Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 7

Fringe candidates?
As a followup to the previous sections, we are giving undue weight to people like Jack Fellure, Jeff Boss or Ken Nwadike. I would suggest putting these people in a section titled "Fringe candidates", listed after the potential contenders for party nomination. What do y'all think? — JFG talk 19:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would strongly oppose that. We already have the Democratic and Republican candidates divided into "Declared major candidates" and "Other declared candidates". That is enough to indicate that Fellure, Boss, and Nwadike are minor candidates and not considered significant contenders for the party nomination. Calling them "fringe" candidates sounds more like an insult than a neutral description. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to tell who are "fringe" candidates. In particular I'm not sure how Andrew Yang moved out of that category, though he probably has done so.  Once we get closer to the start of the primaries it will be easier to tell (as there will be polls, ballot access, etc.).  For now it's largely the opinion of the media.  The Prohibition Party candidate and the nouveau-vampire are unlikely to gain traction but you don't know for sure.  I wouldn't count out the Free Hugs guy.  After all, reality TV show host Donald Trump somehow won the 2016 election. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid comparison and you know it. There is a difference between someone very famous but considered unlikely and someone who is a nobody with zero media coverage. Nwadike should NOT have a photo and table row when the only source even on his article is the FEC filing. Reywas92Talk 22:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is a well-intended proposal, but I - with regret - have to oppose it per WP:LABEL. That said, at some point in around late 2019, we will know which candidates have a mathematical possibility of being elected president (based on number of states in which they have ballot access) and those who do not, which is usually around 4 to 6 candidates (generally the D, R, L, G, and C nominees, and sometimes an independent rando). I wouldn't necessarily be opposed, at that point, to splitting the candidate list into two sections of Contenders and Pretenders (obviously not using those terms, though) based on that objective criteria. Chetsford (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Chetsford's first sentence above about WP:LABEL, but we won't know the ballot access situation for the general election until around early September of 2020. See Ballot Access News; some states' petition deadlines for ballot access in 2016 were as late as September 9. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction and good observation. Chetsford (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I also oppose and agree with basically everything that's been said. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would of course support this, but a much less subjective way to do this is to label them as perennial candidates (at least a few of them!). It is still objectively undue weight to give them such prominence in this article with large images and tables at any point in the campaign, as they have virtually no media coverage, especially none that take them seriously. It is by no means OR to reflect that in minimizing their prominence here. Even come primary time, it is a complete and utter waste of space, everyone's time as editors, and readers' attention to keep track of ballot access. Reywas92Talk 22:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@all: I agree that calling them "fringe candidates" may not be ideal, on the other hand that's what they are, and WP:SPADE comes to mind. We can simply call them "minor candidates" to avoid offense. Outside the label issue, how do we solve the undue weight they are getting here compared to their coverage in sources? The current visual prominence of such people in those election articles is a textbook violation of the WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP sections of our NPOV policy. Apparently this has been a problem in prior election cycles as well? Let's improve this time. — JFG talk 03:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * How about A) move them all to the primary pages, have them towards the bottom like in previous elections. Or B) no photos, just a small list after the "major" candidates. For example:


 * Jeff Boss, conspiracy theorist from New Jersey
 * Andrew Yang, entrepreneur from New York


 * etc. or possibly C) hide them in a drop-down menu like the polls and endorsements? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd pick the "small list" proposal, with a "Minor candidates" sub-heading. What do other editors think? — JFG talk 12:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm most in favor of option A, at this point. Third party candidates with campaign websites should still stay, though. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I support option A. Labeling them "fringe candidates" doesn't quite seem NPOV, and including them in the main article gives them undue prominence.Thatotherdude (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Transclusions
To avoid duplication of effort and potential inconsistencies, I have transcluded the "endorsements" and "interested candidates" sections from the matching Republican and Democratic primary articles. Edits can be made in one place. — JFG talk 09:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Can we at least do the reverse here? The primary pages were a lot less accurate and are generally reflective of an older version of this page. Transclude this page's sections to the primary pages. The little message also looks pretty ugly and clunky. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's more logical to gather information from the primary articles. Easy to keep them up-to-date, and we won't have any lingering discrepancies. We could remove the message, but it helps editors understand what's going on if they click "Edit" on a transcluded section. — JFG talk 00:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hell, the GOP primary endorsements include a box for John Kasich, who isn't running. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for removing it. — JFG talk 00:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"Withdrawn" candidates
How the #*$& is Kanye a "withdrawn" candidate? From my perspective, he simply never was a candidate, and shouldn't be mentioned on this page at all, along with the other "declined to run" candidates. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but shouldn't we remove Jeremy Gable as well? He "withdrew" in 2017, 3 years before the election! — JFG talk 04:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They should both be in a declined section, not a withdrawn section. Closeclouds (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We had a declined section (which is now only on the primary pages), which was meant for people that had received speculation that they may run, then publicly denied any intention of running. In the case of Gable, he actually filed with the FEC (just about the most "official" way of entering the race), only to file again confirming that he terminated his campaign. Your definition is that the election "hasn't started yet." When does it start, then? The day of the first primary? If that's the case, the 2016 page shouldn't count Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham or George Pataki. All of them dropped out of the race before any actual voting occurred. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there consensus anywhere for what constitutes a withdrawn candidate? I don't think Thor, Gable, or West ever actually entered anything so I don't know what they withdrew from. Closeclouds (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Colour in Yougov poll
User:IOnlyKnowFiveWords In this diff you said that the poll does not specify that Bernie would run as a democrat. However, the article does refer to Sanders as a "conventional Democratic candidate". Also, the bar graphs show Sanders in blue, not grey.

I also feel that putting this poll in grey makes the results harder to understand. Some might be confused about wether he is leading, or it is that 48% of voters are undecided; it is unclear. For clarity, I suggest to put it in blue. Emass100 (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Most polls specify what party the particular candidate belongs to. A typical poll question would read: "If the 2020 presidential election were held today, would you vote for Republican Donald Trump or Democratic Joe Biden?" or possibly with brackets or whatever. Technically (polls have been excluded before based on technicalities of the wording of questions), the question is asking if you would vote for Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, period. Trump is a Republican, Sanders is an Independent.


 * As a compromise, I'd suggest adding a note saying that the poll didn't specify that Sanders would be the Democratic nominee in this scenario or something like that. Similar to the notes placed for when a pollster misspells a candidate's name. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Oscar de la Hoya
Apparently he's running, though some sources only say he's considering it now. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That's why I put him in Publicly Expressed Interest, not Declared Candidates. Closeclouds (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Levels" of Candidates?
So what are the criteria for the different groupings? Obviously "declared" and "declined" are straightforward, but what about "Expressed interest" and "Potential"? Do Expressed Interests require sources whereas Potentials do not?
 * From the box above:

"Consensus on the criteria for a potential candidate to be included in the article:

The "Publicly expressed interest" section requires only one source from the last six months where the individual is quoted as being interested in running in 2020. Social media posts do not count as public expressions of interest. The "Potential candidates" section requires at least two sources speculating that an individual may run or where an individual talks about the 2020 election from any point after the 2016 election (since November 9, 2016). The sources must not be a list of several potential candidates nor a persuasive article about why a candidate should run. The "Declined candidates" section requires at least two sources from any point after the 2016 election (since November 9, 2016). One source must be speculative in the same vain [sic] as the "Potential candidates" section, while the second must be a quoted denial from the individual in question." David O. Johnson (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Bloomberg to run
as a Democrat. He should have his picture, link, and one-line bio in the "Dems that have expressed interest" section.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/report-michael-bloomberg-plans-to-run-for-president-in-2020.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/bloomberg-set-to-run-against-trump-in-2020-qvbfcrswg (Original article - trial wall) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.246.254.12 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2018
Hello there. My name is Ryan A. Farber and I am running for President in 2020, yet i am not listed on this Wiki page as a declared candidate. I am a registered democratic candidate via the FEC https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P00006981/ To learn more information about me and my platforms you can visit our campaign website at https://www.ryanafarber.com/ I'd appreciate this addition being made at your earliest convenience. Many thanks! RyanAFarber (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

❌ While you appear to be a fairly serious candidate, because you do not have a Wikipedia article about you means you are not notable enough for inclusion. I would also strongly advise against creating an article about yourself, due to the above mentioned notability policy, but also due to WP:COI. Ssgem 18:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Senator Warren announced she is interested
Senator Warren just announced that "After November 6th, I will take a hard look at running for President."

I think this would go under "Individuals who have expressed public interest." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenorTwelve (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018
I have a suggestion for one of the sources to Elizabeth Warren. Use this article as one of the sources. According to citiations near her name they need sources to prove she is considering running for president. BrianPedia 16:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done There are already some better sources. Jo shq  .JQ  14:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Update of libertarian candidates
There are a couple missing declared libertarian candidates missing. Tekbredus (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Al Sharpton
Didn't Al Sharpton also express interest in a potential run for the Democratic Party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.228.189 (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. This was discussed recently at Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2020. Consensus is to list him as speculative, because there is not sufficient indication that he is interested in making a bid. He only stopped short of declining. — JFG talk 12:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Add Timeline Page
Could you please add a timeline page? Because there are Rebublican and Democratic candidates already. Could you add a timeline page? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:512F:A7EC:822F:C41 (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Remove Hillary Clinton
Clinton did not say she was thinking about running in 2020. All she said is that she wants to be president, and that she won't decide anything about 2020 until after the midterms (probably regarding whom to support in primaries) Prcc27 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This should probably be discussed on Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2020 (that list is transcluded from the other page). It's not entirely clear to me how that should be handled. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One of her top aides has stated in the press she will be a candidate.104.169.18.0 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Goodbye Hillary Clinton! Could you delete her from the election page? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:512F:A7EC:822F:C41 (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

She should be back on the expressed interest side. She never declined anything. Your source is someone's opinion at the moment. Just because you people don't want her to run, doesn't mean she isn't considering it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjjd226 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Green Party
Jesse Ventura has announced he is interested in running, but as far as I know, nothing concrete has been announced yet. Not sure if it is worth the mention. Also, Jill Stein has announced she is out, and will likely not be a candidate in 2020. Daeseunglim (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Although there have been several references floated with Jesse Ventura's name, in each one he has consistently said that the Green Party has expressed interest in him, but he's never given any indication that he has any interest in running. Those who are listing him are exhibiting wishful thinking, based on the references so far. I believe that he should be removed until something more concrete is announced. Dhalsim2 (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Missing section
Hi,

The section here:, is totally missing. Something went wrong with the transclusion, but I don't know how to fix it.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, I fixed the transclusion! Somebody kept erasing the necessary tags for some reason. Should be good if it stays as it is. - EditDude (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Thanks again. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Minor complaint
Maybe we should put the polling for more likely candidates above the polling for less likely candidates. Dogblock (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren Announced she is Running
In December 31st 2018 Elizabeth Warren Declared herself as a candidate for The Presidency under the Democrat party Freedy 31 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly; she announced she was forming an exploratory committee . David O. Johnson (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Jay Inslee
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Jay Inlsee announced that he is formally exploring a candidacy for the 2020 election? --TwiliAlchemist (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. The news reports were a bit confusing. It looks like The Atlantic just published an article saying "Look, Inslee might run!" and all the other sources went crazy. He is interested in running, even has a small PAC behind him but no, he is not formally exploring...yet. All of the articles pointed to the committee as his next natural step. He just has not taken it yet. PrairieKid (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Gallery for Publicly Expressed Interest/Formally Exploring candidates
Howdy--it seems a bit confusing that we gave a gallery to all the Republican candidates who have expressed an interest in running but only to those Democrats formally exploring. It might be a WP:WEIGHT issue and is also inconsistent. I do not want to take away the Republican gallery so I suggest adding a gallery for Democratic candidates who have publicly expressed interest, even if they are not formally exploring. I know that gallery will be massive (of course, it will shrink in the coming months) but it seems the right way to go. Thoughts? PrairieKid (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right about there being a WP:WEIGHT issue. I support your proposal, although I'd also be fine with removing the Republican gallery altogether if other people are strongly against a massive Democrat gallery. Prcc27 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2019
Add Elizabeth Warren to major declared democratic candidates Alebovic (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ Elizabeth Warren has started an exploratory committee but has not formally declared. It is kind of a fine line but she has not made a formal declaration to run. PrairieKid (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2019
Tulsi Gabbard announces that she is running for president- move her for Democrats with pending announcement HaysAnthony (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

McAfee
Hey, it looks like John McAfee is running again.

Baconheimian (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Tulsi Gabbard, Official portrait, 114th Congress.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Official Portrait of Governor Jay Inslee.jpg

Declared candidates
Eyes are needed at the BLPs of recently declared candidates, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Cardi B ??
I think we can remove Cardi B from "Independent or unaffiliated" since she will be 28 years old in 2020 and a candidate must be 35 to be eligible for the Presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.171.38 (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Constitutional eligibility
Am I correct in pointing out that Michael E. Arth is constitutionally ineligible for the presidency, given that he was born in the UK? I thought the Constitution insisted that the President be a ‘natural born citizen of the United States’? I'm not proposing that we remove him, but shouldn't it be stated that he is constitutionally ineligible? Now that I think about it, is Tulsi Gabbard also possibly ineligible? She was born in American Samoa, I believe, which is not a US state, but is, in some fashion, part of the United States. I understand this is a perennial and highly contentious issue, I remember Trump calling into question Ted Cruz's eligibility, given that Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.133.29.78 (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Arth was born on a US air base in the UK, and both his parents were US citizens. I believe this kind of thing has come up with regard to past candidates, and the feeling was that such people are natural born US citizens. (P.S. Yes - John McCain was born in the Canal Zone to US parents, and was determined to be eligible to become president.) Likewise, a person born in Samoa or Puerto Rico or other American dependencies is a natural born US citizen. There is a feeling out there, which I believe is incorrect, that "natural born" means born in an actual state of the U.S. My understanding is that it means you were a US citizen at birth; you did not have to become naturalized or take some other step to become a US citizen.   -- MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the website www.electoral-vote.com (run by two professors and specific for US federal elections) had a good article explaining this very question a few days ago: https://www.electoral-vote.com//evp2019/Pres/Maps/Jan14.html#item-8 -- fdewaele, 15 January 2019, 19:43 CET.

Fair enough, I was just inquiring. No doubt it’ll become an issue again, American politics being what it is. I think it would still be worth a cursory mention in the article about what the Constitution says (or rather what different intrepreatations of the Constitution say) about the exact rules of eligibility and how it has frequently been contentious (Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, McCain, Goldwater, certainly with Obama, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.133.29.78 (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, let’s stay reality-based here. Rubio was born in Miami, in the state of Florida; there is no controversy about him. Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, in the state of Louisiana; there is no controversy about him. There was no legitimate controversy about Obama, who was born in Honolulu in the state of Hawaii. There was some discussion about McCain and Goldwater, but they meet the criteria even though they were not born in one of the 50 states; they were born in US jurisdiction and both parents were American, so they were American citizens at birth. There was and is legitimate uncertainty about Cruz, who was born in a foreign country with only one American parent. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, fdewaele, that's very helpful. It cites Supreme Court decision, 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Result: The Court ruled that anyone born in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is automatically granted citizenship and is thus a natural-born citizen. They also say Cruz was a natural borh citizen because "Almost everyone born to an American citizen parent outside the U.S. proper is a citizen at birth." -- MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are also some additional rules for when one is born abroad and only one parent is a US citizen: see the website of the State Department: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html -- fdewaele, 16 January 2019, 10:00 CET.


 * As mentioned in Michael E. Arth, Arth's autobiography on his web site states that he was born in England to two U.S. citizen parents, thus qualifying him as a U.S. citizen from birth. While being born in American Samoa doesn't automatically convey U.S. citizenship -- some people born there are U.S. nationals but not citizens -- that does not appear to be a concern for Tulsi Gabbard, because according to the articles on herself and her father Mike Gabbard, both her parents were U.S. citizens at the time she was born. As long as either of her parents had been continuously present in the U.S., its possessions, or American Samoa, for at least one continuous year any time before she was born, she's a U.S. citizen from birth. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * We should not engage in WP:OR about the eligibility of candidates. If WP:RSs mention them then we include them. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Readability issue
This article is hard to scroll through on a mobile device, the polls and big images of non-candidates take up the majority of the space. They should be expandable. Tekbredus (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought there was consensus not to have those galleries. I support removing them. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2020/Archive_6 is consensus enough for me to remove these now. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Ty -tekbredus

The page when viewed from any device could include dropdown sections for each party instead of the current insanity that it is. This section should also include a table outlining all existing candidates rather than making choices to ignore a fact of this election. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a speculative or persuasive source of future events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.196.86 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019
Add Kamala Harris to declared candidates for Democrats https://abc7chicago.com/politics/kamala-harris-2020-california-senator-is-running/5099105/ https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1087327713277460481 72.71.237.138 (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Bradv 🍁  04:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Howard Schultz
I think that Schultz should be elevated to a higher mention, than Akon And Cuban. He has actually said that he is running for President as an independent and has started a speaking tour. HAL 333  23:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Confused and lost about formatting
Howdy all. I am super confused about what is happening with the formatting in the nominations. I have spent like 30 minutes trying different things and nothing has worked. I know it started with this edit. I have no idea what is causing the problem but it does seem urgent as it is having serious affects on the article. It has been up for a day and a half which means thousands of people have probably looked at the article in this state. Can someone please come take a look at it? PrairieKid (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh my god, I figured it out. It was an issue with the primary page, not the main one. There goes 20 minutes (or more) of my life and a ton of frustration. So happy to have gotten it. So, disregard this. PrairieKid (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is the link for the broken link 19 under Weld
https://www.wmur.com/article/former-massachusetts-gov-weld-says-hell-discuss-presidential-plans-in-nh-on-feb-15/26102252

Can a mod use that for link 19 under Weld's 15 Feb. announcement to fix the undefined link error? Thanks.129.246.254.12 (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard
Please move Tulsi Gabbard to the declared section. She has announced her campaign. I do recall her saying she will have an official announcement, however, I do not see any sources that have a scheduled announcement for January 19. Political Geek (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There's a discussion on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries about this; the content here is transcluded from that page. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Who removed Jimmy Dore from her endorsements and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.228.189 (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Amy Klobuchar has announced. Could someone take her out of Pending, and put her in Running?
Amy Klobuchar has announced. Could someone take her out of Pending, and put her in Running? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:2DA9:E336:2722:DAD4 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * She's been added to that section already.David O. Johnson (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Other candidate inclusion
After reading this section, it has come to my attention that Myself (William J Hurst (libertarian)) and Ryan Farber (democrat), with possibly a few other candidates, are considered as not "noteworthy" for inclusion, even if we are federally recognized candidates with active campaigns. Our candidacies are matters of provable fact on this topic specifically. Tekbredus (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Something being a fact doesn't make it noteworthy. I walked my dog this morning, but I'm not going to write a wikipedia article about it. Your candidacy is not noteworthy because it hasn't met the criteria for being noteworthy.Closeclouds (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a consensus that people who are not sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article shouldn't be included on this page. Is there coverage from at least two independent news sources of these candidacies?  Your own website and FEC filings are not sufficient. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Tekbredus here. One can make the argument that not all candidates that have declared and filed are notable enough to be relevant to the election.  However, even if that is the case and is agreed upon, how can one argue that others that have barely expressed passing interest in running are more relevant to the election than actual, declared candidates?  I propose that declared candidates should be considered at least as relevant to the election as others who have expressed passing interest.  Dhalsim2 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I come to this Wikipedia article to find out about what candidates there are. Declared and filed sounds like a good enough reason to list candidates, PARTICULARLY when there are no other candidates in the ring for their party. I wanted specifically to know who's running for the Green Party, and there's NO ONE listed, although I find on this talk page that Ian Schlakman has declared and filed. Why not be accurate? If he's the only one (I do not know this to be so.) then Greens and those leaning Green should be made aware of that. The only one must be sufficiently noteworthy. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:9BB:CF8D:AA94:83CB (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2018
Add Ian Schlakman as a candidate declaring his candidacy, seeking the Green Party nomination. 108.8.4.96 (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Schlakman doesn't have a Wikipedia page. If he can get one, then he can be added. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to set "answered" to NO to reactivate the request. Would someone please do that for me, please? As I have said above, I came to this Wikipedia article to find out who was running as a Green candidate. If Schlakman is the only one (I do not know if this is so.) then he is thereby noteworthy. Greens should know of this void. If there is MORE than one choice, then Greens, who would be voting in the primary, should be aware of this. Likewise all Green-leaning voters should be able to find this out here. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:9BB:CF8D:AA94:83CB (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The request has been reactivated.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, Schlakman is listed as a candidate here and here.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Bill Weld has announced an exploratory committee.
Bill Weld has announced an exploratory committee. Could someone who knows how take him out of pending and put him in the Republicans chart? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:C82D:79E5:9CB7:2275 (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC) Someone did it as I was typing! Thanks! 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:C82D:79E5:9CB7:2275 (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Pete Accetturo?
Pete Accetturo (aka VoiceoverPete) just announced that he's running for president. Should we add him to the Independent section? He hasn't filed the FEC filing yet, so he also could be added to the "publicly expressed interest" section. Thoughts? ~Skylar (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * First Avenatti, now this guy. I'm sick of people I vote delete on at AFD running for president just for the publicity.  Until someone covers it off Youtube and/or he files with the FEC, we should ignore this. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * After subjecting myself to watching the video, he says he's running for "President of the Internet", not President of the United States. I think it's a publicity stunt that doesn't involve a political campaign. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Guess we'll have to monitor the FEC filings page then. He does say a lot about American politics, and he is definitely over 35, so it's not unreasonable. I mean, for Christ's sake, no one expected a media personality like Trump to win, and yet here we are. ~Skylar (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Kristen Gillibrand
her name has been replaced with a broken link for an image titled "Russian Citizen," which is clearly a partisan attack. 170.171.1.32 (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sam Seder 2020 campaign logo.png

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * John Hickenlooper portrait.jpg

RFC on inclusion
An RFC is open at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries regarding the inclusion standards for being listed as a "major candidate" on this page. The list on this page is transcluded from that article; please comment there. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Decision expected
Early this morning, before the page had been updated for Bernie Sanders' announcement that he is running, several candidates listed as considering running had dates noted by which they were planning to make a decision (his was today, others had a date, or month, or mid-month). Now this information is gone. I found it helpful. Would someone please find and restore it? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:86A:F3BB:D238:D960 (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I had added it back earlier here, but User:Dcfc1988 removed it again. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link. I see that the other person who deleted thinks it's not useful info because one person has given dates by which he'll decide before, then not honored them. That doesn't mean it isn't useful given that several other people have given dates and DID honor them. If someone waffles like that, that in itself is useful info anyway. I support your adding it back. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:AD93:8CE8:55BA:1D4D (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixing Messy Format and Repetitiveness
Please strike 3.3 and 3.4 and replace with sections for the Libertarian Party, Green Party, American Solidarity Party, and Independent candidates. Please move sections 4 through 8 to under 3.2, as these parts only discuss aspects of the Democratic Primary. Please, remove sections 9 through 11, as they already appear later in the article. GingerRealist (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, just a simple transclusion mistake. - EditDude (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"Tennessee Star"
I want to point interested editors to this coverage of the source Tennessee Star, which is used in this article. The source was established in 2017 and generally seems to be a PAC-funded activist site masquerading as a local news source. If information sourced to it can be found elsewhere, more reliable sources should likely be substituted. If information from it cannot be found elsewhere, consider marking its claims as dubious. Thanks! —Collint c 17:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * John Hickenlooper official photo.jpg

See also, or ?
Previously added "see also" of:


 * Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
 * Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections

as recognition of 2020 United States presidential election situation. Other of additions references can be found, but the continuing interference through 2016, 2018, and the build-up to the 2020 vote has a wealth of RSs. X1\ (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Robby Wells
Robby Wells is currently called an "Independent candidate for President in 2016". As far as I know, Wells was never on the ballot in a single state. How can someone be called a "candidate" if nobody can vote for them? Jah77 (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Marianne Williamson (cropped).jpg

Ian Schlakman - Wikipedia's notability guidelines?
Just a quick question, but Ian Schlakman, a candidate for the Green Party, was recently added a week or so ago on here, and was removed yesterday, along with the campaign of Sedinam Curry. Now, I won't really debate Curry (though she has run for the nomination before, and is listed on the 2016 Green Party primary page), but while it's true Ian Schlakman has no Wikipedia page like Dario Hunter does, he was a Green gubernatorial nominee in Maryland in 2018. I realize there's more to Wikipedia's notability guidelines than just not being a nobody, but as a legitimate Green candidate in the past with electoral history in the U.S., an FEC filing, and a campaign website. I realize that a gubernatorial race is different from a presidential race, and that an FEC filing, while important, is not an end-all, be-all of the discussion. He's as serious a candidate as there is for a campaign, but ignoring my feelings on it, a question if I may: What would it take for him to be considered notable of being listed as running for a third-party in the U.S.?

I'm not trying to be annoying combative, I'm just curious, because it just seems like he, if not Sedinam, should be a listed candidate. I'm certainly not going to revert an edit just because I disagree, which is why I'm asking for clarity here. Thank you for any replies regarding my concerns, and I apologize for any obvious misunderstandings I may have regarding the notability guidelines. GhostHeart1993 (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source to verify this information, please share it. Wikipedia is not so much about what might be true, but focuses on what is verifiable. If you have a source that meets that criteria, then I am sure he could be added to the Green Party's list of candidates. But I say that as someone who, although having 12 years of experience as a Wikipedia editor, is relatively new to the particular criteria that is necessary for pages that cover political races, campaigns, or candidates like this one. Come to think of it, the regulations about sufficient coverage might factor in to this as well, FWIW. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * FYI, having a Wikipedia article of one's own by meeting the criteria of WP:NPOL and/or WP:BIO is a prerequisite to be listed as a candidate on this page.--A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead para - 2nd sentence
Electoral College should be capitalized. Re-elect should be hyphenated. My thoughts. This is as far as I read. Disappointed. 173.90.65.191 (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Errors noted, corrections made. ---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Battleground
Shouldn't we have a section on battleground states and/or electoral college ratings? Prcc27 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Former KKK David Duke publicly expressed interest? Altright in 2020?
Former KKK David Duke publicly expressed interest "Will David Duke Run for President and Facebook War on Free Speech" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkiNnq7aRNA

https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke

Patrick Little " Donate To My Presidential Campaign March 3, 2019" https://littlerevolution.us/

Richard Spencer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGqYNTS0x-U Richard Endorsed Andrew Yang https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonsays2020 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Question: Declared candidates and notoriety
Hello. I am very definitely a declared Green Party candidate for President, and have been in the past. Obviously I won't add myself. But I am interested in learning the criteria for inclusion. Do the same rules of notoriety apply? Thank you -- Alan Augustson, https://run-alan.run 73.26.137.239 (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a page? UnknownM1 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do. My official campaign website is at https://run-alan.run. Thanks for asking. 73.26.137.239 (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Woops! I suspect you meant a Wikipedia page. I do not have that. 73.26.137.239 (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Largest Primary Field In History
I'm wondering if we should make a note saying that the Democratic primary has the most number of candidates in history. I didn't know where a good place would be to put it. -Snowball — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowballEffect (talk • contribs)
 * Do you have a source for that? If so it should probably be incorporated into the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries article, rather than here. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

My only source is really other Wikipedia articles (i.e., the 2016 Republican primary was the largest with 17 candidates, and the 2018 Dem field is even bigger). SnowballEffect (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I found a ref here:. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence to the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries article.David O. Johnson (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Several Democratic Politicians have called it a "Historic!" primary field, which is laughably moronic. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech was historic. This is just choreographed entropy. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Socialist Action's Jeff Mackler running
I follow the smaller U.S. socialist parties, and Socialist Action made an announcement earlier this week that Jeff Mackler, their nominee in 2016, will be the nominee this time around as well, as per this article from their website. Now, one could argue that he shouldn't have a Wikipedia page in the first place, but as he does, thus meets that notability requirement, would it be appropriate to add him into this article? - GhostHeart1993 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * yes.Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The Prohibition party nomination
Someone reverted an edit of mine because there was no "consensus." The edit was that the teensy and moribund Prohibition party's nomination race is over and a ticket nominated. What I did was that I changed the table to add the VP candidate and call the "Declared candidate" for the nomination the nominee. When EACH of the various parties, both major and minor do this, there should be no need for consensus, we just have to make sure the facts are correct. I know that when something happens for the first time, someone always reverts it, and that's annoying, but the two guys were nominated. They were really nominated. That's all that's needed.Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the "no consensus" statement was actually meant to relate to your unilateral decision to remove the "expressed interest" section, an issue that has been litigated numerous times on here. If you have a new argument as to why this section is unneeded, feel free to make it. I don't have an issue with the Prohibition Party thing though, and, as you said, I don't know why anybody would.--ACbreezy (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Carter
The article says "Former president Jimmy Carter, having served a single term as president, is not constitutionally prohibited from being elected to another term in the 2020 election. "

This is technically a true statement, but it implies that Carter could be elected to another term in the 2020 election. Considering that he will be 96 on the day of the election, and the term to which he would be elected won't end until he is 100, it is not a realistic possibility and I don't see what is notable about the fact that the Constitution doesn't prohibit it. The only reason I can see to mention Carter (out of the millions of eligible citizens) is that he is the only living eligible person who has previously been President, but it shouldn't be mentioned in a way that makes it sound more plausible than it is. 47.139.42.28 (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2019
Please change In the event that no candidate receives the minimum 270 electoral votes needed to win the election, the United States House of Representatives will select the president, and the United States Senate will select the vice president to In the event that no candidate receives the minimum 270 electoral votes needed to win the election, the United States House of Representatives will select the president from three candidates that received the most electoral votes, and the United States Senate will select the vice president from the candidates that received the two highest totals because the current wording implies that the House and Senate can select whomever they want, which is incorrect because their choice is limited by the 12th Amendment.47.139.42.28 (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC) 47.139.42.28 (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Great suggestion. Thanks. --A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Kimberly Ruff, candidate.jpg

Trump calls for no interference from RUSSIANS -- "Don't Meddle"
In June 2019, while attending a meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in OSAKA, Japan, President Trump was asked by a news reporter if he would tell Russia not to meddle in American elections. Trump responded, “Yes, of course I will.” Mr. Trump then turned to Mr. Putin and said, "Don’t meddle in the election, President." Mr. Trump then pointed at another Russian official and repeated, “Don’t meddle in the election.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/trump-putin-election.html174.150.200.144 174.150.200.144 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This was a joke. What he told George Stephanopoulos was what he believes. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * simply your opinion, not the truth, of what Trump actually does believe.. YO!!! Read, Listen, Observe the TRUTH...174.150.200.144 (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fake news. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep! What he told George Stephanopoulos and was edited down to sensationalism for FAKE NEWS to repaeat ad-nasium...174.150.200.144 (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's obvious the IP editor is just here to stir the pot. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's a list of every candidate that declared that they are running for president in 2020 so far.
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_registered_2020_presidential_candidates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namcoloden (talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Jay Inslee 2020 presidential campaign logo.svg

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2019
Election date 2020 is November 5! 173.15.228.225 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Election Day in 2019 (this year) is on 5th. Election Day in 2020 (next year) is on the 3rd. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Feedback requested: edge cases for write-in ballot access
I'd like to have a discussion on the details of how to treat write-in ballot access for determining which nominees are included in the infobox. Last year there was a breakdown in the days prior to the election due to there not having been a prior consensus on some edge cases, and I'd like to get a consensus on these well in advance of the election.

Some background: the long-standing consensus is that prior to the election, the infobox shows all nominees who have ballot access in enough states to have a mathematical possibility of winning a majority of Electoral College votes. For reference, here is what the infobox looked like just prior to the election in 2016 and in 2012. (After the election occurs, the rules change so that only candidates who got pledged electoral votes or a certain percentage of the popular vote are listed.)

The consensus has also been that registering as a write-in candidate counts, as long as there's evidence the nominee actually appointed electors. In 2016 there were a few issues that came up (for the full discussions, see this thread and all of this archive):
 * A few candidates got to 270 votes with only write-in access, plus the two states (Colorado and Louisiana) that allowed a candidate on-ballot access solely by paying a fee, without any petition of signatures required. (These were Laurence Kotlikoff, Tom Hoefling, and Mike Maturen.)  While this technically met the consensus criteria, there was discussion on whether this set too low a bar for candidates without any organization to get pictured in the infobox just by paying fees and without having any actual organization.
 * It turns out that there were 54 electoral votes from six states (AL, NH, NJ, PA, RI, VT) that do not have any process for filing as a write-in, and thus it's not possible to name an elector slate, and it's unclear what would happen if a write-in candidate actually won these states. (In 2016, this affected Rocky De La Fuente.)  There was some discussion of whether these 54 electoral votes should count, although since no elector slate was filed they technically don't meet the consensus criteria.

What actually ended up happening was that the four candidates affected by the above two points were listed as text at the bottom of the infobox without their photos. This was a compromise but not really the result of a clear consensus. I'd like to get views on these issues with an eye towards establishing a consensus long before potential candidates actually start to qualify. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Gravel not a withdrawn candidate?
Gravel has withdrawn from the race, though admittedly the vague tweets at the time should have been more clear. However, is there a reason he's not listed with the other withdrawn candidates from the Democratic primary? I notice he's also not listed on the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries page. What's up with that? - 2604:2D80:A482:C500:0:0:0:6 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. Although I have been a Wikipedia editor for 12 years now, I am relatively new to Wikipedia guidelines on political matters. That said, given that the entry on Gravel indicates the date on which his campaign ended, I have taken the liberty to relocate the entry on Gravel from "Declared major candidates" to "Withdrawn campaigns". If anyone else with more familiarity about the regulations for these types of articles disagrees with the action I have taken, feel free to let me know here. But if there are no objections, we can allow these edits to stand. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Gravel is still in the race, though he will withdraw soon. See another editor's remarks here:. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

New California Law May Possibly Prevent Trump Appearing on the 2020 ballot in that state.
Hello. I am not too clear on what constitutes mentionable information on articles about general US elections, but wanted to mention here that California's governer has signed into law a measure that, if allowed to stand, would prevent Donald Trump from appearing on that state's presidential ballot unless and until his tax returns are released. The law will likely be challenged in the courts, but if it is allowed to stand, it may be a game-changer for the election. My intent in mentioning this is not to argue about the potential merits or discovered flaws in the law as it now stands, but merely to inquire whether that might be something that should be mentioned on this page somehow, given the potential impact it could have on the 2020 Election. As I said, I'm new to what qualifies as notable on election-related pages, so I thought I'd mention it here for discussion first. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC) The law on tax returns should definitely be included in 2020 United States presidential election in California, but I would say that it's far from a game changer for the election. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that section should appear in this article, for the following reasons:
 * 1) The law might be struck down, either on Federal constitutional grounds or on state constitutional grounds. (Unlike many states, California's state constitution requires a presidential primary and provides that "recognized candidates throughout the nation" are to be placed on the ballot.)
 * 2) If it's not struck down, Trump might decide to skip the California primary altogether. Since he is expected to win enough delegates from the other 49 states to clinch the nomination, he could choose not to enter the California primary.
 * 3) Trump has yet another alternative. He could comply with the law and release his tax returns in order to get onto the ballot, if he wanted to.

Michigan
Michigan is a Tossup state I know becuse I used to live there.96.36.68.29 (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The ratings are based off of actual professional polls and data, not your personal anecdotes. 192.173.177.104 (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Joe Sestak for President Logo.svg

Dropouts reorder
Should we reorder the dropouts alphabetically..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think ordering them in the order they dropped out is much more beneficial to the reader. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 06:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Jay Joseph (I-MN)
Marine Corps veteran and businessman Jay Joseph (I-MN) is campaigning in the 2020 Presidential election, but has not launched a campaign website yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOPIUSA (talk • contribs) 11:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If he can't be bothered to put up a campaign website, I don't think Wikipedia should be bothered to even consider noticing his candidacy. (A campaign website is necessary, but not sufficient, for a candidate to be covered in this article.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kim Ruff site.jpg

Libertarian chart
The format chart used to depict the Libertarian candidates are not the same as those used for the Republican, Democratic and Green primaries. Could we fix that so that they match? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Another user already fixed it: . David O. Johnson (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits on this page pertaining to the Working Families Party
Hello, everyone! In this revision to this page, information about the process whereby the Working Families Party would choose a major Democratic candidate to endorse for this election was unilaterally added without consensus by a single user. When I attempted to revert the edit in question, my revert was undone with the explanation that I needed to seek consensus before removing the material, which, as I noted, was initially unilaterally added by a user who did not seek consensus on the addition thereof to begin with. Given that the Working Families Party does not have a say in who actually gets on the ballot as the Democratic candidate, but only in regards to whomever they decide to endorse in the general election, and given that the organization does not have national accredidation as a specifically-registered and accredited political party, it is my opinion that having a section for that "Party" would not meet the corresponding guidelines on what constitutes significant coverage in relation to such matters. So for the moment, I have removed the material which was unilaterally added to this article without consensus until the consensus decides here that the information needs to be included. But since no reference to the "Party" in question seems to have appeared in articles about presidential elections from prior years, it does not seem to me that keeping the mention of it here as the status quo would be a good idea. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly passionate about keeping the section, but I think it's worth pointing out that the WFP does run its own candidates, although it endorses Democratic as well as Republican candidates for office for fusion voting.


 * In 2016, the WFP initially endorsed Bernie Sanders, but after he conceded the race and endorsed Hillary Clinton, they held another mail-in vote from party members between Clinton, Jill Stein of the Green Party, or "no endorsement." They ended up running the Clinton/Kaine ticket in the state of New York, where they appeared on separate party lines (along with the Democratic Party and Women's Equality Party). The WFP-version of the Clinton/Kaine ticket received 140,043 votes, making it the 6th most-voted-for political party behind the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties.


 * In this particular case I just thought it'd be worth highlighting their endorsement process and which candidates they've narrowed it down to. I get why people would be against its inclusion, although they are a separate political party and not officially affiliated with the Democratic Party in any way. At the same time, they say they'd put full fundraising and organizational work to whomever candidate's campaign they end up endorsing in order for their preferred candidate to also win the Democratic nomination. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Revert of Darcy Richardson entry
I vehemently oppose you reverting the page back to blanking Richardson's section. As a bare minimum, the title should be amended to "Withdrawn candidate," not just blanked outright. If I wasn't editing on my phone, I would do it myself. Additionally, the source that you and linked to in your respective edit summaries here and here is a source that has long been considered to be unreliable per established consensus at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 125, and I wasn't able to find an additional source to suggest otherwise. That's why I reverted 's edit in the first place. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that your "source" is an article comment, as opposed to an article itself. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it's been a few hours without a response, I went ahead and reverted your changes and amended the table accordingly. I opted to keep this as the citation, although I did tag it as unreliable. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Wayne Messam
I would like to gauge consensus for a merge at Talk:Wayne Messam. Messam has never participated in a televised debate and he has never beat 1% in a national poll. He is not included as a major candidate by FiveThirtyEight.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Lincoln Chafee
Chafee is running for Libertarian nomination. JJARichardson (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I searched it up and couldn't find any other sources. I find it odd that a former senator and governor announcing a presidential bid would not be covered in the news. Unless we can find another source to confirm, I think we should hold off on adding him.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2019
My request is that Andrew Yang's photo gets updated. I noticed that many 2020 candidates got updated photos, but he didn't. 66.190.209.69 (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2019 (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. Procedural decline only. No prejudice against a future edit request with a recommended photo to add. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Excessive listing of non-notable people
Whatever happened to the requirement that candidates must be notable to be listed? We've got a huge WP:UNDUE weight problem with the transclusion of candidate lists at 2020_United_States_presidential_election, 2020_United_States_presidential_election, and [[2020_United_States_presidential_election: that's 27 people with big table rows, 14 of which are true nobodies without Wikipedia articles, and none of which have gotten any modicum of media coverage with sources being just their own websites and FEC filing. These need to go rather than take up half the article. I have removed the even worse withdrawn and speculative "candidates" to start. Reywas92Talk 22:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on the relevant Wikipedia policies that govern pages covering political subjects such as these presidential elections. But my personal opinion on this is that if someone has qualified to be listed as a candidate at any point, then the fact that they are in the running at all for the highest political office in the United States means that their campaigns are significant. And since Wikipedia is also by its very nature not censored, if there is significant coverage of these individuals to the point where they were originally listed on this page in any capacity, it should not be the prerogative of a single independent editor to unilaterally remove this information without first seeking consensus to support that action. For that reason, I am reverting your unilateral removal of material on this page, and based on Wikipedia policies about consensus and reliable sourcing, those entries should not be removed again unless and until the consensus concurs with that action in this matter. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there was never significant coverage of these individuals. We actually do have a consensus on this matter, which requires multiple sources independent of the subject covering them. They were listed in the Libertarian subpage but not here originally. It is not censorship to establish that Wikipedia has a standard that one must have media coverage of a campaign to be listed, and these people do not have that. Merely filing with the FEC does not mean that your so-called campaign is significant. Moreso, the sections I removed are not of the people actually running, rather the people who aren't running! In their case, none of your statement holds, since none of them are actually involved in this election! We rely on independent sources, while these are sources only to their personal websites and Facebook pages. Reywas92Talk 05:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Reywas92. I'm Ok with some non-notable candidates being included on the sub-articles (within reasonable parameters) but the main article should have higher standards.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the current requirements are reasonable, perhaps a few candidates may be removed but culling everyone who is not notable does not seem right, I don’t think it’s fair to give, say, Kim Ruff’s campaign for the nomination of the Libertarian Party less weight than Vermin Supreme’s just because he has a page and she does not. Devonian Wombat 01:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC) Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Why in the world is it necessary to include (by transclusion) withdrawn candidates who have received literally zero coverage? William Hurst and Christopher Marks, among others, have no notability or coverage of their supposed "campaigns" so what is the logic of keeping them on this main page? It's utterly UNDUE to include these, and I can find no consensus that they should be here. We should absolutely give less weight to anyone who has not received coverage and whose citations are to their own Facebook pages. Reywas92Talk 07:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If there is a not a consensus to keep them in, that doesn't justify removal. There must be a consensus to remove them. That said, I completely agree they should be removed and furthermore I think any party that doesn't have access in enough states to win should be on a different page for long shot candidates. WittyRecluse (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Reywas92 and WittyRecluse that candidates who have received no coverage from reliable independent sources don't belong on this page (see WP:WEIGHT). I also agree with WittyRecluse that the parties not having ballot access in enough states to mathematically obtain the minimum number of electoral votes needed to win should not be included here, but rather on a separate page for 3rd party and independent candidates, as I've previously argued on a discussion thread above this one. ---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Elijah Manley
I don't think there's a need to add people who aren't even constitutionally allowed to be president, and are not notable. Elijah Manley is too young to be president, and no one has heard of him, so does he really need to be on the page?— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I mean, to be fair, I've heard of him. But he also ran in 2016 as a Green, he's included on their primary article, which is where I found the photo of him. Also, Jeremy Gable (and some others I can't quite remember) have been constitutionally ineligible to become President and included on the page anyway, since they're technically allowed to run and even win the election, they just can't take office afterwards. I'm actually not sure what would happen, legally speaking. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Constitution Party
The Constitution Party is a major third party with FEC recognition. There are also several candidates seeking the nomination. It should have it’s own section like the Green and Libertarian parties--Dandy9753 (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ed Stack
Should we be adding Dick's Sporting Goods CEO Ed Stack as a possible candidate? This Politico article is about him floating a run and reportedly running a focus group about whether he should enter the race as an Independent.

192.173.177.104 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Separate page for minor parties?
Would it make sense to move the possible candidates for parties with too little ballot access for electing a president to a separate page, and just list those parties with a link to their respetive page on here to make the article more concise? TheFIST (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would make a lot of sense. In fact, I'm pretty sure that was the standard previously - to include on only the third-parties and independent candidates that have secured enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical possibility of getting the minimum number of electoral votes needed to win the election. Not sure when or why we got away from that. Previously, there was a separate page for the 2020 3rd party and independent candidates (as there have been for recent past elections) but it got redirected to this page. Now this page is getting over-long and unwieldy. So I definitely agree that it's time to restore the separate page as suggested by the OP. ---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, this is what the separate page looked like before being redirected --A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this page should be revived and updated WittyRecluse (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's three of us who agree that the separate page needs to be restored and updated. Would anyone else care to weigh in on this, so we can reach some kind of consensus? A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great idea if we can get the undue coverage of these non-notable people off the main page! Completely inappropriate how much space is given to people with zero media coverage. Reywas92Talk 21:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have moved the candidates with too little ballot access to win to Minor_party_and_independent_candidates_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election WittyRecluse (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I undid the change. It might make sense to do this in the summer of 2020, but at this time it doesn't make sense. The vast majority of states won't let candidates even start petitioning for ballot access until February 2020.  Furthermore, many of the third party candidates that got removed from the page (Blankenship, Carroll, Charles, La Riva) are more notable by Wikipedia standards than most of the Libertarian and Green candidates. In 2016, third party candidates were listed on the main page until the election was over, then those that didn't have at least 270 possible electoral votes were moved to the separate third party page. Dhalsim2 (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good reason to remove the non-notable Libertarian and Green candidates then! You're saying "Despite a lack of coverage and evidence of success, their mere existence is worth including until their inevitable failure proves otherwise" rather than what you would normally see on Wikipedia, "They should prove they should be included here by WP:DUE coverage and achievement." I see more of a consensus for removal than restoration, so please don't single-handedly overturn that. Reywas92Talk 17:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Reywas92. We should follow WP:DUE and include only the candidates, including Libertarian and Green candidates, that are notable and/or have received campaign coverage in independent outside sources. The other parties can be added if and when they attain ballot access to a minimum of 270 electoral votes, along with a slate of candidates who meet the aforementioned qualifications.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg
He has joined the race. Would somebody please update this page accordingly? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50355758 192.107.156.196 (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the BBC ref: "Mr Bloomberg, 77, has not formally confirmed his candidacy." It'd be too early to put him in as a declared candidate, I think. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * He has filed papers to run in multiple states, he is legally a candidate whether he has declared himself to be one or not.XavierGreen (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

He's filed papers today. WordwizardW (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * He still hasn't declared. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2019
Add Zoltan Istvan to the section for Republicans that are running 66.190.209.69 (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2019 (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.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  05:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and speaking of ol Zoltan...Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)