terms of political forecasting pundits are the experts. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but how is its inclusion encyclopedic..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No of course not. Reliable sources have said someone might run, so there's no reason to delete it. Earthscent (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * redundant: you already said "no" in one of the comments above. Prcc27 (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that this was the same RFC that I commented on an entire month ago. Deleting candidates for no real reason is a silly idea, this conversation should have ended long ago. Earthscent (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The RFC just expired recently. We're waiting for someone to close this discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner?
I'm pretty sure Maher was suggesting him as a joke. MB298 (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Y'know, you may be right. I did put him there awfully late at night and hadn't seen the actual video in a while. However, rewatching the clip, Maher does make the case that (paraphrasing here): "We all liked Weiner before the sexting thing, he would 'tell it like it is' and call out people's bullshit, so if the GOP can forgive what Trump's done, Democrats should forgive what Weiner's done." which seems like a legitimate argument to me. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maher was 100% joking. What he said reads like a joke.
 * Can we please look at WP:RS sources like POLITICO before we decide anyone's a serious enough candidate for President in 2020 to merit mention in our article? No matter if it's Anthony Weiner, Kanye West or anyone else?  Bill Maher is a comedian, not a serious commentator on political news.  If we include everyone Maher says would be a great candidate for President, then NPOV says we have to include people that Ted Nugent or P.J. O'Rourke think ought to run. loupgarous (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What is our definition of speculation?
Our sources are REALLY winging it when it comes to "speculating" a presidential run. Some of the sources don't directly discuss the possibilities that xxx will run. When they do, it's usually just something along the lines of "xxx person is talented and 2020 is coming, so we'll see" then the article never mentions the election or even the candidate again.

Examples:


 * Jerry Brown

"It’s a crying shame that he’s 78 years old, because he would be well positioned to challenge Donald Trump in 2020."

That's all it says about 2020. If anything it's speculating that he won't run due to his age. Before you source: READ THE ARTICLE.


 * Julian Castro

You need to pay a subscription to read the article. Not a good source.


 * Bill de Blasio

All it says is "I think we found our 2020 candidate". It then proceeds to never mention him or 2020 again. Note also, that saying he should run does not count as speculating that he will.


 * Nikki Haley

 Hiring Nikki Haley could sideline a potential (if unlikely) 2020 primary threat by bringing her inside the tent

That is the closest it comes to saying she will run for president. It says current circumstances indicate that she probably won't run (which is the opposite of what were looking for)

FINAL POINT It's almost as if people are seeing someone's name and 2020 in the same sentence and just decide they must be candidates. I will remove stupid sources and the "candidates" they represent tomorrow or whenever. Crewcamel (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree we need to actually have stricter standards- preferably a whole article for a single speculative candidate. I've edited it this way because it really doesn't look good with a lot of these people.  Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * THANK YOU! Unless a source discusses the fact that a person is likely to run, there should be no question that it is inappropriate speculation that does not warrant inclusion here. Reywas92Talk 06:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * POLITICO's commentators usually don't "wing it" as much as some of the other sources cited. Could we agree to limit discussion of declared candidates for the Presidency to those who have merited mention in POLITICO and other reliable news sources about politics, and whose candidacy isn't based on the popularity of a musician, actor or other performer among his fan base, and little else?  I'm open to considering other sources besides POLITICO, but with care to not include WP:SENSATION reports from the popular news media.  We've got a chance to write a serious article here, if we wait until (for example) Kanye West gains support outside his fan base, among notable political figures. loupgarous (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This election is NOT underway
This page is loaded with useless info that we could do away with. We dont need 30 polls, 40 declined candidates and journalists as declared candidates. A casual reader would be forgiven to assume this election was beginning to heat up.

If im wrong and we do need all this, then i believe the actual president is more deserving of being declared than "candidates" such as Kanye West Crewcamel (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see why we would exclude information. While I do agree that the President is a declared candidate, there are other sections here open to discuss that. As far as the polls go, there are only 14 polls, but we should consider making a separate page soon. Alec Holbeck (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to delete any of this stuff. Earthscent (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems like you've got a huge issue with presenting unbiased information, you tend to let your opinions seep through your edits. Just because you don't think that Kanye West should be here, he has declared his candidacy regardless of how you feel about the matter. I too doubt he will go anywhere with it, but the 2016 section similarly featured Waka Flocka Flame. We're not here to decide which candidates deserve to be listed as candidates, we need to be impartial when it comes to pages like this, had Trump been speculated in early 2013 he also would have been written off as ridiculous. With polls, not only are you grossly exaggerating, but there were plenty of hypothetical polls as early as December 2012, so I don't see a reason not to include them now. I do agree that Donald Trump has essentially started his reelection campaign, though. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I see WP:NOTABLE and WP:SENSATION issues with including every declared candidate in our article on the 2020 Presidential election. Many of these candidates are "running" as protest candidates, and doing so to gain notability for themselves and their opinions.  The candidacy of Kanye West is one example. WP:RS sources such as the NBC News and ABC News reports on Mr. West's candidacy stress his candidacy being largely popular among his fan base, who refer to him as "Yeezus". A Twitter message featured in the NBC News report says "Yall messed up. Now you'll all have to wait till 2020 when our Lord and Saviour, Kanye West saves us".  At this point in time, Kanye West's run for the presidency is WP:PROMOTION.  Other candidates listed in this talk page aren't notable except for the fact that they are running for President. loupgarous (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Well firstly, you're a bit late to the party on this one. Regardless, I figure if you're notable enough to already have a Wikipedia article of your own and you run for president, then you should be listed. [|We're not listing every single person that's filed, for exapmple.] IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere. If you dont think every candidate should be included then you can understand why some people dont think Jeremy Gable merits mentioning either.Crewcamel (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Im pretty sure were outnumbered. That's why i gave up trying to remove candidates myself. Nonetheless I fully support removing Kanye West and other nobodies who haven't earned the respect necessary to be included in an encyclopedia. Crewcamel (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Collapsible sections
Im not 100% familiar with this kinda thing but im thinking we could 'collapse' the polls

Crewcamel (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Independent Candidates
The Independent candidates requirements state "Only include those who are notable enough to receive a decent amount of media attention regarding their run"

-I cant find any media attention regarding Jeremy Gable

-Only media attention on Dan Rattiner is from Dan's papers (his own publication)

Unless someone can find 'decent media coverage', as the requirements state, i think they should be removed.

PS: I think this rule should apply to all declared candidates, not just 3rd parties and independents.Crewcamel (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The rule for all parties is "A candidate can be included if they have a Wikipedia profile and a source saying they are running that isn't social media." All candidates listed meet that requirement. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what it says "Please only include candidates in this section who've stated that they will run for President and who are notable enough to receive a decent amount of media attention regarding their run (for now) and who haven't declared their run via social media" Crewcamel (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll go through and edit the rules- that's not what was agreed to. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2017
Jesse Ventura should be added as he has expressed interest in running on Joe Rogan's podcast. 2602:306:CDAD:9AB0:79FC:B0D7:A03E:BE9F (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The source comes from prior to the election- for all non-declared candidate sources we look after the election. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Democratic Primary Poll Design
I didn't say anything at the time it was changed, since there were more pressing matters on the article, but I find the new design for the Democrats' polls to be aesthetically and functionally inferior to the previous way we listed them. The table was wider, yes, but now it's elongated and each row is a different size and appears sort of bulbous. Not to mention that it's now more difficult to compare some candidates' performances from poll to poll at a glance, when previously you could just see the change in their respective column. I think we should revert back to the standard, neat grid we already had. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I dont like it either. Imo the candidates shouldnt be listed alphabetically, they should listed by who's leading in the poll. Crewcamel (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well poll numbers vary, obviously. It'd be hard to pick a clear "leader" in the polls when one of them shows Biden at 31%, then Sanders at 14%. I feel alphabetical works fine. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Kamala Harris
Hi everyone, I searched thoroughly through the references cited as evidence that Kamala Harris has declined to run, and can't find anything. Instead, the articles focus on her legal career and speculate about her running, she has not declined to run as far as I can see.

I wont fix the error without a concensus; Let me know if there is actual evidence of her not running; I think we should include her as a speculative candidate. --Neddy1234 (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is where she said no: "So why is your name being floated as a 2020 candidate? I don’t know why my name is in that context. I’m focused on being the junior senator from California and very proud to be representing our beautiful state."


 * I dont really consider what she said as declining a presidential run. There's a difference between saying "im not running for president" and "im not thinking about that now". I think we should change it but we'll wait for more consensus. Crewcamel (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that what Harris said really hardly counts as declining, but my edit was reverted when I put her into speculative. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it is WP:OR to assume she is a declined candidate when she has not explicitly said that. She should be moved to the speculative candidates section. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

CNN article on 2020 candidates
Source: https://apple.news/AQ4gxcqK1RSGd6KCDulO9KA

CNN recently put out an article of Dems that might run in 2020, including many that we put down as declined. Should we reconsider putting some of the candidates in the declined section and move them to speculative, or is this not credible enough to do so? Crashguy42 (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is certainly credible. But editors here like to take candidates literally when they decline to run for president even though they'll probably change their minds at some point. I think those candidates should be included though considering that would easily be the most high-profile/reputable source we have in this article. Crewcamel (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. For one, I find it very strange that CNN is considered to be a more reputable source than NPR, Washington Post, Politico, or the NY Times. Secondly, it is a policy that sources on this article are limited to ones that solely discuss one candidate, rather than long lists of candidates. Finally, on the point of "editors here" taking candidates too literally, it is important to note that this is an informational encyclopedia rather than a political analysis blog. While it is true that politicians can't really be trusted when they "decline" to run, it is not our place to overrule their stated intentions and we should leave them in that section until/unless they express an interest in running. --Awesome335 (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with Awesome335. This page is filled with speculation but we have to take the candidates at their word if and until they change their minds. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Schedules
Let's talk about the Democratic primary for a bit. At the '16 Convention, there was much complaining about the rules and procedure of race, mostly by the Sanders people who thought it was rigged (and to some extent they were right, but that's neither here nor there). There was a commission set up, which will start meeting in just a few weeks in order to reorganize the primary system. I think we should mention this, first here, then, when the time comes, put it on the '20 Democratic Primaries page, which should be created sometime next year.

Also, both the DNC and RNC are going to start soliciting bids for the national conventions in a few months, and I mentioned this. The last few cycles have shown that this is how it is done, with the final choice announced a year from next summer. In other words, THAT part of things is not too early nor is it speculative. Don't take the mention down. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Dwayne Johnson
I haven't heard Dwayne Johnson recently speaking of a 2020 presidential run especially as a Republican. Can someone find recent sources indicating his intentions of a run. Currently there is only one source from December 2016. If no other source can be found should we remove Johnson or place him to the speculation section? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's because someone removed the link from the previous issue of the National ReviewArglebargle79 (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it because the article didn't mention anything about a presidential run, just that he's a good man and a patriot and whatnot. Regardless, the expiration date for publicly expressing interest is six months, so that gives him until June 14 before we remove it. I suggest we just move him to speculative after that (the other expiration dates are: Chafee - August 21, McAuliffe - August 27, Stein - September 15, and O'Malley - October 17). IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Archivebot
Guys this talk page is too long and too difficult to navigate. There's a lot of abandoned and resolved discussions that should already be in an archive. The archive bot is clearly not moving fast enough. I recommend we either adjust the archivebot from 30 days to 15 or 20, or someone manually archive discussions by themselves (which we are 100% allowed to do). Crewcamel (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Guys im going to do it. Ill remove discussions that are over a month old and put them in Archive 2. Once it is full i will create a new archive and put them there.

Dont tell me "we have an archivebot that does that". Look at this talk page it's too long. The archive bot is clearly not going fast enough so it would help if someone did its job manually.

When i remove all the dead discussions, i will explain very carefully exactly what i am doing. So dont revert it.Crewcamel (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm not sure what the big deal is with a "long" talk page. Isn't that what the table of contents at the beginning of the article is for? It allows you to click and navigate through multiple sections. Also, I'm not too familiar with bots, but if you are manually archiving things using the same technique as the bot, isn't that going to create issues when the bot comes and does it automatically? Might it run the risk of creating duplicate archives? I'd be happy to ditch the idea of a manual archive and just have the bot archive more frequently if more people than just you or me can all reach a consensus.--Awesome335 (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what the wp:archive page says "Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections". It's important to have a clean talk page because it encourages discussion. It'll be easier to resolve issues when there's only 3 or 4 instead of 30 like on this page.
 * As for messing with the bot, i dont think it will create duplicate archives since i would be deleting discussions and putting them in archives simultaneously. The bot can't create duplicates if there are no discussions here that are ready to be archived.


 * Having the bot archive more frequently is a good idea. I'd completely support that if a consensus was reached. There wont always be someone here to do it manually. Crewcamel (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no specific opinion on how this page should be archived, but I can hopefully offer a little guidance through experience. The issue about slow internet connections typically only applies to talk pages with, say, 100 or more sections. Talk pages with 20-30 sections tend to be very common - just look at any frequently edited article and its talk page is likely to be a similar length. Keeping it down to just 3 or 4 sections would be extreme, I think - it's really generally not done like that, and there is no good reason to do so. I'd suggest that a talk page would need to be significantly bigger than the article to actually be a problem - the article with photos and/or other media is going to present a much bigger download burden than a largely text-only talk page. Also, it is often very useful to keep closed sections around for a little while, as it can be handy to see what has been recently discussed. If sections are archived too quickly, people can end up starting the same discussions again - far fewer people go as far as checking archives than just checking the talk page (and many, especially newcomers, don't even realise there are archives even when they're listed at the top). So, essentially, this talk page does not look unusual in its size or frequency of archiving to me. Finally, given that a number of people have already reverted previous attempts to reduce the size of this page and its archiving practice, it would need a strong consensus to change the way it is currently done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have a point. Even the busy articles i've found however (such as Donald Trump and the Syrian Civil War seem to have adopted their own archiving rules. Trump's page archives every 7 days while the  Syrian War archives every 18 days. The discussions on those pages seem to be much more thorough and productive so i dont know if its a fair comparison. Either way i plan on trying to follow their example and simply try to adjust our bot. Thanks for the insight Crewcamel (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are interesting comparisons, and the archive times are shorter than I'd expected. I suspect the Trump one has a relatively short archive time because of the number of edits on the talk page per day - more than 40 so far today, compared to only 5 on this talk page (before my edits now). And though the number of sections is low, they're generally much bigger ones and the talk page is actually not much smaller than this one. I don't know why the Syria page has and unusually short time of 7 days - perhaps because it attracts conflict? Just guessing. But yes, the current 30 days here might be too long. What I suggest is shortening the archive time for this page, perhaps to 20 days at first and see how it goes? Looking again at the reverts of your previous attempts, I think it was the drastic manual pruning that people objected to, so I'm now thinking that reducing the archive time could probably be done as a bold move (per WP:BRD). I suggest waiting a few more days, and if that seems sensible and there are no objections, I'd be happy to do it - and if it's reverted, come back and continue the discussion. (But *do not* do the manual archiving again, as that has clearly been contested - leave it to the bot's effect). What do you think? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes i promise not to do the manual archiving thing again. Ill change it to 20 days and see where it goes Crewcamel (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done it - we'll see how 20 days goes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(moved from below - let's keep this all in one place) How many days should it take for the archivebot to archive? I think 30 days is too much. We have too many 3-4 week old discussions that are very minor and not worth keeping that long. The last thing i want to do is start an rfc for something this meta but i really want a consensus to reduce the number of posts on the talk page. Most other busy articles ive found have talk pages with only around 5 to 12 discussions open. If we lowered the archivebot from 30 days to 25 or 20 or 15 I would probably stop complaining so much Crewcamel (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Cuomo
He declined in January, but has been building up more and more speculation since. Should he be re-added to the speculative section? MB298 (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Unless he says something about it that's not "I'm not running," we should keep him there. Basically, the hierarchy of what's added to this article is as follows: What the potential candidate says publicly > Speculation from sources > What we think. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This is why i dont support having a declined section in the first place. If cuomo actually runs for president but never "publicly expresses interest" before he does, then we would have had a candidate labeled as declined for 3 whole years until he suddenly declares and we look like a bunch of doofuses. Crewcamel (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * See my above diagram on the subject. If you have a better source for what Andrew Cuomo's plans for 2020 are than Andrew Cuomo himself, please let me know. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders - Independent & Green
It has been removed in the past, but I think we should add Senator Sanders back to the "declined" portion of the Independent and Green sections based on this [https://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/29/will_we_be_feeling_the_bern Democracy Now! article] The full quote from the article/interview is:

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, many people are deeply concerned about the two-party duopoly. You, yourself, are an independent or a socialist. Would you ever consider a third-party run—

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I—

AMY GOODMAN: —like joining with the Green Party?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: You know, I did that. In Vermont, as many know, I defeated Democrats and Republicans to become mayor, defeated Democrats and Republicans to make it into the Congress. Recent years, Democrats have been more sympathetic. And I’ve been a member of the Democratic caucus for 25 years. So right now I would not have accepted the position of leadership if I was not serious about fundamentally reforming the Democratic Party. So that’s where my head is right now.

To me, this seems like he's shooting down running third party (specifically as an Independent or Green), and we've discussed that asking a direct question to the candidate like this counts as "speculation." Are there any objections to this, in accordance to our new rules? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There isn't any specualtion that he'll run as a green candidate to begin with so no. I'm not sure there's anything on an independent run either.Crewcamel (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that someone explicitly asked him about it in an interview means that there was speculation. As I've said before, I would support adding Sanders to the "declined" section based on these comments. Awesome335 (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I dont think it does. We need actual evidence that sanders may run as an independent not a silly question that a die hard fan asked. It's her own political fantasies that made her ask that question, not facts. Crewcamel (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "A source where the candidate directly talks about 2020. For example: in one of Castro's sources he says 'I said the other day that I won't take that off the table. There's a long time between now and 2020.' This should count as a source because he isn't ruling it out, but he isn't also saying 'Oh I'm definitely thinking about it.'" This is what we agreed upon. The same should apply to Sanders, since he was given a direct question about running as an Independent or Green candidate. Whether or not the interviewer from the source asked because she likes Bernie or not is irrelevant. Her reasoning is right there: people are growing weary of only really having two parties to choose from, and Bernie has been elected as a third party candidate in mayoral and congressional elections, so would he consider doing the same for a presidential election? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like he explicitly declined a third party run though. Prcc27 (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't explicit, no, but when asked "Will you run third party?" he responded with essentially "I've run third party in the past, but I'm sticking with the Democrats from here on out." Which, to me, seems like enough to say he won't. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but unless he explicitly says something- assuming he won't run as a third party candidate is original research. Prcc27 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What Sanders said is a lot more concrete of a "no" than what Booker said. In this case, I think you're taking him way too literally. Like how we discussed whether or not Rand Paul was declining both a Republican AND Libertarian run (with an argument claiming that his words "I don't wanna challenge Trump" technically not applying if he were to run as a Libertarian candidate). Regardless, if you're arguing that his statement shouldn't be counted as declining a run, then should he be added to both categories as a speculative candidate since the interviewer asked him a direct question about it? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I support him being added to the speculative sections, yes. Prcc27 (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I still stand by that Bernie was pretty clear in his disinterest in running as anything but a democrat. I don't really see a point in adding him to speculative, but if that's all that can be agreed upon... IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Cory Booker
I agree that we shouldn't add people back to "speculative" after declining a run based solely on further speculative articles. However, Booker was asked directly in an interview in the provided source and reverted to a John Kerry "I can neither confirm nor deny, let's cross that bridge when we come to it" stance. I think we should use his most recent response in his own words and move him back to speculative. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, I managed to delete this earlier, my bad. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. Since many of the "declined" candidates will likely end up running anyway, relying on a possible candidate's most recent comments is a good precedent to set. Awesome335 (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: He has not retracted his declined statement so he still is technically a declined candidate. Prcc27 (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the new source? It's not the same one from a few weeks ago. In it, Booker says verbatim: "I'm- right now- right now the consideration might be running from the president, [laughs] um, given- given what's going on. No, uh, look: I think we should be focus[sic] on right now, here. Uh, American- I think a bad part of our political culture is one election is barely over and people are looking to the next one. We have a lot of work to do right now, challenges from South Sudan to Yemen to, uh, North Korea. We should be dealing with the country we have right now, real issues people are facing with jobs and healthcare... So that's where I am. My focus is today, tomorrow will take care of itself. [inaudible] -tomorrow, we're always bound to be surprised." Compared to what he said in January: "No. And- and I think we make mistake[sic] if we make decisions uh, I- we make a mistake if we focus on four years from now, we don't- [There are a lot of women here who are hoping for somebody to emerge from the crowd of democrats who will lift their voice in a way they feel like this president isn't, is that you?] Well I- I will definitely be one of many in this country lifting our voice, stepping out, standing out to fight. But we weaken ourselves if we think this is about 2020 because I've seen intelligence briefings, I've seen- I've sat in uh- uh- uh foreign policy uh, committee hearings. What can happen in the next four years- if we wait til four years, to say 'okay, wait for the next election,' too many things can happen that can hurt people in our nation and around the globe if this president isn't checked. And so, I don't- and right now I don't care about 2020, I don't care about 2018, tomorrow- literally, I'm going to my office today to begin working on legislation, on coalitions, on reaching out to people, to fight this president. Because in my opinion, the things he has told us he intends to do are dangerous. Not just to democrats, they're dangerous to poor people, they're dangerous to people living on the margin, they're dangerous to immigrants, they're dangerous to lesbian, gay uh- bisexual, transgender people, they're dangerous to people in small factory towns and people in inner cities and so I- I'm gearing up for the fight today, I don't care about tomorrow right now. [Are you open to it?] I- I'm open to fighting, I am open to fighting- [Open to being president in four years?] I'm- I am not open to being president and I don't even want to have the discussion right now because I think that's an attempt to distract people from the work we have to do right now." this seems like a massive step back from his definitive answer last time. There's even a lot of similar saying like "focusing on today, not tomorrow" except now he doesn't say anything one way or the other compared to the blatant "No." and "I am not open to being president." IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In both statements he said that he isn't really concerned with 2020 yet. Reiterating that he's focusing on right now does not negate his previous statement that he isn't running. We need to make sure we avoid assuming things because that could end up being original research. The fact of the matter is that he *did* decline to run and he *did not* say anything to negate this. Prcc27 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The one we're using he says, to sum up "Focus on now, 2020 is later and I will not run." Now he essentially says "Focus on now, 2020 is later." My point being that his most recent statement on the matter omits a definitive "yes or no" answer to the question. The vagueness of this more recent answer I think warrants a re-addition to speculative. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's ridiculous to expect someone to decline that they're running everytime they're asked. Declining each time you're asked isn't a criteria for being in the declined section nor should it be. Prcc27 (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's ridiculous at all. If a possible candidate hasn't made a firm enough decision on running to say no every time they're asked, then they clearly don't belong in a list of declined candidates and they should be added back to the speculative section. Awesome335 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, people like Biden, Cuban, Cuomo, Gillibrand, Obama, and Winfrey have all declined more than once. I'm just saying we should use their most recent thoughts on the matter. If he comes out and reiterates his lack of interest in running, then we simply move him back to declined. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of where he's placed, I feel like we need a footnote to explain the situation. Prcc27 (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)\
 * I disagree, the situation isn't really that complicated at all. All this is is two editors arguing about semantics at this point. "He meant this" "No he didn't he meant this." IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to do our own original research and decide what we think he meant. If there are no reliable sources that say he his no longer a declined candidate then you can not make a conclusion on your own. There are however reliable sources that say he is a declined candidate which is why he is listed in that section. Prcc27 (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Why don't declined candidates have pictures?
They appear to be included in polls but dont have pictures like everyone else.Crewcamel (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems like a complete 180 from your usual position of encyclopedic minimalism. Regardless, assuming this is a serious discussion and not you satirizing editors like me (Poe's law and all), I don't think they should have pictures. Their inclusion on the article is based on them saying they won't be running in 2020. Basically, the photos of the declared, expressed, and speculative ones are a way of saying "hey, these faces are probably gonna be involved in the race!" so what's the point of clogging the page even more to include the faces of everyone that's pledged to not get involved? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders' Major Failed Campaigns
Hooooooo boy.

Y'know honestly, I wasn't expecting that many failed attempts to run for office in Vermont. Don't get mad at me, I only added the shit that we've agreed should be here. Clearly, people are gonna have an issue with it. Here are all of Bernie Sanders' failed campaigns:

The first four, he was the party's nominee. As an Independent, he had no party to be a nominee for, so simply saying he was a "candidate" rather than an "X nominee" seems like breaking the format of the article, since he was in the general election and didn't get primary'd (as the term "candidate" suggests, like in his presidential one). As for the ordering of the laundry list itself...

The one that fits our format order is:

Candidate for Pres, 2016

Independent (link to Ind) Candidate for Rep, 1988

Independent Candidate for Gov (link to Gov), 1986

Liberty Union (link to Lib) Nominee for Gov, 1972 & 1976

Liberty Union Nominee for Sen, 1972 & 1974

But even that is fairly ugly and clunky. I stand by the "either it's all okay or none of it's okay" philosophy. So I'm down to either include everything in full or to change the rules to maybe only include presidential campaigns (although, I don't think one entry should force us to change the whole article's format again), but nothing in between, because we'd be omitting certain information. And I suppose now's the time to complain about it being "eye cancer." IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, how is any of this (except 2016) relevant to the 2020 presidential election? 01:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus that was agreed upon was to include each potential candidates' "resumes" to include the following current or former positions: President, Vice President, Cabinet-level positions, U.S. Senate, U.S. House, Governor, or Mayor of one of the 100 most populous U.S. cities (if none apply, just use their most recent low-level position like Jason Kander's Secretary of State of Missouri). We also agreed to add any failed campaigns for any of those positions. There'd be even more for Bernie if I brought in his Burlington mayoral runs (Burlington, VT isn't even in the top 300). This was the consensus, so I'm just asking what we should do according to that previous consensus. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It isnt. Just let him have his moment Crewcamel (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You've been nothing but incredibly rude since your first involvement in this article. It's becoming extremely frustrating when you blatantly vandalize the page because something was added according to the weeks-old consensus. If you disagreed with what should be on this page, maybe you should have said something two weeks ago when the subject was first discussed. What you're doing now is disruptive and counter productive. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to where that "consensus" was established? I dip in and out of these talk pages, especially when the election is three years away. As far as I can see it, these little blurbs should be a summary, and including all of his losses as an independent and third party candidate from the 1970s and 1980s seems like too much WP:DETAIL for this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On April 25, in my "Moving Forward" section, I brought up the issue of what exactly to include in the descriptions for candidates. I took something that Vote 4 DJH2036 suggested in an earlier discussion and said we should include "President, Vice President, Other Cabinet-Level Positions, U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, Governor, Mayor of one of the 100 most Populous U.S. Cities (New York City, NY to San Bernardino, CA), Previous Presidential Campaigns." And the only person to say anything was Mr. DJH, who agreed with those parameters and suggested to also include previous runs for any of the above offices. I suppose you and Crewcamel took it upon yourselves to override the two-week-old consensus without discussion, though. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesnt look like he even agreed with you though. He said "I think it would be smarter to list their last held political office" not "Great idea. Let's list everything from mayor to president". You clearly have a very strong passion for politics, i recommend expanding your horizons and using some of your motivation on political stubs to improve those. Don't use all your energy on this page. Crewcamel (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That was in response to what we should do for candidates that have never held any of those offices, but have held a different office (like Kander as Sec. of State of MO, Kennedy as Amb. to Japan, etc.), he said to just use their most recent office when no others apply. In the same comment, he said "And we should list only lost elections where they ran for a major office (one of the included)." Which, indeed, does include everything from President to Mayor. Regardless, I've proposed a compromise below. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize for coming off as rude. I'm not looking to toxify discussions on this page. I'll try to be less disruptive in the future. Crewcamel (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Y'know, this would've been a lot more convincing if you didn't make another passive aggressive edit to the main page in the same breath. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

What Happened to John Kerry?
Hello! I saw John Kerry was recently removed, even though he left the door open to running when he was interviewed by the NYT, and he's not in the Delcined section. I mean, I personally think it's unlikely that he'll run, but any particular reason why he was removed? Thanks in advance! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuturePresident (talk • contribs) 16:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Two source minimum. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Candidates' "Resumes"
Okay, so my new suggestion, since nobody seems interested in actually discussing this topic, how about we only include campaigns for offices that are higher than the candidates' current position. That way, we get to keep any and all presidential runs, Kander's very notable Senate run, and get rid of smaller campaigns like Booker's 2002 run for mayor. I'm gonna provide another nifty table for you all to look at that'll show exactly which campaigns will be included or excluded with this plan. For the record, technically speaking, a U.S. Senator or Representative is higher up the political ladder than the Governor of a state (national-level legislator as opposed to state-level executive).

If ANYONE has ANY issue with this, please speak up. If nobody says anything, or people only give positive feedback, I will change the article accordingly 24 hours from now. This seems like the best sort of compromise we can muster at the moment. This will include everyone's presidential runs, Kaine as VP, Stein's runs for Governor of MA (2002 & 2010), Inslee's run for Representative from WA (1994), and the Senate runs for Brown (1982 - CA), Chafee (2006 - RI), and Kander (2016 - MO). IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ok
 * Ive said this before, but i support just taking the example set by the 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004.....etc etc elections who all just list 1 thing. I think it's important to have consistency.
 * 2016; 2012; 2008. It's always like *Hillary Clinton New York Senator or *Ron Paul rep from Texas. They keep it simple and i think we should follow their example. Crewcamel (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Granted, you'd have to look at how the pages looked at a similar time, when the election was being written about in a future tense, not a past tense.. Here are the respective articles from May 10, 2005, 2009, and 2013. Note the similarities between this page and the 2016 page at the same point in its cycle. The only real difference being that we've added pictures and fleshed out the declined section (at this point, it wasn't added in the previous elections due to there not being such a large media frenzy on the matter). Hell, we they used to list even smaller roles for candidates like State Treasurer, State Attorney General, and White House Chief of Staff. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how listing so many job titles is advantageous for a future tense article. Either way, notice how by December 2015 they had already changed it to 1 job title despite the primaries not even being started. They probably realized it was stupid and removed all the unnecessary junk. And whether we do the same now or later, it is going to happen eventually Crewcamel (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC?

Can we start an rfc about this?

"Currently descriptions of candidates allow for the listing of several previous positions as opposed to the consensus agreed upon in previous election cycles which is to only allow 1. Should the current policy be changed to only allow 1 prv position or should the consensus remain the same?" blah blah something like that?

Basically should we have this


 * Tim Kaine, U.S. Senator from Virginia since 2013; Governor 2006–2010; Mayor of Richmond 1998–2001; Democratic nominee for Vice President in 2016
 * Mark Cuban, businessman, investor, author, television personality, and philanthropist from Texas

or this
 * Tim Kaine, U.S. Senator from Virginia
 * Mark Cuban, businessman from Texas

Crewcamel (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I vote for preserving the status quo, but I won't engage in an edit war or persist in trying to get a different consensus if you get enough people to agree with you. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2017
Change several Democratic candidates from "Declined to be candidates" to "Speculative candidates". Almost all of the people listed in this section have not completely ruled out runs, and in fact are somewhat likely to run. These people include but are not limited to: Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, John Hickenlooper, Bob Iger, Elizabeth Warren, and Chris Murphy. The people that belong in the "Declined to be candidates" section should only be those that have categorically ruled out any run in 2020 in the strictest terms. Thank you. Dkaseff (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * i support this. Though I dont want to go back to the days where we had 20+ speculatives (with pictures) hogging all the bandwidth. It might be tough to reach a consensus on this regardless. Crewcamel (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All of the listed candidates have definitely said, to some degree "No, I will not be running in 2020." Who are we do decide whether or not they will change their mind? What better source should we use that knows more about their personal feelings than the candidates' own mouths? I'm only advocating for Booker to be put back since he has recently made a statement that is now a lot more vague than his remarks in January that said multiple times "No, I am not open to running for president in 2020." IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: this seems to be stepping into original research. Prcc27 (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have closed the edit request as as there is no consensus for the requested edit. Feel free to continue this discussion. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 03:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)