Talk:2016 Republican Party presidential candidates/Archive 1

Archive 1

Publicly Expressed Intention to Run

I argue whether Publicly Expressed Intention to Run is much different than Publicly Expressed Interest. How many variables of the potentially of a candidate do we need? I even question whether we need an exploratory committee section, but it's different enough, that is acceptable. I think Rick Santorum should be moved to Publicly Expressed Interest and Publicly Expressed Intention removed altogether. Do I have any objections to this? --Diamond Dave (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Simplicity is best. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- Looks like you made the change. Santorum is well placed now. -- AstroU (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Sarah Palin speaks at the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show, in Las Vegas

Headline-1: Palin says she’s ‘seriously interested’ in 2016 campaign

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/24/palin-say-shes-seriously-interested-in-2016-campaign/

QUOTE: "Palin, the GOP’s 2008 vice-presidential nominee, said she stood by comments she made Thursday in Las Vegas to ABC News, where she first expressed enthusiasm about potentially competing for the Republican presidential nomination." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Larger than a "straw-poll" (450,000 voters) on 13 hopefuls

Drudge Haystack Poll —REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
[ED: I coin this term because of the size of the Drudge straw poll.]

• Scott Walker 44% 199,095 votes • Carson 8% 37,945 votes • Cruz 13% 58,844 votes • Palin 5% 20,935 votes • Perry 1% 6,268 votes • Rubio 3% 14,955 votes • Trump 5% 23,974 votes • Paul 12% 51,770 votes • Bush 4% 18,864 votes • Christie 1% 5,726 votes • Fiorina 1% 2,291 votes • Huckabee 1% 6,259 votes • Santorum 1% 3,038 votes -- (449,964 Total Votes) FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: Note those missing! Also to note: Scott Walker captures 44% in a polling of 450,000 likely voters! Not 'scientific' but significant .!.

Headline-2: Scott Walker takes concrete step toward presidential campaign

• http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scott-walker-takes-concrete-step-toward-presidential-campaign/
• http://www.OurAmericanRevival.com/

QUOTE: "Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who impressed an audience of conservative activists and operatives at the Iowa Freedom Summit Saturday, took a concrete step toward a presidential campaign in 2016. He activated a new website and announced a '527' leadership organization called "Our American Revival" to fund activities related to the development of a campaign." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Conservatives are really liking the Ted Cruz 'announcement speech'

Ted Cruz is the first [nationally known hopeful] to formally announce; others will announce soon, maximizing their visibility. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This article mentions coming formal announcements to run coming from Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush: [1] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Indiana governor, Mike Pence takes the spotlight

Having only expressed an interest in running, but not declaring or announcing, Mike Pence heads the news: (1) He signs legislation for freedom of religion (restored) and then (2) says it will not discriminate against anyone. It is covered in his Wikipedia page: Mike_Pence#Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act and gives him more coverage than anyone else on this page, for now. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Senator Rand Paul takes the spotlight

Senator Paul held his press conference today to lay out his positions and formally announce his candidacy. Ron Paul attended. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If they're actively fundraising, they're exploring

Huckabee, Jindal and Fiorina have PACS that are raising money for their possible campaigns. The PACs already exist. So I put them in the "exploring" section.Ericl (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate and good to me. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Marco Rubio throws his hat in the ring

"Rubio announces 2016 GOP presidential campaign, vows to restore, reinvent American Dream."[2] Article herein already changed. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC) -- Do we ever document the announcements and race progress here?

Yes, The New York Times article was used. -- AstroU (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

CPAC, Feb'2015

Attending the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is "anybody and everybody" that hopes to appeal to the Conservative base of the Republican Party. It is very informative to see the list, where speakers each have 20 minutes. I'm sure you have seen some of the reports.[3] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 Straw Poll winner: Today, at noon PT (3pmET) the annual straw poll will be taken. Here is the schedule:[4] -- AstroU (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Make that 5:10 p.m. Eastern Time: CPAC straw poll results -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI:The nod of CPAC goes to Ron Paul ("3-pete", third year in a row). Scott Walker surges to 2nd. By Washington Times Staff - The Washington Times - Saturday, February 28, 2015
Percent (for) Candidate

• 25.7% for Sen. Rand Paul
• 21.4% for Gov. Scott Walker
• 11.5% for Sen. Ted Cruz
• 11.4% for Dr. Ben Carson
• 8.3% for Former Gov. Jeb Bush
• 4.3% for Former Sen. Rick Santorum
• 3.7% for Sen. Marco Rubio
• 3.5% for Donald Trump
• 3.0% for Carly Fiorina
• 2.8% for Gov. Chris Christie
• 1.1% for Former Gov. Rick Perry
• 0.9% for Gov. Bobby Jindal
• 0.8% for Former Gov. Sarah Palin
• 0.3% for Former Gov. Mike Huckabee
• 0.3% for Former Ambassador John Bolton
• 0.1% for Sen. Lindsey Graham
• 0.1% for Former Gov. George Pataki
• 1.0% for Undecided
• 0.7% for Other
  More references: [5],[6],[7] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Real Clear Politics Ave.polling (3/18 to 4/13): Walker 20.3; Bush 15.0; Paul 12.5; Cruz 9.5; Christie 8.5; Rubio 6.5; Huckabee 6.0; Carson 6.0; Perry 2.7; Fiorina 2.0; Santorum 1.5% [8] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thune

i think thune should be put back in the list of potential candidates he is explicitly "not ruling it out" as of now... http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/227093-sen-thune-not-closing-door-on-2016-run — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.21.20.18 (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- (figuratively speaking) -- Actually, he is now listed in the 'Declined' section, as of Jan.14th. And he did not go to NH. (20 hopefuls did; those who didn't show up have a slim chance of being noticed and supported.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Rick Snyder?

Hey, so I saw that Snyder was under "Other potential candidate". Given his PAC and what ex-Sen Coleman said about him running, is it fair to bump him up into "Publicly Expressed Interest" or "Formally Exploring"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezioaltair12 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Republican top 13 candidates speaking at a 2-day New Hampshire event

Headline: GOP presidential hopefuls woo party faithful in New Hampshire

• http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/17/politics/republican-presidential-candidates-new-hampshire/

QUOTE: "On Saturday, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, real estate mogul Donald Trump, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul took the stage. The day before, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry made their case." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC) -- PS: This article has video and best quotes (with analysis) from each of them.

Not on the list of attendees was Dr. Ben Carson. He calls himself a non-politician. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sourced comments on the large Republican field

There are good sourced comments on (1) the large field; (2) HOW TO do the debates(?).

Headline-1: GOP Better Get Used To Crazy-Big 2016 Field

• http://townhall.com/columnists/byronyork/2015/05/11/gop-better-get-used-to-crazybig-2016-field-n1997540

QUOTE: "Perhaps a single candidate will break out with a big lead by the beginning of fall. But it's more likely that won't happen, which could lead to a series of results in the early 2016 contests that seem less than conclusive. ... "As long as you've got enough money for gas, you can stay in the race," says one veteran Iowa Republican operative of the sprawling 2016 presidential field. "It's going to take a long time for this to play out." ... Right now, there are 14 candidates in the GOP field currently being measured by the RealClearPolitics average of polls: Bush, Rubio, Walker, Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Christie, Carson, Perry, Kasich, Santorum, Graham, Jindal and Fiorina, in order of their current standing in national surveys. There are still others not in the average. Donald Trump, for example, is not in the average but is polling at five percent in the new WMUR Granite State poll of New Hampshire -- ahead of nine candidates who are in the average. Then there are John Bolton, George Pataki and others who are showing up at Republican campaign events. ... The point is, there are a lot of smart candidates in the field. They are most likely going to be in the race for some time. Of course they should be part of the conversation." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC) -- PS: This is a very good article, for our purposes; FYI for future editing.

Bobby Jindal has an exploratory committee

I notice that Bobby Jindal has disappeared from the page. He does have an exploratory committee and should be listed somewhere on the page. Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/18/louisiana_governor_forms_presidential_exploratory_committee_126627.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.210 (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

He's been re-added. His removal was likely accidental.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The list of "Campaign websites"

I just added "Mike Huckabee for president" on the list to be consistent; now there are six. It would look better in two or three columns as the list grows. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's how: "columns-list|2| ... " (in double-braces). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ref: Help:List#Multi-column_numbered_list

Who will be in the first debate?

Recently, WSJ.com had a graphic and description the top 10 in polling to be invited to the first Republican Primary debate, August 6th, (the first ‘face-off’). As I read the graphic, here are the top ten, so far, but obvious new-comers will bump out a few, soon.

Currently, according to the WSJ graphic: (Alphabetically in the 10% range: Bush, Carson, Huckabee, Rubio, Walker); (Followed in descending %-order: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, D.Trump, C.Christie, Carly Firorina, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Lindsay Graham, Rich Perry, Rick Santorum, and George Pataki currently at 1%.) The graph shows Firorina and Kasich tied at 10th, and “if tied for 10th, 11th will participate.”) The 90-second video ends by saying the largest group of those polled (20%) haven’t made up their minds yet.

Headline: “Forget Primaries. First GOP Race Is to Get Into Debates”

• http://www.wsj.com/video/forget-primaries-first-gop-race-is-to-get-into-debates/E1EB9F9A-F030-4675-A8AD-D5A6698C714C.html

QUOTE: "The 2016 GOP primary debates hosted by Fox and CNN will be restricted to the top 10 candidates. With a possible 16 presidential hopefuls, the race for some will likely be decided before the first face-off on August 6." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. New NEWS today, for future editing: A great WSJ article for our purposes.

New NEWS today: seven hopefuls invited to Florida

The seven invited are Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie.

Headline-1: Major 2016 GOP presidential candidates to gather at Economic Growth Summit in Orlando
 subtitle: Summit organized by Florida Gov. Rick Scott's political action committee

• http://www.local10.com/news/major-2016-gop-presidential-candidates-to-gather-at-economic-growth-summit-in-orlando/33344730

QUOTE: "Seven GOP candidates have confirmed they will speak in 30-minute increments to an estimated crowd of 400 invited to the summit, organized and hosted by Scott's "Let’s Get To Work" political action committee at Walt Disney World Yacht Club Convention Center. Florida has been the largest swing state in the last two presidential elections and remains so, with 29 critical, winner-take-all electoral votes." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: Florida Economic Growth Summit: What the speakers said

• http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-rubio-leads-off-summit-20150602-post.html#page=1

QUOTE: "At a GOP economic forum at which seven potential presidential candidates called for less taxes and government and most blasted Democrats, Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called for "conservative principles applied the right way" and cautioned against angry rhetoric. In speaking to about 400 businessmen and women gathered at Walt Disney World, Bush, the final speaker, referred heavily to his actions as Florida's governor from 1999 to 2006 as a blueprint for his economic principles, and made space between himself and most of the other candidates by calling for immigration reform and a conservatism that does not alienate."

CONCLUDING QUOTE: "Ironically, Rubio got stuck in Washington because of the actions of his rival in both the GOP presidential race and foreign affairs policy, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who filibustered to block passage of the bill Sunday. Paul was invited but declined to come."

-- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

The pictures

I not suggesting what is best to do. Some of the pictures look better than others, more presidential. But that is how they are. The one I don't like the most is the portrait-picture of Santorum, with a smirk on his face. Yes, that is often how he is, but if you do a Google-search and click on 'images' there are a lot of better pictures. PS, I'm not on of his fans, but it seems unfair. -- AstroU (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Spartan Seven for improving the Santorum picture. What about Carly Fiorina? Her's is not good! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

BIG news in Iowa: "The Iowa Straw Poll is dead"

Headline-1: The Iowa Straw Poll is dead

• http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/12/iowa-straw-poll/71116276/

QUOTE: "The Iowa Straw Poll is dead, leaving a heavier burden on winnowing an oversized GOP presidential field on Iowans who will cast the nation's first votes in February in the caucuses...." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. New NEWS today, for future editing

Headline-2: Iowa GOP officials cancel straw poll after candidate snubs

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/12/iowa-gop-officials-cancel-straw-poll/

QUOTE: "Republican Party officials in Iowa have voted to cancel the decades-old Iowa Straw Poll, amid waning interest from GOP presidential candidates. Jeff Kaufmann, chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa's State Central Committee, said in a statement: "I've said since December that we would only hold a straw poll if the candidates wanted one, and this year that is just not the case." The Iowa straw poll has been lauded by conservative activists in the state for decades but in recent years hasn’t been widely embraced by GOP candidates both inside and outside the state. The Iowa poll has been held every election cycle since 1979 without a Republican incumbent in the White House. It was initially used to gauge a candidate’s electability, and over the years has brought in thousands of dollars for Iowa’s GOP. However, winning the Iowa straw poll has often not translated to winning the party’s nomination."[;-)]" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Headline-3: Iowa GOP leaders vote to kill straw poll

• http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/iowa-gop-kills-straw-poll-118930.html

QUOTE: "The Iowa straw poll, a once-vaunted presidential tradition since 1979, died a swift death Friday, when Republican leaders in the Hawkeye State voted unanimously to nix the event amid flagging interest and unsustainable costs. The vote, which came during a morning conference call of the 16-member Republican Party central committee, canceled the straw poll scheduled for Aug. 8 in Boone County. Though several leading Republican candidates had already signaled that they wouldn’t participate, the event still held promise for lesser-known candidates, who have relied on the straw poll to draw attention to their longshot campaigns in previous years. It’s unclear whether this will be the end of the straw poll in future years as well." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Will Romney be back? Time will tell ... ... ...

Romney speaks the truth, FYI. Some will seek a Reagan-Conservative to run.

Headline-1: Romney announces he will not run for president in 2016

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/30/2016-scramble-former-romney-backers-strategist-shifting-to-bush/

QUOTE: "Mitt Romney announced Friday that he will not run for president in 2016. The announcement comes after the 2012 GOP nominee told donors earlier this month he was considering a run." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: Support Waning, Romney Decides Against 2016 Bid

• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/mitt-romney-2016-presidential-election.html

QUOTE: For the Romney family, it meant the end of a dream that had consumed Mr. Romney since he was elected governor of Massachusetts and that had eluded his father over a generation earlier. “There’s a deep sense of both sadness and relief,” Tagg Romney said in a telephone interview Friday. “Sadness that he won’t be president, but relief that we will be able to lead private lives.” -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Headline-3: Former GOP nominee Romney will not run for president in '16

• http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765667419/Former-GOP-nominee-Romney-will-not-run-for-president-in-16.html

QUOTE: "The exit of Romney from the campaign most immediately benefits the other favorites of the party's establishment wing, including Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Headline-4: NH1 Pulse Poll: Walker surges to top with Romney's exit; Bush second

• http://www.nh1.com/news/nh1-pulse-poll-walker-surges-to-top-with-romneys-exit-bush-second/

QUOTE: "The first survey conducted in the first-in-the-nation primary state since Mitt Romney's exit from the 2016 White House race indicates that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker leads the pack of potential Republican presidential contenders. According to an NH1 Pulse Poll released Wednesday, Walker has the backing of 21.2% of those who say they're likely to vote in next year's GOP presidential primary." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Follow-up comment: In the first interview since dropping out of the Republican primary race, Mitt Romney told FoxNews Neil Cavuto (1) younger people can run; (2) there are many great Republican hopefuls: voters (and donors) can choose; and (3) Then Mitt Romney (when pressed) says "it isn't going to happen" that he would be the Republican banner bearer. [9] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC) -- PS: Being a former lawyer, Neil Cavuto notes he never said never.

Headline-5: New Hampshire could be make-or-break for Jeb Bush

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-jeb-bush-new-hampshire-could-be-make-or-break/2015/04/18/e9e6a55e-e528-11e4-81ea-0649268f729e_story.html

QUOTE: "“I will go further,” Carville said. “If Jeb Bush loses New Hampshire, they’ll get Mitt Romney back in the race” — a reference to the GOP’s 2012 nominee, who briefly flirted with the idea of making a third bid for the White House." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC) -- PS: Conservative Republicans don't like media and Democrat strategists picking their candidates.

Headline-6a: Mitt Romney convenes 2016 contenders, donors for Utah retreat

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/07/mitt-romney-convenes-2016-contenders-donors-for-utah-retreat/

QUOTE: "Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, long seen as a Romney rival due to tensions between their camps, was invited but will not attend, per a Romney ally. “The format will be similar to that of the past, with speakers on a range of topics throughout the day and outdoor enthusiast activities each morning and Saturday afternoon,” wrote Spencer Zwick, Romney’s former national finance chairman, in the invitation to Romney’s associates. Zwick, Romney’s political confidant since the 2012 election, has so far remained uncommitted in the 2016 race. He has frequently expressed hope to Romney’s friends that the former Massachusetts governor will rethink the decision to forgo another campaign, which he announced in late January after weeks of consideration." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC) -- PS: Too early to say Romney is back in.

Headline-6b: Mitt Romney bringing five top GOP presidential contenders to Utah for donor retreat

• http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865628251/Mitt-Romney-bringing-five-top-GOP-presidential-contenders-to-Utah-for-donor-retreat.html?s_cid=Email-1

QUOTE: "Mitt Romney may not be making a third run for the White House, but he's continuing to play a role in presidential politics as the host of an annual Deer Valley retreat that this year will feature five top GOP contenders. Romney's E2 Summit will allow Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham to mingle with some of their party's biggest donors." [And "Kelly Ayotte will speak".] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC) -- With Conservatives, Kelly Ayotte has a better chance than Graham or Christie! PS: This article has a nice picture of Romney, graying.

PS: Watch June 11th. "Romney's 2015 E2 Summit will take place June 11-13 in Deer Valley, a ski resort east of Salt Lake City." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Reporter/writer Lisa Riley Roche of the SLC Deseret News is close to the Romney situation:

Headline-7: Romney not second-guessing decision not to run third time for president

• http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865630675/Romney-not-second-guessing-decision-not-to-run-third-time-for-president.html

QUOTE: "DEER VALLEY — Mitt Romney said Friday he's not second-guessing his decision not to run again for president in 2016 to make way for a candidate with a stronger shot at winning the White House for Republicans. "I didn’t make the decision not to run again because I didn’t like it or I didn’t think I was up for the task," Romney told reporters..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for your consideration in future editing.

improving the list

I added a notes section, as it would be helpful for the reader and would make things easier for future editors. The fellow who reverted me said it would be of "little help" and the information could be found elsewhere. "Little" help is help, and why should someone want to go elsewhere if it's not necessary or fun? Also, at this point in the game, the page is in flux, and it'll look somewhat different in August and totally unrecognizable in December. We should start sketching out the pages and shaping them to look like they would be In late March when things will be clearer as to who the nominee will be and who will be in or out. For that we need "notes" and a place to put minor candidates who are going to be on one or two ballots only. Ericl (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Your notes section is simply a source of white space. There are only 10 candidates right now, so I don't see why you didn't mention that they all qualified for inclusion in the debates. For Huckabee and Santorum, it is clearly mentioned in the 'current/previous positions' column that they were members of previous presidential elections. I am aware that this encyclopedia isn't here to be a political adviser, but early straw polls mean very little, and mentioning how a few candidates fare in some straw polls is unnecessary; plus you are making quite a generalization too. For Carson, you say "10% in most straw polls in the first half of June". This is neither a statistical average nor an important fact for a page dealing with candidates. We have pages for many layers of the campaign cycle. That is why we have this page: Straw polls for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. There is thorough coverage of all aspects mentioned in the notes, and they are easily found in the gold-bordered 2016 series box {{US 2016 presidential elections series}}: Spartan7W § 13:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• • The "simply a source of white space" is interesting, because it is meant to do the opposite. What do you think was there before? AS to "there are ten candidates so why don't they all qualify?" canard, we've got three candidates announcing next week and two of them qualify, not to mention several who have exploratory committees who do as well. We want the article to be easily skimmable, and the more information briefly told the better. AS to the mention of 10% in the straw polls, it's important to show because it provides an easily skimmable explanation of the "pole positions" of the race prior to the start of the debates and the Iowa Straw poll in August. This is only for June and July, remember and as a veteran of the "editing wars" in 2008 and '12, I can tell you that these things change damn quick. Look at Herman Caine, who was forced out of the race AFTER he got on the ballot in several states but before any votes were cast. Right now, this is the central page of the '16 race. it'll change in a couple of months, when the debate page replaces it. Pretending to be "neutral" and making everyone equal just doesn't cut it, as you notice with Jack Fullare, who probably won't even get on the ballots anywhere. The chart is going to be split between those who are invited to the debates and those who are not in about six weeks, so we should start getting ready for that, even though now is not exactly the time.

Yes, the race seems wide open at the moment, but as of NOW, the front runners are Carson, Bush and Walker, two of whom are technically in the "exploratory phase" of the race (Bush probably wouldn't have scheduled an announcement had he not gotten slammed in the press for the possible violation of campaign finance laws). The article should be easily skimmable and provide as much information as possible. Ericl (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• It is not the purpose of this site to determine frontrunners, or report on the constant changes in pre-primary, pre-debate, pre-everybody is in election. The fact is, some polls show Bush at the top, some show five tied each with 10%. The polls will constantly change, and the candidates page is not to update people on who the new frontrunner is, that is for real clear politics, this page is to list candidates, declared, pending, potential, former, and declined. For those running, we provide filing details, website, announcement date, link to their campaign article, and list their offices and occupations. This includes previous campaigns they may have run in. There is a page for straw polls, there are pages for nationwide and statewide polling, Dem, Rep, and general election. There is no definitive poll, especially right now. Putting such information there, especially as you have, is subjective. Spartan7W § 14:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• • No, but it is partly the purpose of this PARTICULAR page at this particular moment. A page should be snappy and easily skimmable in order to get all the right information out without clicking to six or seven different pages. As to there being no difinitive poll yet, that's true, but as of now there IS a cutoff, and while no one knows who's on top above the cut off, we know who's cut. The mid-June polls will suffice for another three weeks, then we'll take another look, and by then things should get slightly clearer. Ericl (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You are cherry picking your information. If we follow your standard, every candidate ought to be mentioned, and then it gets too complicated. Fox will determine the 10 in August, and they use an average of a number of polls we are uncertain of. The way you are portraying this is quite subjective, I'm sorry. This isn't the place for polling. You go the main election page, you get all this stuff in one place, with links. Here, we talk about the field of candidates, not the plethora of polls. Spartan7W § 15:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Spartan7W on this. While I don't object to the inclusion of a "notes" section per se, we need to have clear and firm guidelines as to what is included in it (if we're going to have it at all). The way it's currently being done smacks too much of WP:RECENTISM and and reads too much like a newspaper, which Wikipedia is not. IMO, it's probably too soon to add this section.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ericl: Before an edit war begins, let us resolve this disagreement in the talk section. Right now, two are opposed to your info section. This doesn't mean you've lost, but in such a dispute, it is best to determine which course to pursued before making changes which may degrade the article's objectivity and efficiency Spartan7W § 05:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I agree. The simple fact is, is that, as I've said "ad nausium" is that the article should be easily SKIMMABLE. When the person reverted ALL MY HARD WORK, he said "The information is better left in the candidate's article." In other words, make the article LESS skimmable and harder to read. How, may I ask, is that encyclopedic? AS to the WP:RECENTISM charge, how is it that? We get two major candidates "formally" announcing next week (Bush, the day after tomorrow), and changing their their places is NOT WP:RECENTISM. Making the "announcement impending section look more like the candidates section is a favor to the editors who will have less to do when the announcement actually takes place. Dividing the candidates into catagories is something that is going to happen anyway, and is in fact happening right now, with Fox News and CNN dividing the candidates into those invited to the debates and those not (there's going to be a couple of afternoon forums for the also-rans, but who's going to get excluded from THAT?). I want efficiency, as does everyone here, and I believe that what I have done does indeed add to that. Objectivity? Acknowledging facts, such as the division of the candidates into categories by the media, is not being un-objective. Who gets into the debates MATTERS, and that is an objective fact. If you look at the candidates page for the previous two cycles, you will notice that everyone is catagorized. The page is in a state of flux and will remain so as late as a year from now.

Spartan7W said "You are cherry picking your information. If we follow your standard, every candidate ought to be mentioned, and then it gets too complicated." This is the Candidates page. EVERY candidate should indeed be mentioned, and by the time the nominee is known every single candidate who is on the ballot in at least one primary will indeed be. including non-notable ones who will just have a name. If you look at the article NOW, you will notice a bunch of notable people who were never candidates who were merely mentioned in the media once or twice.

We need o keep the page interesting and easy to read.Ericl (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Listen, you're trying to keep your edits superior over others. In the case of the impending announcements, a table is a waste of space, and does no good; plus, you're not even formatting them in a clean manner. As for your notes section, you are in fact cherry picking information. How? Your notes are don't have any statistical reference, or basis. By saying 'Carson has 10% in several straw polls in the first half of 2015' you aren't taking into account the entire picture, you haven't looked at any worthwhile averages. Fact is, on the Real Clear Politics Average, you'll notice that only Bush, Walker, and Rubio actually have 10% in polls; Carson averages at 9%, Paul at 8.8%, and Cruz at 7.5%. So whatever source, which is not reference, you are using, is a fallacious source. Why? Because while in an individual poll or two (more Tea Party leaning), those three may have 10%, but in an average of polls taken since May 19, Bush, Walker, and Rubio are frontrunners, and have over 10% in the polls. However, in early stages where three frontrunners are polling within the margin of error, that means the trifecta have about 70% of people currently favoring other candidates. As such, mention of their polling data, on this page is superfluous. If there is a page which can be anything akin to a newspaper in its coverage of polls, there are : Nationwide polling, Statewide polling, and Straw Polling. As for mentioning if they qualify for the debates as of now, we're two months out. Not to mention the fact that all 10 declared candidates presently qualify for debate participation because only 10 major candidates are presently official. That will change, but this shows the inefficiency of such an approach. As for mentioning that Perry is under indictment, while factual, this belongs in his campaign article. Its mention here borders on bias against him. Spartan7W § 13:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

a couple of people have made some changes which I think are improvements on my stuff. I think that's perfectly fine. My edits aren't supposed to be the last word anyway. AS to the straw poll results, those show organizational strength in the ideological base of the party. Prior to the debate/culling issue, the national polls were for the most part worthless and were barely worth mentioning. AS for the "announcement impending" chart, Bush is going to be moved up sometime tomorrow, and it's going to be easier for whomever does it. Grab, move, plop. That's it. Then Trump a few days later. (although he may withdraw, wouldn't that be a kick in the head? Let's put him in the "withdrawn" section instead of "declined" if that's the case). So let the thing flow for the next six weeks or so.

AS to the "Not to mention the fact that all 10 declared candidates presently qualify for debate participation because only 10 major candidates are presently official." canard, there's the "announcement impending section," "exploring" section, etc. They count as candidates too. Bill Clinton swept the primaries with only an exploratory committee in 1996, and didn't formally announce until two days before the convention started. So we've got twenty or more, not ten.Ericl (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Are FEC Filings Valuable?

FEC filings have value in demonstrating candidates are running, but are they of enough interest that they need to be given prominent links in the table? I can't really think of a reason that they would.ObieGrad (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not really have an opinion on this but the filing does state who the campaign committee is. That seems important to me, once the ads start rolling from hundreds of committees it will be hard to tell who is who? Hopefully that makes sense. Jadeslair (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Debate Eligible candidates and non-eligible candidates

I think it would really add value to split the eligible for debate candidates from the rest of the group. If they can't make the debate, that kind of singles them out much like Fellure and Everson --Diamond Dave (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagree There are multiple debates from what I understand and the debaters might not be in all of them. In addition, I don't think we live in a world that a debate will make the candidate all by itself. People get their news online you know. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but I still wonder people will take more seriously the ones that make it to the debates and to your point they watch them online. It makes we wonder if they are more serious candidates and should be split up by that reason --Diamond Dave (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

yes, but not yet:::That's why I put the "notes" section there. However it should be noted that actually putting a separate section shouldn't happen until the official invites have been issued in August. Ericl (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Readers and editors can also follow Republican_Party_presidential_debates,_2016 and the first 'See also' entry. Not everything has to be a table in this article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't even think that we should be listing things like "As of mid-June, qualifies for inclusion in August 2015 debates" in this article at all. A candidate can't pre-qualify for the debates in June; they have to qualify based on polls conducted fairly close in time to the debates. (See http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-fox-news-still-isnt-saying-about-its-gop-debate/ and http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/05/20/debate.criteria1.pdf for information.) When the candidates actually qualify for inclusion in the debates, that can be mentioned in the appropriate articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree unless we have a running list of qualifying and non-qualifying candidates from Fox and CNN. We don't know for sure which polls they'll use and so we could be off from reality which any notes we provide.ObieGrad (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there will be a "running list" of qualifying and non-qualifying candidates from Fox or CNN; I think it's more likely that those networks will each make a single announcement as to which candidates have qualified for their debate. As indicated at [10], CNN will be using an average of all qualifying polls from 14 major polling organizations released between July 16 and September 10. We won't know until Sept. 10 whether there are any more qualifying polls yet to be included. Fox's debate is earlier, but I don't have their full criteria available. So if ObieGrad is saying that we shouldn't try to predict in advance which candidates have qualified for the debates, then I agree with Obie. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Trump Announcing...Something

Not seeing the justification for a revert of Trump's addition to the "Announcement Pending" section. He has an announcement pending on June 16: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/243350-trump-stokes-2016-talk-schedules-major-announcement

Benjamincorbitt (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC) What will he announce? Who knows. It is Trump, after all. But by the plain wording of the section, a potential candidate with a pending announcement should be included under "Announcement Pending." If there's any hesitation to put him there based on his past history of failing to follow through, then that seems like an extra-textual condition being placed on the section based on editors' personal judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamincorbitt (talk • contribs) 16:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see the discussion, which you are more than welcome to take part in, on this topic that is taking place on the main election article talk page : Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Trump to make "major announcement" June 16.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. And Trump continues to surge with those who want the Conservative base to be represented, speaking out, and not just trying to tweek Big Gov't. Carli from CA is another speaking up (to win, not just 'get along'.) We'll discuss this later further and Trump marches to his own drumbeat. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

George Pataki inclusion

I am starting to wonder if Pataki should be listed as he is now or moved down with Fellure and Everson. Only because I don't really see him included any major polls at all, let alone 5. I think we should move him down with Fellure and Everson for that reason. Diamond Dave (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That issue was resovled in this discussion.--Cojovo (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Pataki has been and continues to be included in major polls. See Fox News poll; NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll; Monmouth poll; CNN/ORC International poll; and Washington Post/ABC News poll. Those are the five most recent national polls for the Republican nomination listed by Real Clear Politics. He hasn't been omitted from the recent polls by the pollsters. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- Our article herein list his picture/name/info right between Bobby Jindal and Rand Paul. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Call for consensus

AS mentioned above, when the time comes (in a couple of weeks, three at max), should we split the list of candidates into those invited to the debates and those not? (plus those not even in any of the major polls). I say yes. (I figure that we should do this now before we get into fights)Ericl (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• No, I don't think we should do that, because each debate will have its own invitation rules. Since it seems likely that the difference between inclusion and exclusion from a debate could be the difference between getting (say) an average in the polls of 3% compared to 2%, and each debate will be selecting its candidates based on a different sample of polls, it's certainly possible that a candidate could participate in one debate, then slip in the polls and for the next debate be replaced by another candidate who had been left out of the prior debate. There is a table at Republican Party presidential debates, 2016 which will clearly indicate who has and who has not been invited to each debate, once that information is available. (The table has been designed and structured, with the columns and rows labeled, but the cells won't be filled in until the debate invitees are announced.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012, candidates who did not participate in the majority of debates held while they were actively running are greyed out. I think we should wait for the first bunch of debates to make that distinction here though. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Bob Ehrlich be removed?

There has been no word or update on Bob Ehrlich's progress on his 2016 decision. He has been already removed in the article related to the 2016 presidential race. Should he be removed? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It would seem that he's not running. If you read the article below, he talks about eventually needing to find the right messenger for the party in 2016. The way he talks about the primaries is not the way a potential candidate would. http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20150630/NEWS/150639928/13748/NEWS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.25.89 (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Jack Fellure and the other z-listers

Look, had Jack Fellure not gotten the nomination of the moribound Prohibition party and gotten 4,000 votes in Louisiana, he wouldn't be even mentioned. There are over a hundred candidates running, of which 25 are notable and maybe 5 have a real shot. The rest should be at least acknowledged. That's why we mention most of the 3rd party candidates who don't get any support, but somehow managed to get on the ballot somewhere. That's the only reason why they ARE notable. I know that this might be considered controversial. I got into a big fight over John Wolfe, Jr and Jim Rogers, the latter of whom was the Democratic nominee for the US senate from Oklahoma. There were also two Republicans who were listed as major candidates well into the primary season and who were only on the ballot in New Hampshire and got 30 votes between the two of them.

Remember, this article is not going to look ANYTHING like it does now in a couple of months. Ericl (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a link available to a website where put can see all the z-listers? If such a site exists, might not hurt to mention people and the link to see the full list. I would think if that many people registered it would be public information that could be looked up somewhere and I see no harm in mentioning it. Diamond Dave (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Fill out the form at http://www.fec.gov/data/Form2Filer.do?format=html. I haven't found a way to link to the actual results of the form, though. They can be downloaded but they're not maintained as their own individual page, so far as I can tell.

Incidentally, if you want a good laugh, search for people running for president in years that don't have elections. Kimpire (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's that list. It's right there under "External links" on this and nearly all other 2016 election-related articles.--NextUSprez (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Hill

I just read that there is a new Republican candidate by the name of Christopher Hill running for president. —The Sackinator (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@The Sackinator: He doesn't currently have a wikipedia page, which is the standard for inclusion. Perhaps you could create a page for him?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I could try at least making a "stub-sized" article for him. However, I never made an article before, so where do I start? —The Sackinator (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a good place to start: Wikipedia:Your first article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You might find the Wikipedia:Article wizard helpful as well.--4scoreN7 (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, you two! I have another question: I'm having trouble finding sources that are notable (which could be because I'm not always certain as to where to draw the line as to what third party sources hold enough weight to be used on Wikipedia and which ones do not). Does—and the answer probably is "No"—Wikinews qualify as one of the sources I could use? Also, if anyone's willing to volunteer, may I have some help in finding sources? —The Sackinator (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Enter [ Christopher Hill for President ] in your Google-search line, and you will see 46million hits, the best at the top on the first page. For your stub, many good sources talk about his background and achievements. A Google-search will serve you well. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked and found some sources. Do http://2016.republican-candidates.org/Hill/, https://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/131704/christopher-hill#.VaHFPflViko, and the Wikinews interview qualify as valid sources, or does one or more not? —The Sackinator (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first site, but Project Vote Smart and Wikinews are reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I made a draft. —The Sackinator (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The draft was declined. WP:BIO doesn't say so in so many words, but a person needs to have articles about that person in important publications (Wikinews and Projct Vote Smart are not important publications, and Project Vote Smart is reliable for facts, but not to establish notability). For example, someone elected to a town council isn't notable, even if a local newspaper did an interview with that person. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

New Style

@Antony-22: An editor doesn't need consensus permission to make bold edits, and my edits here have received a thanks from a few users to boot. If you want to completely undo this work, fine, but revert after a consensus to remove is met, not before a consensus to keep is. These edits aren't factual inaccuracies which harm the article, they are elements of style, so its not jeopardizing the encyclopedic value of the article by keeping them until an opinion is reached.

In addition, I am presently drafting a rework of Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 to remove the campaign gallery and replace with a table outlining the first primaries that are soon approaching. While in early stages the campaign gallery was good, it isn't the ideal place for a campaign gallery. With the removal of the gallery from there, the inclusion of campaign logos here is of increased necessity. Spartan7W § 15:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of the logos here is my main concern. They don't at all contain vital information about the candidates, but they take up a lot of horizontal space and their bold colors distract from the actual substantive information in the table.

I'm not too crazy about the circular photographs, since it make it harder to replace them as people often do, and the flag-maps are also visually distracting. But the logos are my main concern. It's important that the table emphasizes substantive information about the candidates, but the visual clutter detracts from this. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think think inclusion of logos is of value, but moving the gallery over from the primaries to below this table would be fine. People associate logos with campaigns and candidates, and it's valuable to the reader. Spartan7W § 15:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I can live with the other changes if consensus is to keep them, but the value that the logos provide isn't commensurate with the attention they draw from the other table elements. I mean, maybe if their size were greatly reduced and they were moved over to the right in a "Links" column along with the positions and the FEC filing? Like this? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Name	Born	Current/previous positions	State	Announced candidacy	Links	Ref
Jeb Bush	February 11, 1953 (age 71) Midland, Texas	Governor of Florida (1999–2007) Florida Secretary of Commerce (1987–1988)	Florida	June 15, 2015	Campaign Political positions FEC Filing	[1]

I like that actually, that is a good compromise. I just think that since the Obama logo in 2008, and Romney's recognizable logo in 2012, they have become much more central to the identity of a campaign, and with all the social media these days, advertisements, the association of candidate+campaign with the logos is of high value. If this were the year 2000, where everybody's posters were: name+year+flag, it would be a different story altogether. Spartan7W § 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The logos are not necessary. In fact, the decorative use is not a proper fair use of the logos.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I really like the redesign of the table. It looks quite nice with the logos and circular photos. PaperKooper (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Very informative and beneficial. I'm sure their campaign managers won't mind. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Change the Lead Suggestion

The lead should be changed, it appears that this is a complete list of candidates and it is not. WP:LEADFORALIST

 Done -- FYI, if you click on 'history' at the top of the Article here, you will see that this request was made three weeks ago, on August 8th. The lede has been corrected per this request, and now reads: "This article contains evolving lists of candidates associated with the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries for the 2016 United States presidential election." Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate sortnames

When sorted by name, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump seem to be sorted by their first names, not their last names. I can't find a reason when reading the source for the table. The "Other candidates" section has the same problem with Andy Martin and Mark Everson. Tagus 03:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagus (talk • contribs)

•  Fixed I added sort values so it should sort by last name now. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina's picture

Does the present picture of Carly Fiorina appear unsatisfactory to anyone? —The Sackinator (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Looks better now. Many other current pictures are worse. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Somehow, we are back to a very bad picture--but does anyone care? -- AstroU (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Walker dropping out

This is not official yet. Should this be in here? 173.206.138.25 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• It is a foregone conclusion at this point. Not really predicting. The 6pm press conference is just a formality. Enough news sites are reporting it that we have both reliable sources and verifiability. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There are those that drop out and two just now that are not invited to the debates, due to extremely low polling (Pataki and Graham). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting ready for the reeeally big shoe

I noticed that there was an attempt to change the criteria for major candidates from "five major polls" to "participation in authorized debates", so how about this:

For the next month, we change it to "participation in debates" (overcard, undercard, doesn't matter), and then, as about ten or so states are going to announce who's on the ballot in November (south carolina has done this already), on December the first or so we go with "Candidates who are on the ballot in at least five states". Then we can add a list of non-notables to the crazies we've got as minors (I know there's at least one or two sane people down there) already. So how about it? Anyone with me?YoursT (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Consider taking this discussion to Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Candidate_Criteria so we can keep the Democratic and Republican criteria harmonized to the extent that makes sense. -hugeTim ^(talk) 00:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion--I'll take a look. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Ballot access column

The ballot access column is not in either alphabetical nor chronological order, and is insufficiently sourced (there are sources provided only for South Carolina and Michigan). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it.04:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Previous

Why is "Previous" the name of the section? It sounds like it means "previously running". Might a better title be "Speculated" or "Formerly Speculated"? Kimpire (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• The "Previous" section is now under a heading for "Potential candidates", which is the same way it is handled in Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about candidate photos

There is a discussion taking place on the talk page of the main election article concerning the photos used for the major republican candidates. If you'd like to participate, here's the link to the discussion: Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Which photo of candidates for article?.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor candidates

Consensus on the subject was achieved at the Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 page. The rules on such things should be uniform for all the presidential election pages for the upcoming year. 70.107.133.97 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Jim Gilmore

User:96.252.120.208 removed Jim Gilmore from the list of "Candidates featured in major polls" on the grounds that "He's no longer featured in major polls or debates." However, the criteria to be listed in that section are that the candidates "have been listed in five or more major independent nationwide polls, participated in at least one authorized debate, and are presently on the ballot in at least three primaries". Gilmore did participate in one authorized debate. He is on the ballot for the New Hampshire, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and possibly other primaries (I didn't look beyond the March 1 primaries, and not all of the states voting even that day have posted the lists of candidates on their ballots yet). And he has been listed in at least 13 major independent nationwide polls just in the last month, while the stated criteria require only that the person be listed in five such polls during the entire campaign polling period. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

erroneous editing 29 Dec 2015: re - Pataki

Pataki dropped out and was removed from "major polls" section, but text still says 13 instead of 12, and he vanished utterly instead of being moved to the withdrawn section.

Yeah, someone just deleted him. But I have moved to him withdrawn now. I'll go fix the 13/12 now. Ratemonth (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You got the number, thank you. Ratemonth (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of the Withdrawn section...

I reconstructed it to look exactly like Bill Saturn's 2012 article. With a month to go before Iowa, let's get ready so we don't have to do any emergency reconstruction66.108.159.118 (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have to say, I preferred it the other way. The current version makes it look like Scott Walker's and Rick Perry's campaigns were more comparable to Jimmy McMillan's and Dennis Michael Lynch's, as opposed to being like Lindsey Graham's, George Pataki's, or Bobby Jindal's. They weren't. Walker and Perry were major candidates who dropped out early in the process. McMillan and Lynch were minor candidates who had no impact on the primary election process whatsoever. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Metropolitan90 I already reverted the change once but the IP insisted and changed it back. This format makes it seem like the major candidates (who actually had notable media attention) are the same as the minor candidates who just happen to have their own Wikipedia page. That is not really due weight in my opinion. --Majora (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree w/ Metropolitan90 & Majora. The previous format was more encyclopedic, as it properly attributed due weight to the candidates.--JayJasper (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've changed the format back accordingly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

As to Dennis Michael Lynch and Mark Everson. They were both serious candidates, who received coverage in the news media. Lynch announced his candidacy on Fox News and was invited to an important"cattle call" forum". Thus he was a serious "major" candidate for a brief moment in time last spring. Everson was listed in a few polls in both New Hampshire and Iowa, and had a decent operation going, was listed as on the ballot in Iowa. He was doing just was well as some of the other "bottom feeders." such as Jim Gilmore and George Pataki. As "almost" major candidates, unlike Jack Fullare and Jimmy McMillan (who shouldn't have been there in the first place, as he was always a joke, but since he was he should remain), Lynch and Everson should be listed with the other major candidates who left prior to getting on the ballot anywhere.

The "candidates who withdrew before the primaries" section is now totally in the past and we should treat it as such. ALL the notable candidates who have withdrawn before the primaries and are on the ballot nowhere have already withdrawn. This is a fact and should be acknowledged as such

Pataki, Jindal and Graham are still on the ballot in some states. They will have vote totals and should be separate from those who's candidacies are completely in the past and who's vote totals will remain at Zero. (It might be nice to list their write-in votes in Iowa and NH,(should they have any) which are among the only states that actually publish them). It is NOT "crystal ball" to do this, as they will get votes if they are on the ballot.

William Saturn's design for the 2012 race was excellent and should be used as a model.66.108.159.118 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Dennis Michael Lynch, he didn't get "invited" to the cattle call forum that you are using to try to classify him as a significant candidate. According to the article you linked above, "he paid $10,000 for the opportunity to join a roster of speakers that includes over a dozen potential 2016 Republican presidential contenders ...." For Mark Everson, only one statewide poll that included him is listed at Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016, and he received zero votes in that poll. I haven't been able to confirm whether or not Everson was ever "on the ballot" for the Iowa caucus because it's unclear to me where the list of candidates on the ballot for the caucus is published. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140117035840/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-06/christie-cuccinelli-2016-maybe-not.html to http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-06/christie-cuccinelli-2016-maybe-not.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140407111809/http://www.kspr.com/news/politics/rogers-retiring-doesnt-rule-out-2016-presidential-bid/21051736_25235326 to http://www.kspr.com/news/politics/rogers-retiring-doesnt-rule-out-2016-presidential-bid/21051736_25235326
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140819082343/http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/allen-west-keeps-own-political-future-alive-shaping-national-gops to http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/allen-west-keeps-own-political-future-alive-shaping-national-gops

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Suspending is not 'withdrawing'

Look at the website of Rand Paul, and then do a Google-search on what he actually said: He said he suspends which means he can still be the POTUS Republican nominee at a brokered convention in July. Of course, this won't happen, since he is focusing on running for reelection to his Senate seat. But we try to be accurate in Wikipedia, don't we? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC) -- My point: Some are 'suspending' with hopes of reigniting at Convention.

Ted Cruz Citizenship

There is no question that Ted Cruz was born a citizen of the United States.

There are *two* ways to be born a citizen of the United States - jus solis and jus sanguinis.

Jus solis is "Law of the Soil." Per U.S. Const., Amend. XIV, if you born in the United States AND are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you are a citizen of the United States. Thus, when a child of a foreign diplomat is born in the United States, *that* child is NOT an American citizen because - as the child of a diplomat - the United States has no jurisdiction over the child. So, it isn't enough to be born in the United States but the United States must also have jurisdiction over you; and it doesn't have jurisdiction over diplomats.

Jus sanguinis is "Law of the Blood." Congress has jurisdiction to pass any law regarding citizenship acquisition at birth, as long as that statutory law does not conflict with the constitutional law recited above. Under federal law, any person born outside of the United States to a mother and/or father who is an American citizen, is a citizen of the United States by and at birth.

Ted Cruz's mother was an American citizen, so he is natural born citizen of the United States.

Likewise, even if Barack Obama had not been born in Hawaii, he would still have been a natural born citizen of the United States because his mother was an American citizen. So, the birther arguments really were absolutely ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.218.153 (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

For low-information voters, perception is reality. And the reality to a good many is that Rubio is a citizen and Obama is not. What that means to the article here is that nothing needs to be changed until it is history.
 Done -- The victors write the history. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131012014659/http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/28/3938674/sen-demint-leaves-door-open-to.html to http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/28/3938674/sen-demint-leaves-door-open-to.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140714132635/http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/ben-carson-and-allen-west-look-rally-conservatives-lieu-2016 to http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/ben-carson-and-allen-west-look-rally-conservatives-lieu-2016

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

State images with flags?

What's with the state images with the flag of the state superimposed on them? They don't seem beneficial to the article as a whole and could just as easily be replaced by text like they are in every other article about Presidential primaries. I think WP:IUP applies here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techgeekxp (talk • contribs)

They are pointless also. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

They illustrate the state from which each candidate hails. You could put a flag there, but the flagmap provides the geographic shape of the respective states so when one consults a map it aides in instantaneous recognition of the state, with its shape, and its flag. People can often recognize shapes or designs quicker than words, and while the textual name of the state is and should remain, this adds a feature of familiarity, be it flag or geographic shape, to aide the reader in recognizing the respective state and where it may lie on the map inside their heads. It also adds a visually interesting quality.   Spartan7W §   00:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why flags/flagmaps/images of states are even needed? No other article about where people come from has images of the country. Just a name is enough... see the 2012 and 2008 pages for proper form. Techgeekxp (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A minor addition — if people want to see what the state looks like or its flag, the name of the state is wikilinked... no need to make the candidates page more crowded than necessary when a link to, say, Texas will provide a map and where it is.

Who says those are "proper"? Who says there is no room for improvement? I'd say this year's candidate lists and tables are much cleaner and more efficient than in years past. What we have now is a great evolution and compromise of ideas and concerns. The encyclopedia ought to efficiently organize and relay information in a way best for the reader, and their general needs and expectations. If you watch television, read articles, or hear formal introductions, it is always "Senator Richard Nixon from California" or something to that effect. Having the state information there is useful, so the reader knows the candidate's home state. By adding these images will illustrate it and fill in some white space. Images and campaign logos do this too. Why do television networks have graphics and such? Why do others sites have icons, graphics, animations? These are simple images, they illustrate the state. When people hear and introduction or label on TV they see the candidate's state. When they see election results they see an abundance of maps, and often flags to represent them in lieu of a map. This way, we take common thematic elements from other media, where the reader may have previously seen some of this information. It does not detract from the information or its value. To provide high quality, effective, and pertinent information does not mean that it has to be all text. The internet and modern technology are worlds filled with more than simple text, and adding things to illustrate and tie various ends together effect to improve the reader's experience.   Spartan7W §   01:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Icons... the usage in the article currently violates WP:ICONDECORATION and WP:TOOMANY. Technically MOS:SOVEREIGNFLAG also applies. In particular, "Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function." Techgeekxp (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I just outlined how it can help with comprehension.   Spartan7W §   01:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The Manual of Style exists for a reason. Lists of logos and icons of states specifically are called out as not suitable for Wikipedia articles. If you want to change the MOS, go ahead and suggest it on the MOS talk page. Until then, it's there to be followed. Techgeekxp (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I actually don't have a problem with the state images with flags. I agree with Spartan7W that they do add something to the article. I did have a problem with the title cards as those did not serve any purpose in my opinion. Instead of going back and forth between the two of you why don't you ask for more opinions? --Majora (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason the flags are important is that they give a quick visual of where the candidates represent, primarily, and that is important in their campaigns. Hence, it is important to this article. Also, rules of Wikipedia evolve and use common sense. -- AstroU (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC) -- Substance is more important than style in this instance.

There are several articles in Wikipedia that are about the 2016 Republican primary race, and this is the only one with the state flags. They are important for several reasons and look excellent to me. THANKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done After a month, the flags are there, looking great. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)