Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

RFC Jeremy Gable as a candidate?

The consensus is against including Jeremy Gable as a candidate because his candidacy has not been covered by secondary reliable sources. The only source currently cited is a primary source, the FEC "Statement of Candidacy" form at http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_15951367215%200.

There is no prejudice against immediately restoring Jeremy Cable in the article if a secondary reliable source covers his candidacy.

Cunard (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Robert McClenon recommended we do RFCs for specific candidates that may or may not be worth including. I'll start with Jeremy Gable. Should Jeremy Gable be included as a candidate in this article yes or no? 23:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• No Because he isn't notable enough. There will be thousands of people who declare their candidacy for president but wikipedia only wants us to include those who earned the right to be included. It may be difficult to agree where we should draw the line, but i hope we can agree that including Jeremy Gable definitely crosses that line. Crewcamel (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If he's notable enough to have a Wikipedia page I don't see why he wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion in the article. We need to come up with a criteria for inclusion/exclusion rather than starting an RfC for only one single candidate. Prcc27 (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The same reason we dont have Katy Perry, Will Smith, or Chris Rock anymore. Even if they publicly tease a presidential run we shouldn't have to take them seriously. As for creating a criteria for inclusion i support reaching a consensusCrewcamel (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

If we don't include Perry, Smith, Rock, or Gable it's because we value our personal subjective opinions more than we value what reliable sources say. Our current consensus is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Earthscent (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

We'll take Katy Perry's campaign seriously when the media (ie reliable sources) begin to take her seriously. WP:WhosWho?: Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crewcamel (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes He's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. He has filed with the FEC. If you don't like that, then by all means, submit his page for deletion. We already have agreed not to include candidates that tease or say they will run based on social media posts (Katy Perry, Chris Rock, Ron Perlman, Charlie Sheen, and Will Smith were all based off Twitter or Facebook posts). I think preserving the status quo on this article is the way to go, we've already cut back a lot in recent weeks, and the current state of the article makes sense to me. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• No -- Would you expect to include every yahoo who proclaims he or she is going to run for public office? Why? The guy is an unknown zero, far from being anyone of any note. Damotclese (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

He has a Wikipedia page already, if he isn't notable then delete his article. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the guy has a wiki because he's notable in terms of his playwright experience and ability as opposed to his political ambitions. Crewcamel (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Could the same not be said about Kanye West being notable for being a musician? He's most certainly "notable," regardless of if it's for political reasons. He's filed with the FEC, he has a Wikipedia page. This has been the rule here for as long as I can remember (Hell, we even included the names of most of the participants of the NH primaries, despite nobody ever hearing of Star Locke, Lloyd Kelso, Bill French, Graham Schwass, etc.). If you're dead-set on taking Jeremy Gable off this page, the only thing I can suggest you do is try to delete his article. Even if it turns out that he's been naturalized, we would still keep him on here, as you can still run for president, even if you're not allowed to actually serve as president. This happened a few times in 2016, a few small candidates were usually under the age limit (I think one of the Socialist running mates was under 35, in particular). IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the same should be said about Kanye. His presidential ambitions are hardly notable; they probably only deserve a few mentions on his wiki page. But that's where it should end, him and other nobodies shouldn't be here. I dont know where everyone agreed that having a wiki page is a good basis for inclusion but something tells me youre all just making it up, and no such conversation/consensus has taken place.

If Kanye West were to declare his candidacy for president for pm of the UK, he wouldn't be included in the wiki because giving Kanye even a sentence is insulting to the reader. It's wasting their time. Crewcamel (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The rules have been in place since before the 2016 election. I personally was not here for the discussion, but that's always been how ALL of these articles have been run. In regards for running for "President PM of the UK," the Prime Minister is chosen from fellow members of parliament, it's not a straightforward election like we have in the US, it's more like how we choose a Speaker of the House. So that comparison is not sound. You seem to be the only one that is so devoted to shaving this page down as much as possible, excluding people you arbitrarily deem "unworthy" of being on the page. Kanye West and Jeremy Gable alike have fit the criteria of being a presidential candidate, the former has made a public declaration, the latter has filed with the FEC (in that regard, Gable is more of an official contender than Trump). If you want them off, either try to delete their articles or try to change the criteria to be even more strict than the changes we've already made. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes If he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and he has officially field with the FEC, and there is any coverage of his campaign in relaible sources, even if briefly, include him. Note that notability is about whether to have an article, not what to include. items discussed in an article need not be seprately notable. DES ^(talk) 03:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is no coverage of his 'campaign' in any form that i could find. I'm curious if this fact would have you reconsider your position. Also, im certain content inside the article needs to be notable as well. I can't imagine what this article would become if it's content was of little relevance or notability (tongue pressed very firmly in cheek) Crewcamel (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• No don't be silly, apparently "there is no coverage of his 'campaign' in any form that i could find". Not every WP:Fart needs to be included even if verifiable, they have to be notable mkay. And for Jim's sake don't spam RfC for every possible thing, please make at least a token effort on the talk page first. If you want an RfC make it a more general question, such as "what amount of coverage in reliable sources would justify mention on this page?" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 06:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment pace what I said above, there does appear to be precedent for including every last non-notable candidacy at United_States_third-party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016#Non_notable_candidates, however that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea, per WP:OSE. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Trust me, ive made an effort to remove this guy w/o an rfc. It doesn't ever go anywhere. This rfc is a last resort. Crewcamel (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• No. The only source in the Jeremy Gable article is an image of a form. I would question whether the fact should even be in that article per WP:PRIMARY. In any event, there should be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources – that take the candidacy seriously – before it appears in this article. Scolaire (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is Dwayne Johnson listed under potential Republican Candidates

Why is Dwayne Johnson listed under potential Republican Candidates when 1. Nobody knows what party he is and 2. He did not say he was running for the Republican Nomination?

He's a registered Republican and spoke at the 2000 RNC. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

He is actually is a registered independent and spoke at the 08 Democratic Convention and attended both conventions this past year. MitchellLunger (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think he should be listed in the Republican section unless he has said what party he would run for. Bernie Sanders was an Independent that ran as a Democrat so we can't just assume that Johnson is expressing interest in running as a Republican since that would be original research. Prcc27 (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Would it not be original research to just assume that, say, Terry McAuliffe is considering running as a Democrat? He never really specified, he just said he might run for President, so we should put him in the Independent section, right? I mean come on. Is it really bad to assume the registered Republican would run for anything but the Republican nomination unless specified? We should put down people in their own party unless they specifically state otherwise (like Austin Petersen being a Libertarian, but expressing interest as a Republican, or Bernie as a Democrat, etc.) This probably falls under common sense. And I can't find anything on him speaking at the 2008 DNC, only the 2000 RNC. He may have attended a DNC or two, but that doesn't make him a Democrat. Actually being featured as a speaker officially during the RNC is a better gauge of what party he's aligned with. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

He is an independent. From WaPo: "A registered independent, Johnson has been affiliated with the Republican and Democratic parties, having attended both national conventions in 2000 to encourage people to vote. As for whom he voted last year, however, Johnson kept that a secret, although, again, both parties sought his public endorsement, he told GQ." He should be categorized as an independent until otherwise clarified. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the real question should be whether or not we list him as The Rock. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ive seen some crazy suggestions on this page so i'm not sure if you're joking Crewcamel (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Active arbitration remedies?

Are we sure this is a "highly visible" article requiring "Active arbitration remedies", it doesn't seem quite as visible as say Donald Trump. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

i dont even know what tf that means dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crewcamel (talk • contribs) 07:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Siuenti User:Crewcamel - See the header at the top of this talk page for an explanation of what the active arbitration remedies are. An administrator has decided that they are applicable to this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Do we happen to know which administrator? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

user:Siuenti it was this guy user:Vanamonde93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crewcamel (talk • contribs) 05:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Do these rules contradict each other?

In the green party/independent section:

  ***Candidates in this section only need one source
  ***There should be one to three sources for a potential candidate

Pretty sure they do. Should we remove one of the rules?

Crewcamel (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

   ***You only need a minimum of 1 source to be included in "expressed," as opposed to 2 for "speculative" or "declined."
   ***There should be between 1 and 3 sources total.

Nothing here is contradictory, you just feel the need to remove even more information from this article for some reason. It doesn't even take up any space in the article itself aside from the [##] in the corner, so what's the damn problem? Why aren't you advocating for the removal of each single extra source for all the candidates in the "speculative" or "declined" sections? Just looking at the Democrats, 7 out of 11 speculative and 15 out of 21 declined candidates (71% total) have 3 sources instead of 2. 3 sources, compared to either 1 or 2 is definitely not excessive, especially when it's from different sources at different times. For expressed candidates especially, it can be useful to see for how long they've been interested, and when they last mentioned something. If it were 5 or 6 sources per candidate, sure, that's excessive. But once again, 3 is not. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok 1. Calm down, this is a minor issue. 2. It says "Only need 1 source", it implies that more than 1 source is not necessary. That's why they contradict each other. If i had to guess i would say whoever wrote the second rule wasn't aware of the first. Crewcamel (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It just seems like every minute detail of this article needs to be reduced or by a single contrarian on the talk page. It's sort of frustrating when a consensus can't ever be reached and having rule or page-wide format changes being proposed nearly daily.

But I digress, my whole point is that you're misinterpreting the words "only need" in the context of the entire article and misplacing the emphasis. You see it as "Oh, you only need 1, so anything more needs to be deleted," but the rule doesn't exist in a vacuum. Every other section has a requirement of having at least 2 sources. The "expressed" section is unique, in that you "only need" 1, and not 2, to be added to the section. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

There is no contradiction here I believe. What it means is that you only need 1 source for the information to be verified. You can add up to 3 but only 1 is required minimum. You may want to reword it slightly so that it doesn't confuse editors in the future. Something along the lines of: 'Candidates in this section should have at least one source but no more than three.' Hope this helps! -=Troop=- (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

boo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crewcamel (talk • contribs) 22:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Caveat needed-- "will be eligible to be re-elected, if not impeached or dead"

Analysis from Nate Silver and Donald Trump's cardiologist strongly suggests Trump will be either impeached or dead by 2020, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. Trump MAY be eligible to be re-elected, on the off-chance he isn't doing hard time for Treason or dead by that time. This is a 260-pound 74-year old man we're speaking of. His survival curve is not strong. 209.122.204.65 (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I mean, obviously. Any one of the candidates listed here could conceivably die before election day. Joe Biden will be 77, Bernie Sanders will be 79, Jerry Brown will be 82. As for impeachment, you can technically run your campaign and be elected from a prison cell (someone has even done it before, twice!), so even if he gets impeached, there'd still technically be nothing prohibiting him from running again. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Biden

Biden needs to be added to speculative section: [1]. Prcc27 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that we should re-assess Biden's placement, either into "publicly expressed intrest" or in "speculative candidates." Crashguy42 (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

First quote of "Would I? Probably not" should put him on speculative, since he isn't saying he definitely won't, just that it's unlikely. But the second quote of "I may very well do it" should put him in expressed interest. I'll put him in there, so long as nobody objects. I don't think we should have a discussion about every potential candidate's exact phrasing. Sometimes it's fine just to add someone with the quote in the summary section like I did with Hickenlooper. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Dannel Malloy should be added

Connecticut Gov Dannel Malloy has been showing up on a lot of 2020 lists. Please add him as a speculated candidate per these sources: 1, 2. Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —MRD2014 talk contribs 17:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

2020 Presidential Election

You don't know if any of these are true.It is 3 years from now!! GingerAleLover (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Keith Ellison should be added to the list of speculative candidates.

I think that since he has been opposing the corporatist wing of the party so much, and been Handpicked by Bernie Sanders as his Personal Successor, there is quite a big chance that he will run in 2020. Or at least be Bernie Sanders' running mate. He was the first Muslim ever to be elected to the congress, and with the huge role Identity politics played in the last election for the democrats , it wouldn't suprise me at all if people payed more attention to him because of that, or even voted for him because of that. If I was I betting man, I would put all I had on him at least running in 2020, especially if Tom Perez runs as well. As for sources, it's more than just my guy, there have been articles in the Washington post and Politicalstorm and NewYorkTimes and things like that, which also predict him running in 2020. SmallGVT.Joe (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No sources stated. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough

Speculated in a |The Hill opinion piece, but no speculation that he is actually interested. Not sure whether or not this warrants adding him to Speculative candidates for the GOP http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/340094-opinion-scarborough-should-run-against-trump-in-2020 SecretName101 (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

We consider "speculation" as when an article talks about how someone would run for president, not if they should or not. The title of the article includes "should." Plus, we need at least two separate sources to be included in the speculative section. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

List of "Not Running"

The list was way too indiscriminate. Some of the people aren't running because they're not credible candidates; some probably will announce they are running after all in 2 years. I've removed all of them except Hillary Clinton as not being particularly notable or credible at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

We list candidates who've declined to run even if we think they'll run in a few years. All the candidates meet the requirements necessary. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"Declined to run" is an absurd categorization at this point. Many of the references saying they aren't running don't say that at all.

• This [2] sounds definitive, but "declined to be a candidate" is WP:CRYSTAL.
• This [3] is not even a denial.

Maybe this should be merged into the "speculative candidates" until more candidates make definitive statements. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Both of those are definitive. They've declined to be candidates. That's really all that's needed for this. Each of the people listed have been speculated on, then declined to run. They could change their mind, but at the moment they've stated they won't be running. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

When a politician says “I’m running for re-election for governor in 2018 ... That’s the only plan I have now." regarding an event 2 years in the future, it's not a denial, and absolutely not "definitive". Power~enwiki (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

Seriously? Didn't we already go through this with the celebrities? He's a comedian who went on Russian TV! He's not running. How about until he's not in his comedic mode and makes an announcement in the U.S. media he is removed? He doesn't even have a title, e.g. Governor, Senator, Mayor, etc. Are you ready to put Beyonce back on the list then too? 2601:589:4706:C2D8:B562:BA63:D2FC:F9CA (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

We have a celebrity president. Anybody sane assumed his candidacy was a joke back in June 2015. And here we are. Earthscent (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Colbert is making his statements as a publicity stunt in re Russia, not out of seriousness. Anyone who knows who he is knows that. Trump has long been a donor to political campaigns (and even ran a campaign prior to 2016) and has been involved in politics. That is in addition to his celebrity activities. The networks never said "Reality star Trump won (x state)." Let's keep this real. This is why some people think Wiki is a joke. So why not add Beyonce or Strep back on here? 2601:589:4706:C2D8:D9E9:1F56:4CD5:E1DA (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Kanye West and Dwayne Johnson are both on this article, too. Colbert has been active in politics: in donations, hosting more than one late night political show, running a campaign in 2008, and starting up a Super PAC in 2012. Trump, similarly, had no title in 2016. Our rule has been that they must publicly express interest (Bob Iger and Bernie Sanders reportedly expressed interest in private) on a medium besides social media (so that leaves Chris Rock, Charlie Sheen, Katy Perry, and Ron Perlman out, who expressed interest via Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram posts). Colbert, Johnson, and West all made public announcements outside of social media. Colbert could be joking, but the sources provided describe him as straight-faced and bring up how he has ran for the office in the past. I'd say that counts. Colbert in 2020 and Trump in 2016 have just about equal footing (even down to a hardly notable, failed campaign for president a few election cycles ago). IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The candidate's motives shouldn't matter. In any given election, at most three or four candidates have more than a snowball's chance of being elected, so the vast majority of candidates runs without the expectation, and presumably without the intention, of gaining office. Paradoctor (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OK so if I make a statement on FaceBook that I plan on running for president can we add me? I have donated and volunteered for campaigns for literally decades? Are you OK with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4706:c2d8:4c18:86bf:2ed7:8b86 (talk) 2017-07-04T06:57:57‎

I refer you to IOnlyKnowFiveWords's comment in this section. Paradoctor (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Cory Booker

Why is Cory Booker listed as "expressing interesting" for not ruling out a run but Bernie Sanders isn't..? He should be moved to the speculative section. Prcc27 (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Political Parties

It's hard to pin down certain people's political parties. I just wanted to go over some problem candidates on the article. The following are registered with the respective parties above their names.

Republicans

• John Kasich - Listed as "speculative" in both the Republican and Independent sections due to speculation that he may leave the GOP.
• Rand Paul - Listed as "declined" in both the Republican and Libertarian sections due to speculation that he may walk in his father's footsteps and run as a Libertarian, followed by his statement saying that he won't challenge Trump in 2020 (likely meaning he won't run in the GOP primaries nor as a third-party candidate).

Libertarians

• Austin Petersen - Listed as "declined" in both the Republican and Libertarian sections due to him expressing interest in challenging Trump in the GOP primaries, then declining a run.

Independents

• Mark Cuban - Listed as "declined" in both the Democratic and Independent sections due to sources assuming he's a democrat.
• Dwayne Johnson - Listed as "publically expressed" in the Independent section.
• Bernie Sanders - Listed as "speculative" in the Democratic section.
• Mark Zuckerberg - Listed as "declined" in the Independent section.

I couldn't find anything definitive with these last three, just some specific political positions or interactions. Just because they hold or have donated to liberal or conservative causes doesn't mean they necessarily belong to the Democratic or Republican parties respectively. People like Bernie Sanders, Michael Flynn, David Clarke, and Jared Kushner are testaments to that.

• Bob Iger (currently placed in Democratic) - Co-chaired a fundraiser for Clinton in August 2016. Became part of the Trump Administration's Strategic and Policy Forum in December 2016, but resigned in June 2017 when Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement.
• Howard Schultz (currently placed in Democratic) - Supports same-sex marriage. The O'Malley-backed Iowa poll included him as a potential Democratic primary candidate in 2020.
• Kanye West (currently placed in Independent or Unaffiliated) - Infamously claimed George W. Bush doesn't care about black people. Met with Trump in December 2016. Says he would have voted for Trump, but he didn't vote in 2016. Implied he might wait until 2024 to run in order to allow Trump a second term. Deleted all Tweets about Trump in February 2017 due to apparent dissatisfaction with his policies and the travel ban in particular.

Here are my suggestions for where to place everyone:

• Keep Kasich, Paul, Petersen, Cuban, and West where they are.
• Move Iger and Schultz to "Independent or Unaffiliated," since we can only assume that they're unaffiliated at the moment, similar to West.
• Add Johnson and Zuckerberg to the Democratic section, as the media assumes they're democrats, similar to Cuban (Johnson even appeared specifically as a democrat in a poll against Trump).
• Add Sanders to both the Independent and Green sections as "declined." An interview with Democracy Now! had him describe how he wouldn't want to run third-party (specifically asked about a Green or Independent run) in 2020.

Thoughts? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Elected officials should be listed under the party they ran for elected office under (for Bernie Sanders, he ran for President as a Democrat in 2016 and should be listed there). Non-elected officials should be a completely separate section. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Move Petersen to Republican only, since he changed his political affiliation to that and is running for U. S. Senate under it. Crashguy42 (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Minor Edit: Add links to candidates' articles in opinion polling section

The general election polling section gives Trump's poll numbers against several prospective candidates. However, the prospective candidates' names are not linked to their corresponding Wiki article, making it more difficult to determine who exactly Trump is being polled against. This is exacerbated by using only last names in the headers, creating significant ambiguity in some cases (e.g., "Johnson" apparently refers to non-politician Dwayne Johnson rather than previous presidential candidate Gary Johnson.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.2.248 (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Potential 2020 libertarian candidate

Mary Ruwart recently hinted at possible interest in a 2020 run for Libertarian party nomination in an interview on salon.com. Here's the link: http://www.salon.com/2017/07/18/watch-is-she-2020s-gary-johnson/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.240.94 (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Congresswoman Waters Declined Presidential Run

Congresswoman Waters, who is in the "Expressed intrest in running" section, denied intrest in these ambitions about 9 hours ago according to "The Hill"

PS It means we should probably move her to the declined section now, here's the link to the article http://thehill.com/homenews/house/343047-maxine-waters-is-joking-about-2020-but-not-about-trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuturePresident (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Cuban

Mark Cuban is opening up the possibility of a run again.

• https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2017/07/22/mark-cuban-vs-trump-in2020-lasts-4-years-kick
• http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article163135048.html
• http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/bush-cuban-trump-dragging-gop-billionaires-48795876

MB298 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Maxine Waters?!?!?

Hey I'd hate to keep bringing it up but, Maxine Waters offically declined intrest in running for President. It's a little misleading to keep her in the expressed intrest section, again here's my source http://thehill.com/homenews/house/343047-maxine-waters-is-joking-about-2020-but-not-about-trump She is even qouted saying that it was a joke when she claimed intrest. If for some reason this isn't enough info please let me know, I'm not upset and I have nothing against her really, but i'm just really confused as to why she's still up there at this point. FuturePresident (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Done. I've removed Waters from publicly expressed interest to declined. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank You! :) FuturePresident (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Congressman John Delaney

Congressman John Delaney won't seek re-election in 2018 and is eyeing a 2020 presidential run according to Roll Call, Poltico, and The Washington Post FuturePresident (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

REPUBLICAN 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

Why isn't Walter Randall Bannister listed as a candidate? He filed papers to run on June 9, 2017. His committee ID # is C00647412.

SOURCES: https://www.fec.gov/data/?search=BANNISTER+FOR+PRESIDENT+2020 https://www.facebook.com/BANNISTERFORPRESIDENT2020/ http://politics1.com/p2020.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.43.238.218 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't meet requirements- when he gets his own Wikipedia page that won't be deleted, then we can include him. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Are there any secondary and reliable sources discussing his candidacy? Hundreds of non-notable gadflies fill out the FEC paperwork every 4 years. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

i found this article from today if it helps:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/us/politics/2020-campaign-president-trump-cotton-sasse-pence.html. thx. (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2017 (ET)

Steve Bullock

Should Steve Bullock be moved to the "interested" section. He started a PAC which is seen as a strong lean towards a run for president: [4]. --Governor Jerchel (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Probably not yet, he's claimed that's to raise money for other Democrats. There's a solid chance he probably is going to run but, we shouldn't move him into intrested until he verbally expresses intrest in running FuturePresident (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Dwayne Johnson

Dwayne Johnson is listed both under third party and democratic. I understand some logic since he is currently independent but may run with the democrats, however, I feel that he should be listed under only one category until he decides on one or the other, just to cut down on redundant parts of the article. What are your thoughts? Alex the Nerd (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Dwayne Johnson is not a Democrat he is a Republican.

He's actually neither. He's a registered Independent. I gave him (and several other people on this article) a footnote describing how they aren't a member of the specific political party, but has either expressed interest or been speculated about running for the party in question. I feel that this works fine. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly feel that Dwayne Johnson should be listed as a "Independent/Unaffiliated" candidate since he has not "expressed interest" in running as a Democrat according to any of the references. If candidates are classified as "expressed interest" then they should both express interest in running in general and running for that party or independent/unaffiliated. Thus, listing him as expressing interested in running as a Democrat is misleading based on the references. It seems to me partisans have edited this page to try and affiliate him with the Democratic Party (different individuals could view this as a positive or negative reflection of the party it should be noted.) Furthermore, if there is no evidence of Johnson expressing interest int he democratic party, then only reason he would be included is that people want him to run as a Democrat. In that case, he should also be listed as a Democrat and perhaps even a Libertarian and other 3rd parties as I'm sure people in each of those parties would like him to run. The best solution to me seems to be to create a separate category for individuals who have not specified which party they are expressing interest in. Otherwise or until he should only be classified as "Independent/Unaffiliated" If he has expressed interest in a specific party than that needs to be proved with a reference, until then unreferenced information should not be included. As an alternative perhaps it would be more appropriate to list him as a speculative candidate for the Democratic party then "expressed interest" for Independent/Unaffiliated or a new category for no party specified.--Ldurkin (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Third-party, independent, and unaffiliated candidates

Why is Bernie Sanders listed as "Declined to be candidates" under "Third-party, independent, and unaffiliated candidates"? If it's because he declined to be an independent candidate (but didn't decline to be a candidate), this is misleading. I know that Bernie Sanders hasn't ruled out running in 2020.

I agree, I skimmed the references and none indicated he declined running as an indp/unaffiliated or the green party. I think he should be listed as a speculative candidate certainly for the dem's and independent/unaffiliated. First, the majority of expressed opinions in the reference indicate "he has not ruled it out" but also that he has not adequately "expressed interest" in my opinion to categorize him as such. Additionally, has an independent to caucuses with and is party of Senate leadership of the Democratic Party I think it is reasonable to speculate he would run as an Indp/Unaffiliated or Democrat. However, I question if there is adequate evidence to speculate he would run as a member of the green party. I think if we have to speculate him running as for the Green Party we could also speculate he could run for a number of other socialist 3rd parties. In fact based on this hopeful level of speculation, I could speculate he could run as a Republican to lead a hostile takeover of the party's primary. Thus, I have started another talk thread to discuss the topic of clarifying "speculative", "expressed interested" and listing as multiple parties. --Ldurkin (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying "Expressed Interest" and "Speculative" as well as listing an individual under multiple parties

There has been some debate on this page regarding how to classify individuals who have expressed interest or are speculative however they have not expressed interest in a party or independent/unaffiliated. Therefore, in discussing how to classify these individuals I think it's important to establish criteria for "expressed interest" In my opinion in order to be listed as "expressed interest" under a certain party I think that individual must express interest in running and running for that party. Otherwise, they could be listed as speculative for that party whoever in theory they could be speculative for every party they have not specifically declined. Another element that I'm proposing as part of a solution is to create a category for individuals who have expressed interest but not for a specific party or as an independent/unaffiliated.

Regarding the topic of listing individuals under multiple parties, I think the best solution is to not limit individuals to a specific party. Bernie Sanders is an excellent example. I am not well-versed in which parties he has expressed interest in or declined, however; a scenario could occur, if it hasn't already, where he declines a specific party, for example, the Green Party, but has expressed interest in another and/or is speculated for another. --Ldurkin (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's just not go crazy and start including Katy Perry and Tim McGraw again lol. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If Katy Perry or Tim McGraw meet the criteria to be included, they should be included. Keep in mind who the incumbent President is. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I meant, last time this article included Perry and McGraw it was based off pure speculation. I know who the current President is but unless there is some actual evidence that they're interested you could fill this article with half of Hollywood. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Well Bernie Sanders, Jerry Brown, Eric Garcetti, and more are all here based off pure speculation. If Katy Perry or Tim McGraw (or half of Hollywood) meet the criteria of two or more different sources speculating about them running in 2020 (in articles that aren't just lists of potential candidates), then they will be added. Notice how George Clooney has declined a run and is included since he had sources speculate about him. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sanders, Brown, and Garcetti have prior political history that would make it more likely for them to run, even considering the current President he already attempted a run before (2000), as far as I'm aware, Perry and McGraw have made no intention of political aspirations themselves besides political activism. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"In a 2006 interview with Esquire magazine, McGraw, a Democrat, stated he would like to run for public office, possibly for United States Senate or Governor of Tennessee, his home state." From his own Wikipedia article. As for political activism, Adam Kokesh is currently running a 2020 campaign with no prior experience with government OR running a previous campaign, just activism. Rules are rules. The rule to be included in this article is if two or more reliable sources speculate about an individual in a manner that is not merely a list and doesn't base its speculation on social media posts (sources have talked about Chris Rock running, but it's based off his Twitter activity). And hell, Kid Rock just launched a Senate campaign in Michigan. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Whelp, ya got me there. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people who have expressed interest haven't specified anything party-wise. They've just said "I might run." I think our current system of putting them in their respective affiliation (Dwayne Johnson is an Independent, for example), then adding them to other parties when they themselves or a media source has (Johnson has been thought of as both a Democrat and a Republican depending on the source). To clear up the confusion about Sanders: he's speculated to run as a Democrat again, even though he's an Independent. He has declined a run under a third party, however (specifically asked about an Independent or Green run). IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims that Harris has declined interest, based on the following reference:

However, Harris quickly dismissed talk of a presidential bid while at a Recode technology conference in May.

“I’m not giving that any consideration. I’ve got to stay focused,” Harris said.

But, according to Page Six of the New York Post, the senator is scheduled to make another trip to the Hamptons soon, where she will meet with influential Democrats, including Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and former Attorney General Eric Holder.

I object, strongly. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree- saying she isn't giving it any consideration is basically saying she isn't interested (at least for right now). She's taking it off the table for the time being. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Power~enwiki. She only stated she is currently not considering. Over three years before the election. She did not say that she definitely declines a run. Harris should only be added to the declined section if she clearly says so and there is another source than Fox News (which is not quite neutral). --Governor Jerchel (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that she's just saying she's not thinking about it at the moment; it definitely doesn't read as a decline to me. And, beyond that, we don't have any sources reading it that way - the interpretation that she's saying she's declining to run strikes me as WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Future of this page

I've started a discussion about the future of this page at WIkipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#United_States_presidential_election.2C_2020. Please discuss my WP:BOLD change (revision [5]) there. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is here for discussion of this article. It is very silly to discuss it elsewhere. In answer to your points on the other page, it is very easy to distinguish between speculative and declined candidates. The media have probably speculated about both, but not all have declined. That is very very simple. The polls are not meaningless- we can see the evolution over time of public opinion of various candidates. If the media have speculated about somebody running as a Democrat, as a Republican, or as an independent it is absolutely right to list them under all three unless that person makes clear they'd all run as one of those. Your objections are all unnecessary and disruptive. Earthscent (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to revisit what disruptive means. Per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, Power~enwiki does not fall under any of criteria listed. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 04:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I think polling is relevant and useful. Take a look at 2013 polls for the 2016 election, it shows the standing of potential candidates at this particular period of time. As for speculation, it helps paint a picture of who is likely to run in the future of this election. Declined candidates clearly show who won't be running, similarly. It's the same format for all the other future election pages (2018 Senate elections, etc.), the status quo has been working fine. I see no reason to delete it all. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Nikki Haley

Should her position of Ambassador to the United Nations be included? I believe it should as while, it is not officially in the Cabinet, it is a Cabinet-level position. MB298 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should. I don't see why it shouldn't. It's a very important part of her career FuturePresident (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be included as well. Prcc27 (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The larger question is if we want to change the rule to include more positions. I'm just enforcing our rules from earlier versions of the article. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

What rule? Prcc27 (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It was established in a big argument a few months ago that the only positions that will be included on this article are: President, Vice President, Cabinet Member, U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, Governor, or Mayor of the one of the 100 most populous cities (New York City, NY to San Bernardino, CA), previous presidential campaigns are included too, as well as certain other former campaigns that are recent like Kander's 2016 Senate bid. The only other positions are if someone has only held a role in government that isn't listed. Kennedy and Kander are good examples, since they've only ever been the Ambassador to Japan and Missouri Secretary of State respectively, so that's what is listed. If Kander were to have won his Senate race, then we'd only include how he's a Senator and not his experience as Sec. of State of MO. This was the consensus that was agreed upon, but it could be changed to include Cabinet-level positions as well if you get another consensus. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs to change.. It doesn't make sense to have a bunch of non-political occupations listed for people like the Rock while only having 1 political occupation listed for Haley. Plus, being an ambassador to the UN is what Nikki Haley is well known for right now. When I hear about her in the media it usually is about her ambassador position not her governor position. The previous criteria is a little bit too arbitrary. Prcc27 (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's arbitrary, it was implemented to stop people like Hillary Clinton, Jerry Brown, and Bernie Sanders from having extremely lengthy resumes on the list. I'm not opposed to adding Cabinet-level officials to the list, it seems like you have a consensus of three editors agreeing to your terms, so knock yourself out. Cabinet-level positions include: White House Chief of Staff, Trade Representative, Director of National Intelligence, Ambassador to the United Nations, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Administrator of the Small Business Administration. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)?

I think the most recent office they have held should be listed, as well as any prior campaigns for President, which is mostly what we have now. RealEdgeofnight (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

So why is it okay for the Rock to have a lengthy resume but not Bernie Sanders..? I still oppose it for consistency. Prcc27 (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Its not inconsistent. Its listing all of the positions the Rock currently holds. RealEdgeofnight (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't find it inconsistent, Sanders' full list of previous positions stretches to three rows of text with several links. What is done with Johnson and all other non-politicians on this page is to give the same quick summary of their field that is given in the opening paragraph of their respective articles. Technically, if we were to do the same, Sanders' would say: "Bernie Sanders, politician." It may sometimes be numerically larger, but we're really talking in terms of the amount of space the resumes take on the article. Sometimes they become excessively long like for Sanders, Clinton, and Brown in particular. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sen. Gillibrand

Journalist David S. Bernstein claimed on Twitter‏ that Senators Booker, Harris, Klobuchar and Gillibrand are telling donors they're running for president in 2020. The first three are in the "speculative candidates" section while Sen. Gillibrand is in the "declined" list, would this tweet count as a valid source to move her back to "speculative candidates"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.112.47 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd just wait for Senator Gillibrand to say something herself or walk back her previous statements declining to run. We can only really take the candidates word for it as of now since presidential speculation is all over the place. Booker, Harris, and Klobuchar also haven't clearly declined running for POTUS. FuturePresident (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

We only add people to specific lists based on their own words. If Gillibrand says she isn't running, that's where she goes. Until she says otherwise, that's where she'll stay. As for Booker, Harris, and Klobuchar; they should stay in speculative until they say something publicly. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

References

RfC: Merge "speculative" and "declined" sections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "Speculative candidates" and "Declined to be candidates" sections on this article be merged into a single section, entitled "Media speculation"? Power~enwiki (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It is normally impossible to tell in any way whether or not a politician is running for President over 3 years before the next presidential election. Many of the comments that people claim are "declining interest" are, in my opinion, simply an attempt to avoid answering the question publicly. I propose that the “declined” section be removed from this article until January 1, 2019, and the "speculation" section be renamed to "Media speculation" to make clear that the candidate themselves might not be personally speculating about a run. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

We have to go by what the candidates say, and if they say "I'm not running" or "I'm not interested," then we have to list them as declined. Combining them would just make a massive mess of a speculative section. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, I'm not sure it's the answer but let me say this. I agree it's impossible to tell the true intentions of the majority of politicians and that Jan. 1, 2019 is a good date to begin enforcing stricter or more delineated categories. I agree speculation does need to be clarified or limited. Anyone could speculate about candidates and in theory that list could be endless. Media speculation narrows it to the media, however, If I sought out resources showing media speculation, we could easily populate this page with 100+ speculative Democrats. This also enters into the issue of people who have not expressed interest in a party. Another talk subject has discussed Dwayne Johnson, a registered Independent according to one source, who none of the sources indicate him expressing interest in a specific party or independent/unaffiliated. Therefore, I find it speculative he would run as a Democrat or independent or Republican which was speculated months ago. If we are going to speculate that he will run as a Dem then I find no reason we should not also classify him as running as a Republican or even for every other 3rd party. For Bernie Sanders, we have the situation where he could run as a Dem, Green, Independent/Unaffiliated or even another 3rd party. It's easy to see this scenario happening with other individuals as well. Until a better solution is agreed upon, I think we should not combine "speculative and declined" --Ldurkin (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the two sections. Same reasons as Ldurkin. --Guanatala (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Satirical candidates

It's quite frankly absurd to include satirical candidates in the candidates section of this article. Colbert is a prime example. His "announcement" was clearly a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actamis (talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Whether something is a joke or not is opinion, and therefore not something to base edits on. Earthscent (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Bill Bayes

He has declared his intent to run for both Prohibition and Constitution nominations.

https://amthirdpartyreport.com/2017/06/01/prohibition-partys-bill-bayes-to-run-for-president/

MB298 (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Kasich edit request

Making request for IP, see: User talk:2602:302:D1A2:C740:9990:FB7F:B300:5ED6, John Kasich is not running against Donald Trump. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/20/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-cnntv/index.html) Please correct this semi protected article on the United States presidential election, 2020. (I'm not editing it as I don't know where to move Kasich).  Seagull123  Φ  15:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. You can also have the IP make the request themselves on this Talk page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: I'm not editing it as I don't know where to move Kasich.  Seagull123  Φ  17:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Done I've moved him to the "Declined to be candidates" section. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

To me Kasich's statement quoted by CNN seemed rather weak. He "denied that he is planning to challenge Trump". That's not the same as "asserting that he isn't going to challenge Trump", and certainly no Sherman statement. Unless a secondary source confirms that Kasich is no longer considere a possible candidate, I ddon't think he belongs in the "declined" section, particularly with the election more than three years away. Huon (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Poll Wording

Recently, three different Democratic primary polls were removed due to the way they were worded.

The two Harvard-Harris questions were:

• "Who do you think should be the Democrats' candidate for president in 2020?"

• "If Hillary Clinton were not running again, who do you think should be the Democrats' candidate for president in 2020?"

While the Politico/Morning Consult question was (the question was asked before the 2016 election):

• "If Hillary Clinton were to lose the 2016 election, which one of the following Democrats would be your top choice to see run for President in 2020?"

In hindsight, I don't support adding back the P/MC poll, since it asks who you'd like to see run for president, not who you'd vote for. But I'm on the fence with the H-H polls. H-H falls just short of asking who you'd vote for, but it is asking who your preferred candidate would be to lead the Democratic ticket. Can we get a consensus on this? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason I chose to remove the polls weren't because of their wording (in fact, I don't have a serious qualm with question wordings so long as they're asking for voting intentions) – it was because their sample was of a national electorate among all adults or registered voters as opposed to only surveying those who expressed a party identification or independents leaning toward one party. This is the case for both the Harvard-Harris and Politico/Morning Consult polls, which were surveyed among a nationally representative sample of registered voters, unlike the other remaining primary polls in the article, which are among likely primary voters, self-declared primary voters, or party members/independent leaners. In a nutshell, they're essentially polls of all registered voters – so the Democratic ballot question is surveyed among Republicans as well, and vice versa, as opposed to being strictly primary polls (which survey likely primary voters or party members/leaners). Mélencron (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, a significant amount of states have open (20) or semi-open (4) primaries, which allow anyone to vote in the primary election, not just people registered to that particular party. I say we at least keep the Gravis Marketing poll, since that one directly asks "If the Democratic Party primary or caucus in your state were held today, who would you vote for[?]" IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

They're not strictly primary polls, however, since they're not asked only among likely primary voters or those of their party, and therefore contain a huge contingent of voters who would likely not realistically participate in those primaries. In the case of the Harvard-Harris and Politico/Morning Consult polls, the question wording seems to request a general judgment of a potential field of candidates regardless of one's party support as opposed to a "who would you be most likely to vote for". Mélencron (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Presumptive Incumbents

Trump and Pence should be under the title "Presumptive Incumbents" and not "Declared Major candidates", I don't know the reasoning behind that recent change but it's very unnecessary and degrades the article a bit. Pence should also be added back in general, since unless Pence directly states he won't be running or Trump drops him from the ticket, outsiders looking in might think Pence just declined reelection candidacy altogether. WalkerIndianaRanger (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's 2020 Re-election campaign.

I want to address the orange elephant in the room. President Trump, at least at the moment, is actively campaigning for re-election in 2020. A few months ago we barred any mention of a 2020 Trump campaign, as it was seen as way too early without any sort of official statement. But as the 2020 Campaign article shows, the President has been holding campaign rallies as early as February 18. Not to mention that he's made several statements on how he fully intends to run and become a two-term president. I suppose we should remove Pence from the "Presumptive incumbents" section and just feature Trump as the sole major candidate in the GOP primary. I'm only asking if there's any objections to this, basically. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Pence should be added back. Unless there Pence himself states he isn't running for as Trump's running mate again or Trump says he will be dropping him from the reelection ticket. WalkerIndianaRanger (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Well technically, running mates aren't officially locked in until the respective National Conventions. Joe Biden wasn't officially added to the Democrats' ticket until the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Mike Pence won't be involved in the GOP primary unless he runs for president himself. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

True, however there have been claims within Pence's team that he plans on running as Trump's running mate again in 2020. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/06/politics/mike-pence-2020-election/index.html If that makes a difference, though Trump and Pence would be the, if nothing occurs from now to November 2020, the White House incumbents and the last time an incumbent President switched VPs for an election was with Gerald Ford in 1976 with Rockefeller and Dole. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/312285-cruz-responds-to-charlie-sheens-2020-invite http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article123890259.html

Sheen has expressed interest in running for the Presidency according to this links. Since an outsider candidate is something we should all be watching for I don't see why we shouldn't include Sheen here. Sheen's expressed interest in running for the Presidency before, such as in 2015.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/11/charlie-sheen-constitutional-republican-actor-come/ http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/12/charlie-sheen-comes-out-political-closet-says-hes

He also referred to himself as a "constitutional Republican" so I think its safe to put Sheen in the Republican primaries as "having expressed interest". TheCertifiedDonald (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"***Candidates in this section should not have expressed interest via social media" IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Castro and Sanders

Why is Castro in publicly expressed interest by saying "I'm not taking that off the table" but saying "I'll look and see how things develop over the next year or so and then make a decision as to whether that's something I want to do" when Sanders said the same thing in an interview at the HuffPost [6] by saying “I’m not taking it off the table” while mentioning it is rather early and not decision has been made. Both Castro and Sanders said they're not taking it off the table but are waiting to make a decision since it is rather early. So why isn't Sanders in publicly expressed interest or Castro at speculative candidates? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Frankly I haven't seen that quote, it seems like it fits the criteria of "expressing interest," I'll add him in a sec. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it counts as "expressing interest". Saying you're not going to take it off the table just means that you're open to considering it. Prcc27 (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Well they're both clearly interested in running if they've expressed how they're going to make a decision eventually. I see it like this: individuals should be sorted into the categories based on how they would answer the question "Are you running for President in 2020?" (generally speaking) Declared: Yes. Expressed Interest: We'll see / Maybe. Speculative: No comment. Declined: No. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! So does that mean both Sanders and Castro belong in the Expressed section? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I say yes. They are expressing interest, saying they haven't made a decision on whether or not to run. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Congressman Adam Schiff

Been wondering this for a little while, Why is Adam Schiff in the "Expressed Interest" section? It seems like his statement was misinterpreted. Here is the part of the article that was most likely used in reference: "In response to a report Schiff is on a list of potential 2020 candidates for president, the congressman says he's only running for re-election. However, if Sen. Dianne Feinstein decides not to seek re-election next year, he would look at running "very seriously."

It was poorly worded by the writer but, I'm certain he means running for Feinstein's Senate seat in that situation. It wouldn't make any sense for him to change his mind on running for President based on whether Feinstein chooses not to run for re-election in 2018 or not. So I think we need to move him to the declined section. FuturePresident (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Noted. One could interpret it as Schiff wanting to run for Feinstein's seat in 2018, then using that as a springboard to the 2020 presidential election (the last sitting U.S. Representative to become president was James A. Garfield in 1880), so being a sitting Senator (last one being Barack Obama in 2008) could help his chances. The same is being said about Gavin Newsom running for Governor of California (currently Lieutenant Governor) and Stacey Abrams running for Governor of Georgia (currently State House Minority Leader) in 2018, that it may lead to 2020 presidential bids. But I'll put Schiff into declined for now. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I lean towards moving Schiff to the declined section. The only source that might suggest he's interested in running for president isn't that clear. Prcc27 (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Expressing interest

Carly Fiorina was added to the expressed interest section. I reverted this edit and then I was reverted myself. She has expressed interest for running for president, but has not explicitly expressed interest for the 2020 election. This is an article that exclusively deals with the 2020 election. Saying something as vague as "I want to be president someday" is not grounds for concluding that she is interested in running in 2020. She should be removed from that section. Prcc27 (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:COMMON. When a notable person in the political world says that they're interested in running for president again after their failed attempt last cycle, would it not be safe to assume they mean they're interested in running in the next consecutive cycle? She even said that she'll make a decision based on the right circumstances, which likely mean whether or not Trump is impeached before the election. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

We should not try to assume anything per WP:CRYSTAL. Also, when somebody reverts your WP:BOLD edit you should discuss it and seek consensus for it before reinstating it (WP:BRD). Prcc27 (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, technically, according to WP:CON, when there is no consensus on removing something from the page, the thing in question should be kept in place until a consensus is reached, so... IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Not true. You made a WP:BOLD edit which means that after you are reverted (which you have been several times now) you need to discuss and get consensus for your edit. Please see WP:BRD. Prcc27 (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would love for someone to weigh in on this, it's hard to come to a consensus with only two people with opposite views. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think its unreasonable for it to be assumed she is referring to the next presidential cycle. Are we sure that all of the speculative candidates meet this standard? I looked quickly at Caroline Kennedy's three citations, and only one of them mentions 2020 specifically. RealEdgeofnight (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Making any assumptions is original research. Why are we even talking about Caroline Kennedy when there actually is a source that specifically mentions 2020 whereas that is not the case at all for Fiorina? If there is at least one source that specifically mentions Fiorina I would be happy to add her. It's safe to infer that the current consensus is to strictly follow what the sources say without making our own conclusions. (This is why we briefly removed Hillary Clinton). Prcc27 (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

So when John Hickenlooper is asked if he's interested in "running in 2020," and he says yes, is it not original research to assume they mean the 2020 presidential election and not the 2020 Summer Olympics? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That is a very bureaucratic way of interpreting WP:OR. Prcc27 (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. I know. I was being hyperbolic. Regardless, someone's weighed in and we're now 2-1 on keeping Fiorina, so... anybody else wanna throw in their two cents? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer she stay listed. Unless she specifically says she wasn't talking about 2020, it's possible that she was. Earthscent (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you verify that she was talking about 2020? If not, she shouldn't be added. Prcc27 (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

My point is that you're being incredibly bureaucratic in your definition of original research it should be assumed "2020 unless specified otherwise," not "not 2020 unless specified". She said she'd consider running for president again, this could mean in the future, yes, like in 2024 or 2028, but 2020 is also still "the future"... we're also at 3-1 now. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Kasich/ Hickenlooper

Should they be added to the independent section as a ticket? TexasMan34 (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

They haven't announced anything (or even hinted at it, it's only speculation), so no. Kasich is already in the independent section under declined. All the articles I've seen have put Kasich's name first, implying he'd be heading the ticket, so Hickenlooper as a running mate shouldn't be included under speculation. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at this article http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/politics/kasich-hickenlooper-2020-unity-ticket/index.html?sr=fbCNN082517kasich-hickenlooper-2020-unity-ticket0918AMStoryLink TexasMan34 (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

At the very least Kasich should be removed from the 'Declined' section, because in the interview cited he doesn't actually decline a bid, he just says he's hoping for Trump to do well in office. Alec Holbeck (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

New article from NBC News has him declining an independent run with Hickenlooper in particular. And in the CNN one, he does decline to challenge Trump, instead saying he hope that he does well in office. And regardless, Hickenlooper shouldn't be included, since he'd be the running mate in this case. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina is now from Virginia.

She filed as presidential candidate in 2016 from the state of Virginia where her family is from and where she started her career. It is where her home is.

The theme we've usually gone with is using the state that they represent in government (John Delaney is "from" New Jersey, but represents Maryland) or were trying to represent, anyway. For example, Rocky De La Fuente is listed as "from" New York because he's running to be mayor of New York City. Before that we put him as being "from" Florida, since he ran for Marco Rubio's Senate seat in 2016. Mary Ruwart ran for the Senate in Texas, etc. Fiorina has never held office before, but she has run for the Barbara Boxer's Senate seat from California. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that she ran for senate in California before she ran for president, I would say she is from Virginia. Prcc27 (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

New candidates?

From this NBC News source ->[7] can we add more candidates or no? Just a thought there are new names mentioned. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Without mentioning that we don't count list articles, all but one potential candidate mentioned in the article is already here: Biden, Sanders, Warren, Merkley, Kander, Ryan, Moulton, Garcetti, Castro, O'Malley, Chafee, Johnson, Cuban, and Delaney. The only one not on here is Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, IN. The first picture on the article features a lot of photos of more potential candidates (there's also separate photos of Sanders, Johnson, and Cuban later in the article). From left to right, top to bottom, here's everyone in the picture (potential candidates that as of now aren't included are in bold):

Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Tim Ryan, Jason Kander, Martin O'Malley, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jeff Merkley, Pete Buttigieg, Lincoln Chafee, Tom Steyer

Seth Moulton, Joe Biden, Mitch Landrieu, John Hickenlooper, Gavin Newsom, Jay Inslee, Eric Garcetti, Al Franken, Sherrod Brown, Sheryl Sandberg, Chris Murphy

Kamala Harris, Andrew Cuomo, Gina Raimondo, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, Elizabeth Warren, Mark Warner, John Delaney, Terry McAuliffe, Bernie Sanders, Dwayne Johnson

IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is Evan McMullin not mentioned? He's been quite visible and even formed a PAC.

• We need a reliable source that mentions him. Prcc27 (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Mistake in Section of declined candidates

There is a mistake in the Section "5.5.3 Declined to be candidates". Bernie Sanders doesn't rule out a presidential run, as the sources say. If something can edit the article, please delete Bernie Sanders from this section. Thanks Givibidou (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sanders, in the provided Democracy Now! interview, declined a third-party run (specifically asked if he'd consider running as an independent or a Green) but not another run under the Democratic Party. He's actually under the "Publicly expressed interest" section for the Dems. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Jerry Brown

If we're using the "not ruling it out" comments as expressing interest why is Brown not in the expressed interest section..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Added him, he was there originally but someone moved him to speculative a while ago. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal of a "Politician Clause" for the declined sections.

The requirements to be included in the declined section is if an individual has one or two articles speculating that they may run (with the same rules as the potential candidates section), and one article where they decline a run. In my perusing around the web, I've come across several politicians who've publicly declined a 2020 run but have no other articles speculating about their possible candidacy outside of the occasional list or small mention.

Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin

Mark Dayton, Governor of Minnesota

Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago, former WH Chief of Staff, former U.S. Rep. from Illinois (could be argued this doesn't count as a declination)

Clare McCaskill, U.S. Sen. from Missouri

Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico (and Libertarian nomination in 2012 and 2016)

Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of New York City (this one's already in the article)

We shouldn't include regular individuals if they only have the one declination (I've also found ones for Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Tom Hanks, and Will Smith), but I was thinking maybe we could make an exception for politicians. Kind of like how we allow politicians to bypass the normal "5 national polls or more" requirement to be considered a "major" declared candidate. Just wanna know what you guys' opinions are on the matter. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I support keeping the current policy of including only the ones who have declined following actual media speculation about them making a run. The "declined" list is lengthy enough as it is.--Ruby XL (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Warren Statewide polls

I feel like we should add the state by state polls of Warren vs. Trump in 2020. [8] Prcc27 (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I feel like adding boxes for each individual state adds more clutter. We should probably just stick to one collapsible box for all statewide polls. Prcc27 (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I tried to do that but I couldn't figure out how to simultaneously keep it all in one box, separate it by state, and be visually appealing. So I opted to separate it by state and keep it visually appealing over it taking up less space. Once we get more statewide general polls, it'll probably be better. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Vicente Fox

While his campaign is obviously satirical and he would be ineligible, failing to meet 2 out of 3 requirements (he's not a natural born citizen and hasn't lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years), but other "candidates" like him have been listed before. 2008 saw Stephen Colbert run a campaign, while 2016 gave us the 30-year-old Waka Flocka Flame and parody candidate 15-year-old Deez Nuts (I believe a Socialist candidate was also under 35). On second thought, Fox has met the requirements of being included, since he publicly "announced" outside of social media. I figure we could just specify that he's ineligible. We could stick him in the Independent/Unaffiliated section since he left the PAN in 2013. Something like this:

Name	Born	Current or previous positions	State	Announced	Ref	Notes
Vicente Fox	July 2, 1942 (age 81) Mexico City, Mexico	President of Mexico 2000–2006 Governor of Guanajuato 1995–1999	Guanajuato	September 7, 2017		Constitutionally ineligible. Not a natural born citizen; has not lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.

Thoughts? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Prcc27 (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I see the level of seriousness remains high in this article Crewcamel (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The Rock filed as a candidate and started 2020 presedential campaign

Prepare for impact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:19B4:8701:ED1A:F663:AB42:39D (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

...No, he hasn't. A committee was founded back in July to support a possible candidacy, but The Rock himself hasn't filed or confirmed anything regarding a run. - EditDude (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2017

Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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. -- Dane ^talk 04:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Mark Cuban Should be removed from the Democrat section.

In an Interview on Fox News' "Objectified" Mark Cuban explicitly stated that if he ran in 2020 or ever it would be as a republican but gave subtle hints that he may run under a third party as he is strictly an independent. SmallGVT.Joe (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do you have a link to that interview? Prcc27 (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5007193/Mark-Cuban-says-challenge-Trump-Republican.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 SmallGVT.Joe (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

More detail for third parties.

The information from the Libertarian Nominating Process and Green Party of the United States nominating Process pages could (and should) be ported over to this page. And if there is more information as to additional third parties, that could be brought here as well especially since the sources and everything are already there in the Wikipedia Format. SmallGVT.Joe (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria at Top of Talk Page

Can we sticky the full inclusion criteria to the top of the talk page. For example, how many sources are needed to be a speculative or "expressed interest" candidate, how recent must they be? What are the requirements to be listed on the page (must you be eligible, ect.) A lot of these rules are likely buried in the archived talk pages but are difficult to follow since they change and are subject to further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad (talk • contribs)

• I agree that this would be helpful. We have two fixed items at the top of the talk page about which candidates should be listed in the infobox and in what order, even though that won't be relevant until 2020 (because candidates aren't listed in the infobox yet). Criteria for potential and speculative candidates being listed is more relevant for the present day. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2017

Dwayne Johnson should be removed from the list of individuals who have expressed interest. See article below: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/14/rearfrontcom/did-dwayne-rock-johnson-officially-file-run-presid/ 104.153.230.25 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The source given below documents he has not officially filed papers, but the sources included already show he has "expressed interest". The two statements are not contradictory. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Potential DNC Convention sites

I tried to re-add the potential DNC convention sites that were deleted because the sources were "too old" and I was reverted without a clear reason. Can we please re-add the convention sites? Prcc27 (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I was very clear: If we have a consensus that potential candidates should only be included with a source within six months, why shouldn't a relatively recent source be required for these? This article, which is almost three years old, says, "City leaders say they're interested in a 2020 bid, but much depends on who will be president, from which party, who is Columbus' mayor – in other words, a lot of dynamics. The 2016 bid was about 15 months in the making. 'Five years out, it's impossible to think too much about it,' Fischer told me." So now we know who is president and from which party, and Columbus has a new mayor. Of course the people who bid before might want to again immediately after they lost, but are there any new sources? If not, inclusion of this is outdated nonsense speculation. The other links are just as vague and meaningless, and it does no benefit to the reader to make claims before actual bids are being prepared and solicited. Reywas92^Talk 04:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

When you reverted me the edit summary said "From the article:" which was not clear reasoning at all. Prcc27 (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Huh, I copied part of that quote and typed in a shorter version of that as the edit summary; not sure why it didn't save that way, my apologies. Reywas92^Talk 07:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)