Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 5

Bill Weld expressed interest in running?
As of November 14, 2017 has not expressed interest in running and should not be listed as having done so.

"On Saturday night, Weld gave his first major political speech since the election, at a Students for Liberty (SFL) regional conference in New York. A week before, he had generated a headline or two by giving the Boston Globe a playful 'Who knows?' when asked about whether he'd run again in 2020. 'The most I've said is I'm still a ­Libertarian, and as the years roll by I'll probably want to be involved in the discussion leading up to 2020, and supportive of the Libertarian Party,' he told the paper." Welch, Matt (November 6, 2017). "Bill Weld: 'I'm Going To Stay L.P.'". Reason. Retrieved November 13, 2017. Bunco man (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I read his "Who knows?" as an expression of interest. As a sort of "Maybe, maybe not, we'll see what happens (wink wink)" sort of thing. At the very least I figure we should but him in potential candidates, since he's now gotten two articles featuring him being asked directly about running in 2020. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You have to read the NEXT statement he made a week later, which clarifies things. "Who knows" is not "I am interested in running." Bunco man (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You have the timeline wrong. He said "The most I’ve said is I’m still a Libertarian, and as the years roll by I’ll probably want to be involved in the discussion leading up to 2020, and supportive of the Libertarian Party efforts there," first. He then laughed and said "Who knows? I have no visibility on what’s going to happen in the next three years." Which I think definitely counts as a "I mean three years from now... it could happen; we'll see." IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Read the paragraph again (see below) It is NOT a an expressed interest to run. Let's wait until he actually says he's interested. Refrain from second-guessing what politicians say.

On Saturday night, Weld gave his first major political speech since the election, at a Students for Liberty (SFL) regional conference in New York. A week before, he had generated a headline or two by giving the Boston Globe a playful "Who knows?" when asked about whether he'd run again in 2020. "The most I've said is I'm still a ­Libertarian, and as the years roll by I'll probably want to be involved in the discussion leading up to 2020, and supportive of the Libertarian Party," he told the paper. Bunco man (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You keep quoting the Reason article, but not the original Boston Globe article. The Reason article only has a small exchange at the end of their interview about running for any public office agiain:

Reason: Do you have any interest in being a candidate again for anything? ≤ Weld: That's too far off. I like the way things are right now.


 * Otherwise they're just quoting what he had said to the Boston Globe, in which his "Who knows?" came AFTER him saying he wants to stay involved with the LP for 2020. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Between what I posted and what you just added "Weld: That's too far off. I like the way things are right now." It's pretty obvious that at this time Weld has not shown anywhere near enough interest to add him as "expressing interest." Please stop trying to force his name onto the article. When and if he is interested, he will give much better indications. To force his name now is basically creating a poll-style "who would you like to see run" section. Bunco man (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If only Weld had at least two separate references from reliable sources where the candidate themselves talks about the 2020 race from after the 2016 Presidential Election or something then he might actually fit the written criteria to be included in the article. But according to, that's just not the case. Oh well, I guess. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You INSIST on continuing to add Weld back as a potential candidates, refusing to accept that what Weld actually says is not the words of someone who plans to run. One method of reading the comments clearly is to go back and read all three of his comments, while imagining that he was not the candidate for VP. Perhaps that will work? You are assuming his meanings to be opposite of what they actually are simply because he was involved in 2020.Bunco man (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Why must you INSIST on not following the rules of the article? Look at the comments of someone like Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Eric Garcetti, John Kerry, etc. They have all given very similar non-answers when they've been asked about 2020. Basically a neutral "I'm not planning anything right now. I'm focused on X, Y, and Z right now. 2020 is three years from now, too far off to talk about." The Reason article that you keep saying shows he's not interested (which, jokes on you, would STILL let him be on the article on the declined section) even says "Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee is still bullish on the party (and NY gubernatorial candidate Larry Sharpe), has no regrets or apologies about 2016, and hasn’t ruled out another run for office". I'd say a vast majority of individuals in the Potential candidates sections have given generic responses that don't really lean one way or the other, usually trying their best to dodge the question which news organizations see as "not ruling out" a run. It's an extremely common theme. Weld follows the precedent set by loads of other people on this article. I think you just assume I want to include him because I'm a supporter of his but my politics really do not line up with him very much, not to mention I follow the rules of the article regardless of the policies of anybody in it. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Rules of the article?" Of course this has NOTHING to do with the "rules" and everything to do with desperately adding a name of a politician who has thus far said that he is not interested in running. Rather than add what Weld ACTUALLY said, you add in your own invented test of what he "said," assuming his thinking is as YOU want it. In your concept, why not add anyone and everyone to the list, simply because they may decide to run later on. When Weld shows a real interest then add his name. Until then, you need to stop second guessing. The "rules of the article" are not "add anyone you wish, no matter whether they plan to run or not. Bunco man (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Um, no. It definitely has to do with the rules. The rules ARE (including but not limited to) adding an individual when they A) have at least two separate references from reliable sources, B) where the candidate themselves talks about the 2020 race, C) from after the 2016 Presidential Election. All three apply to Weld whether you like it or not. You clearly believe that Weld has denied interest, while I think he's at least stayed neutral on the matter. No matter what, he belongs here (in any of the three sections of expressed, potential, or declined) not because I personally want him to be, but because he meets the requirements that everyone else does. Don't like it? Propose we change the rules. Why aren't you going around removing half the Democratic section? Every single person there besides Blumenthal (included because he was featured in a major national poll) have either said absolutely nothing about the 2020 election or have dodged questions by saying it's too far away or that they're not focused on it right now. Do you even know the difference between the different sections on this article? "Potential candidates" for example is for individuals who've been asked about 2020 and didn't rule it out or have been the subject of speculation by reliable sources. Weld definitely fits. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark Webber?
With the inclusion of Lawrence Jackson, I figure I'd bring up the FEC filing of Mark Webber. At least I think it's Mark Webber. It is the filing of "Mr. Mark Allen Weber". Notice how there's one less "b" in the last name. I'm not completely sure that this is the same guy. Webber's full name is Mark Allen Webber, it could easily have been a typo kind of like how Lawrence Christopher Jackson became "Mr. Lawrence Christoper Jackson". His Wikipedia article lists his residence as Beachwood Canyon, Los Angeles, while the FEC filing says the applicant lives in Milpitas, California, which is closer to San Francisco. Webber seems pretty vocal with liberal/progressive politics, too. He's even the son of Cheri Honkala, the Green Party of the United States nominee for Vice President in 2012. The filing itself says he's running as a Democrat and that it's from January 20, 2017 (at 6:02 PM), the same day as Donald Trump's inauguration. I saw on his Instagram page (the only form of social media I could find) that he attended the 2017 Women's March on January 21. What should we do? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless someone can confirm its him we shouldn't do anything. RealEdgeofnight (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New McAuliffe ref (unsure about proper location)
So I found this ref for McAuliffe, but I don't know if it qualifies to put him back in publicly expressed interest or would only be added to his potential candidate refs.

Here is the link:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/362460-mcauliffe-seriously-considering-2020-run

Date is November 30, 2017, so it's fully within range for counting toward PEI, but I don't know if this would count toward that since it's not actually a public statement by McAuliffe. Please deliberate on it and draw your own conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:242:403:14F0:78BF:DA0:93BB:A768 (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert
Colbert "announced" his presidential run while in his comedy character on a Russian chat show. He should not be included in a section where all of the other candidates are actual politicians. JJARichardson (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I mean he HAS run for President once before, so there is a precedent for a campaign. Even then, I'd say that a satirical campaign is worth including, kind of like Vicente Fox from a few months back but our consensus was to not include him since other satirical candidates (like Colbert in 2008) actually appeared on the ballot. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just because he's probably a satirical candidate doesn't mean he won't file, and doesn't mean people won't vote for him. Letupwasp (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is WP:CRYSTAL to assume he will run. Since his announcement was just satire, he should not be included. Prcc27 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't actually know he's a satirical candidate. Did he say so? Letupwasp (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Our reliable sources seem to indicate that they think he's a satirical candidate. As a result, I lean towards removing him from the section. Prcc27 (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Prcc27. MB298 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

map at page-bottom-right
The map at the page-bottom-right is not clear to me: which are Trump states and which are not, and what’s with the multi-colors whose are those? Kessler (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a key when you click on it. Red states are for Trump, blue states are for Warren. The red/blue shaded states are where the two come within the margin of error. Gray states are states where no polls have been conducted so far, obviously. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Doug Jones
He's being mentioned in at least one source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/12/maybe_doug_jones_should_run_for_president.html. Any others? MB298 (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He's also been mentioned in this source. I think he should be added. Prcc27 (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Mitt Romney
Can we add Mitt Romney as a 2020 potential Republican candidate - http://nationalinterest.org/feature/donald-trumps-biggest-fear-romney-2020-primary-challenge-23895; http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/01/04/don-t-do-it-mitt-romney-is-exactly-hero-senate-deserves-but-not-one-it-needs-right-now.html Guyb123321 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The second source doesn't say anything about Romney being a potential 2020 presidential candidate.. Prcc27 (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The video in the second source has a political analyst saying Romney should run for president in 2020, so yes, it does...Guyb123321 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently there's a difference between someone should run and someone could run. Doug Jones was removed because the source said that he should run rather than he could run. So for consistency, we wouldn't be able to add Romney unless we added Jones too. Prcc27 (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Dwayne Johnson
All of his articles on the main page say he's heavily considering it, and yet it's sitting in the "Declined to run" section. Why?

Edit made 1/8/2018


 * It's because he stated that he has a big film schedule that is slated to go into 2021 and therefore it would be too difficult for him to mount a serious campaign in 2020. He said that serious consideration goes towards running in 2024. Source: http://variety.com/2017/politics/news/dwayne-johnson-the-rock-president-2024-1202640132/ Curdlash (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey
Oprah already declined a run so shouldn't she be in the declined section..? Prcc27 (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * New sources indicate she might run. There are several sources now cited for her in the Potential section. Letupwasp (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. Unless Winfrey back tracks that she has declined to run, she should remain in the declined section. The potential section is for candidates that have not declined a run. Prcc27 (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The Rock
Should Dwayne Johnson really be listed as declined? In the interview, he states “Realistically, as we go into 2018, when you look at my slate as we’re developing and shooting into 2019 and 2020, the slate goes deep into 2021, so it feels like the realistic consideration would be 2024.” He does not however decline a candidacy in 2020. Kanye West also tweeted something along the same lines, yet is still listed as a candidate.

Additionally, I myself used a source of John Kasich saying he "had no interest" in 2016 to remove him from the list of candidates, but another user correctly argued that his statement wasn't unequivocal.

NDACFan (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018
There is a new 2020 Democratic Primary poll that should be added. It can be found at: http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_18Jan2018_RegisteredVoters_Topline_Memo.pdf Grapnor (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is Harris's standard monthly poll. there is no reason to start having each and every monthly poll for the next 33 months between now and the election. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it was already added, and I happen to disagree with you.. Prcc27 (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

How should we sort the polls?
The statewide polls are sorted by alphabetical order by state, but the national polls are sorted by which candidate was most recently included in a poll. This seems a bit inconsistent; I think sorting the national polls by alphabetical order like we do for the statewide polls would make things seem more organized. Prcc27 (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense. It's alphabetical by state, then based on recency of the poll. The only state with more than one match-up as of now is Michigan, it's Trump vs. Biden, Sanders, and Warren. The polls were released at the same time and therefore happen to be sorted alphabetically. If we go alphabetically in the national polls the first poll to be featured will be a Pence vs. Generic Dem. poll... IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's much easier to find the candidate you're looking for when it's sorted alphabetically. Prcc27 (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, the newest statewide poll is the Texas poll and yet it is not at the top. So that's further proof that it is inconsistent. Prcc27 (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's all for relevancy. Winfrey is at the top right now because her Golden Globes speech blew the hell up. Warren, Sanders, Gillibrand, and the like are all also near the top because they're getting the most media buzz. Franken, for example, is right at the bottom since nobody expects him to run after the whole #MeToo thing with him. We sort states alphabetically, candidates by recency. I think it's pretty simple. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When people update the article and post new polls they keep on forgetting to move the candidates with the most recent polls to the top of the section. Consequently, the section is currently not organized by date or alphabetical order, and we can infer this problem will persist. This could easily be avoided if the section was ordered alphabetically by the candidates' names, then editors wouldn't have to worry about moving the candidates each time a new poll comes out. Prcc27 (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Condense Minor Candidates
I agree with having them listed, but do Jeff Boss and Geoffrey Finger need to have their own pictures and flags listed? Can we condense them into a smaller list? DaCashman (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I would suggest that we find a better way to describe the minor candidates than just listing offices they have run for before. We should try to indicate what career or way of making a living they have. Being a former candidate for office is worth listing, but it's not an occupation or qualification. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they should be removed completely. The list will have hundreds of people before the election. Maybe there should be some type of threshold to be listed as a candidate on the page. Any suggestions?Political Geek (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have a good standard that stops there from being hundreds of people listed. They need to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. That has been enough in previous elections. Letupwasp (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

New Castro ref.
Should push his expiration date to early August.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/372523-julian-castro-i-have-every-interest-in-running-for-president-in-2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.105.250 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Mark Cuban & Dwayne Johnson's Party Affiliations
Mark Cuban and Dwayne Johnson are both Independents. Cuban has made a statement saying he would probably run as a Republican, maybe an Independent, but not a Democrat. Johnson hasn't said anything about which party he'd prefer to run on. There's been plenty of speculation that both of them could run under the Republican or Democratic parties, as well as Larry Sharpe on Reason openly throwing out the idea that either of them may run as a Libertarian due to their liberal social views (even though Cuban says he's more of a social moderate) and conservative fiscal views. I think we should go one way or the other: have them both in all four sections (Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, and Independent), or JUST the ones they've publicly talked about (so Johnson would only appear in the Independent section, Cuban excluded from Libertarian). IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As neither has expressed a single word about running as Libertarians, neither being members of the Libertarian Party, you can safely exclude their names from the Libertarian section. Bunco man (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So why is Johnson listed in the Republican section, but not the Democrat section..? That's inconsistent. Prcc27 (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Johnson has not expressed a single word about running as a Democrat or Republican, and isn't a member of either party... IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Nor has either person expressed a single word about running as Libertarians. You based your efforts on the comments of Libertarian Larry Sharpe. Sharpe has also said that it would be great if Rand Paul, Justin Amash and Massie run as Libertarians. Should they be added? No, of course not, as they are solid Republicans and have not expressed a single hint of leaving their Party and running as Libertarians. Bunco man (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Solid Republicans..? I thought they were Independents, which would mean we need to remove Johnson from the Republican section. Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was talking about Rand Paul, Justin Amash and Massie being Republicans. Bunco man (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well Amash and Massie don't have any other references about running in 2020, period. So they're not even included in the Republican section. Paul does, so he actually IS in the Libertarian section (Correction: WAS. I actually don't know when he was removed, but one of his two sources are based on him running as a Libertarian: http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/12/14/libertarians-want-rand-paul-lead-2020-trump/ so I'm definitely adding him back). I don't really have a problem with either option but we have to go one way or the other. If Johnson stays in the Democratic & Republican sections, he has to also be in the Libertarian section with Cuban. If they aren't in the Libertarian section, Johnson needs to be taken off the other two sections. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to cease disrupting the article. adding candidates to numerous sections where they do not belong is cauing the rest of us more work than is needed. I also removed your Rand Paul addition in the Libertarian section as your two sources do not mention Paul running as a Libertarian. Someone calling him a lower-case libertarian is not saying that he is running as an upper-case Libertarian. You also need to stop adding Johnson and Cuban into numerous party sections. Bunco man (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * lol "This individual is not registered to the political party of this section, but has been the subject of speculation or expressed interest in running under this party." Not to mention that the article in question is explicitly about Rand Paul as a favorite among Libertarians and the possibility of him running under the party. "In a new poll, survey participants overwhelmingly support Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to run on the libertarian ticket in 2020 against President-elect Donald Trump over their 2016 candidate Gary Johnson." Like I said: Johnson & Cuban don't have to be in the Libertarian section if you remove the former from the democrat and GOP sections; pick one 🅱ud. :) IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article you use as a source is from 2016 from a right-wing organization. There are organizations that call Trump a Libertarian, so will you also add his name to the Libertarian Party candidates? I don't care why or why not you want to put Johnson and Cuban in the Republican AND Democratic sectionss, but there is no source or reason to add them to the Libertarian Party section. Stop being disruptive to the article! Bunco man (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * December 14, 2016. More than a month after the election. Red Alert Politics is now owned by The Washington Examiner, it's certainly right-wing but we also use refs from left-wing sources like HuffPost, for example. Regardless, I don't see how a site being particularly right-leaning would have an effect on their reporting about how Rand Paul could challenge the right-wing incumbent president via a third party run. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Steve Bannon and "Potential" Candidates
The possibility of a Bannon Candidacy is remote, most can agree on that. He has been and continues to be a strong supporter of the Trump Presidency. He himself, according to Vanity Fair and Business Insider, has stated that he will not run for president so long as Trump runs for reelection, which he is (see FEC filing of Trump Presidential Campaign 2020). Most on this page can also agree that he is a member of the alt-right-he himself has labeled himself as such. The alt-right advocates for policies that would raise taxes for the wealthy, reduce free-trade and reduced American interventionalist policies. Whether these policies are good and bad is irrelevant, what is relevant is that they are not mainstream republican values. If he is to be considered a potential candidate, others such as David Duke and Richard Spencer, whom are also not mainstream need to be listed. For the reasons listed above, I have very rationally attempted to remove Steve Bannon from the list of Potential Candidates. His place has been justified, however, because he could "potentially" run. Well, if this is the case, we need to add every single Republican in Congress, every Republican Governor and every Republican actor to the list as well. Each one of those could "potentially run". That would be ridiculous, however. Instead, why don't we only include individuals that have not denied the idea, but have been floated as potential candidates by the media such as Romney? Steve Bannon will only run if Trump quits. In this article, we should use ceteris peribis (all current conditions staying the same), in other words, if the election is held this week, would person x consider running?


 * You don't seem to understand the concept of this article. In order to be included in the "Potential candidates" section, an individual must have at least two separate media sources speculate that they may run in 2020 (three are to be listed at most) or be featured in at least one national poll (see: Antonio Villaraigosa and Frederica Wilson in the Democratic section). Bannon meets the requirements: The Hill, Vanity Fair, and Uproxx are all cited as speculating he'll run. The only way he'll be moved to declined would be if he himself makes a public comment denying the speculation like Vice President Pence has and everyone else listed in that section. While he may only run if President Trump doesn't run, it's very plausible that Trump won't seek a second term. This could happen due to a number of reasons besides him just deciding to up and quit. If the Russia investigation happens to end up going anywhere, it's very possible that he'd be impeached or resign, especially if the democrats regain majorities in the House and/or Senate in 2018. He could also conceivably die before then, considering he's both the oldest and fattest president we've ever had (minus Taft when it comes to weight). His doctor says he's a-ok (if you're inclined to believe him, since he almost definitely lied about his height and weight), but an obese 71-year-old (74 come 2020) under the amount of stress that comes with being the most powerful man in the world could end up taking its toll. Roosevelt died in office at 63, but then again he did have polio and was overseeing WWII. Regardless, there's been plenty of media talk about how Trump may not end up making it to 2020 in one way or another (even some GOP lawmakers aren't so sure), betting markets are putting it at a little under 36% chance he'll leave office early. Not to mention that Bannon's political beliefs are absolutely irrelevant, the only thing that's relevant is that he's a registered member of the Republican Party. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

New Holder ref.
Holder has refused to rule out a presidential bid.

Suggested edit: Move Holder back to PEI, and set expiration date to 08-07-2018.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/372705-holder-wont-rule-out-presidential-run — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.105.250 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Scott McCatty a Voluntaryist Candidate in the United States presidential election, 2020 has an existing Wikipedia article and also he is a notable candidate as he has been a successful Fortune 100 IT Consultant for most of his career including an Executive position at IBM.

65.32.98.8 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Scott McCatty

Steve Bannon and "Potential" Candidates
The possibility of a Bannon Candidacy is remote, most can agree on that. He has been and continues to be a strong supporter of the Trump Presidency. He himself, according to Vanity Fair and Business Insider, has stated that he will not run for president so long as Trump runs for reelection, which he is (see FEC filing of Trump Presidential Campaign 2020). Most on this page can also agree that he is a member of the alt-right-he himself has labeled himself as such. The alt-right advocates for policies that would raise taxes for the wealthy, reduce free-trade and reduced American interventionalist policies. Whether these policies are good and bad is irrelevant, what is relevant is that they are not mainstream republican values. If he is to be considered a potential candidate, others such as David Duke and Richard Spencer, whom are also not mainstream need to be listed. For the reasons listed above, I have very rationally attempted to remove Steve Bannon from the list of Potential Candidates. His place has been justified, however, because he could "potentially" run. Well, if this is the case, we need to add every single Republican in Congress, every Republican Governor and every Republican actor to the list as well. Each one of those could "potentially run". That would be ridiculous, however. Instead, why don't we only include individuals that have not denied the idea, but have been floated as potential candidates by the media such as Romney? Steve Bannon will only run if Trump quits. In this article, we should use ceteris peribis (all current conditions staying the same), in other words, if the election is held this week, would person x consider running?


 * You don't seem to understand the concept of this article. In order to be included in the "Potential candidates" section, an individual must have at least two separate media sources speculate that they may run in 2020 (three are to be listed at most) or be featured in at least one national poll (see: Antonio Villaraigosa and Frederica Wilson in the Democratic section). Bannon meets the requirements: The Hill, Vanity Fair, and Uproxx are all cited as speculating he'll run. The only way he'll be moved to declined would be if he himself makes a public comment denying the speculation like Vice President Pence has and everyone else listed in that section. While he may only run if President Trump doesn't run, it's very plausible that Trump won't seek a second term. This could happen due to a number of reasons besides him just deciding to up and quit. If the Russia investigation happens to end up going anywhere, it's very possible that he'd be impeached or resign, especially if the democrats regain majorities in the House and/or Senate in 2018. He could also conceivably die before then, considering he's both the oldest and fattest president we've ever had (minus Taft when it comes to weight). His doctor says he's a-ok (if you're inclined to believe him, since he almost definitely lied about his height and weight), but an obese 71-year-old (74 come 2020) under the amount of stress that comes with being the most powerful man in the world could end up taking its toll. Roosevelt died in office at 63, but then again he did have polio and was overseeing WWII. Regardless, there's been plenty of media talk about how Trump may not end up making it to 2020 in one way or another (even some GOP lawmakers aren't so sure), betting markets are putting it at a little under 36% chance he'll leave office early. Not to mention that Bannon's political beliefs are absolutely irrelevant, the only thing that's relevant is that he's a registered member of the Republican Party. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

New Holder ref.
Holder has refused to rule out a presidential bid.

Suggested edit: Move Holder back to PEI, and set expiration date to 08-07-2018.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/372705-holder-wont-rule-out-presidential-run — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.105.250 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Scott McCatty a Voluntaryist Candidate in the United States presidential election, 2020 has an existing Wikipedia article and also he is a notable candidate as he has been a successful Fortune 100 IT Consultant for most of his career including an Executive position at IBM.

65.32.98.8 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Scott McCatty

Randal Howard Paul
Seriously, one of his two speculative articles talk about him running as a Libertarian. This is the same logic as having Dwayne Johnson and Mark Zuckerberg in the Democratic sections even though neither of them are democrats, it's because a media source or two is speculating that they may run as democrats. In the same way, this media source (which is now owned by The Washington Examiner, which is certainly right-leaning, but that doesn't disqualify it as a ref) thinks that Senator Paul may bypass a series of primary elections and just go for the easy nomination of the largest third party in the county that his father happened to be the nominee of in 1988. It's not like speculation like this is new, he was also thrown around as a possible Libertarian candidate in 2016 when he actually DID run. I don't understand how you could see this as wrong while also having no issue with Johnson, Zuckerberg, and others also being shown on multiple parties, it's just inconsistent. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Seriously, lots of Republicans and right-wingers believe "libertarian" is another term for "Republican." Just because a website or blog says "it'd be cool if Rand Paul ran as a Libertarian," doesn't mean he might. He is a Republican Party member. In 2011 he denounced libertarianism and has never hinted of joining the Libertarian Party, let alone runing for any office outside of the Republican Party. You need to stick to the facts and reality. Bunco man (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Well that doesn't change the fact that Dwayne Johnson is in the Democratic section. So either we remove him from the Democratic section or add Rand Paul to the Libertarian section. We have to be consistent. There's a difference between "libertarian" and "Libertarian" by the way.. But at the end of the day, it all comes done to what the reliable sources say, and it's not up to you to try to speculate what they actually meant by what they said. Prcc27 (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Dwayne Johnson and Mark Zuckerberg are independents. They have never hinted of joining the Democratic Party, let alone runing (sic) for any office outside of Unaffiliated. And yet... just because a website or blog says "it'd be cool if Dwayne Johnson or Mark Zuckerberg ran as a Democrat," they're included. It's almost like our own personal opinions and theories don't matter and we add things based on what sources say or something. 🤔🤔🤔 IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there a reliable source that seriously considers the chance that Ron Paul could run as a Libertarian..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As non-aggression (NAP) is one of three foundation principles for libertarianism (philosophy) and Libertarianism (Party), Rand Paul is neither libertarian or Libertarian, and does not pretend to be. Unless a candidate states that they ARE thinking of changing parties, let's continue to keep Republicans in the Republican Party section, Democrats in the Democratic Party section, and independents in the independent section. Thank you! Bunco man (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You seem to think that the "potential" and the "publicly expressed interest" sections are one and the same. The "potential" category only needs media sources to speculate that a candidate may run. A media source speculated that Rand Paul may run as a Libertarian. Why are you taking so much offense to the idea of him being added? My best guess would be that you're a libertarian (big L maybe) and you don't feel that Paul accurately represents the philosophy/party. That's fine, you can believe that all you want. But this page isn't for what you believe or what I believe or what anyone believes, we're not supposed to inject pages with our own personal opinions. The article exists. Deal with it. And to Prcc27, if you mean Rand, not Ron; yes. It's the first link listed of his three refs on this page. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You seem to think that someone saying, wouldn't it be neat if Rand Paul ran as a Libertarian, supersedes what Rand Paul has said and continues to say. In 2011 he made it very clear that he is not a libertarian, and he has not changed that opinion since. This article is not intended for the ridiculous, or for what you'd personally like to see happen, but for factual, sourced information. A single blogger writing a wishful thought in 2016 is not considered relevant, factual, or worthy piece of information. Let's stick to sourced facts. Thanks! Bunco man (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I mean technically Rand Paul has just said that he isn't running in 2020, period. Nothing about the LP. I'd personally like to see sourced information, like how he has been speculated to run third party, be listed. The "single blogger['s]" article is actually about how members of the Libertarian Party overwhelmingly support him as their nominee in 2020 and how he's looked upon more favorably by Libertarians (big L) than their previous nominees Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. But talking to you just seems to be getting me nowhere, so I'm going to go ahead and take my 2-1 consensus on the matter (shoutout to Prcc27) and add him back. And you'd better not remove him again because then you'd be being disruptive to the article. You're welcome. (-: IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree! Rand Paul has always said he is neither a libertarian or a Libertarian. To put his name in the Libertarian Party section based on the 2016 ramblings of a single blogger that is not associated with libertarianism or the Libertarian Party, is just ridiculous. About as silly as placing Trump in the Democratic Party and Clinton in the Republican Party sections, based on a blogger saying that they belong there. Hopefully now, you can see how silly your idea is. Bunco man (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I question the reliability of the source that speculates he could run as a Libertarian. But if there is a reliable source out there then I don't see why we shouldn't include him in that section or at least remove Johnson from the Democratic section. I personally argued against having the potential candidates section altogether. Prcc27 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * By all means, find me a source that speculates that Hillary Clinton may run under the Republican Party and I will fully endorse adding her in. The only problem being that one doesn't exist, so you're using a straw man argument against an actual article that was written and is even CURRENTLY REFERENCED ON THE PAGE AS WE SPEAK. It really does run counter to the whole Dwayne Johnson thing, too (which you've remained silent on, maybe because it'd make you a hypocrite if you want to keep him where he is). At this rate, why should we include, say, coverage of a GOP shadow campaign against President Trump? It's only the ramblings of a single NYT writer, after all. Who cares? That seems unlikely so let's just ignore it and repeatedly delete mention of it but also keep it as a reference on the page for no reason, probably because we haven't actually read the article. But anyway I'll leave you with this quote: "It depends what people mean by it. I use the term constitutional conservative, but also used the term libertarian conservative. One reason why I think conservative has to be modified is that when we were in power as Republicans, we said, we were conservatives, but we doubled the debt also. We added new Medicare prescription drug programs, we added on new programs and new debt. So, really the conservative term really, and maybe has to be specified more, either libertarian conservative or constitutional conservative. But I accept all of those terms if they mean they believe in limited government and more individual liberty." -Sen. Randal Howard Paul (R-KY), 2013 IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Do we really need to start over again? Go ahead and read the prior comments as they answer everything. You need to stop disrupting the article for your personal agenda. Bunco man (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , the 1 revert rule applies to this article and violating it can get you blocked! Prcc27 (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

In 2011 Rand Paul stated, "They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian." He has not reversed that stand. (http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html) Bunco man (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Except in 2013 (which, in case you didn't know, took place after 2011), he said he labels himself as a libertarian conservative. But as I've said, none of that matters, it's all about the sources. I have no sort of pro-Paul "agenda" here. If anything it's you that has the strangely specific anti-Paul agenda, so opposed to him being associated with the LP in any way for no real reason. And Bunco over here's been reverting just about as much as me. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to cease disrupting the article, trying to force your personal beliefs into it. Bunco man (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Speak for yourself, you were the one to remove the information in the first place. There's nothing personal about it in the slightest. I couldn't give two shits about Rand Paul, I'm just trying to uphold some sort of consistency on this article. If I stop re-adding Rand Paul to the Libertarian section, can I get you to agree to also remove Bob Iger, Dwayne Johnson, and Mark Zuckerberg from the Democratic sections? It's all or nothing, Bunco. It makes absolutely no sense to keep Iger, Johnson, and Zuckerberg while being so adamant about removing Paul. After all, none of them have said a word about running as Democrats. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Fucking crickets from . Pick a side, man. Include all of them or exclude all of them. I'm fine with either one. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First, watch your mouth. Second, you need to cease disrupting the article. Stick to the facts and reliable sources. Stop trying to add your favorites to every political party section. If a candidate belongs to a party and states that they plan to run under that party, then place and keep that candidate in the correct section. If a potential candidate states an interest but does not indicate which party they plan to join and run under, then place them in the "independent" section for now. If they change their minds then the article can be adjusted. Stop deciding for them. Bunco man (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * First, fuck off. Second, it's a fact that Paul is the overwhelming favorite of LP voters, according to the online poll featured in the reliable source that is already being used on the page that you definitely have not actually read. And I'm an actual fucking socialist, bud. Like, to-the-left-of-Bernie-Sanders socialist. Rand Paul can suck a fat cock for all I care, I'm just doing things according to f a c t s  a n d   r e l i a b l e   s o u r c e s . But I'm taking what you said as an idication that Dwayne Johnson, Bob Iger, and Mark Zuckerberg (hell, Mark Cuban, too!) need to be removed from the Democratic sections because being included in Democratic primary polls and reliable sources speculating that they may run as Democrats don't mean a damn thing. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks. Bunco man (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * k. I mean you're the one insinuating that I'm only editing the page because I have a crush on Rand Paul or whatever. But I'm so sorry I hurt your feelings :'( IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Candidate Scott McCatty missing from this page
The Candidate Scott McCatty is missing from this page.

See... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_McCatty     Scott McCatty (born 1962) is a Voluntaryist Candidate in the United States presidential election, 2020.

65.32.98.8 (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Scott McCatty


 * Yeah, nice try Mr. McCatty. Considering your page has a single sentence and is up for speedy deletion, I don't think you'll be able to be included, sorry. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, can someone point me to the policy/guideline or previous consensus about how to decide whether to include independent registered candidate or not? Not trying to stir trouble, I'm genuinely curious to read it. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  22:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * :) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  06:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it was linked to ballot access. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not American. Could you explain "ballot access"? How does that differ from being a registered candidate with the FEC? Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  14:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. Basically, when you run for President you need to apply to appear on the ballot (the little list of candidates that you mark off in the voting booth to cast your vote for) in a state. Most Democrats and Republicans appear on all 50 states' ballots, but independent and third party candidates tend to only have limited access. For example, look at Independent Evan McMullin's ballot access, only the dark orange states had his name on the ballot, light orange allowed his name to be written in. Mr. McCatty is not notable enough for his own Wikipedia article, so his only hope seems to be to get his name on the ballot in a state or two. Once again, I don't recall what the actual rules were for a mention, just that occassionally you'd see a candidate with no article and it'd say "So-and-so was on the ballot in New Hampshire" or something. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project supported by the Wikimedia Foundation?" But it doesn't seem to be acting much like an encyclopedia if only the Mainstream Media have the keys to decide if information is included in Wikipedia or not? 65.32.98.8 (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Scott McCatty


 * Look, I'm truly sorry Mr. McCatty, but you are just not notable enough to be here. Just because we're an encyclopedia doesn't mean we need to be an almanac of every single human to ever live. If you want to become notable enough to have your name recorded on Wikipedia: I'd recommend you gain ballot access or enough supporters to possibly end up on a poll or two. And yeah, you need some kind of secondary source at the least, otherwise you're just some guy. I mean think about it, I looked you up and I have more Twitter followers than you and I'm a nobody that posts a few memes every couple days. There are people that are more notable than you that don't have articles. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Polls in Alphabetical Order?
No. That's such a dumb idea. Why on Earth would we put unlikely candidates like Richard Blumenthal, Hillary Clinton, and Al Franken near the top of the list when they each only have one poll (Franken has three, but we all know he's not getting any more). I think the way we're currently doing it makes plenty of sense: chronologically. It puts the people that are most relevant at the top (Biden, Booker, Harris, Sanders, Warren, etc.) while keeping odd, one-off match ups near the bottom. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

To add to this with some argument foresight: we're not the ones deciding who's "big name" challengers, it's the pollsters who are constantly polling Elizabeth Warren would be very close to the bottom of the polls in alphabetical order despite her having the most amount of polls at 17 (as of now). She was even the first poll of 2020! It doesn't make any sense to put Richard Blumenthal, for example, third from the top. Blumenthal only has 1 poll from more than six months ago. The only reason he's on the page at all is because it has him meeting the criteria of being included in at least one national poll. He has no other media speculation besides this. I'm not arguing for his removal, just that he shouldn't be placed above Warren, Winfrey, Harris, Gillibrand, Sanders, and other potential candidates that've all gotten far more attention from the pollsters themselves. The same goes for Hillary Clinton's single poll and Al Franken's three polls that were all conducted before his sexual misconduct allegations and subsequent resignation from the Senate. His most recent poll is from more than nine months ago. Just because their last names happen to be ahead of Sanders or Warren or Winfrey, that doesn't mean they should be thrown to the top of the list. The list of candidates is different, as they're all grouped together as equals. With polls, dates are an important way of keeping track of a hypothetical candidate's performance. There's a reason why we list the polls themselves in chronological order, not alphabetically by pollster. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It makes it easier to find the candidates if they are listed alphabetically. It also makes it easier on the editors because people might forget to put the candidate at the top once a new poll comes out. Prcc27 (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, but I still think that chronological makes more sense, even if it's a bit harder for the editors. I say this primarily for the inclusions of Blumenthal, Clinton, and Franken so far above Sanders, Warren, and Winfrey. They're even listed before Gillibrand and Harris. Unfortunately we can never seem to resolve issues here because it largely just becomes a back-and-forth between only two people. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to get some more voices here to get some kind of consensus? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I know I'm not the only one that supports sorting candidates in alphabetical order since I wasn't even the one that made the edit to begin with. But an RfC is one way to get more people to weigh in. Prcc27 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to see the polls in chronological order so that I can see how the popularity of candidates has changed over time. Letupwasp (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Candidates listed under every party
Not certain how many are aware of this, but candidates are not allowed to be members and/or candidates of more than one recognized party. There are several people listed under Democratic Party, Republican Party, and as independents. If a candidate is not registered with a party than they are an independent. They can't be both. What I'm seeing is, opinions expressed by ignorant or wishful bloggers, is being accepted as legitimate sources, over and above what the candidates say. For instance, Cubano has stated he wished to run as a Republican, yet was listed under the Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian Party. Now he is listed in the Republican, Democratic, and independent sections. Bunco man (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of what sources are legitimate or not is no more important than any other editor's opinion. Bloggers are media, the media can speculate, and we will respect it. Letupwasp (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * What you call opinion is the factual laws created and abide by the parties. Bloggers ARE media, but media does not supersede the choice the candidates have determined for themselves as to which party they choose to be affiliated with. What we have here in this article is people using the opinions of bloggers to counter the self-determined choices of their favorite candidates, some being place under numerous party headings, ignoring the candidates own sourced affiliation, which is the reason for this Talk sub-heading. Bunco man (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * When push comes to shove, the candidates will run under only a single ticket, but if there is the potential for a person to run but that ticket is unknown, they can in fact be a potential candidate for multiple parties. Anyway, I don't see much in the way of this multi-listing sprawl anyway (save Cuban), so I don't think this is as broad an issue as you'd think based on your "several people" comment. Master of Time   ( talk ) 06:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That is 100% incorrect. Do the research. In regards to multi-listing candidates in numerous parties, simply go to the article and look. Simply saying that there is only one example is not accurate at all. Bunco man (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, then why don't you list repeated examples yourself, then (and to be clear, I already saw that Dwayne Johnson is listed under both independent and Democratic)? You 100% inflated the scale of this issue regardless. Master of Time   ( talk ) 06:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Choosing to ignore the issue does not mean, 1) it doesn't exist. Simple to look at the article and see. 2) that you and others get to list candidates under more than one, the correct, party or heading (independent). No, a candidate can't be both a party member and an independent. Bunco man (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it. Being listed as a potential candidate under a certain party does not mean that the listed person is a party member at the current time. Master of Time   ( talk ) 06:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * People can leave parties, become independent, join another party. We don't know what party any politician will be a member of in November 2020. A politician might state that their party membership will never change in the rest of their life, and then change their mind the next day. You don't know the future. Letupwasp (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a Wikipedia option to guess that a candidate will change their party. Placing candidates in numerous parties only leads to confusion. Bunco man (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's Wikipedia's policy to follow what reliable sources say. If a reliable source is speculating that a politician will change their party, then there is no reason to not listed them as being speculated in multiple parties. It's NOT confusing. Readers can understand that politicians are currently in a party, will probably stay in that party, but historically quite a few politicians have changed parties, and the media can speculate on that happening again. That is NOT confusing. Letupwasp (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources" being the key phrase. Just because a blogger writes that Trump and Rand Paul are "libertarians," it doesn't actually mean that they are now to be referred to as being libertarians. Point being that opinions are not sources. They are opinions. As far as speculating which party a candidate belongs to, Wikipedia stands by the facts. This is very important, not only to reduce confusion, but to reduce trickery in political propaganda. Currently, the aggression based Republican Party thrives on pretending to be non-aggression based libertarians. Surely you can see how confusing placing candidates under multiple parties is, and it is not accurate or honest. Speculation and sources are two different things. Bunco man (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then you should challenge that particular source on this talk page, rather than this more abstract discussion. Get consensus on getting rid of a particular source that you think is not reliable. Letupwasp (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Just because a blogger writes that Trump and Rand Paul are 'libertarians'..." IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * just to clairfy, since Bunco man refuses to: the only people that're listed in more than one party (aside from Rand Paul, who I've been trying to get into the Libertarian section) are:


 * Mark Cuban in Republican, Democratic, and Independent. He's reigstered Independent, but has expressed interest in running as a Republican, and has been included in polls as the hypothetical Democratic nominee against President Trump.
 * Bernie Sanders in Democratic, Green, and Independent. He's a registered Independent, but has ruled out running for anything but the Democratic Party in 2020 (he specifically shot down an Independent or Green Party run in an interview), he also previously ran for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 cycle, as well as being included in all but one Democratic primary poll so far and over a dozen polls as the hypothetical Democratic nominee.
 * Bob Iger in Democratic and Independent. He's a registered Independent, but he was formerly a Democrat and some of the refs listed for him include speculation that he'd run for the Democratic nomination.
 * Dwayne Johnson in Democratic and Independent. He's a registered Independent, but was featured as the hypothetical Democratic nominee against President Trump in one national poll (He has also not said anything public about which party he'd want to run under, unlike Cuban).
 * Joe Scarborough in Democratic and Independent. He's a registered Independent, former Republican. He left the party due to the rise of Trump and refs mention how he'd be an odd fit in a 2020 Democratic primary.
 * Mark Zuckerberg in Democratic and Independent. He's currently unaffiliated, we don't know what party he belongs to, if he belongs to one at all. He's been speculated to run as a Democrat, been included in Democratic primary polls, and other polls as the hypothetical Democratic nominee.
 * Austin Petersen in Republican and Libertarian. He's a registered Republican, former Libertarian. At the time of his declination to run (April 2017), he was still a Libertarian. He switched parties in July 2017 to run for the Senate seat in Missouri. He was previously a Libertarian candidate for President in the 2016 cycle.
 * John Hickenlooper in Democratic and Independent. Kasichlooper (specifically, in a CNN appearance, the host proposed that they switch spots on the ticket - Hickenlooper for President, Kasich for Vice President - instead of the other way around. They declined both proposals).
 * John Kasich in Republican and Independent. Kasichlooper, see above.


 * So that's 9 total. And to it seems like you aren't aware that we have a little note next to each occurance of an individual listed in a party they aren't registered to. It's the little "[note 1]" next to their names and when you hover over it or click on it, it reads: "This individual is not registered to the political party of this section, but has been the subject of speculation or expressed interest in running under this party." And for what feels like the hundreth time: WE'RE not deciding if a candidate may run, the media is! IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for detailing the problem. Putting in a note that the candidate is "not registered to the party" does NOT mean they get to be listed where ever YOU want them. That "not registered" is for candidates who have expressed interest in running in that particular Party, but have not joined. Under your definition all candidates can be listed under all parties. That naturally makes no sense. Bunco man (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to believe that English may not be your first language... It is way too difficult to try to get an argument accross to you, it's actually kind of frightening. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a stop placed on editors adding candidates to every party section. It's ridiculous! Bunco man (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It really isn't. Honest question: do you even know that there are references next to each candidate or do you think we're just adding people because we feel like it? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You really don't get it do you? Candidates can't be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green Party and independent, just because bloggers and social media writers say so. If a candidate says they plan to run as a Republican then put them in the Republican section. If a candidate says they plan to run as a Democrat then put them in the Democrat section. Same with the other parties. If a candidate does not say which party they plan to run under, then place them in the independent section. Adding candidates to numerous sections because numerous bloggers each give different parties is silly. It needs to be corrected. Bunco man (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So... you're saying that Steve Bannon, Ted Cruz, Eric Greitens, Marco Rubio, Richard Blumenthal, Steve Bullock, Pete Buttigieg, Roy Cooper, John Bel Edwards, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Jason Kander, Amy Klobuchar, Jeff Merkley, Deval Patrick, Nina Turner, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Frederica Wilson all need to be removed from the article entirely because none of them have said a word about running in 2020? It's just bloggers and social media people writing dumb articles for the New York Times, right?


 * Hell, we should put Joe Biden and John Kerry, etc. in the Independent section, right? They haven't said explicitly "I'm thinking of running as a Democrat," only that they're thinking of running, period.


 * Like, you do realize that these ARE reliable sources, right? We're not pulling this stuff out of our asses here. And when a candidate is listed under, say, the Republican and Independent sections, it's saying that they might run as a Republican OR an Independent, not run for both simultaneously. And there's not a single instance where one person is listed under all five parties. The most is Cuban, who's said he would probably run as a Republican ---> O R <--- (that is to say: not both) an Independent, so he's listed under both sections, then as a declined Democrat, since those hack fraud bloggers at Public Policy Polling made up a little poll where he was the Democratic nominee. Even then, it's definitely not unheard of for someone to switch parties for a presidential campaign. Bernie Sanders went from Independent to Democratic in 2016, while Gary Johnson and Jack Fellure both left the Republican Party to join the Libertarian and Prohibition Parties respectively (the last two actually originally were running under the GOP, but left mid-campaign).


 * I don't know how else I can explain this to you. You don't even have a consensus, you're the only one that thinks this is a problem. There's at least four of us that have tried to explain this to you. Stop removing content. Looking at your talk page, it seems like you have a track record of being some kind of libertarian gatekeeper, with paranoid ramblings about how being banned for edit warring is the result of a vast right-wing conspiracy to rewrite history in the favor of... Austin Petersen. Whatever you say, bud. I even found something that looks awfully familiar: "At Austin Petersen, you've reverted against consensus (3 users have objected, only you support)". 🤔 Please stop. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't believe that someone has to keep explaining this to you. STOP ADDING CANDIDATES TO NUMEROUS PARTIES! You are turning the article into a list of repeated names. It's only March 2018, so imagine what this page will look like before 2019-2020 when most candidates will begin actually announcing and discussing their bids? Your reasoning and logic is disrupting this article, you need to stop! Bunco man (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I am going through and reading the linked sources and fixing the misplaced candidates. This will take some time as you and others have candidates all over the place. Please stick to factual information in the sources so this does not have to keep being fixed. Thank you. Bunco man (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have gone through and INDIVIDUALLY checked and corrected mistakes and errors, but other editors are reversing the correction in mass, without checking to see the mistakes. I intentionally did them individually so that others could see each reason for the corrections. I ask that other editors do the same, don't mass revert. Thank you. Bunco man (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am running out of patience with you. Per WP:STATUSQUO, it is best that you leave the status quo until something is figured out. There is no point on reverting regardless of who started it, why it's being reverted, who won't fix it, etc. I don't want to be hit with a 3RR warning, so I am ceasing. But your clear disregard for discussing issues and getting your way are causing problems.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 17:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's pretend you are right. So what is your idea for editing mistakes and errors, if no one else is allowed to fix those mistakes and errors without you blindly reverting in mass? Bunco man (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Again, I made all of my edits individually, based on the sources and misplacement of candidates. Each edit had an explanation. The very least you could do is examine each edit, rather than blindly revert. If you take the time to look you will see why I made each edit and that they are correct. Bunco man (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not gained consensus. You are just edit warring and wasting your time. Letupwasp (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Bunco man
Christ, just stop. You can't just hijack the article and remove things willy nilly against a 4-1 consensus. Or better yet: remove sources without any prior discussion. (On a side note: I found it actually quite comical that you put a "citation needed" tag on Jeremy Gable's withdrawal, after removing the citation that included Gable's FEC Termination Report.) Big, sweeping changes like this need to be discussed. If you have a problem: argue your point and gain a consensus. If you can't get a consensus, leave it alone and don't make the edits anyway. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Look in the discussion "Candidates listed under every party." We have already been discussing your continued disruptions of this article, and at the end you will see that I decided to start going through the article and checking the sources, one at a time. I made correct changes to mistakes. You need to go back and check each one individually (as I did), rather than just make a mass reversal. Most of the mistakes I changed involved sources that did not include any reason for the candidate to be placed in the section they were in (Republicans in the Democratic Party section, declined candidates that had not declined, etc.). No consensus is needed to correct mistakes and errors.


 * Another example comes from your comment, I found it actually quite comical that you put a "citation needed" tag on Jeremy Gable's withdrawal, after removing the citation that included Gable's FEC Termination Report. First: Gable's information is about him declining to run. Now, if you go back and look at the citations I removed you will see that both were the FEC papers for ENTERING the election process, NOT termination of his election campaign. Bunco man (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Restart
Now that the edit warring has stopped and the status quo is up, I'd like to understand what exactly is wrong. would you mind giving me a rundown? I'm in no mood to go through a giant discussion. Callmemirela  &#127809; talk 00:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I work weird hours. Alright. So basically what happened was Bunco man took issue with Senator Rand Paul being listed on the section of the Libertarian Party as a declined candidate on the grounds that he isn't a member of the party and doesn't represent the views of the party (the latter being pretty irrelevant to this article). We introduced a note to the article a while back (you can find it attached to Mark Cuban, Dwayne Johnson, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.) that reads "This individual is not registered to the political party of this section, but has been the subject of speculation or expressed interest in running under this party." This was attached to candidates like Paul, who have a source speculating that he may run as a Libertarian or Dwayne Johnson, who's a registered Independent but was featured in a national poll as a hypothetical Democratic nominee. Bunco man completely ignores this and keeps insisting that Sen. Paul hasn't actually said anything about switching parties and isn't a real libertarian (once again, irrelevant since anyone can run under any party they'd like). He says me re-adding Paul to the Libertarian section is "disrupting the article." He dismisses sources like the one for Paul as just written by "bloggers," so they shouldn't be included (despite that the article in question was written for a subsection of The Washington Times). He also accused me of just adding him there because I am a supporter of his when I most certainly am not. He then went on a tirade about how someone cannot possibly belong to more than one political party, and that listing Mark Cuban, Dwayne Johnson, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Flake, Bob Iger, etc. in more than one section was nonsense (once again, despite there being a pretty clear note stating that they're there because they've either expressed an interest in that party or has received speculation on running in that party) and began rapidly deleting sources and individuals from the page entirely (like Austin Petersen and Joe Scarborough). Myself and three other editors all have argued against him and told him not to remove things against consensus, but he didn't listen. His edits were reverted, but he repeatedly reverted them back, even when told to revert to the status quo and discuss on the talk page first. And that's basically where we are now. I was curious if he had done something like this before, and it seems like he's been banned multiple times for edit warring on the Austin Petersen page, arguing about Petersen's ideology since Bunco man is allegedly a longtime member of the LP. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This could all have been avoided if he just discussed rather than revert, post hostile messages and think he's won. I do agree with your points. I'll look at his edits later to see if anything he's said is actually valid. I'm not going start on his discussion at AP's page; that was a mess.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 17:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Expired Sources
I went through and removed all the excess sources when they were expired. I have not removed expired sources when those sources are necessary to have enough sources for a candidate to stay on the list, in order to give a chance for additional sources to be found.ObieGrad (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you mean by "expire?" I assume you're talking about sources from more than six months ago. That "expiration" only applies to those in the "Publicly expressed interest" section. Once an individual's most recent "expressed" source is older than six months (most recently, Governor O'Malley), they're moved to the "Potential" section. But because you've included people like Villaraigosa, who's poll source is from January of this year, I'm not sure what your definition of "expired" could be. And for the record: while the minimum amount of sources to be included in this article is two, there are a few potential candidates who only have one. This is because the singular source is from a national poll (I believe this applies to Blumenthal, Cooper, Villaraigosa, Wilson, and Cruz to an extent since all three of his sources are from polls). IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. You are right about the expiration, I was thinking back to 2016 consensus when the articles must be dated within six months. I will revert a number of my changes.ObieGrad (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have restored the sources for potential candidates that should not have been removed (except for those I had already replaced with newer ones).ObieGrad (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018
John Kasich in fox News in New Hampshire hinted that he would run in 2020. Why http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/john-kasich-in-new-hampshire-hints-at-trump-2020-challenge-all-my-options-are-on-table.html -IP2- (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 00:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Kanye
Kanye has left the 2020 race, in favor of 2024, so if y'all could remove him, that would be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.185.157 (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 74.110.185.157 If you can provide any sources which shows your claim then he can be removed.JDuggan101 (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

https://qz.com/862296/yeezy-2020-no-more-after-meeting-with-donald-trump-kanye-west-pushes-back-his-presidential-run-to-2024/ https://consequence.net/2016/12/kanye-west-announces-2024-run-for-presidency-after-meeting-with-donald-trump/ Here are some links. I can give more if you need them


 * We don't use social media posts as sources, otherwise we'd have Chris Rock, Katy Perry, Ron Perlman, and more all listed on here. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's probably all he's going to say, though, LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.185.157 (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

don't understand
What's that about Stormy Daniels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B12E:318E:442A:6B04:9062:EEC7 (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forumDavid O. Johnson (talk)

Disputed sentence in section on Democratic Party

 * There is a sentence that reads as follows: "After Hillary Clinton's loss in the previous election, the Democratic Party was seen largely as leaderless[103] and fractured between centrist, 'New Democrat' Clinton wing and the more progressive Sanders wing of the party, echoing the rift brought up in the 2016 primary election.[104]"


 * The first problem with this sentence is that nothing in the cited source uses the words "centrist" or "New Democrat." So the language doesn't match the cited source. The second problem is that the current Clinton wing of the Democratic Party isn't even remotely ideologically similar to the centrist, New Democrat wing that propelled Bill Clinton to the White House in the 1990s.


 * I edited the sentence so that it referred to "the Clinton wing and the Sanders wing of the party," which made it faithful to the cited source. The edit was reverted. I believe it should be reinstated and am seeking consensus. SunCrow (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll admit that the description of "New Democrat" may be inaccurate, since the term has sort of fallen out of use outside of the House caucus. But Clinton has "plead guilty" to being a moderate and a centrist. I just think it's worth noting that the Clinton/Sanders divide in 2016 is being carried on to other elections (for DNC Chair Perez/Ellison and VA Gov. Northam/Perriello in particular. There were some other examples in NJ Gov. with Murphy being challenged by a few Sanders-type candidates, or in the IL Gov. race with Pritzker and Biss, but Kennedy was also a significant challenger, so it wasn't so much Clinton vs. Sanders 4.0) and likely will bleed into 2020. I feel that it's important to explain what the divide is. The Sanders/Ellison/Perriello supporters are more progressive, the Clinton/Perez/Northam supporters are comparatively more moderate or centrist. Not to mention that they're the establishment. There's been talks of a sort of left equivalent of the Tea Party emerging, where more moderate establishment types will be challenged or potentially replaced by more ideological members of the party. I think it'd be disingenuous to just not mention that, say, Bernie Sanders had more progressive views than Hillary Clinton. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The cited source mentions the Clinton and Sanders wings of the Party. It identifies Sanders as a progressive. It doesn't identify Clinton as a moderate or a centrist. So another source is needed, or those adjectives can't be in the article. It's original research. SunCrow (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Per the content of the article New Democrat, I take no issue with the description of Clinton as a New Democrat. It's worth noting that the lead of New Democrat includes "Clinton Democrat" as a recognized alternative name for the same subject. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The lead paragraphs
Wikipedia is not a campaign advertisement. Why is Donald Trump's campaign slogan in there? I think it might be ok to say he is running as an incumbent (feel free to debate if that creates an undue weight to it), but I think the lead should not have his slogan in there. Potentially the slogan could be moved elsewhere in the article, but I think that if so, we should be consistent of inclusion of slogans across candidates if his is to be mentioned.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-TenorTwelve (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I remember not being a fan of it when it was initially added in, but I don't remember what other issue on the article I was preoccupied with at the time. Don't think it's notable enough to be in the first paragraph. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Just Making Sure: The Rules Still Matter
These are the requirements to be included in each section of this article that I'd like to reiterate:

Publicly expressed interest
 * Only one source.
 * Must be within the last six months at most.
 * Social media posts don't count.
 * Must be a public expression from the individual in question, not a spokesperson or rumors of private conversations.

Potential candidates
 * TWO reliable, speculative source (one that speculates that they may run in 2020 or where the individual in question is directly asked about 2020) minimum.
 * Article must primarily focus on the one individual, no brief mentions like an article about the city of Tampa that says "potential 2020 presidential contender Mayor Bob Buckhorn..." only to never mention the election again; no "kitchen sink" lists of candidates like "Here's the 15 BEST Democratic Candidates in 2020" (the article can still mention other potential candidates, but the source only counts for the main one they talk about).
 * Must be from after the 2016 election.
 * Only one source if they're included in a national opinion poll (no online straw polls like the Libertarian ones).

Declined to be candidates
 * At least one speculative source that meets all the requirements of the "Potential candidates" section.
 * One reliable source where the individual publicly denies an interest in running for President.

There's been a few cases where regular editors break these rules like please adhere to the rules that've been in place for well over a year now and were agreed upon by consensus. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I have not broken any rules, every time we try to make an edit, IOnlyKnowFiveWords, has repeatedly reverted them back, even though we have met the requirements for the candidates to be on there, they each have one source, joke or not, they must be put down as a potential contender, and even in IOnlyKnowFiveWords' words, ""if the interest expires like O'Malley, then they must be moved to 'potential' instead of 'Publicly expressed interest'":Rhian2040(talk)


 * Ruwart's expression of interest is only one source. You need two. The only one with two is Kmele Foster, and not only are they jokes, they're also under the "brief mentions" category that I mentioned above. You seem to just fundamentally misunderstand what these rules are. Please stop insisting that I'm hijacking the article when I helped make these rules a year and a half ago. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Can I remove Stormy Daniels under the "TWO reliable, speculative source" provision? Also, as a noob to this page, can I ask; are these rules enunciated on a policy page? NickCT (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The rules are not written anywhere. IOnlyKnowFiveWords just decides what the rules are and then claims it's always been that way. Crewcamel (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * These rules are based on consensuses and a lot of them were put in place before I even started editing this page. Your assertion that the rules aren’t written anywhere and I just made them up is simply incorrect. Not only are they paraphrased at the top of this very talk page, but they are also outlined in detail underneath each section of the article proper. Here’s a screenshot if you don’t believe me. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * She's not the only one. Trey Gowdy, Colin Powell, Richard Blumenthal, and Antonio Villaraigosa also all have only one source. The thing is, their one source is a nationally conducted poll that they were featured in. See the last bullet point on the "potential candidates" segment. And all these provisions are listed under each category using the "

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2018
Under Green Party: Potential Candidates, add Jesse Ventura. Stated on The Jimmy Dore Show on May 10, 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DU0QP4jQ3s&feature=youtu.be Gappalachia (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)